As economies around the world return to growth after the deepest recession in a generation, renewed attention is being paid to enormous fiscal deficits and vast expansions of government debt. This year’s projected deficits as a share of GDP are estimated to be a remarkable 13.5 percent for the US — twice the previous record at the depth of the horrific early 1980s recession — 14.4 percent for Britain, 8.2 percent for France, 8 percent for India, 7.4 percent for Japan, 5.4 percent for Italy, 4.7 percent for Germany, 4.2 percent for China and 2.4 percent for Canada.
In addition to the automatic decline in tax revenues and increase in social-welfare spending during a recession, many nations added large spending increases and/or tax cuts to try to stimulate their economies. The increase in the deficit is the sum of these “automatic stabilizers” and discretionary programs. The discretionary policy response has been largest in the US at a cumulative 4.8 percent of GDP and in China at 4.4 percent between last year and next year, while it has been modest in Germany and Canada and smaller in Britain, France and India.
The automatic increase in the deficit has also been largest in the US, modest in Britain and Germany and smaller in Japan, India, Canada, China, France and Italy. These automatic effects should soon begin to reverse as economic activity recovers, but there is much debate, including at the G8 and G20 meetings, over whether the discretionary stimulus should be extended or ended, repeated or reversed.
Since every dollar, euro, yen, rupee or yuan borrowed today requires the same present value in future interest payments — and therefore future taxes — there are important long-term costs to balance against whatever benefits the deficits create today. There is no fiscal free lunch.
Some politicians, such as US President Barack Obama, herald their fiscal stimulus programs as effective responses to the economic crisis. They pledge allegiance to long-term fiscal responsibility, yet propose budgets with large deficits for years to come and big hikes in the debt-GDP ratio.
Politicians from political parties out of power denounce the deficits and debt as a horrific legacy for our children and an insurmountable burden on the economy. In the US in the 1980s, Democrats excoriated then-US president Ronald Reagan on deficits; Republicans now excoriate Obama on his much larger deficits and debt. Deficits are convenient for politicians as they hide and delay the true tax cost of spending. But when are deficits desirable and when are they damaging?
The impact of the economy on the budget balance is swifter, surer and larger than the impact of the budget balance on the economy. All economists agree that we should allow the automatic stabilizers to work. Discretionary fiscal policy is often clumsy in responding to recession, given the usual lags in legislative and administrative implementation and the politics of pork and special interests surrounding spending and tax decisions.
The US stimulus has been much slower to enter the economy than promised. Indeed, most of the stimulus money will be spent after the recession “appears to have ended,” and the evidence is that so far it has had little effect.
It is appropriate to finance some long-lived public-capital investment by government borrowing, since the benefits will accrue for many years, and future taxpayers might equitably bear part of the burden. This is standard practice for US state and local governments. It is also more efficient to keep tax rates stable over time, and thus to finance with debt temporary large spending needs such as military buildups during war (or to prevent war), while reversing the debt buildup thereafter.
The US federal government’s borrowing exceeded tax revenues in every year since the end of World War II. Such debt finance is both equitable and efficient. But little in the current stimulus programs is justifiable on either of the grounds mentioned above.
The level, composition and growth of spending and taxes are the fundamental fiscal indicators. Even with a balanced budget, there is still the issue of the effectiveness and efficiency of spending, as each dollar of government revenue costs the economy about US$1.30, given the distortions to private decisions caused by taxes.
Large deficits shift the bill for today’s consumption to future generations and can crowd out private investment, thereby slowing the improvement of living standards. Deficits are riskier if the level of the national debt, the accumulation of all previous deficits, is high or rapidly rising relative to GDP.
The debt-GDP ratio varies a lot by country. It will double in the US unless Obama reverses course, as former US president Bill Clinton did when he and a Republican Congress balanced the budget.
Deficits are problematic if they finance consumption, not productive public investment on infrastructure. The crisis funding of the modest delayed infrastructure component of most stimulus programs suggests that much of it would not pass a rigorous cost-benefit test. Some US federal agencies are trying to spend 10 times their previous budgets — not a recipe for efficiency or speed. And deficits can lead to inflation if central banks monetize the government debt, a serious concern in financial markets, as China has warned the US.
These concerns require that fiscal exit strategies be planned, announced and implemented soon, before the stimulus programs become permanently entrenched, develop powerful dependent constituencies and greatly increase the risk of rising interest rates, inflation and taxation. On this score, citizens everywhere, from Boston to Berlin, Mumbai to Moscow, are right to be appalled at the explosion of government debt.
Michael Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was chairman of former US president George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
It is almost three years since Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a friendship with “no limits” — weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, they have retreated from such rhetorical enthusiasm. The “no limits” language was quickly dumped, probably at Beijing’s behest. When Putin visited China in May last year, he said that he and his counterpart were “as close as brothers.” Xi more coolly called the Russian president “a good friend and a good neighbor.” China has conspicuously not reciprocated Putin’s description of it as an ally. Yet the partnership
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (孫子) said “know yourself and know your enemy and you will win a hundred battles.” Applied in our times, Taiwanese should know themselves and know the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) so that Taiwan will win a hundred battles and hopefully, deter the CCP. Taiwanese receive information daily about the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) threat from the Ministry of National Defense and news sources. One area that needs better understanding is which forces would the People’s Republic of China (PRC) use to impose martial law and what would be the consequences for living under PRC
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) said that he expects this year to be a year of “peace.” However, this is ironic given the actions of some KMT legislators and politicians. To push forward several amendments, they went against the principles of legislation such as substantive deliberation, and even tried to remove obstacles with violence during the third readings of the bills. Chu says that the KMT represents the public interest, accusing President William Lai (賴清德) and the Democratic Progressive Party of fighting against the opposition. After pushing through the amendments, the KMT caucus demanded that Legislative Speaker
On New Year’s Day, it is customary to reflect on what the coming year might bring and how the past has brought about the current juncture. Just as Taiwan is preparing itself for what US president-elect Donald Trump’s second term would mean for its economy, national security and the cross-strait “status quo” this year, the passing of former US president Jimmy Carter on Monday at the age of 100 brought back painful memories of his 1978 decision to stop recognizing the Republic of China as the seat of China in favor of the People’s Republic of China. It is an
RSS