Current low interest rates on sovereign debt could, in hindsight, be the highest real rates ever.

Sir, Kenneth Rogoff writes that “with hindsight, yes, the UK could have borrowed more –but we do not have hindsight when decisions are taken”, "Britain should not take its credit status for granted” October 3.

The underlying assumption of that is that current interest rates on much public debt, not only in UK, are very low… and that, in future hindsight, might not be true.

The risk weighted capital requirements for banks favor immensely bank lending to the “infallible sovereign” (and the AAAristocracy), in detriment of the access to bank credit of “The Risky”, the medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and startups.

And so the cost of public debt which is currently not recorded anywhere, are the most certainly monstrous opportunity costs derived from the distortions in the allocation of bank credit this regulation produces. In fact, it is akin to taking the spark-plug out of the real economy. Yes, our economies might be moving, but perhaps that is only because they are going downhill.

Since when can a mistake in a paper be used as evidence of an opposite conclusion?

Sir, Robin Harding reports “Reinhart and Rogoff publish errata to paper on public debt and growth”. May 9. In it Harding writes that the 2010 paper on public debt and growth, by pointing out a significant effect on growth when public debt reached 90 percent of GDP, was widely cited as an argument for fiscal austerity. Since the paper was thought to be correct, I guess that was a quite reasonable thing to do.

What I cannot lay my hands around though is how the existence of a mistake in the paper can suddenly be turned into evidence which supports the opposite conclusion. I say this because I have lately read more opinions advancing that the 90 percent is no limit, than what I ever read about the original paper stating it was.

That said, since all this type of debt-sustainability discussions often sound to me like a torturer debating how much torture his victim can take before fainting… I will, without any religious fervor invested in it, keep on opining that public debt at 90 percent of GDP is high… although that will of course also have to do with who are the holders of that debt, nationals or foreigners, friends or foes.

And also, if the 90 percent to GDP has been reached by incurring in distortions, like requiring banks to have more capital when lending to the citizens than when lending to the government, then my previous “high” becomes a “VERY HIGH”

Distortion is not free, current low public interest rates are an illusion and could be the highest real rates ever

Sir, during the two years I had the fortune to have a voice as an Executive Director at the World Bank, 2002-2004, there were a lot of discussions on the issue of debt sustainability for poor developing countries. I hated those. They always sounded like a torturer calculating how much he could go on before his victim fainted. No doubt much of the ongoing, and I would have to say much less civilized debate between the austerians and the profligarians, reminds me of that.

And I also remember when some years ago some environmental austerians fouled up some research, which was immediately interpreted as a great go ahead by the environmental profligarians.

I do pity Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, for probably having been too interpreted by vested interests, hand having to end up in the eye of the current storm on debt. They do a good job of fixing their positions in “Austerity is not the only answer to a debt problem” May 2. Of course it is not a question of either or… and it is not even necessary for them to call on Keynes to testify in their defense.

That said, what they entirely miss, probably because it has never been an area of research or concern to them, is how current bank regulations, which so immensely favor sovereign borrowings, leads to the illusion of low rates.

Just one example: Banks in Europe lending to Germany do not need to hold any capital, something which implies an authorized infinite leverage of their equity. But, if they lend to a German small or medium business or entrepreneur, then they need to hold 8 percent in capital and can only leverage the risk-adjusted returns of that loan on their equity 12.5 times to 1. 

Anyone who does not understand that translates into a direct subsidy of Germany´s borrowing rate, paid by taxing the more “risky” and the real economy losing out of opportunities, has little idea about how banking and capitalism work. 

If some real game changing opportunities are thereby lost by Germany, it could in fact currently, and quiet unwittingly, be paying they highest interest rates ever on their public borrowings.

Europe what you really need is much less risk-taking austerity

Sir, Philip Stephens refers to the “high public debt suffocates growth” vs. “it is low growth that drives up debt” controversy. It all sounds so Lilliput vs. Blefuscu to me, “The New Deal for Europe: more reform, less austerity” April 26.

What currently suffocates the growth of the real economy are those crazy capital requirements for banks that create enormous incentives for banks to shun all what is officially perceived as “risky” like small and medium businesses and entrepreneurs, and to earn all their return on equity by lending to what is perceived as “absolutely infallible”. And, since in Europe the banks have normally been more in charge of financing the risky than those in the US, where more alternative sources of funds exists, Europe suffers the most.

Stephen refers to the existence of “ossified labour markets that lock out young people and discourage investments and innovations”, and he is right of course, but, when compared to bank regulations which lock out the “risky”-risk-takers in the real economy, their effects are sort of minor.

When banks have effectively been castrated, and are singing in falsetto, even low public debt does not help growth and, since currently the lowest capital requirements for the banks apply when these lend to the public sector, higher public debt level will result. It suffices to read Martin Wolf’s almost monothematic preaching for the public sector to take advantage of low interest rates, so as to borrow and take on large infrastructure projects, without understanding that those low rates are just a mirage, caused by regulatory subsidies paid for by the many extremely onerous missed opportunities in the real economy.

Europe, please inform your overly timid and dumb bank regulators that no major bank crisis ever has resulted from excessive bank exposure to the “risky”, they have all resulted from major exposures to what was dangerously perceived as “absolutely safe”.

Martin Wolf, monetary profligacy should not be an article of faith either

Sir, Martin Wolf, insists in that because those “for room for maneuver, such as the US and even the UK” because they did not create stimulate enough the economy the “recovery has been even weaker and so the long run cost of the recession far greater than was necessary”, “Austerity loses an article of faith” April 24.

And to back up his arguments Wolf uses foremost the fact that UK, after reaching a net public debt of 240 per cent of gross domestic debt level, something that most probably most public sector lenders were blissfully unaware of, managed to work down the debt load, thanks to the industrial revolution.

Mr. Martin Wolf, let me just ask you the following four questions:

Where is today’s industrial revolution? 

Do you really think that back then the UK had regulators who gave banks extraordinary incentives to avoid taking risks? No matter what Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff hold, in this sense, this time is indeed different.

What soaring private and public debt which led to the crisis was not the direct result of minuscule capital requirements for the banks required for the “absolutely safe”?

Finally what are we supposed to recover to, to the skewed economy we had before? Just so that house prices go up and banks earn 30 percent on their equity?

In October 2009, Martin Wolf kindly published in his Economist Forum my “Free us from imprudent risk-aversion” and I still hold, more than ever that it contains the explanation for what brought us the current crisis and what stops us from getting out of it.

Before we correct the incredibly dumb regulatory bias against risk-taking, any stimulus will just eat up any scarce stimulus space we have, for absolutely no good reason at all. 

Would the US not still be treading water had their QE’s been twice as large?

Again, and as I read Mr. Wolf’s arguments, to me, day by day he is becoming, more and more, a worthy representative of those baby-boomers with an “après mois le deluge” philosophy. As a grandfather, I should try to stop him.

The wrong lessons learned.

Sir Martin Wolf ends his review of Carmen Reinhart’s and Kenneth Rogoff’s book “This time is different” with “Crisis will always be with us. But maybe this realization will reduce their frequency”, September 28.

Why is that Mr. Wolf? That seems to be the wrong lessons learned. I would hope this realization would lead us in a complete different direction of where the Basel Committee is taking us, and instead make us increase their frequency so as to try to reduce their magnitude.

We might need an international regulator, but we humans do not have the people for that.

Sir Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff declare that “We need an international regulator”, November 19. Their fundamental reason for it is that “finding ways to insulate financial regulators from political meddling is critical to creating a more robust global financial system in the future.” I vehemently disagree.

The current crisis is a direct result of the financial regulators having insulating themselves in the Basel Committee, the Financial Stability Forum and the Central Banker’s club house, the International Monetary Fund, where they in splendid isolation among friends concocted ideas like the minimum capital requirements for banks based on vaguely defined risks, and empowered the credit rating agencies to serve as the guiding stars for the capitals of the world. What more political independency could they have wished for? When were the financial regulators stopped by the politicians from stopping this crisis?

Someone recently reminded me that F.A. Hayek wrote that "the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design", and which tells us that even if we could have much need for an international regulator, we humans simply do not possess the people capable of being international regulators; and ignoring this would only set us up to much worse systemic risks.

Contrary to what Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff say I would welcome some more political meddling in our current bank regulations so as to ascertain that our financial system, or at least our commercial banks, have a worthier purpose than not falling into default, which is the only thing that our regulators worry about. What about banks risking it more to provide us with decent jobs… instead of playing it safe using the AAA ratings the regulators instructed them to use?