Edward Hadas

On September 15, 2008 Lehman Brothers collapsed in a heap, a bankruptcy that was followed by a recession in most rich countries. As time goes on, the severity of the disruption becomes both more apparent and more puzzling.

When Lehman failed, it was reasonable to expect the pain to be brief and concentrated. While too many houses had been built in the United States, most of the world’s real economy (comprising factories, offices, retail outlets, construction projects) was doing well. The global financial sector was more distorted, even before investors took fright at the decision to let Lehman go under. But by the middle of 2009, governments and central bankers had agreed to provide bankers and brokers with anything needed to keep them healthy.

Optimism was not justified. Although the countermeasures stopped the deterioration, the rich world now seems stuck in a Lesser Depression – many years of poor economic results and a series of financial crises. In the United States, the euro zone, Japan and the UK, real GDP per person is still lower now than it was four years ago. In all of them, GDP growth is currently either slow or non-existent.

The consumption setback shouldn’t cause too much concern – it wasn’t so bad five or six years ago, when real GDP was last at today’s level. But the enduring recession in the labour market is another matter.

In April 2008 the unemployment rates in the United States, euro zone and UK were respectively 5, 7.3 and 5.3 percent. In April 2012, the corresponding percentages were 8.1, 10.9 and 8.4. More refined indicators – youth unemployment, involuntary part time work and disaffected ex-workers – are even more discouraging. The post-Lehman economy is failing a significant number of people in a fundamental way.

Some economists argue that this real suffering is the necessary price to pay to bring order to the financial world. That’s a dubious argument, since people are more important than money and credit. But the ethical debate isn’t necessary. Despite the real economic pain and the official aid, the financial world looks as ill as ever. On the monetary side, policy remains in shock territory – buyers of safe government debt receive negative real returns. Fiscal positions are equally alarming. Deficits everywhere remain at levels more suitable for wartime mobilisation than for a sputtering economy.

The puzzle is why a relatively small problem in the real economy has led to this Lesser Depression, especially when the authorities have followed expert advice throughout. Surely, if the counsel were sound, the depression would have lifted by now.

The experts offer several excuses. One is that the euro zone’s special problems have delayed recovery. That’s probably true, but European politicians and central bankers are following the best advice on how to compensate. Another is that the authorities should have been even more aggressive in their support for the financial system. Maybe, but even larger fiscal deficits and even easier money would create other distortions. Yet another claim is that governments should have cut back their spending faster. Possibly, but that would hit consumption harder and further increased unemployment.

The problem is actually the experts. Recent history provides a good reason to doubt their competence. Five years ago, economic gurus saw no end to the pre-Lehman “Great Moderation” – steady GDP growth, shrinking unemployment and rising asset prices. They were wrong about that, and they are still making two basic mistakes.

The first concerns the real economy, in particular the highly productive modern economy. Economists underestimate the difficulty of keeping unemployment down. It is much easier to destroy jobs, with labour-saving devices and more efficient procedures, than to create them by starting up enterprises, finding customers for new services or creating new bureaucracies. The employment asymmetry accounts for the persistent pain in the labour market. The jobs shed at the beginning of the Lesser Depression are not easily replaced, nor are the jobs currently being cut by governments searching for austerity.

The second mistake is financial. Economists underestimate the danger of debt. Whether the money is owed by companies, households or governments, the disadvantages of debt financing increase as the ratio of liabilities to income rises. Heavily indebted borrowers are less eager to take economic risks and more likely to default. In a highly leveraged and financially interconnected economy, one default often leads to other bigger collapses. In short, massive debts almost invite economic paralysis. It’s hardly surprising that the increase of debt-financed government spending has done so little good.

So what should be done? New ideas are required – and I’ll offer my contributions over the next few weeks. Without a fundamental change in the thinking, the global economy won’t reach its goal of steady growth and low unemployment.

Debt is a moral matter. While most economic activity is concerned with the “is” of how things are (investment, consumption and so forth), debts are always entwined with an “ought” – to repay. In discussing controversial debts–for example government borrowing in the euro zone and the U.S.–the moral question should be addressed directly: should these debts be paid off in full, or is some forgiveness justified?

Aristotle can help frame the argument. The philosopher condemned all lending at interest because money cannot create wealth by itself; a loan is just a way for the lender to take advantage of the borrower. Some proponents of Islamic finance make a similar argument, but it is not quite right. Capitalism has shown that loans can indeed produce wealth. If the lent funds are invested well, enabling the borrower to improve his lot and the world’s, then interest payments are the lender’s just reward for providing the fruitful funds.

But Aristotle’s moral logic remains relevant; his condemnation is appropriate for loans which do not share wealth justly between borrower and lender. Unfair loans should not be made, and where they have been, full repayment only compounds the original injustice.

Libertarians, believers in the right of individual to make their own decisions, have another contribution to the moral discussion. They point out that loans are freely agreed contracts which should be honoured. Both sides should understand the possible consequences of their free choices. Borrowers should repay, even if that requires making sacrifices, and creditors who make bad lending decisions should suffer losses.

In the euro zone, some libertarians (and most Germans) consider the borrowers’ obligations to be paramount. The governments of Greece and the other over-extended nations can and should repay all their agreed debts. The citizens just have to work harder and pay more taxes.

Other libertarians take the opposite moral line. Losses are the just punishment for the foolish creditors. And the Aristotelian logic may justify forgiveness. The lent money has mostly been spent unproductively, so the borrowers now have few gains to share with the lenders. The original loans turned out to be unjustly generous to the debtors, but the terms have become unjustly harsh.

Which side has the stronger moral logic? Forgiveness looks right for Greece, where the debts are particularly high and the government and economy are particularly inept. For the rest, it is a closer call.

Turn to the U.S. government, which is building up its own substantial debt pile. The American moral debate on the practice is as old as George Washington, who warned that such debts “ungenerously throw upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” Today, the National Research Council writes of “an unfair and crushing burden on future generations.”

Foreign debts are particularly crushing. Citizens get to spend now on consumption and investment but are obliged to repay foreigners later, with interest. This deferment has produced $4.5 trillion of foreign debt in the U.S., 30 percent of one year’s GDP. That is far less than Greece’s full year of GDP, but enough to worry about.

If the U.S. authorities were committed to full repayment of thee foreign debts, they would strive to keep the dollar’s value constant and to avoid inflation. That way, the foreigners would receive not just the contracted dollars but the full agreed economic value. While American authorities may care in theory, they are not concerned enough to refrain from loose monetary policy, which pushes the dollar down.

In this case, pro-repayment libertarians have right on their side. The largest and one of the richest economies in the world – and the issuer of the global reserve currency – is honor-bound to make good on its debts. While the creditors should have noticed that the country was becoming less responsible, their neglect does not excuse American indifference.

For purely domestic U.S. government borrowing, Aristotelian scrutiny is more appropriate. Do the ultimate borrowers, the mostly poor beneficiaries of federal programs, gain enough from these loans to justify the higher taxes that will be needed later to repay the mostly rich lenders? There is no obvious answer to that question, but it is well worth asking.

More generally, philosophical arguments ratify what practical experience teaches. Lenders should be wary about lending to governments. The choice to borrow rather than to raise funds through taxes is usually a sign of political weakness. When the time comes to repay, governments may be unable or unwilling to persuade the people that the sanctity of contracts is a principle worth protecting.

Also, the proceeds of loans to such governments are likely to be spent foolishly. Then full repayment will fail the Aristotelian test of justice. The rioters in Athens may know little about the Ancient Greek philosopher’s doctrine on lending, but they could be protesting in his name.