The Idea That Deficit Spending Is a Burden on Our Children Is the Dumbest Propaganda

dilbert firestorm's Avatar
https://theintercept.com/2021/05/16/...n=theintercept

The Idea That Deficit Spending Is a Burden on Our Children Is the Dumbest Propaganda

Every time the government sells a bond, it creates a liability for the government. But it also creates an asset for whoever bought it.

Jon Schwarz
May 16 2021, 6:00 a.m.

For decades, the Washington, D.C., political class has condemned deficit spending as an act of selfishness. We’re profligately throwing ourselves a party, they say, but paying for it with our credit cards, leaving our descendants to pick up the tab.

This is some of the most successful propaganda in U.S. history — which is especially impressive given that it’s also some of the silliest propaganda in U.S. history.

This rhetoric subsided during the Trump administration. But with a Democrat in the White House who’s proposing significant new spending, it’s returned with a vengeance. “We should use every tool we have to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently declared. Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has decried the coming “debt burden on our children and grandchildren”:
What has Biden achieved in his first 100 days?

Trillions in government spending funded by a tax hike and a debt burden on our children and grandchildren. #JointAddress pic.twitter.com/j2oqglI9yL
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) April 29, 2021
In USA Today you can find Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson warning about “the debt burden we are placing on our children.” Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine — he caucuses with the Democrats — is anxious about “increasing the national debt we will leave to our children and grandchildren.”

And this goes far beyond politicians: It’s soaked into American culture. The AARP Bulletin once featured two newborns on its cover with a headline declaring them to be “$156,000 in debt.” An article in the Christian Post instructs us that “we used to take pride in paying our own way. Now we have no problem sponging off anyone, including our grandchildren.”

This sounds awful, until you think about it for five seconds. Instead of panicking about the blighted future we’re leaving to our progeny, ask whom our children are going to have to repay.

The answer is … our children.

Every time the federal government sells a bond, it creates a liability for the government. But it also creates an asset for those who bought the bond, in exactly the same amount. For American society overall, the entire process is, financially speaking, largely a wash. (For details on why it’s not completely a wash, see below.)

It is true that this could create problems with inequality. Government bonds, like financial assets in general, are disproportionately owned by the wealthy.

To understand what this means in concrete terms, consider Blackburn, and all of her anxious statements about the danger of government debt. Blackburn’s financial disclosure report states that she and her husband have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in various mutual funds. Most mutual funds invest to various degrees in U.S. government bonds.

Blackburn has a son and daughter. And if they inherit these mutual funds, part of that inheritance will almost certainly be indirect ownership of government bonds. In other words, while she frets in public about “a debt burden on our children and grandchildren,” her children will likely be benefiting from this debt burden. In the future, money will flow from the U.S.’s children in general to her kids specifically.

Of course, it doesn’t have the same ring to it to say, “I’m desperately worried that deficit spending today will force everyone else’s kids to pay my kids in the future.” This would raise the question of why, if future Americans see this as a problem, they won’t be able to just raise taxes on Blackburn’s children. The answer, of course, is that they will be able to do that if they want — thereby extinguishing most issues regarding deficit spending in the present.

There is somewhat more to it, though not a lot. Not all government bonds are purchased by Americans. Right now about one-third of U.S. government debt is held by foreigners. The Treasury Department updates who has how much every month; right now Japan and China both have a little over $1 trillion in U.S. treasury securities.

For complex and confusing reasons, however, this is almost certainly a good thing.

The U.S. has been running a trade deficit since the 1980s. That is, we’re buying more from other countries than we’re selling to them. In order to finance the difference, we have to give foreigners American assets. These assets can be anything: cash, or government bonds, or stock in American companies. At the same time, the U.S. has also been accumulating foreign assets.

Foreigners now own $46.25 trillion in such U.S. assets, while the U.S. owns $32.16 trillion in foreign assets. The gap between these two amounts, $14.09 trillion, is essentially the accumulated difference between what we’ve bought and what we’ve sold.

On its face, this would seem to be a significant problem for the U.S., inexorably leading to large outflows of money to other countries. Strangely, though, this is not happening. Investments in stock generally earn higher returns than investments in bonds, particularly government bonds. And the U.S. assets are disproportionately in foreign stock, while foreigners invest more in U.S. bonds.

Because of this, the U.S.’s smaller amount of foreign assets consistently earns a greater return than the larger amount of U.S. assets held by foreigners. Thus rather than money flowing out of the U.S., it’s still flowing into the country. More detail about this strange state of affairs can be found in a recent report from the Brookings Institution.

The upshot is that, if anything, we should want foreigners to be investing more in low-yielding U.S. government bonds, because this means that they’re not buying higher-yielding American stocks.

So Cruz, Blackburn, Johnson, King, and the rest of the huge anti-deficit spending army can stand down. Government debt simply is not a terrifying boogeyman for our descendants to fear, or even much of a problem at all. If our grandchildren end up hating us, it’s much more likely to be because we failed to give them excellent educations, or create a functioning health care system, or prevent global warming from destroying a livable biosphere. Those will be true burdens on them, ones that we can prevent by wisely spending lots of money today.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
anyone agree/disagree with the article?
Utterly idiotic analysis. Where does it mention the INTEREST paid on the bond? A 100K bond may create a 100K asset at the same instant the bond is sold, but a lot more than 100K is paid back than the asset created.

Current taxpayers get the benefit of deficit spending. But the payment obligation is stretched out for 30 years - even including people who have not yet been born.

If this analysis was correct, why do governments so often collapse once the national debt exceeds the GDP by about 20+%. Why does runaway inflation occur?

We are starting to see inflation now as Biden piles on more debt that Trump, Obama, and Bush 43 combined.
Yeah, I call bullshit. Dude's acting like it's a quantum version of trickle down economics.
a new york based "writer" who used to work for michael moore's dog eat dog films is the go to source for economic analysis?

lets see a "journalist" for the "biased and un-factual" 1619 project

and this dude for economics

when he asserts that our grandchildren will hate us due to their poor education, the healthcare system and global warming

and not deficits

sounds strangely like a leftist peddling an ideology where anti-Americanism is the real issue
Unique_Carpenter's Avatar
Bullshit, cowshit, horseshit, donkeyshit, chicken shit, etc. (I'll spare you all a full list of farm and zoo critters.)

Mentioned above, any amount paid for interest is less that's available for actual govt spending on programs.

As for the oh but it's an emergency reason, well, no such thing as that's what a reserve should be for. Oh sorry, spent that also.

And yes, also mentioned above, inflation is back. My group saw it in the industrial metals economy in 3rdQ20 and most of our clients reacted to that barely in time. It's now officially in the consumer goods sector (mentioned by the fed).

Welcome to reality.
the_real_Barleycorn's Avatar
Lets call it what it is...modern version of slavery. One of the biggest differences in European slavery and American slavery is that the children of slaves were slaves. In Europe, the children of the indentured were free to make their own way in the world. In Virginia, the indentured African's (later had a status change to slaves) passed on that curse to their children.
So now, most debt ends with the death of the individual. Their estate is subject to paying off the debt BEFORE any inheritance to the children but it ends there. If the estate does not cover the debt, that is too bad for the creditor. Both parties are culpable both the democrats have passed on debt like they were on both Viagra and steroids. Going back to LBJ who absorbed the Social Security fund (which was our money) into the general budget to avoid the appearance of perpetual debt the democrats have crafted this new slavery. This slavery which makes slaves of your children, grand children, and so on.
  • Tiny
  • 05-20-2021, 10:29 PM
anyone agree/disagree with the article? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Yes. I agree and disagree with the article.

Well, when someday interest payments on our debt represent 30% of government expenditures, and that interest is being paid to foreigners, then it sure seems to me like it's going to represent a burden on our children. At least it will be on the minority of our little rat ass millenial socialists who'll be paying taxes instead of sucking from the government tit. And that's not out of the realm of possibility. Apply an interest rate of 6.5% to our net national debt of 21 trillion, you'd be at 30% of current government expenditures. Take into account the 6 trillion in additional spending that the Biden administration has proposed this year, 50 or 60 trillion in unfunded Medicare and social security liabilities, and a few tens of trillions to get to "0" carbon emissions, and you're looking at a frightening problem, in terms of where the national debt may be going.

As the writer points out, foreigners are rolling in U.S. government bonds that result from our perennial trade deficits. Or more accurately current account deficits. China, Vietnam and other countries have sent us clothes, toys, televisions and the like, and we've sent them paper money, which they've reinvested in government bonds, and other U.S. assets. To date this hasn't been a problem because the foreigners like owning debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the mightiest nation on planet earth. What might cause that to change? Well, for one thing national debt over 100% of GDP, about where it is now. You could have a run on the dollar. Or maybe we end up like Greece. Or maybe the federal government crowds out the private sector, which is the engine of growth, with the huge government expenditures including interest payments that drive up the national debt.

Yeah, as the writer says, maybe we do want the foreigners to buy our 1.6% yielding 10 year government bonds when inflation is 4%. But who's to say they're going to continue doing that? They're not stupid.
rexdutchman's Avatar
Just more "feel good " nonsense