Is federal debt really nothing more than money ‘we owe to ourselves’? No. It frays the political fabric, and we are feeling its effects already.
By Arnold Kling
“The debt we create is basically money we owe to
ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of
resources,” Paul Krugman wrote recently in “Debt
Is (Mostly) Money We Owe to Ourselves.”
“That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems
— it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not
the burden of debt as is commonly understood.... talking about leaving a burden
to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is
promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a
very different kettle of fish,” he added.
If this little lullaby (“the debt is something we owe
to ourselves”) helps you sleep, then you may be in for a rude awakening.
Government debt frays the political fabric, and we are feeling its effects
already.
Think of a simple economy, where the only product is
corn. There is no foreign sector, and there are no financial claims more
complicated than IOUs.
There are two types of people in our economy: Lenders
and Spenders. Sammy Spender and Lois Lender each grow two bushels of corn per
year. However, Sammy wants to eat three bushels this year. There are three ways
that this can happen.
Private loan: In a purely
private transaction, Sammy borrows one bushel of corn from Lois this year and
pays her back one bushel of corn next year.
One-time redistribution: The government
redistributes corn by taxing one bushel of corn away from Lois and giving it to
Sammy.
Government borrowing: The government
borrows one bushel of corn from Lois this year and gives it to Sammy. It then
pays Lois back out of taxes next year.