Some commenters pushed back on my suggestion that it was “essentially impossible” for the US to end up like Greece. I say essentially because the way monetary policy in the United States is conducted could change dramatically or there could be a wholesale irreparable shutdown of the US financial system.
Those scenarios would be similar – though with some important differences – to Greece.
To address my commenters specifically: Megan McArdle says
. . . 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.
It assumes that monetary policy is conducted by trading bank reserves for government bonds. This does not require that domestic lenders do anything special. It’s similar to saying “borrow in your own currency” but I think highlights the relevant points.
First, the monetary authority may have other objectives besides accommodating the Fiscal Authorities or even controlling inflation. The US dollar for example could be pegged to Euro. Some third world countries do this to guarantee their domestic private investors access to foreign capital for example.
If the Federal Reserve chose to do this is would not be able to accommodate fiscal expansion. Interest rates would have to rise in order to make foreign investors indifferent to holding German bonds or US T-bills. If not the peg will break. Or at least could be broken by a determined speculator.
The fact that the US has no dollar policy is what allows the Fed to accommodate either completely or partially, depending on the focus they place on US inflation.
Nick Rowe says
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.
The first point is certainly correct. If the Central Bank tries to hold interest rates down in the face of an ever rising deficit then the result will eventually be hyperinflation. The government will loose its ability to extract resources from the economy because it will not be able to issue debt fast enough to purchase things at the market price.
The second point on OLG – I think – ignores the role of the banking sector. It presumes that government bonds must be held by households and that the households will attempt to consume the principal of their bond holdings in the later period.
With a banking system this need not hold because banks can expand their balance sheets so long they have reserves to do so. Furthermore, they do not cash in their bonds in the second period. Both of these factors implies that carrying the debt only requires economic agents to reduce consumption or investment enough to pay the deficit each period. They do not have reduce enough to re-buy the debt every period.
Bob Murphy says
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.
US interest rates are set by the Federal Reserve. No amount of selling on the part of foreign holders can change that. If the Federal Reserve refused to raise interest rate to support the dollar a “Willie Coyote Moment” would ensue. The dollar would keep collapsing until if fell below its “new equilibrium value”
Then the dollar would rise slowly over time and the combination of the rising dollar and the low interest rate on bonds would be enough to get foreigners to hold US bonds.
This is similar to what happens when a peg breaks. So here is the value of the Thai Bhat in dollars.

In this case the Bank of Thailand was trying to control the exchange rate through foreign reserve accumulation rather than interest rate policy. However, when they relented the Baht collapsed below what its long run value would be and then proceeded to rise.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Megan McArdle
I am still confused. It is trivially true that the United States can issue all the dollars it wants to; it is not true that those dollars necessarily represent a claim on resources adequate to fund real government consumption. I feel like the latter is what people care about, not whether you can balance the accounting entries between Treasury and the Fed. Clearly, I am missing something here.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Johnnie Linn
It looks like Nick Rowe wins the argument. He offered two points, one of which you agreed with, and the other about OLG, that you didn’t. But why does OLG matter? The typical hyperinflation takes place in a period much shorter then a generational period.
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Axel
I fully concur with Megan McArdle there. Wat’s hapenning in Greece is sovereign insolvency, which means the budget constraint in real terms is unsustainable. To overcome such a situation you can choose to monetize, yet if you remain insolvent in real terms because you are politically unable to raise taxes or more generally reditribute wealth – not only income – among your citizens, then you’ll have hyperinflation (German in the 20′s) or default (which is a way to redstribute but let’s acknowledge it’s not really controlled). Greek can’t monetize, but can default. Japan is interresting as it can’t default (to pay pensions) and doesn’t fully monetize for now. This doesn’t make Japan state solvent if it keeps it’s current settings.
The interresting point with Japan and may be the US, is that monetary policy is nearly forcing public finance into inslvency: in a liquidity trap no private agent want’s to relever, so the state is the only canal to generate credit growth. But then, at some point, you have to force privte agents to share this ‘monetary induce public debt’ buden. Or may be, even Keynesian can’t stimulate Agg Demand without limit?
Monday ~ October 24th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Bob Murphy
Karl, I guess I will concede the theoretical point that the Fed could keep interest rates at whatever level it wanted, if it didn’t mind accumulating all outstanding dollar-denominated bonds on planet Earth. If that’s how hard you want to push your claim, then I cry uncle.
But I think what Mankiw and the rest of us fuddy-duddies are getting at, is that in any realistic scenario the Fed (thank goodness) would relent before pushing things that far.
You bring up the case of Thailand during the 1997 crisis, apparently to show me that I’m wrong for thinking interest rates would spike. But didn’t interest rates spike in Thailand when their currency crashed? I can’t dig up actual numbers, but the Wikipedia article says the IMF came in and imposed high interest rates as a condition for a rescue package, and that Thailand’s debt-service-to-export ratio increased (which is saying a lot, since their currency fell so much).
Then there’s this cheesy website on the bhat that says:
A strengthening US economy caused Thailand to re-peg its currency at 25 to the dollar from 1985 until July 1997, when Thailand had to devalue the baht about 20% against the US dollar, as a result of intense pressure in the foreign exchange market. Currency speculators and Thai residents alike were trying to sell the baht and buy the US dollar, causing and worsening capital flight out of the country. The Thai government was running out of its foreign reserves and losing market confidence in maintaining the currency value and financial stability. In the process, interest rates increased substantially as the outflow of short-term capital intensified.
I’m sure the people writing the above-linked articles don’t know the theoretical basis of currency flows, interest rates, etc., but I think it’s safe to say that interest rates spiked in Thailand at exactly the time you are pointing at, to demonstrate to me your point about interest rates being unaffected by a debt/currency crisis.
Tuesday ~ October 25th, 2011 at 1:21 am
Karl Smith
I don’t think the Fed itself needs to accumulate all of the dollar denominated assets on earth. The US banking sector will also hold dollar denominated assets. The Fed simply has to make it profitable for them to do so.
As for Thailand, I don’t know what monetary and capital control policies were instituted in the wake of breaking the peg. The Bank of Thailand could have raised rates. The IMF may have forced them to raise rates.
However, the natural thing to happen would be for the currency to overshoot and then appreciate, which did seem to happen. Which makes sense because even if they did raise rates they didn’t raise them enough to hold the peg.
That is, they would not have had to spend down their reserves if they had simply chosen to raise rates so high that the Bhat would hold its value on its own.
Tuesday ~ October 25th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Bob Murphy
Karl wrote:
That is, they would not have had to spend down their reserves if they had simply chosen to raise rates so high that the Bhat would hold its value on its own.
You seem to have come full-circle here. Mankiw and others are advancing the commonsense (though perhaps wrong) theory that if a government borrows too much, it can quickly fall into a pit where interest rates spike and the situation can change very quickly.
You were saying there is no reason the US will face such a crisis (like Greece is), and you listed various scenarios.
I pointed out that in one of your scenarios, interest rates would spike (in addition to the other effects you mention), and so Mankiw’s warning is still sound.
In response you told me no, this wouldn’t need to happen, and that I should look to the example of Thailand.
I pointed out that Thailand’s interest rates did in fact spike when the crisis hit, so it’s still not clear to me why you think Mankiw is wrong about comparing us to Greece.
In your latest response (above), you are saying Thailand could have raised interest rates even higher (I think?). So how does that answer my concern?