If we want public debt to protect citizens today and tomorrow, it behooves us to make sure it cannot be too easily contracted.

Sir, I refer to John Plender’s “The virtues of public debt to protect citizens” FT February 7, 2022.

Sir, as a grandfather I do fear debt burdens we might impose on future generations, but I’m absolutely not an austerity moralist. I know public debt is of great use if used right but also that the capacity to borrow it a reasonable interest rates (or the seigniorage when printing money), is a very valuable strategic sovereign asset, especially when dangers like war or a pandemic appear, and which should therefore not be irresponsibly squandered away.

In 2004, when I just finished my two-year term as an Executive Director of the World Bank, you published a letter in which I wrote “Our bank supervisors in Basel are unwittingly controlling the capital flows in the world. How many Basel propositions will it take before they start realizing the damage, they are doing by favoring so much bank lending to the public sector?”

1988 Basel I’s risk weighted bank capital requirements decreed weights of 0% the government and 100% citizens. It translates into banks being allowed to hold much less capital - being able to leverage much more, with loans to the government than with other assets.

Of course, governments, when their debts are denominated in the currency they issue, are, at least in the short-term and medium term, and in real terms before inflation might kick in, less risky credits. But de facto that also implies bureaucrats/ politicians/apparatchiks know better how to use taxpayer’s credit for which repayment they are not personally responsible for than e.g., small businesses and entrepreneurs. And Sir, that I do not believe, and I hope neither you nor John Plender do that.

Such pro-government biased bank regulations, especially when going hand in hand with generous central bank QE liquidity injections, subsidizes the “risk-free” rate, hiding the real costs of public debt. In crude-truth terms, the difference between the interest rates sovereigns would have to pay on their debts in absence of all above mentioned favors, and the current ultra-low or even negative interests they pay is, de facto, a well camouflaged tax, retained before the holders of those debts could earn it.

But of course, they are beneficiaries of all this distortion, and therefore many are enthusiastically hanging on to MMT’s type Love Potion Number Nine promises.

@PerKurowski

In the Fed, more than Trading Floor experiences, we need Main-Street experiences.

Sir, Mohamed El-Erian writes “Let’s not forget some market participants’ growing interest in modern monetary theory, including the view that persistently low yields enable higher central bank financing of government deficits. But such comfort risks being short-lived.” “Attacks by Trump risk damaging the Fed’s credibility”, April 12.

El-Erian leaves me a bit confused. Does he think the “modern monetary theory” could be any source of comfort even if short lived? I myself consider it a prime example of a dangerous fake theory, probably concocted by redistribution profiteers, and that because it offers such an “Easy Street” has simply gone viral. If we had any respect for Edmund Burke’s holy intergenerational bond, we should all do our utmost to destroy it.

Then El-Erian speaks of the need of the Fed to have a “‘feel’ for markets — that is… officials on the Federal Open Market Committee who have been properly and comprehensively exposed to operational responsibilities on trading floors.”

He is surely right that some of the members of FOMC should have that experience but, even more important than that is the experience from Main-Street, like when entrepreneurs want to access bank credit. 

Had there been just one single of those in the Fed, he would most surely have asked: “Colleagues, why do you set the risk weighted capital requirements higher for that which is perceived as risky, and which precisely therefore have such difficulties getting credit from the banks, and so therefore are quite innocous to our bank system?” 

Had that question been posed with enough firmness in requiring a clear answer, the 2008 crisis would not have happened and the world would definitely look better than now.

@PerKurowski