The national debt of the federal government is $16.5 trillion, $52,317.30 for every individual in the United States. The only sane and moral stance is to repudiate it entirely.
“Repudiation” is not a word used by the political mainstream. Part of the reason is who holds the debt. China is often castigated as the largest holder, but it actually accounts for less than 8% of the money America has borrowed. On Sept. 4, Fox News reported, “Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors, and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel.”
The United States is unlikely to repudiate money “owed” to itself. Nor will politicians voluntarily commit career suicide by reneging on promises to grandmas, civil servants, and veterans. That leaves few choices.
On Dec. 12, the Federal Reserve issued a press release. It will pump $45 billion into the economy every month until unemployment falls below 6.5%, so long as inflation is below 2.5%. The new money will buy Treasury bonds. The Fed also renewed its current commitment to buy approximately $40 billion of mortgage bonds every month.
As long as government refuses to shrink, there is no other choice but to run the printing press until it is white-hot. Even hiking taxes to a confiscatory level is not likely to meet government expenditures and would probably cause social unrest.
In early 2012, the national debt exceeded America’s annual productivity (as defined by the GDP). In other words, it is now larger than the entire economy.
The good news is that the time is fast coming when the federal government will be forced to cut back, whether it wants to or not. Economist Michael Suede described two events that could spark a drastic reduction.
First, “If the Fed were to accelerate [even further] the amount of Treasury and mortgage bonds it is buying, the value of the U.S. dollar may fall faster than the interest being earned by the foreign holders of our debt.” If so, then foreign holders would sell their debt holdings, and this could cause a run on U.S. bonds. In turn, the value of the American dollar would be gutted.
Or inflation could rise rapidly, as it did in the 1980s. Suede speculated, “Should this occur, the Fed is not in a position to be able to reduce the money supply without driving interest rates up.”
Even a 1% rate rise would add $160 billion in interest to the $16 trillion debt. He concludes that a rise of several points “would completely demolish the state.” I expect it would survive, but the prospect of destruction may well be the only circumstance under which the federal government would agree to roll back.
The bad news is that many innocent people will be harmed by the fiscal and social fallout of whatever happens with the national debt. Repudiation would minimize that harm. And the sooner it happens, the better.
The Case for Repudiation
Let’s leave aside the scheme to mint trillion-dollar platinum coins — which is a gimmick that solves nothing. There are three possible ways to address the national debt. The first is to continue borrowing and paying interest indefinitely. The second is to repudiate the debt. The third is to pay it off.
Realistically, no one expects to pay off the national debt; it is simply too massive. Moreover, there is no political will to do so.
Instead, the government wants to borrow and pay interest indefinitely at taxpayers’ expense. In essence, the taxpayer acts as the government’s guarantor so that the interest and principal will be paid to the “investors.” Just one problem with the plan is that it is a type of Ponzi scheme. To pay off existing investors, the government needs to bring in an ever-increasing flood of taxpayers at the base. It is now so desperate for taxpayers that it is looting future generations by burdening them with crushing debt.
This raises a moral objection. Children in the shadow of the national debt have done nothing to deserve being there. They didn’t buy bonds, suck up entitlements, or vote anyone into office, yet are now economic hostages to a national debt clock.
Even Americans who believe in some level of mandatory taxation should be outraged. The ruling elites have created an inevitable economic catastrophe so that they can fund their political ambitions, line their pockets, and pay off crony capitalists. Nothing, not even stealing the future from children, has made them pause.
The politicians and bureaucrats are snatching the bread out of children’s mouths. Full repudiation is the only way to provide fairness to future generations.
But what of the older generations who “depend” on receiving the interest and principal, or who “need” the entitlements funded by borrowing and taxation? There is no sugarcoating the short-term prospect. There will be immense pain, and it will be terrible to watch. But that pain is inevitable. Entitlements such as Social Security will implode, even if repudiation does not occur.
The entitlements may collapse due to their own Ponzi scheme nature, from the rise of interest rates on the national debt, or from another dynamic. The best outcome is to end the ongoing injustice as soon as possible. To continue an injustice because some people depend upon the proceeds is to enshrine it in perpetuity — or, at least, until it cannot stagger forward one more step.
Repudiation is also one of America’s best chances to reestablish a free and healthy economy. And it means weaning people away from their dependence on the state, especially on entitlements.
But can’t the bad effects be mitigated? For instance, could selling federal property to private buyers buy Social Security some transition time? In his essay “The Trillion-Dollar Question: Should the National Debt Be Repudiated?” historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel addresses this issue. “First, there is a practical difficulty with this option,” he states.
“Suppose the sale of government assets does not yield sufficient funds to cover the entire debt? Then do you use taxation to repay the remainder, or do you permit partial repudiation? If you’re willing to allow partial repudiation, on what grounds can you object to total repudiation?”
Then Hummel raises a compelling point. “The government is an institution that has both voluntary and involuntary relationships with its citizens.” In the involuntary relationships, the government has robbed and brutalized people through taxation, regulation, and other abuses. Why should the people who voluntarily bought government debt be first in line for money that results from the sale of federal property?
Surely, the state’s victims have a better claim to restitution than people who had a choice and chose the risk of investing in government. The involuntary victims would include people who were forced to pay into entitlements such as Social Security. Thus, the elderly on a pension would deserve a lump-sum payout, plus interest for money previously stolen by government.
The Historical Case for Repudiation
The iconic Austrian economist Murray Rothbard was fond of pointing out that American governments have a long history of repudiating debt. In his book A History of Money and Banking in the United States, Rothbard described the repudiations that followed the fiscal crises of 1837 and 1839.
By 1847, four Western and Southern states (Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida) had repudiated all or part of their debts. Six other states (Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania) had defaulted from three-six years before resuming payment.Elsewhere, Rothbard highlighted a basic principle underlying the wisdom of repudiation, asking “Why should more private capital be poured down government ratholes?”
Hummel provides historical data that the economic consequences might not always be as damaging as the panic-mongers claim. He wrote of the repudiations in the 1840s brought on by costly state investments in building canals:
“Rather than having disastrous consequences, this repudiation brought on a widening circle of benefits. States became very wary of investing money in internal improvements or in anything else, while investors became very cautious about loaning money to the states.”
One consequence is that when a spree of railroad building hit America,
“the states not only left the development and expansion of the railroad network to the market, but also, during this period, they finally threw off their mercantilist and interventionist heritage and, for the first time, instituted a reign of near laissez faire at the state level. Not surprisingly, the period prior to the Civil War witnessed some of the most rapid economic growth in the nation’s history.”
The national debt will only become worse and far more destructive with time. It cannot be paid off. It cannot continue indefinitely. It will end, and badly.
Those who call for the madness to cease by embracing repudiation are not villains who hate grandmothers. The villains are the ruling elite, who cry out insatiably, “More, more, more money!” It is someone else’s money they are spending; it is your money and that of your children. The only thing left to say is no.
[A version of this piece was originally published at the Future of Freedom Foundation]
Original article posted on Laissez-Faire Today
Wendy McElroy is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute. Her books include the Independent Institute volumes, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century, and The Art of Being Free.
A contributor to numerous books, Ms. McElroy was Series Editor for Knowledge Products' audio-tape series, The World of Philosophy, The World's Political Hot Spots, The United States at War, and The United States Constitution, and she authored the scripts for Vindication of the Rights of Woman, The Liberator, Civil Disobedience, and Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in the Audio Classics Series. Her scripts have been narrated by George C. Scott, Harry Reasoner and Walter Cronkite. She is a contributing editor to the magazines, the Freeman, Free Inquiry, and Liberty, and the author of numerous articles in The Independent Review, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Literature of Liberty, National Review, Reason, SpinTech, Freedom Daily, Maire Claire, Penthouse, and Toronto Globe and Mail.
I can solve your budget and debt problems in 3 moves.n1. Scale down the military to what is necessary ie a skeleton force, but keeping the nuclear arsenal.n2. Go on a national diet, rewarding savers with security and dividends.n3. Let the rest of the world grow for a while without trying to blow it up.
These op-ed pieces are interesting, but I think DR readers should focus on the question: what is the most likely course of events? Of course, I can’t predict the future. still, if you look at history, and perhaps draw analogies from other human problems, we can get an insight? For example, consider the addiction analogy. I, and millions of others, have had some first-hand experience with that: drugs or alcohol (which is a drug, medically speaking): some people can avoid them completely, some can use them in moderation with no harmful effect (good luck trying that with cocaine! … but I digress…), and a small minority, predictably end up in disaster. Applying the analogy to funny money, the script is like this: a nation never has the will to magically say “aw, heck, let’s go back to sound money.” Oh no. No one reforms until the pain of current behavior is too much to bear. We are not at that stage yet. A day may come when our present fiat system is scrapped. What will replace it? I don’t know. My pessimist (realist?) money is on an English-speaking version of the Third Reich. But who knows, maybe a republic with gold coins again. But the present system will continue until it dies an inevitable death.
Ben, here is a possible option: Read the writings of EC Riegel.
Pingback: candy crush
Pingback: 360 Celsius your lifestyle magazine
Pingback: resource stock speculation
Pingback: navigate to these guys
Pingback: snake skin bags
Pingback: chicago limo rental
Pingback: vapor crossbow
Pingback: Find Out More
Pingback: go on this url if you are looking for a roulette system that is effective
Pingback: 2013 fall shoes
Pingback: Contemporary Art For Sale
Pingback: point microsoft gratuit
Pingback: Make A Million Dollars
Pingback: découvrez ici
Pingback: buy instagram followers
Pingback: How to treat periodontal disease
Pingback: Luxury Office Landscaping Bedfordshire UK
Pingback: cheap loans
Pingback: Recomendado para leer
Pingback: Graphic Designer Adam
Pingback: Web Hosting Review
Pingback: SEO Hosting Plan
Pingback: compra de chatarra
Pingback: buy instagram likes
Pingback: Polished Concrete Floors Sheffield
Pingback: jual suplemen untuk fitness
Pingback: Awesome Organic Gardening Secrets
Pingback: diaz acne
Pingback: hay day cheats
Since the invention of the "shareholder rights plan" (i.e. the "poison pill"), most companies are relatively immune to hostile takeovers. But according to Dave Gonigam that could all change thanks to one activist investor. And if you're savvy enough, you may just be able to follow his lead for big gains. Read on...
As the markets have continued to rally over the last several years, more and more people have touted the problem of "income inequality" in the US. But as Jim Mosquera explains, this perceived problem will likely sort itself out with the arrival of one specific market event. Read on...
Almost one year ago, substation telephone cables were maliciously cut in San Jose, CA. In 20 minutes, 17 transformers were knocked out. A year on, similar threats have cropped up. Today, Addison Wiggin explains why these threats are so serious for the safety of the global economy... and shows you one way to play it...
The big problem with declaring bubbles is that it really does you no good. Unless you're attempting to measure and time market moves, you're also blowing hot air. But if you keep watch for negative divergences, you have a much better shot at figuring out big market moves than the latest bubble-busters. Greg Guenthner explains...
Too often investments are made in a vacuum. But as Byron King demonstrates, the global economic crash... easy money... and technological advancements are all interdependent. In particular, that connection has changed the investment calculus in the resource market. Read on to learn how...
Oil isn't the only resource to experience "peaks." Due to a major contraction in gold exploration over the past few years, the mining sector is no longer mining gold at its replacement rate. In other words, the amount of gold above ground is running out. And according to Henry Bonner, it will get worse before it gets better...