Blogs

Geo-Graphics

A graphical take on geoeconomics.

Latest Post

China’s Central Bank is Becoming the Developing World’s “Payday Lender”

With the developing world’s growing use of costly and opaque “payday loans” from China’s central bank, the IMF and World Bank need to demand far greater transparency from Beijing. 

Read More
Budget, Debt, and Deficits
Is Federal Student Debt the Sequel to Housing?
Back in March, we showed that the $1.4 trillion in U.S. direct federal student loans that will be outstanding by 2020 will amount to roughly 7.7% of the country’s gross debt. This is 6.3 percentage points higher than it would have been had the scheme not been nationalized in President Obama’s first term. The government’s net debt was not directly affected by the move, as the government acquires assets when it issues student loans. The problem is that projected default rates on such loans have been climbing as the volume issued has increased, as shown in the graphic above. If we apply the projected default rate on loans originated in 2009 to the amount of student loans outstanding in 2012, we find that defaults on federal student loans currently outstanding are likely to cost taxpayers almost $80 billion. And the cost is projected to increase rapidly over the next decade as default rates continue to rise and the amount of student debt the federal government owns soars. There is more than a whiff of resemblance between the rise of the federal government’s student debt liability and the mortgage bubble – the detritus debt of which wound up nationalized. There is little in the way of credit checks carried out, and no evaluation of future earnings prospects. In the ten years to 2008, the amount of mortgage debt tripled: $3.2 trillion to $9.3 trillion. The CBO projects that student loans on the government’s balance sheet will rise just as fast: $453 billion in 2011 to $1.4 trillion in 2020. A 17.3% default rate on $1.4 trillion in loans would cost taxpayers about $240 billion. This is equivalent to 1% of the CBO’s GDP projection for 2020. It is also more than three times the 2013 federal funding level for the Department of Education, and just slightly less than ten times the amount the president requested for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs in his most recent budget. It is surely worth asking, therefore, whether this $240 billion could be used more effectively than it will be in writing off defaulted student loans. Department of Education: Default Rates Bloomberg.com: Student Loans Go Unpaid, Burden U.S. Economy Wall Street Journal: Federal Student Lending Swells Geo-Graphics: Will Student Debt Add to America’s Fiscal Woes?
China
Labor Data Show That China Is a Bubble Waiting to Burst
China “may have” overinvested to the tune of 12-20% of gross domestic product (GDP) between 2007 and 2011 – this is the diplomatically worded conclusion of a working paper released last week by the IMF.  This week’s Geo-Graphic backs it up. As our figure above shows, the share of the Chinese labor force working in manufacturing and construction, at 38%, is roughly twice the global average – towering well above manufacturing powerhouses like Germany (25%) and South Korea (23%).  Manufacturing’s share of the Chinese work force, at 29%, is also 6 percentage points higher than the level at which other fast growing economies have typically begun slowing.  Once that share exceeds 23%, according to analysis by Barry Eichengreen, it “becomes necessary to shift workers into services, where productivity growth is slower.” Construction’s share of the Chinese labor force, at 9%, is also 2 percentage points higher than in the United States at the peak of the housing bubble in September 2006.  Labor data therefore suggest that China is headed for an extended slowdown in GDP growth. IMF: Is China Over-Investing and Does It Matter? Eichengreen, Park, and Shin: When Fast-Growing Economies Slow Down Orszag: China’s New Leaders Face an Economic Turning Point Mallaby: Beware Membership of This Elite Club
Europe and Eurasia
Greece Hurtles Toward Its Fiscal Cliff
The United States marches solemnly towards its fiscal cliff, awaiting only the command from the Goddess of Reason to halt. Unfortunately for Greece, that country plugged its ears back in March. Like the United States, Greece made prior commitments on spending and taxation in order to bind itself to the mission of deficit reduction. Unlike the United States, Greece left itself little means to unbind itself. As shown in the graphic above, its massive debt restructuring in March only reduced its debt-to-GDP ratio from 170% to 150%, but in the process made further significant restructuring much more difficult. Before the March restructuring, Greece owed private sector creditors €177 billion in obligations governed by Greek law and only €30 worth governed by international law, the latter being vastly more difficult to walk away from. After the restructuring, Greece owed private sector creditors only €86 billion, but all of it was now governed by international law (31.5%*177 + 30). And it also added €75 billion to its €124 billion stock of official sector (EU and IMF) obligations, bringing that total to a whopping €200 billion. Though Greece desperately needs to shed more debt, it faces the problem that its private sector creditors are now all shielded by international law, and its public sector creditors are protected by the power to hurl it into unsplendid economic and political isolation. This suggests strongly that Greece should simply have repudiated all its Greek-law private sector debt back in March, when it had the chance. Why didn’t it? Many reasons, some of which flimsy – such as fears of triggering credit default swaps if the restructuring were “involuntary.” But the most pressing reason was to avoid crushing the Greek banking sector, which was exposed to Greek sovereign debt to the tune of about €50 billion. The €25 billion lent to Greece by the so-called European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in order to recapitalize its banks would then have to have been a much higher €50 billion. Still, Greece would be at considerably less risk of hurtling over the fiscal cliff today had it avoided taking on the additional €56 billion worth of nonrepudiable private sector IOUs in March. In contrast, the United States can avoid its looming cliff by Congress and the president agreeing just to keep on adding to the prodigious national tab. It’s good to be the king of reserve-currency issuers - at least until the market cuts your head off. European Financial Stability Fund: Questions and Answers IMF: Greece's Financial Position in the Fund as of Sept. 30 BIS: Consolidated Banking Statistics Geo-Graphics: The IMF Is Shocked, Shocked at Greece's Fiscal Failure. Should It Be?
  • Budget, Debt, and Deficits
    Obama’s Green Jobs Cost Big Bucks
    President Obama is committed to pursuing a “[renewable-energy] strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs” (January 24, 2012). He highlighted the job point during the October 16 presidential debate: “I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States. That’s going to help [young graduates] get a job.” Green may be good, but this week’s Geo-Graphic shows that the jobs come at a hefty cost. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that energy-related tax preferences will cost Americans $5.4 billion this year. Half of this, $2.7 billion, will benefit green sectors: $1 billion in nuclear subsidies, $1.3 billion in wind-energy credits for electricity production, and $400 million in solar-energy property credits. So-called “section 1603” renewable energy grants, part of the 2009 fiscal stimulus package, will cost taxpayers a further $5.8 billion. If we assume that the grants are awarded across sectors in the last five months of this year as they were in the first seven, then the nuclear, solar, and wind energy sectors will receive $4 billion of this, boosting total green-sector subsidies to $6.7 billion this year. Taxpayers will also provide $700 million in energy-efficient property credits. The credits apply mainly to solar, though we don’t know the precise allocation – so we leave it out of the figure, which therefore understates the cost of solar-backed jobs. Dividing the total wind, solar, and nuclear subsidies by the number of Americans employed in these sectors (252,000), they are currently generating jobs at an average annual cost to taxpayers of over $29,000. Wind jobs cost taxpayers nearly $47,000 per job per year. By way of comparison, the coal, oil, and gas sectors receive $2.7 billion in subsidies annually, and employ about 1.4 million Americans. The taxpayer-cost per job in these sectors is therefore just over $1,900. The bottom line is that green-energy jobs cost taxpayers, on average, 15 times more than oil, gas, and coal jobs. Wind-backed jobs cost 25 times more. Given the current state of energy-production technology, green jobs don’t come cheap. Romil Chouhan contributed to this post. NYTimes.com: Transcript of the Second Presidential Debate Treasury: Overview and Status Update of the Section 1603 Program Bloomberg.com: U.S. Solar Jobs Face Bright Future, Wind Posts Flutter Foreign Affairs: Tough Love for Renewable Energy
  • Budget, Debt, and Deficits
    There’s a $1 Trillion Hole in Romney’s Budget Math
    In last week’s vice-presidential debate, Republican Paul Ryan defended the fiscal prudence of lowering top marginal income tax rates by arguing that it would be accompanied by “forego[ing] about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions . . . deny[ing] those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers.” The $1.1 trillion he refers to is actually an amalgam of specific “tax expenditures” – benefits distributed through reductions in taxes otherwise owed – identified by the Joint Committee on Taxation.  We break out the largest 10 of these graphically in the figure above. The full list is available here: http://subsidyscope.org/data/ The red bars indicate items that Romney and Ryan had previously promised not to touch: exclusion of employer contributions for health care, deductions for mortgage interest, reduced tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, and deductions for charitable giving.  These four items constitute a massive 30% of the $1.1 trillion.  Therefore the Ryan pledge to cut loopholes and deductions cannot, mathematically, be worth more than $770 billion. And note some of the other big-ticket “loopholes and deductions” on the list.  Social security and other retirement income constitute three of the top ten items, together making up 13% of the total, and the earned income credit, which benefits the poor, represents another 5% of the total.  Would Romney and Ryan eliminate those deductions?  We’ll speculate here: no.  A quick skim of the remainder shows that few of these items constitute “loopholes” in the public’s mind – they are items few imagine could or should be taxed. In short, Romney and Ryan cannot, logically, keep the pledge to cut $1.1 trillion in tax shields for the rich, because (1) they have already ruled out eliminating the biggest of such shields, and (2) much of the $1.1 trillion is actually derived from tax expenditures targeted at lower and middle income taxpayers – not tax shields for the rich.  This almost surely means that only a small fraction of the $1.1 trillion is actually in play. Sensitive to the charge that his numbers are not adding up, Romney proposed at Tuesday night’s presidential debate capping deductions at $25,000.  This would raise $1.3 trillion in revenues over the next ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center.  But that figure is only slightly above what Ryan said they would raise each year.  A $1 trillion a year hole remains in their budget math. Transcript: The 2012 Vice Presidential Debate Pew: Subsidyscope Tax Expenditure Database Romney: Tax Plan Ryan: Sept. 30 Appearance on Fox News Sunday