I don't accept their explanation, but I do like their graph:
Source: BAWERK.NET |
One of the things you can do with total debt is break it into its public and private components. Guess what we're doing today.
I went back to Steve Keen's estimate for US debt that extends back to 1834, converted his monthly data to annual, and compared the public to private:
Graph #2: Public (blue) and Private (red) Debt relative to GDP, 1834-2011 |
This time around, though, the trend line doesn't yet show private debt falling. Maybe if I added in the years after 2011 we would see it. But even if that's true there's a long way to go, if the plan is for private to fall and public to rise until they meet.
In the meanwhile, consider what these two graphs tell us. At the end of the scale where we are not reading much into the graphs, we can say
1. There is an inverse relation between "total debt to GDP" and GDP growth, and
2. There is a repeating pattern in the relation between the public and private components of total debt,
I'm gonna go now and think about that for a while.
//
The Excel file
//
EDIT 18 May 2017
Keen and Bawerk both hint at the source of data for the early years' debt. Another hint may be found below Figure 7 in Thomas Philippon's Has the U.S. Finance Industry Become Less Efficient? Philippon writes:
Fitted Series uses assets on balance sheets of financial firms to predict total debt. Sources are Historical Statistics of the United States and Flow of Funds.
"Fitted series" is a reference to the data which extends his debt-to-GDP numbers before 1929, back to the 1870s.
For Figure 7 see my Finding Philippon's FinEff.pdf or the PDF.
1 comment:
Patrizio LainĂ :
"We can clearly observe that private and public debt tend to behave in the opposite directions. Put differently, when the growth rate of private debt slows down, the growth rate of public debt tends to accelerate – and vice versa."
Post a Comment