Yes, the future deficits are worrisome,
says Jim Hamilton at Econobrowser. He's responding to a series of
articles and blog posts by Paul Krugman--most recently this column on "the phantom menace"; see also this blog post on invisible bond vigilantes--arguing that the dangers of public borrowing are being exaggerated.
an important discussion and you should go to the sources. But here's a
summary. Krugman stresses two main points. First, to make fiscal policy
sustainable, you don't need to reduce the ratio of debt to output, you
just need to stabilise it--and there is no compelling reason why you
should aim to stabilise it at current levels, rather than at the higher
levels which several more years of big deficits will cause. Countries
like Belgium and Italy have much higher debt ratios than the US. So
what's the problem? Second, economic growth makes deficits and
additional debt easily affordable, so long as interest rates are low
enough in relation to the growth rate to keep a lid on debt-service
costs. Interest rates are (very) low at the moment, so what's the
Hamilton does not have a compelling answer to the first point,
because it is hard to say how much debt is too much. You know it when
you see it--that is, when you can no longer borrow at good rates. At
some point that could happen, even to the United States, but the
Treasury continues to sell debt very easily at the moment, so the
danger hardly looks imminent. On the other hand, Krugman would surely
agree that some dangers (climate change, for instance) are not imminent
but are still worth addressing--and the sooner the better, other things
equal, if delay makes the problem harder to solve later. Unsustainable
fiscal policy falls into that category.
On the second point, Hamilton does have a compelling answer--or so it seems to me. He argues that interest rates cannot be expected to stay this low.
But the question before us is, what will the situation be another two years down the road, when the government will need to go back to bond markets to roll over the debt it issued on Monday along with new debt to cover the several trillion added to the federal debt between now and then? Krugman's position is that we should trust the term structure of interest rates to give us the answer. If markets anticipate an explosion of short-term interest rates a few years down the road, why is anyone today buying the longer term debt at such low yields?...
I agree with Paul that the long-term treasury yields are hard to reconcile with a market worried about the solvency risk. But I would add that the run-ups we've seen in commodity prices are hard to reconcile with a market sold on the deflation scare. What I see is investors buying both bonds and commodities, suggesting that people are spreading their money across a variety of strategies to be in position for several alternative scenarios from here.
That seems correct. And is it not especially odd to read Paul, of all people, saying "trust the market" when it comes to interest rates? That has not been his position on other matters lately. His scorn for such a view has been constant. Now the bond market knows best?