I preface pretty much all my critiques of Greg Mankiw’s writings with a note on how good he has been to me. Some of my readers find this annoying. Yet, I think its important partially because I am a deep believer in academic civility and in part because making note of that fact is personally meaningful to me.
That having been said, I think Greg’s analysis is a bit off in his recent NYT column but most notably here.
The more we rely on deficit spending to keep the economy afloat, the more we risk the kind of sovereign debt crisis we have witnessed in Greece over the past year. The Standard & Poor’s downgrade of United States debt over the summer is a portent of what could lie ahead. In the long run, we have to pay our debts — or face dire consequences.
To be sure, the bond market doesn’t seem particularly worried about the solvency of the federal government. It is still willing to lend to the United States at low rates of interest. But the same thing was true of Greece four years ago. Once the bond market starts changing its mind, the verdict can be swift, and can lead to a vicious circle of rising interest rates, increasing debt service and budget deficits, and falling confidence.
Bond markets are now giving the United States the benefit of the doubt, partly because other nations look even riskier, and partly in the belief that we will, in time, get our fiscal house in order. The big political question is how.
This – I believe – is an inaccurate description of how the bond markets and deficits work. I will try to lay out several counter-intuitive positions in what I hope to be a relatively short post.
First, the US government never has to pay back money that it borrows. I actually think if I pressed Greg on this he would agree – infinitely lived organizations whether they are companies or government never have to repay their debts.
Where the disagreement comes in over servicing debt. A common belief is that all organizations must service their debt. That is, they at least have to be able to make the interest payment. This does put an organization in jeopardy if investors believe that it may not be able to afford the interest payments. This causes the interest rates to spiral ever higher and for the organization to reach illiquidity.
Can this happen to the US government? The simple answer is no.
As long as T-Bills are traded for bank reserves in Open Market Operations this essentially cannot happen. The interest rate on T-Bills will have to be the interest rate equal to the Federal Funds rate.
Why?
Well suppose the interest on T-Bills rose above the interest on reserves. Then it would make sense for banks to buy T-Bills rather than loan reserves to other banks. After all, if they need to get back reserves they can all ways sell the T-Bills to the Fed.
This draws money out of the Federal Funds market, which tends to raise the Federal Funds rate. To correct this the Federal Reserve will buy more T-Bills to supply reserves to the banking system and drive back down the rate of interest on T-Bills and with it the Federal Funds rate.
So, as long as monetary policy is conducted by swapping selling T-Bills for reserves the interest rate on T-Bill will equal the interest rate on reserves.
That’s all well and good but certainly the US can’t live beyond its means forever – what happens if it tries?
Well lets break this into two potential cases. One, the US lives beyond its means by borrowing money from domestic bond holders. Two, the US lives beyond its means by borrowing money from foreign bond holders.
In the first, case what the government has to be worried about is excessive deficits. Not so much the debt per se but the deficit. That is revenues versus expenditures in the current year. The consequences of excessive deficits depends on how the Federal Reserve responds.
The Federal Reserve could respond by keeping the Federal Funds rate low in spite of increases budget deficits. In this case Aggregate Demand is very high because the government and private parties are both borrowing very heavily.
The economy will not be able to produce enough resources to satisfy all of the demand and the result will be ever higher inflation. This scenario frightens a lot of folks but I actually think that it is not that likely.
Alternatively, the Federal Reserve could raise interest rates to curb the inflation.
The result will be a crowding out of durable goods, housing and business investment. As interest rates go higher people will find it difficult to afford the financing for these things.
However, the government will avoid a death spiral. This is because the decline in the demand for housing, durables and investment will create contractionary pressure in the economy that will lower both employment and inflation. This will cause the Federal Reserve to stop raising interest rates.
What you wind up with is a moribund state in which investment is weak, personal savings is high and the government consistently runs a massive budget deficit. However, no budget crisis.
In short, the government is effectively taxing investment and durable consumption to support its deficit.
Lastly, lets consider what happens if the US has substantial foreign holdings of debt. In this case many of the bonds will be held outside of the Federal Reserve system.
If the bond holders become nervous and want to reduce their exposure to the United States they must sell the bonds for US dollars and then trade those dollars for some other currency. This will put downward pressure on the US dollar.
The result will be a decline in imports into the US and a ramp-up in exports. The manufacturing sector of the United States would expand rapidly while consumer would find it harder to afford foreign goods such as TVs and Cars.
Employment in the United States would expand and consumption growth would decline as the country became a major export engine.
In this case, the US governments deficit is being paid for by increased work effort on the part of Americans – as marginally attached workers are soaked into the manufacturing sector – and by lower consumption on the part of US workers.
However, in none of these cases does the United States end up like Greece. In order for that to happen the United States would have to abandon its own currency and conduct monetary policy using something other T-Bills.
Given our current set, however, ending up like Greece is essentially impossible.

15 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Becky Hargrove
You know I support you but I do agree with Mankiw.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Justin Merrill
The fact that we are even having this discussion sadly means many promiment economists don’t understand public finance and monetary economics. You are right Karl, but I think that people that understand how sovereign fiat currencies work often underestimate the destructive effects of inflation and financial repression relative to monetary deflation, default and/or austerity. Greece and Zimbabwe are both painful scenarios and Greece leaving the Euro to print Drakmas would not be a magic cure; it would simply shift who are the winners and who are the losers.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Megan McArdle
Perhaps I am being stupid and missing something, but this seems to me to rely on the assumption that the US always borrows in its own currency.
Countries like Argentina did not stop borrowing in their own currency because they liked dollars better; they stopped borrowing in their own currency because eventually they exhausted their central bank’s balance sheet, and they were monetizing the debt. And borrowers caught onto that pretty quickly, and refused to lend in domestic currency–even domestic lenders.
If we relax the assumption that the US can always borrow in its own currency at a semi-reasonable price, how do these scenarios change?
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 9:44 pm
BigEd
When Argentina was “borrowing in its own currency” it had a currency board tied directly to the US dollar; so it was effectively borrowing US dollars. Eventually Argentina’s central bank ran out of its US dollar reserves, and so they had no choice but to devalue.
As I am sure you know there is no limit to the amount of US dollars that the USG can borrow and never “have to pay them back”.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
jazzbumpa
Karl -
Your decision to treat Mankiw delicately is personal, and while I respect it, I feel no compulsion to emulate it.
First, the US government never has to pay back money that it borrows. I actually think if I pressed Greg on this he would agree
So Greg is – how shall I put this – a LIAR!
Most notably <a bit off?!?
Really? The Zimbabwe comparison is nothing short of idiotic.
In the first, case what the government has to be worried about is excessive deficits. Not so much the debt per se but the deficit.
The answer to this, of course, is to grow the economy, as we did in the two decades following WW II, and again in the 90′s. Note that higher taxes and financial regulations were parts of these success stories.
One might wonder why Mankiw goes trolling for blatantly irrelevant foreign comparisons when highly relevant lessons are prominent in our own economic history?
I’ll suggest that it is because somewhere along the line he gave up being an economist and instead became a Rethug poitical hack.
Cheers!
JzB
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
BigEd
A new presidential election in on the horizon. Perhaps Prof. Mankiw must appear to be a more conventional Republican economic thinker if he hopes to move back to Washington in 14 months or so.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 11:28 pm
jazzbumpa
Good point. That is what makes him an erstwhile economist.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Johnnie Linn
JzB,
Greg Mankiw doesn’t have to go trolling. He has a well-established market for his work, which is more than be said for those who write to this blog. We are just wannabees.
And why is the Zimbabwe connection even off, much less idiotic? It is an infinitly-lived organization of the class that Karl says never have to repay their debts.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Bill
The land mass that makes up Zimbabwe may be around for a very long time, but you can’t compare the stability of its political system to that of the United States. The US is seen as a financial safe haven because of 235 years of stable bovernment, and Zimbabwe is most certainly not.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Johnnie Linn
Take that argument up with Karl, not me. He is the one that makes the claim for infinity-lived organizations, which includes all corporations and governments. Germany, in one form or other, has been around for more than 235 years. Did that help them? We are a young pup compared to most peoples.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Justin Merrill
http://www.emergentsociety.org/?q=mankiw_fiscal
@Megan: US is a long ways away from being like Argentina or Iceland where we denominate our debts in a foreign currency because we are king dollar. That doesn’t mean that there are not consequences to reckless fiscal and monetary policy however. Check my article to see what I mean.
Sunday ~ October 23rd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Nick Rowe
Karl: there’s presumably an upper bound on seigniorage revenue. The central bank can’t print enough money to buy more than the whole of GDP. And in an OLG model, the equilibrium real rate of interest rises as the debt/GDP ratio rises, and once the real interest rate exceeds the growth rate of real GDP, a Ponzi scheme becomes unstable.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 3:10 am
Economist's View: links for 2011-10-24
[...] Greg Mankiw on Fiscal Policy – Modeled Behavior [...]
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 11:45 am
Bob Murphy
Karl, in your last scenario (with foreign bond holders dumping the dollar), why wouldn’t US interest rates rise? I agree the dollar would fall, imports would become expensive, and Americans’ standard of living would fall (which you cheerily describe as a boost in working), but wouldn’t interest rates spike too? If so, isn’t that like Greece? That’s what Mankiw is taking about.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Farrar Richardson
I suppose Karl will write that if foreign bondholders dump, the Fed will step in and take up the slack until it achieves the desired tradeoff between interest rates and exchange rates. And I would agree, especially since you are all a huckuva lot sharper than I. Nick Rowe’s tipping point seems a long ways off now, but we will certainly get there a lot faster if we follow the economic expansion thru austerity doctrine now trumpeted by our Republican legislators.