In 2004, everyone started talking about global imbalances. With America’s current-account deficit at an alarming 5.3% of GDP, it was feared that America’s net foreign-debt-to-GDP ratio would climb to the point that foreign investors would demand a higher risk premium on dollar-denominated assets. The specter of a “sudden stop,” a dollar crash, and an international payment crisis seemed to be stalking the global economy.
None of this has happened. Instead, America’s current-account deficit shrank, averaging 2.7% from 2009 to 2021. More impressive, its investment income remained positive, despite its massive net debt, meaning that debt-servicing was never a problem for the US government. And yet, America’s external sustainability is hardly a foregone conclusion.
America’s current-account deficit has grown significantly since 2020, reaching 3.6% of GDP last year – its highest level since 2008. At the same time, its net foreign debt reached a staggering $18 trillion, or 78% of GDP. And fast-rising inflation has prompted the US Federal Reserve to begin raising interest rates and reducing its holdings of Treasury securities – moves that are likely to impede growth and increase the government’s borrowing costs.
If America’s net foreign-debt burden grows too large, rolling over its liabilities will be increasingly difficult. Foreign investors could become suspicious that the US will choose to inflate away its debts, and start demanding a higher interest rate on dollar-denominated financial assets – or even stop buying them altogether. In other words, if the US fails to stabilise its foreign-debt position at a reasonable level, the external-sustainability question will return.
How much danger are the US and the global economy facing? To answer that question, we must consider the four variables on which external sustainability depends: the gap between private saving and private investment, the size of the budget deficit, investment-income levels, and the rate of GDP growth.
Beginning in the 1950s, private saving and investment were relatively balanced in the US. That changed after the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, with private actors saving more than they invested – an average difference of around $1 trillion per year – from 2009 until 2020.
This “savings glut” is largely a result of fast-growing income and wealth inequality. When the Fed’s massive post-crisis quantitative-easing program drove up asset prices, the wealthy – people who own shares and properties – reaped the rewards. This group has a much higher propensity to save than lower-income households.
The savings glut might be set to decline. In the first quarter of 2022, US gross private saving and gross private domestic investment were up by 7.2 percentage points and 25 percentage points, respectively, compared with the same quarter in 2020, meaning that the gap between saving and investment has narrowed. In the relatively near term, savings might continue to decline, to the point that they exceed investment by less than 2% of GDP.
America’s budget deficit, by contrast, is set to keep growing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit-to-GDP ratio averaged 3.5% annually over the last 50 years, but 5.7% from 2009 to 2019. While it should stand at 3.9% this year, according to the CBO, it is on track to reach 6.1% in 2032. It is thus safe to assume that America’s budget deficit will average 5% of GDP annually over the next decade.
When it comes to investment income, too, the US might be on a less favourable path. So far, investment income has always been positive, despite America’s status as the world’s largest debtor country (by far). This reflects several factors, especially the high returns reaped on outward foreign direct investment (on the asset side of the international investment position) and large amounts of low-cost foreign investment in US Treasuries and bonds (on the liability side).
Based on its past record, one can assume that America’s investment income accounts for about 1% of GDP. But, in recent months, the US has done significant damage to its own financial credibility. This will probably contribute to a decline in America’s investment income.
Finally, there is economic growth – yet another area where the US might struggle in the near future. It can be assumed that annual US growth will average about 2% over the next decade. Together with the other assumptions listed above, that would mean that America’s foreign-debt burden could well reach 100% of GDP in the coming years.
Geopolitics might compound the challenges ahead. The US has avoided a balance-of-payments and dollar crisis in the past largely because Asian central banks and oil-exporting countries have tirelessly purchased US government bonds and Treasury bills. But amid rising geopolitical tensions, these buyers might decide – or be forced – to rethink their purchases.
It is against this backdrop that the Fed is pursuing rather aggressive interest-rate hikes and quantitative tightening. But increased demand for foreign capital to finance the trade deficit, together with greater reluctance by foreign investors to purchase US government bonds and Treasuries, might put America in a quandary. It can either contain inflation or maintain external sustainability – but not both, unless, perhaps, US GDP growth slows significantly.
Yu Yongding, a former president of the China Society of World Economics and director of the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, served on the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China from 2004 to 2006. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022, and published here with permission.
6 Comments
I'm not clever enough to know all the ins & outs of this discussion but my two comments on it are a) this is written from the other side of the pacific, which is fine, but comes with its own set of levers & intentions and b) if I were to list the 10 most trusted nations on the planet, from my perspective obviously, the USA would be there every time, even if I did move around the key asking ingredients.
And funnily enough recent events out of The States have strengthened those beliefs, not diminished them.
Remember, don't believe everything you hear on television or online or on the radio. Do your own research.
I'm not so sure how reliable of a partner they are. They are constantly changing their position on foreign policy, and when help is needed are more likely to pull out the support unless you toe the line.
Having said this, I'm not sure what else to expect? They should act in their own best interest. If that means they now get to sell more oil & gas to Europe then so be it! They had an opportunity to use diplomacy to stop the war end of last year and dozens of times before it started and yet they chose not to. Now the end result of the war will be devastating for the people of Ukraine, Russia has full control over Crimea, LPR as of the past week and making further progress in DPR. How will you get them out and hand that territory back to Ukraine without causing a nuclear war?
Instead, they've sold tens of billions of dollars of weapons that will end up God knows where, and extended the conflict which was perfectly avoidable.
It's like a separated family, the mother had moved on in 1991 and had been looking after all her 24 children. Some of those children were from other fathers, but they had moved on with their lives. They shared a long marriage together; however, it didn't work out and she needed her independence for she tried to leave in 1917, but most of the children chose to keep them together until eventually, it broke off in 1991. It wasn’t always a happy marriage, and with the size of the family naturally not all the children got along. It got violent in 1941 when some of the children got in with the wrong crowd. The entire family brought those children back and brought them away from the troublemakers.
In 1994 they came to an agreement, the ex to pay child support and protect her and the family in exchange for taking the guns out of the house. This continued for some time and the ex-continued to honour his obligations until the suitor down the road started to interest the single mother. It's not an easy life for a single mother but she finds a way. In 2008 the suitor remarked he'll move in with her and the ex-husband began being worried about what will happen to his children so states a red line (rightly or wrongly).
The ex-husband assures her he'll support her more financially, so the children are all looked after and despite being spat on still sends his family support. The new suitor ignores this red line and moves in 2014. Three of the children, Crimea, LPR & DPR rebel and don't want to live under that same roof anymore. Crimea managed to escape with barely a scratch however LPR and DPR got into a bloody conflict with the other siblings who took the mothers side and fought their brothers. Later in that year, the neighbours’ got together to stop the violence. Everyone promised to be civil, however most of the family just couldn’t resist. They continued every way they could for 8 years to bring them back. Thanks to the new father-in-law he brought them presents every year and generously equipped them with new weapons. He tried to impress upon his new family and took them to classes and teach them how to be effective with those new toys.
LPR and DPR unfortunately were injured very badly over that time and so eventually in 2021 the ex-husband gave an ultimatum "let them be left alone, and don't ever bring him here again or else I have no choice and go there myself". The new partner wasn't happy with this "she's free to do whatever she wants; she gave birth to those children and wants to live with me so they're ours. We'll do everything we can to bring them back irrespective of how we bring them back".
Unfortunately, in February 2022, the ex-husband came into the house by force, the street looked on in shock and horror at how a forced entry could happen in this day and age as after the intervention in 2014 they just assumed that things are still ok. He yelled out “but you promised to uphold that agreement! Help them!” Instead, they blocked off the ex-husband from all activities in the suburb and chose not to listen. The domestic turned violent, however eventually LPR was freed, bloody, but alive. DPR is hurt and struggling to escape but it looks like a long struggle before it's over. The new partner looks on and buys more weapons for the other children despite being offered countless opportunities to end this, but out of principle still refused.
The problem the ex-husband now faces is that he may very well free his children - but the relationship between them and the other siblings is almost irreparable. He knows those troublemaker kids enjoyed having fun with their new father in-law so joked that their paternal fathers take them back. The question remains how will he continue to protect his children so they can not only rest and re-grow but also for them to thrive. Does he leave it as is, or take his ex-wife back into a loveless marriage? It doesn't feel right, but there is a simple solution and that is to take the new partner out of the picture. The mother would take a sacrifice to remain single but will forever know her children are at least safe. The relationship between LPR, DPR & Crimea is forever damaged, and those children just cannot see their mother anymore after the hurt and pain that had been caused.
This topic is too complex for my limited abilities. Budget deficit, government debt ceiling and the effects of monetary/fiscal policies is just too complicated.
In my simple mind.
Government borrowing is a permanent fixture. The price of a currency is for the world market to fix. If and when the US currency declines, I suspect that it will not be sudden, rather over time frames of years.
Don't worry about this- its like an act of our creator.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.