I didn’t think about it then,
but our little house in Maine made us speculators in the global real estate and
financial markets. Fortunately things all worked out perfectly. We got small
raises every year, a bit over the rate of inflation. By the time we paid off the
house in 2006, 20 years after we bought it, the portion of our salary that we
spent on the mortgage was only about half
as large as it had been at the
beginning. At the same time, the average value of houses in the US had tripled.
Our gamble with debt had paid
off handsomely, but it was just good timing. The years from 1966 to 1993 were
unique in the 20th century: only one year in that period had less
than 3% inflation. Inflation is good for debtors, because it reduces the value
of what they owe. If you took out a 30-year mortgage in 1966, the value of your
debt had dropped 80% by the time of your last payment.
Unlucky timing led to the
opposite results for people who bought property in 2007. The bubble in home
values burst, and many mortgages went under water: at the end of 2012
over 28% of homeowners owed more than their property was worth. Unemployment
jumped, so lots of people lost jobs and couldn’t make their payments.
The same amount of debt had
very different meanings, depending on the state of the national, even global
economy. The national debate about deficits and debt is driven as much by
different meanings and assumptions placed on these numbers as by the numbers
themselves.
Our national debt is a very
large number, which according to the debt clock as I am writing is
$16,444,380,503,861.39. At the moment you are reading this, it is much higher,
because it increases more than a billion a day; you can check it out at http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/. What does a $16 trillion debt mean?
The total debt that American
consumers have signed up for was about $11.3 trillion at end of 2012.
About three-quarters of that comes from mortgages, with the rest on credit
cards, from student loans, or as home equity loans. So the debt created by the
federal government is not much larger than that voluntarily assumed by
consumers.
Another way to grasp the
meaning of the national debt is to compare it to the size of our economy. The ratio of
debt to gross domestic product allows us to see how the national debt has
changed its shape over time. Taking a long view, it is clear that debt goes up
during wars and recessions, then comes down again when the economy recovers and
military spending drops. The debt to GDP ratio reached a peak at the end of
World War II, then began a long decline until 1980, even though the size of the
debt tripled. Since 1980, the ratio climbed during the Reagan presidency, fell
under Clinton, remained stable in George Bush’s first term, and then jumped
during his second term and Obama’s first, due to the combined effects of wars
and recession.
Our national debt is now high
in relation to the size of our economy. As the economy gradually recovers, tax
revenues rise from the recent tax increase, and the troops come home, we can
expect the ratio to fall again. But liberals and conservatives see these
numbers very differently, because they see the whole economy differently. Republican voters are
hearing mainly bad news about the US economy, while Democrats overwhelmingly
hear good news. So Republicans worry that the deficits will continue to grow
unless something drastic is done about spending, while Democrats believe the
recovery will mean lower deficits without drastic spending cuts.
Who’s right? It all depends
on what meaning is attached to debt. But here’s one more way to look at debt.
Giant businesses routinely go deep into debt. The debt load of many major
corporations is many times their shareholders’ equity. Nobody seems to worry if
a major corporation owes 3, 4, or even 5 times as much as their total
shareholders’ equity. If the company grows, the debt will shrink, even if it
never goes away. Maybe that’s the way to think about the national debt – it’s
an investment in our future prosperity.
Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
Published in the Jacksonville
Journal-Courier, January 22, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment