Skip to main content

What about Japan?

What about Japan? It's a question I often hear from advocates of fiscal expansion. Japan has huge debts and no crisis or inflation (so far). Doesn't that prove the US can borrow a ton more money painlessly? 

I offer two new points today: 1) Not every high debt country is so happy. 2) Just what did Japan get for all its fiscal stimulus? Indeed, I will start asking "What about Japan?" Japan seems a tough case for those who advocate that fiscal stimulus will save us from secular stagnation, or that huge spending programs bring prosperity in other dimensions.   

1. Picking and choosing

Here, fresh from the April IMF Fiscal Monitor  is the list of top 30 countries sorted by debt to GDP ratios. I boldfaced larger countries. 


Yes, Japan is up there at 256% of GDP. The champion is Venezuela however. Sudan and Eritrea are not particularly known for economic prosperity. Greece and Italy are not held up as examples to follow either. Serial defaulter Argentina is behind the US already. 

If Japan is sustainable, that doesn't mean all large debts are sustainable. It means there's something different about Japan than the other countries on the list -- or ones now lower down on the list because they already defaulted or had crises. 

2. So what did Japan get for all that debt anyway? 


It was not always thus. Japan started borrowing heavily in the 1990s from a debt/GDP ratio of 63%. (For some reason the IMF does not have US data before 2002.) 



Those debts come from deficits, of 5-10% of GDP every year. Since 2006, the US has been behaving a lot like Japan, or more so. We only have less debt because the US ran surpluses through the 1990s. 

Japan has had perpetually low GDP growth, low inflation and zero interest rates since the 1990s. I view it as low "supply" growth, but it ought to be the poster child for "secular stagnation" fans. 

So I turn the question around: If massive deficits, including lots of "infrastructure"  are going to boost the US economy, why did they not do so for Japan? 

Update

In response to tweets about why is Japan different from the US,  

I did not want to repeat old points. Japan's debt is long-term, held by domestic people, pensions and central bank. US debt is short-term, held by foreign central banks and financial institutions. Our debt is much more prone to run, and a rise in interest rates will feed quickly into the budget. Japan also has accumulated assets from trade surpluses; we have the opposite. Japan's debt is held by old people and subject to estate tax. A lot of Japanese hold bank accounts, as mutual funds and similar investment vehicles familiar in the US are less prevalent. Bank accounts flow in to reserves, backed by Treasury debt. 

More importantly, Japan  does not have looming unfunded Social Security and Medicare, underfunded pensions, contingent liabilities (Fannie and Freddy guarantee most home mortgages, who is going to pay student loans?) bailout guarantees and more.

 Sustainability is about debt vs. ability to repay; about future deficits;  not debt alone.

Japan's slow growth for three decades comes from microeconomics, taxes, regulations, demographics, slow productivity, not money, stimulus, "aggregate demand." 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Brazilian Inflation

This marvelous plot comes from an interesting article, The Monetary and Fiscal History of Brazil, 1960-2016 by Joao Ayres, Marcio Garcia, Diogo A. GuillĂ©n, and Patrick J. Kehoe. The article is part of the Becker-Friedman Institute Project , complete with a big and now easily available data collection effort, and forthcoming book .  If you want a deep historical and economic analysis of fiscal and monetary interactions, this is an amazing resource. And it summarizes historical episodes that North Americans just might want to know more about soon!  (HT Ricardo Reis who pointed it out in a great discussion last week, that I will post as soon as it's available.)  To me the graph is at first blush a reminder that inflation can stop on a dime, despite sticky prices, seemingly adaptive or sticky expectations, Phillips curves, and so forth. Brazil seems to have had 6 Tom Sargent "end of inflations" episodes in 10 years! (Reminder: Tom showed that inflation can end very quickly i...

Chinese Traders Still a Major Influence the Crypto Market, According to Experts Bitcoin

  Chinese bitcoin traders still exert a major influence in the cryptocurrency market, even with all the distinct issues they must now face to operate. This is the opinion of several experts in the field that have weighed in on how the recent prohibitions and ban proposals from China are really affecting how Chinese bagholders that conduct their business in Asian and worldwide exchanges. Chinese Traders Still Big in the Market Chinese traders still have a big influence on how crypto markets move even with all of the difficulties they have to operate, according to different experts with knowledge about how Asian markets work. Even sidestepping all of the government regulations, these traders are still managing to do business, taking advantage of gray markets and other services that let them exchange the local currency for crypto. News of China invoking strict warnings toward cryptocurrency trading and initial coin offerings (ICOs) are not new: China has warned against these acti...

UK Bans 'Time to Buy' Bitcoin Ads on Buses and Underground for Being Misleading

 The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned a bitcoin ad campaign put up across the London Underground network and on London buses by cryptocurrency exchange Luno. The UK advertising regulator says the ads are misleading and irresponsible. ‘Time to Buy Bitcoin’ Ads Banned in the UK A bitcoin advertising campaign put up across London Underground and on buses has been banned by the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ads contained an image of a bitcoin with the words “If you’re seeing bitcoin on a bus, it’s time to buy” or “If you’re seeing bitcoin on the Underground, it’s time to buy.” They were put up in February. The ASA said it received four complaints. Three complainants “believed the ad failed to illustrate the risk of the investment” and “challenged whether it was misleading.” One complainant “challenged whether the ad took advantage of consumers’ inexperience or credulity,” the regulator detailed. “We considered that consumers would interpret the...