The current low interest rates on public debt are completely artificial.

Sir, again, for the umpteenth time, Martin Wolf finds it “hard to understand the obsession with limiting public debt when it is quite as cheap as it is today” “Negative rates are a symptom of our ills” April 13.

But again he refuses to delve into why public debt is “as cheap as it is today”. Where would interest rates on public debt be without central banks buying public debt; or without regulators allowing banks to hold much less capital against the debt of the monarch, than against all other debts?

Wolf also brings up a frequent ritornello of his, namely that “The world economy is suffering from a glut of savings relative to investment opportunities.” But he does not ask himself where that saving glut could be had it not been for QEs.

Wolf informs us that higher interest rates, “would force borrowers into bankruptcy”. Yes but is that not a natural and necessary element of how savings glut are reduced? In a letter titled “Long-term benefits of a hard landing” that FT published in 2006, I wrote: “the hard truth… gradualism could create the most accumulated pain… [do not] ignore the value of pruning or even, when urgently needed, of a timely amputation.”

Wolf’s standard suggestion for how to eliminate the savings glut is having government investing in infrastructure. Nothing’s wrong with that, good infrastructure is always useful, though any waste building it, is just that, waste.

But building bridges does not mean these will be used. And how are we to make sure we get the new investments that will use the infrastructure built, with risk weighted capital requirements that make banks stay away from what perceived as risky? What we now have is a banking system fully dedicated to solely financing what is perceived, decreed or concocted as safe.

For a government to take on public debt should be a delicate matter, knowing that it is our children and grandchildren who will have to service that debt. To do so based on some artificial current low rates is not something I can support.

PS. With a $2 per gallon gas tax the US could pay each American citizen about $900 per year. Good for the fight against climate change and inequality, and fairly decent for the economy. That would be a good start for a Universal Basic Income scheme, which I much prefer over Helicopter money, first because it is duly funded, and second since I do not fully trust the helicopter pilots  J     

@PerKurowski ©

The most important investors for the economy of tomorrow, are those who act on its margin, like SMEs and entrepreneurs.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “Because corporations are responsible for such a large share of investment, they are also, in aggregate, the largest users of available savings”. And he lashes out at corporations for not doing enough investments. “The corporate contribution to the savings glut” November 18.

Yes, corporations are the largest users of available savings, but that does not mean they are those who move the investments on the margin. Those most important, on the margin investors, are those tough risky risk-takers we need to get going when the going gets tough. And those are the ones who have their fair access to bank credit blocked by the credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks… since banks will always preferentially access to assets against which it has to put the least of its own equity for… especially in times of scarce regulatory bank capital.

I know that Martin Wolf does not understand or does not want to admit the distortions in the allocation of bank credit that credit-risk weighting regulation does, but that does not make it one iota less distortive.

PS. Amazing. Martin Wolf even suggests we should think about taxing retained earnings to force corporations to invest and not of getting rid of those regulations that block the access to bank credit for investments. Much of that corporate cash is in banks and in the unproductive "safe havens"

@PerKurowski ©

Aren’t we always in the intersection of autonomous and accommodating flows?

Sir, Tony Thirlwall in “US consumers are the global gluttons” June 15, makes a reference to Nobel Prize winning James Meade’s differentiation between “autonomous” and “accommodating” flows while trying to sort out the “savings glut” or “money glut” discussions initiated by Martin Wolf’s “Who are the villains and the victims of global capital flows?” June 13. I am not sure how much this really helps, as we are always in the intersection of the autonomous and the accommodating flows, without being much wiser for that.

The explanation lies also in the absence of the normal “shavings”

Sir, I would absolutely side with Martin Wolf when he favours the “saving glut” (the US as a helpful consumer bumper) over the “money glut” (the US as an abusive imperial money printer) in “Who are the villains and the victims of global capital flows” June 12, as the main explaining factor for the compression of risk spreads and financing of the robust growth of US consumption. 

Having said that I would like to remind that there are many more characters to this story. Over the last decade, much the result of the Basel regulators’ efforts to drive out banking risks from banking, many of the financial risks have gone into hiding, frequently with the help of derivatives and credit rating agencies, and the world has therefore not suffered as many of the financial shavings that crisis and bankruptcies traditionally produce. 

You might mention Enron and the likes but the fact is they add up to almost nothing when compared to the tsunami dimensions of the flows. At the end of the day we will perhaps find much of the global capital flows evaporate into hot air when risks begin to show their face again and as perhaps has already started with the subprime mortgages in the US.

PS. Martin Wolf's http://blogs.ft.com/wolfforum/2007/06/villains_and_vi.html#comments does not any longer appear. I wonder why.