Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit? (Secular stagnation edition)

Over 50 years ago, James Tobin wrote an article for the New Republic entitled "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit" (1963) that explains why the US federal government almost always needs to run a budget deficit.

The article is a gem. It has everything a good macroeconomics article should have: lots of debunking, all the relevant data, and a good dose of policy recommendations.

Unfortunately, the article is nowhere to be found on the internet. This post seeks to fix that by providing some key excerpts. Another purpose of this post is to use Tobin's analytical framework in that article and apply it to today's economic environment in the US.

Tobin on US Sectoral Financial Balances, circa 1963

The article starts off by describing the fundamental (iron?) law of financial balances:

For every buyer there must be a seller, and for every lender a borrower. One man's expenditure is another's receipt. My debts are your assets, my deficits your surplus. 

If each of us was consistently "neither borrower nor lender," as Polonius advised, no one would ever need to violate the revered wisdom of Mr. Micawber. But if the prudent among us insist on running and lending surpluses, some of the rest of us are willy-nilly going to borrow to finance budget deficits. 

In the United States today one budget that is usually left holding a deficit is that of the federal government. When no one else borrows the surpluses of the thrifty, the Treasury ends up doing so. Since the role of debtor and borrower is thought to be particularly unbecoming to the federal government , the nation feels frustated and guilty. 

Unhappily, crucial decisions of economic policy too often reflect blind reactions to these feelings. The truisms that borrowing is the counterpart of lending and deficits the counterpart of surpluses are overlooked in popular and Congressional discussions of government budgets and taxes. Both guilt feelings and policy are based serious misunderstanding of the origin of federal budget and surpluses. (1963:10)

Tobin then goes on to explain that both the household and financial sectors were running large financial surpluses (worth $20 billion combined in 1963):

American households and financial institutions consistently run financial surpluses. They have money to lend, beyond their own needs to borrow. As a group American households and non-profit institutions have in recent years shown a net financial surplus averaging about $15 billion a year -- that is, households are ready to lend, or to put into equity investments...more than they are ready to borrow. [...] In addition, financial institutions regularly generate a lendable surplus, now of the order of $5 billion a year. For the most part these institutions -- banks, saving and loans associations, insurance companies, pension funds, and like -- are simply intermediaries which borrow and relend the public's money. Their surpluses result from the fact that they earn more their lending operations than they distribute or credit to their depositors, shareowners, and policyholders. [...]

The article goes on to list the sectors of the economy that must borrow the $20 billion in surplus funds available from households and financial institutions:

State and local governments as a group have been averaging $3-4 billion a year of net borrowing...Unincorporated businesses, including farms, absorb another 3-4 billion a year. To the rest of the world we can lend perhaps $2 billion a year. We cannot lend abroad -- net -- more than the surplus of our exports over our imports of goods and services, and some of that surplus we give away in foreign aid. [...]

The remainder -- some $10-12 billion -- must be used either by nonfinancial corporate business or by the federal government. Only if corporations as a group take $10-12 billion of external funds, by borrowing or issuing new equities, can the federal government expect to break even. [...]

Tobin then follows into a discussion about the policy implications of these lending and borrowing dynamics:

The moral is inescapable, if startling. If you would like the federal deficit to be smaller, the deficits of business must be bigger. Would you like the federal government to run a surplus and reduce its debt? Then the business deficits must be big enough to absorb that surplus as well as the funds available from households and financial institutions. 

That does not mean business must run at a loss -- quite the contrary. Sometimes, it is true, unprofitable business are forced to borrow or to spend financial reserves just to stay afloat; this was a major reason for business deficits in the depths of the Great Depression. But normally it is business with good profits and good prospects that borrow and sell new shares of stock, in order to finance expansion and modernization...The incurring of financial deficits by business firms -- or by households and governments for that matter -- does not usually mean that such institutions are living beyond their means and consuming their capital. Financial deficits are typically the means of accumulating nonfinancial assets -- real property in the form of inventories, buildings and equipment. 

When does business run big deficits? When do corporations draw heavily on the capital markets? The record is clear: when business is very good, when sales are pressing hard on capacity, when businessmen see further expansion ahead. Though corporations' internal funds -- depreciation allowances and plowed-back profits -- are large during boom times, their investment programs are even larger. [...]

Recession, idle capacity, unemployment, economic slack -- these are the enemies of the balanced government budget. When the economy is faltering, households have more surpluses available to lend, and business firms are less inclined to borrow them. (1963:11)

The Corporate Sector: From Deficits to Large Surpluses

Of course, at the time Tobin wrote this article, US financial balances weren't exactly the same as they are today. Households as a group were running financial surpluses, the US was mostly a net lendor to the rest of the world, and the corporate sector was a net borrower of funds. Essentially, three things have changed since the mid-1980s with respect to financial balances (see charts below, double-click to enlarge).

First, starting in the mid-1980s, the US has become a net borrower to the rest of the world. Second, since the early 1990s and until the financial crisis, households were net borrowers to other sectors; since 2007, the household sector has returned to its traditional role of being a net lender. Finally, since the 1990s, the corporate sector has been at different times either a net lender or net borrower. However, since 2009, the corporate sector has been running a very large net financial surplus.*

What is the main policy implication to take-away from this state of affairs?

I would venture that the main take-away is that it's unlikely the US federal government will balance its budget any time soon unless households and/or firms start spending again.

In a recent article for an IMF publication entitled "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", economist Robert Solow (MIT) discussed the business sector's net lending position as a possible sign that there may be a "shortage of investment opportunities yielding a rate of return acceptable to investors" or, stated differently, that the "real rate of interest compatible with full utilization is negative, and not consistently achievable", a situation associated with the notion of "secular stagnation":

In the United States, at least, business investment has recovered only partially from the recession, although corporate profits have been very strong. The result, as pointed out in an unpublished paper by Brookings Institution Senior Fellows Martin Baily and Barry Bosworth, is that business saving has exceeded business investment since 2009. The corporate sector, normally a net borrower, became a net lender to the rest of the economy. This does smell rather like a reaction to an expected fall in the rate of return on investment, as the stagnation hypothesis suggests. (see chart below)

Source: Baily and Bosworth, 2013

Secular Stagnation

So what can be done? Paul Samuelson and Anthony Scott asked a similar question in the 1971 Canadian edition of their Economics textbook:

What if our continental economy is in for what Harvard's Alvin Hansen called "secular stagnation"? - which means a long period in which slowing population increase, [...], high corporate saving, the vast piling up of capital goods, and a bias toward capital-saving inventions will imply depressed investment schedules relative to saving schedules? Will not active fiscal policy designed to wipe out such deflationary gaps then result in running a deficit most of the time, leading to a secular growth in the public debt? The modern answer is "Under these conditions, yes; and over the decades the budget should not necessarily be balanced." (1971:436-7)

In my next post, I'll write more about secular stagnation and policy responses to address its possible eventuality.

* This post by Brian Romanchuk contains many useful charts and information on financial balances, as well as discusses secular stagnation from a stock-flow consistent perspective.

Update: I added charts on 2014-10-14, following a comment by Ramanan.

References

Baily, M. N., B. Bosworth, "The United States Economy: Why such a weak recovery", September 11, 2013, Brookings Institution, Washington DC.

Samuelson and Scott, Economics, 3rd Canadian Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1971

Solow, R., "Secular Stagnation: Affluent Economies Stuck in Neutral", in Looming Ahead, Finance and Development, vol. 51 , no.3. September 2014.

Tobin, J., "Deficit, Deficit, Who's got the Deficit?", New Republic, January 19, 1963

Josef Steindl on why austerity fails: A Keynesian-Kaleckian view of stagnation policy and the endogenous budget deficit

This policy of stagnation is likely to continue, since governments are preoccupied with inflation and the public debt. Budget deficits can only disappear if private investment soars again. This is unlikely in view of excess capacity, which would only disappear if there were fiscal expansion. Josef Steindl (1979)

Surely the person who wrote the statement above would have no difficulty explaining what's wrong with the world economy today.

Josef Steindl was a great Keynesian-Kaleckian economist who was a master in the art of national accounts analysis. He was a close associate of Michal Kalecki and authored several articles on the important role of government and private debt in the economy. A quick glance at some of the titles of Steindl's work reveals that his articles on these issues might be of some relevance right now. (For more on Josef Steindl, see Nina Shapiro's excellent article published last year in Monthly Review)

Steindl's work was aimed primarily at uncovering the causes of economic stagnation. According to Steindl's "stagnation theory", one reason why economies trend toward stagnation is due to the behavior of firms when they refuse to reduce prices sufficiently relative to wages during periods of low demand. Low wages relative to prices lead to a fall in demand for goods and services, which in turn compels firms to reduce investment and creates a vicious cycle of falling profits and further cost reduction and reduced investment (resulting in additional unused capacity and unemployment and falling demand).

Steindl also argued that economies stagnate as a result of "stagnation policy", ill-advised government austerity measures intended to reduce or eliminate budget deficits when the economy is weak. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Steindl argued that austerity policies only make matters worse under such circumstances.

Steindl criticized austerity because he understood that the government's financial balance in the modern era was largely an endogenous variable that is determined primarily by changes in the financial position of other sectors of the economy, not by the autonomous policy decisions of the fiscal authorities. It is the influence of government automatic stabilizers and the growing importance of both consumer credit and foreign trade in the modern economy that render the government's financial balance largely endogenous.

The core of Steindl's approach to macroeconomic analysis is intuitive and similar to that of other Keynesian economists, including James Tobin (1963), Robert Eisner (1986) and Wynne Godley, all of whom analyzed the workings of the economy by examining how different sectors of the economy interact with one another. He divided the economy into four sectors (the government, households, businesses and the foreign sector) and examined how money flowed between them.

Steindl's analysis focused on credit flows and on how changes in one sector impacted other sectors. In doing so, Steindl basically applied an elementary principle of accounting to national economies: for every borrower there must be a lender. His method relied heavily on the use of national accounts data to identify trends and changes in financial flows. According to Steindl,

[t]he instrument for analysing the circular relations in an economy are the national accounts. They are a double entry book-keeping for the society, whole groups like households, business or government being represented by separate accounts, as are also activities like investment, consumption and so on. The systematic development of national accounting received its great impetus from Keynes and his theory [...] It offers a convenient way between the sterility of the Walrasian general equilibrium and the limited scope of the partial analysis of Marshall, because it is couched in terms of variables which are statistically measurable and at the same time relevant for national economic policy.(1985)

Steindl understood that, in terms of national accounts, the government deficit finds its counterpart in the surplus of at least one other sector of the economy. Since the surpluses and deficits of the various sectors (government, households, foreign and business) must balance, Steindl recognized that a huge deficit in one sector is always offset by surpluses elsewhere.

The endogenous budget deficit and the fallacy of austerity

Steindl was critical of the ("pre-Keynesian") tendency of many economists to view government budget deficits as an irritant to be eliminated. According to him, deficits in the modern era accomplished the opposite: they helped to boost aggregate demand when the economy is weak.

As mentioned above, Steindl viewed the budget deficit as a passive symptom of a weak economy rather than a problem to be actively addressed: actively trying to eliminating budget deficits would only worsen the situation. Steindl recognized that the size of the budget deficit is largely determined by the spending flows occurring among the other sectors of the economy. In this sense, he viewed the budget deficit largely as an endogenous variable that can't be easily controlled by policymakers. On whether the government has the ability to control the size of the budget deficit by changing its level of expenditures and/or revenue, Steindl argued the following:

While it is possible, in principle, to control the volume of government spending or taxation, the same is not true for the budget deficit. This is determined by the level of GDP resulting from the interplay of lending and borrowing of the various sectors. Let me refer to the well-known identity

( I – S_B) + (X – I) + (G – T) = (S_H – H)

Which says that the budget deficit G – T together with the borrowing of business I – S_B and of the outside world X – M equals the lending of households (i.e., excess of household saving S_H over investment in dwelling houses H) of households S_H – H.

Which of these sectors plays an active role depends on institutional circumstances. The budget deficit, in connection with Keynesian policies, used to be regarded as an active element, incurred on purpose by the government. In present circumstances it is more likely to play a passive role, and to be dominated by the other sectors. This is due to the large share of taxation in an additional GDP, to the strong and quick reactions of consumers to a change in income and to the fact that the foreign balance is more often dominated by outside influences than by domestic policy (by the GDP). In consequence attempts at reducing the budget deficit by retrenchment are mostly doomed to failure. [...]

If the foreign account is balanced, the budget deficit has simply to fill the gap between the household financial saving and the borrowing of business. This will apply to some approximation in countries where the role of the foreign balance is small as compared with that of other sectors. It will fully apply to all countries taken together because they form a closed system. For them the budget deficit given the financial surplus of the households, will be largely settled by the amount of private investment. On the other hand, in countries where the foreign balance can take large values it will, together with private investment, dominate the size (and sign) of the budget deficit. In both cases the budget deficit is predominantly suffered rather than contrived.

The conclusion is not pleasant to contemplate for the treasurer because it means that he can control the deficit, if at all, only by indirect routes: Business investment, and a fortiori the foreign balance, are not easy to control. (1983) (my emphasis)

That said, according to Steindl, there are circumstances in which the budget deficit can be made to decrease. Such favorable conditions are the same as those which lead to growth in private sector investment, namely, a satisfactory utilization of capacity and a growing market. In this regard, Steindl concludes that

[o]n certain conditions it would seem therefore that the best way to combat a deficit is to increase spending. The conditions are that there are unemployed resources, and that the additional spending is not drained away by imports. In these circumstances a policy of "reflation" should have a good chance of succeeding without adding to the budget deficit at all. On the one hand, the built-in stabilisers in modern welfare state are very strong. About half of the additional spending will come back to the treasury. On the other hand we have a modern destabiliser in the form of consumer's credit and durable goods consumption which will prevent the multiplier from being too low. This response of consumption will be very quick in contrast to the response of business investment which may take one or two years at least. In the interval business will merely accumulate additional saving. At the same time the consumers, owing to the expectation of a persistently higher level of income, will increase their spending on durables more than their disposable income has increased; they will therefore, taken all together, dissave (borrow) on balance, at the margin. (1983)

Now, it's important to point out that Steindl wrote the above at a time when growth in consumer credit could function as a way to counter the deflating effect of deficit reduction. Today, this is not the case, as consumers are seeking to repair their balance sheets following the financial crisis. This means that the only solution would be the one articulated in Steindl's quote found at the top of this post.

To conclude, there is growing appreciation these days among economists and commentators of the self-defeating nature of austerity and deficit reduction measures. The difficulties that many European nations are now facing in their quest to bring down deficits is consistent with Steindl's view that government austerity is exactly the wrong strategy for reducing the size of the budget deficit and bringing down debt during a period of slow growth.

PS: I recently stumbled upon this comment by economist Herbert Simon discussing Steindl's brand of economics:

It is pleasant, in an econometric world that has become idolatrous of mathematical "elegance," to encounter an author who thinks that mathematics is a tool - one of several - to aid in carrying out reasoning about economic matters.

References

Eisner, R., How Real is the Federal Budget? (New York: Free Press), 1986

Steindl, J., “The Role of Household Saving in the Modern Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, p.83, March, 1982

Steindl, J., "J.M. Keynes: Society and the Economist", Keynes' Relevance Today (London: MacMillan) 1985.

Steindl, Josef. “The Control of the Economy”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, pp. 235-248, 1983

Shapiro, N., "Keynes, Steindl, and the Critique of Austerity Economics", Monthly Review, Vol 64, No.3, 2012

Simon, H., "Random Processes and the Growth of Firms: A Study of the Pareto Law" by Josef Steindl: Review, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 61, No. 316 (Dec., 1966), pp. 1232-1233

Tobin, J., Deficit, Deficit, Who's Got the Deficit, January 1963. New Republic, 1/19/63, Vol. 148 Issue 3, p10.