The Debt Crisis

24 February 2016

国际债务,即通常相当贫穷的国家欠其他国家和银行的债务,正在导致灾难。大约有200万亿美元的债务,24个国家因为无法偿还债务而陷入危机。随着债务国征税和削减福利,债务负担落在穷人和被剥夺权利的人身上。我们谈论的是在世界各地发生的大规模人类悲剧。

Debt seems a very useful institution, and if usurious practices are under control, basically just. You have a debtor, who borrows money and promises to repay it with interest. You have a creditor, who loans the money, and expects to get repaid with interest. As long as everyone is a reasonably rational agent --- no children or crazy people involved --- it seems a straightforward, fair, and extremely useful human institution. It allowed me to buy a house; it allows students from backwards countries like America to get a college education.

But this model doesn’t scale up to cases in which nations and other institutions are the lenders and borrowers. The model assumes that the same agent takes out the loan and then later has to repay it or incur the consequences. That’s a key part of the fairness of the institution of debt∂. But that’s not what happens when countries take out loans.

These debts can last for a long time. One group of leaders may negotiate the loan, and use the money to make themselves popular, by using the money to provide benefits to their constituents. Another group is faced with paying it off, years or even generations later, by taxing and reducing benefits for another group of constituents.

We can call the nation “agent” doesn’t change the facts. Loans are negotiated by people, and it’s people that have make the painful decision to repay them or not. That’s where the real agency lies, whatever we call “the agent. And there is a difference between expecting to repay a loanyourself, and expecting someone down the line, who happens to be a part of the same institution or nation as you are, to pay it.

When people make decisions to lend or borrow on behalf of institutions, you get two sets of costs and benefits --- on both sides of the deal. A bank’s agent may get short term benefits for being the one who negotiates the loan, independently of whether in the longer term the loan gets paid off.

The model of a just loan agreement will work if everyone acts rationally relative to the costs and benefits to the whole group to institution represents, rather than their own. But that doesn’t always happen. It didn’t happen on Wall Street. Big banks made it advantageous to their broker to make risky gambles, which then came back to haunt the banks --- at least until we taxpayers bailed them out.

So we need a new model of just loans for nations. That’s above my paygrade to figure out. But listen to the show this week, and maybe Ken and I and our guest, UMass economistJulie Nelson,将会提出一个解决方案。


Photo byTimothy EberlyonUnsplash

Comments(4)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Thursday, February 25, 2016 -- 4:00 PM

Well, I don't want to sound

好吧,我不想听起来像一些来自极端保守的美国中产阶级的狂热信徒,但是,回头看看有关宗教和寻找物质世界意义的帖子,我感到足够肯定地说:高利贷仍然是高利贷,即使它像往常一样被批准了。任何时候,一种做法成为并保持合法,特别是涉及到金钱交换的时候,迟早有人会滥用这种做法和特权。在银行业,这是一个令人痛苦的事实,在那里,“太大而不能倒”的格言使2008年底爆发的经济混乱长期存在。各种类型的保险也普遍存在,我以前曾将其定性为合法的勒索。人类有一种不惜任何代价想要得到一切的倾向,这是一种性格缺陷,在声名显赫的西方国家已经流行起来,并正在世界其他地方迅速蔓延。说来可悲,但所有这些都支持了我的观点,即无论好坏,我们都得到了我们应得的,也就是说,我们既繁荣,又遭受历史的影响。因为我们把自己置于危险之中,用不受约束的繁荣换取谨慎的稳定和长期的可持续性,灯神已经从瓶子里出来了,我们没有办法把他放回去。如果凯恩斯还没有在坟墓里辗转难眠,那他当然应该如此。
Neuman.

Gary M Washburn's picture

Gary M Washburn

Friday, February 26, 2016 -- 4:00 PM

Let's not get into "moral

我们不要陷入“道德风险”!这是一种片面的、狡诈的“原则”。无论如何,大多数私人贷款都是由抵押品或一些保险计划担保的,所以放贷机构在强调这一点上是反常的。但我认为主题是公共借贷。想想希腊或瑙鲁,而不是信用卡债务。希腊人和罗马人鄙视高利贷,因为他们认为货币是稳定的,认为放贷会摧毁贵族,把“不光彩的人”提升到他们的社会地位。它还带有征税的味道,这是任何政府都有理由嫉妒的。但这才是真正的问题,不是吗?掠夺性借贷难道不是确立了一种主权,不仅要求偿还,还要求控制公共政策吗?在冷战期间,有很多贷款给那些承诺反对对方的腐败政权。 Today most of these countries are coming to their senses, though some exceptions may be notable. But the problem today is more a matter of lenders insinuating themselves into decisions that are properly the prerogative of the people of the borrowing nation, and their leaders, not the bankers they owe money to. Speaking to the philosophy of it, the quantification of value is a contradiction in terms.

Pedestrian's picture

Pedestrian

Sunday, April 3, 2016 -- 5:00 PM

Actually I have to agree with

Actually I have to agree with our modern financial philosophers, without debt...there is no money. Debt within the micro economic sphere is most often a tool and short term, i.e., it's paid off. However, debt at the macroeconomic level partially defines moral hazard. It is patently immoral for a country's leaders to borrow money and put generations of his country's population often into perpetual debt. In fact, debt has become the chains that binds us all, as far too many economies have become cost-of-capital sensitive, leading [its] performance to become directly proportional to and dependent upon, a customer's ability to borrow the money.The debt crisis will lead to continued world recession and if not reduced...world depression.



Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, October 14, 2018 -- 12:47 PM

Apparently, the world was not

Apparently, the world was not facing up to its debt crisis in 2016 (presumably, said debt crisis remains and is still a crisis---unless someone has found a solution and has not bothered to tell anyone). On the other hand, other things equal (see: John Rawls), can it be that, inasmuch as most of the world is in debt, there really is no crisis at all? What WOULD it mean if the entire world debt were never repaid? Would the world become one gigantic Lehman Brothers-style bankruptcy? Or, worse(?), would we have world war of some kind or other? I attained little background in economics while in school, so cannot fathom the debt thing on a world scale. Do any Economists KNOW what this means, or are they just playing with smoke and mirrors? Just asking...