Post by peterv on Aug 2, 2014 9:06:29 GMT
I was recently sent this link by a friend
harryshutt.com/2014/07/20/the-big-lie-of-recovery-2/
In his blog post, Harry Shutt questions whether the recovery is real - he says "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. He goes on to talk about the artificial boost to the economy given by Quantitative Easing and subsidised lending for house purchases, and with more cuts on the way he sees the future as one of "perpetual recession and declining living standards".
Finally, he says "there can be no escape from deepening economic paralysis unless and until the vast bulk of the unserviceable private and public debt is effectively written off". What are the implications of this?
I think we need to treat public and private debt separately.
The public debt (ie. the National Debt) is a deficit of the public sector and an asset of the private sector. The private assets are held, in part, by pension funds and in my view are a good and necessary part of our economic system. People in work 'save' through pension schemes which is borrowed by the govt., transferring some of their surplus wealth temporarily to the public sector, where it is used for public benefit. In return for these public benefits, people pay taxes which go towards paying the interest on the national debt - the interest that the pension schemes receive allows them to pay the pensions of pensioners. So the whole thing is a way of storing surplus wealth while we are of working age, and then drawing on it when we are too old to work.
If this public debt were 'written off', then the pension schemes would no longer be able to pay pensions and we would either face an old age of poverty, or be forced to increase the state pension - which would need higher taxes to pay for it. So I do not agree that the public debt should be written off. This is also the view of the MMT (Modern Money Theory) school of thought.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/public-lecture-l-randall-wray-modern-money-theory-the-job-guarantee-tickets-12191708729
The private debt on the other hand is a deficit of borrowers and an asset of the banks. Cancelling this debt means wiping out both the debt and the assets. Well I am not totally against the idea of stripping banks of their assets, or at least giving them a 'haircut', but who would benefit from the cancellation of the debt side of the balance sheet?
According to Positive Money, most of the debt is held in the financial and housing sectors, and only relatively small amounts in the form of consumer debt (credit cards, personal loans etc). We can sympathise with the idea of wiping out consumer debt, and probably mortgage debt, but do we really want to wipe out the debts of the financial sector as well ??!
So any wiping out of debt would have to be done very selectively. I suggest that the first place to start would be 3rd world debt and pay-day loan lenders. For the rest I think we have to tread carefully.
The Positive Money scheme is for the creation of debt-free money, credited to the government, and spent (not lent) into the economy. Eventually the burden of existing debt would be proportionally reduced, but this is a very different scenario to what I think Harry Shutt is talking about.
What do you thnk?
harryshutt.com/2014/07/20/the-big-lie-of-recovery-2/
In his blog post, Harry Shutt questions whether the recovery is real - he says "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. He goes on to talk about the artificial boost to the economy given by Quantitative Easing and subsidised lending for house purchases, and with more cuts on the way he sees the future as one of "perpetual recession and declining living standards".
Finally, he says "there can be no escape from deepening economic paralysis unless and until the vast bulk of the unserviceable private and public debt is effectively written off". What are the implications of this?
I think we need to treat public and private debt separately.
The public debt (ie. the National Debt) is a deficit of the public sector and an asset of the private sector. The private assets are held, in part, by pension funds and in my view are a good and necessary part of our economic system. People in work 'save' through pension schemes which is borrowed by the govt., transferring some of their surplus wealth temporarily to the public sector, where it is used for public benefit. In return for these public benefits, people pay taxes which go towards paying the interest on the national debt - the interest that the pension schemes receive allows them to pay the pensions of pensioners. So the whole thing is a way of storing surplus wealth while we are of working age, and then drawing on it when we are too old to work.
If this public debt were 'written off', then the pension schemes would no longer be able to pay pensions and we would either face an old age of poverty, or be forced to increase the state pension - which would need higher taxes to pay for it. So I do not agree that the public debt should be written off. This is also the view of the MMT (Modern Money Theory) school of thought.
www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/public-lecture-l-randall-wray-modern-money-theory-the-job-guarantee-tickets-12191708729
The private debt on the other hand is a deficit of borrowers and an asset of the banks. Cancelling this debt means wiping out both the debt and the assets. Well I am not totally against the idea of stripping banks of their assets, or at least giving them a 'haircut', but who would benefit from the cancellation of the debt side of the balance sheet?
According to Positive Money, most of the debt is held in the financial and housing sectors, and only relatively small amounts in the form of consumer debt (credit cards, personal loans etc). We can sympathise with the idea of wiping out consumer debt, and probably mortgage debt, but do we really want to wipe out the debts of the financial sector as well ??!
So any wiping out of debt would have to be done very selectively. I suggest that the first place to start would be 3rd world debt and pay-day loan lenders. For the rest I think we have to tread carefully.
The Positive Money scheme is for the creation of debt-free money, credited to the government, and spent (not lent) into the economy. Eventually the burden of existing debt would be proportionally reduced, but this is a very different scenario to what I think Harry Shutt is talking about.
What do you thnk?