مائة عام من المديونية

Jun 30, 2017 Carmen M. Reinhart

كمبريدج ــ كان جابرييل جارسيا ماركيز، الروائي الحائز على جائزة نوبل في الأدب، وصاحب الرواية الأكثر شهرة "مائة عام من العزلة"، مواطنا كولومبيا. ومع ذلك، كان جارسيا ماركيز، بوصفه ضليعا في فن الواقعية السحرية، ليقدر التركيبة الحديثة التي تتألف من الواقع والخيال في جمهورية الأرجنتين. ففي منتصف يونيو/حزيران، باعت وزارة الخزانة هناك ما قيمته 2.75 مليار دولار من السندات المقومة بالدولار والتي تُستَحَق بعد مائة عام.

لا شك أن حكومة الأرجنتين الجديدة أحرزت تقدما هائلا في فترة وجيزة. فقد حررت إدارة الرئيس موريشيو ماكري تدفقات رؤوس الأموال الدولية، وسمحت للبيزو الأرجنتيني بالتحرك بقدر أكبر من المرونة في سوق صرف النقد الأجنبي، وعملت على ترشيد إعانات الدعم المجنونة، وأنشأت سلطة إحصائية جديرة بالثقة من الصِفر. ولكن هناك الكثير من الوعود التي لم تتحقق بعد، بما في ذلك المزيد من تفكيك إعانات الدعم، وتقليص فاتورة الأجور الحكومية على المستويين الفيدرالي والإقليمي، وخفض التضخم إلى خانة الآحاد، وجعل نظام معاشات التقاعد أكثر اكتمالا من الناحية الإكتوارية وأكثر عدالة بالنسبة للشباب.

الواقع أن التوازن الصحيح بين مواجهة هذه القضايا بشكل مباشر ودفع عجلة التغييرات التدريجية ليس واضحا على الإطلاق. وكان التنسيق بين الحكومة المركزية والحكومات المحلية مصدرا للتوتر بشكل خاص، ويمضي الوقت سريعا إلى الانتخابات التالية. وسوف يستغرق التعويض عن الناتج المفقود خلال الركود في العام المنصرم بعض الوقت، وهي المشكلة التي أصبحت أشد صعوبة بفِعل الإضرابات الاقتصادية التي تعيشها الجارة الشمالية البرازيل.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 Comments on this article

Mauricio Duran-Loriga Jul 8, 2017

Back in mid 2000's, avid investors demanded higher returns. And Wall Street delivered these infamous mortgage packages full of dirt but rated AAA, as a means of achieving yield enhancement. Excess liquidity led to outright malinvestment, ultimately to default and loss.

Today we are witnessing the same attitude towards yield seeking, but performed by cocaine stuffed monkeys armed with kalashnikovs, who shot at the first hint of ANY yield. The amount of default and loss baked into the future is several orders of magnitude greater than subprime crisis. As always over history, this will initiate as a liquidity crunch, and will morph into a solvency event.

Default now is a political choice, whatever the debt to GDP level might be. The human body has a natural obsolescence. Man made assets have much shorter duration. Investing in a bond that will mature over the next three generations is something you wouldn't tell your parents without scaring them to death.

Of course, momentum chasing penguins abound, but all will be slaughtered altogether at the killer whale feast.

Global access to unlimited credit creation makes debt repayment an utopy, as from the universe of competing actors, none of them holds a financial competitive advantage over the others. So everything is about endlessly expanding debt creation to honor old promises. And rolling that mechanism till the end of times. Ponzi per tutti !
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard H. Serlin Jul 2, 2017

I think it's important to explicitly note some basic finance, time value of money here. At 7.9% interest, even if these bonds 100% default after just 20 years, using my trusty HP 17Bii financial calculator, just collecting that $7.90 on a $100 investment for 20 years gives you the equivalent of a 4.8% return, which is good for today. If they last for 30 years, you end up with a 6.8% return, which is excellent. And what's that $100 principle worth today, if you discount it at 7.9% for 100 years? Five cents.

Obviously, a world class economist like Carmen Reinhart knows this, and learned it long ago, but it's worth pointing out explicitly.

I think one of the reasons Argentina might have to do this is to make it look like they are a stable well-run country, that can be relied on 100 years from now. Of course, if it's too far from the truth, it can make them look unrealistic and unserious.
- Marc Laventurier Jul 3, 2017
  
  See also: https://www.ft.com/content/5ac33abc-551b-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e3
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard H. Serlin Jul 2, 2017

"This is not really a story about a country with a fraught financial history willing to issue 100-year debt. Rather, it is a story about a country able to issue 100-year debt because global investors were willing to purchase $2.75 billion of it. Indeed, they were eager to do so: total tenders for the bonds were 3.5 times the volume sold.

At the end of the day, this is not about the character of the country, the maturity of the debt, or the size of the issue. It is about the coupon rate on the offering, 7.9%"

I think it's important to explicitly note some basic finance, time value of money here. At 7.9% interest, even if these bonds 100% default after just 20 years, using my trusty HP 17Bii financial calculator, just collecting that $7.90 on a $100 investment for 20 years gives you the equivalent of a 4.8% return, which is good for today. If they last for 30 years, you end up with a 6.8% return, which is excellent. And what's that $100 principle worth today, if you discount it at 7.9% for 100 years? Five cents.

Obviously, a world class economist like Carmen Reinhart knows this, and learned it long ago, but it's worth pointing out explicitly.

I think one of the reasons Argentina might have to do this is to make it look like they are a stable well-run country, that can be relied on 100 years from now. Of course, if it's too far from the truth, it can make them look unrealistic and unserious.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
emilio ros Jul 2, 2017

Totally outraged Ms. CARMEN REINHART for her comment as it seems she has not made a review of the latest developments in the world order. The IMF, B. WORLD and at the last meeting in Davos, where George Soros was urging everyone to insist on Universal Basic Income. Why ? For the simple reason that now they have realized that they have broken the contract with society and capital has become so distant that an unprecedented social revolt is likely to erupt, hence it is to be avoided. That is why it is not understood how it is that it asks that it deepens more in "the cut of the wage mass of the government at federal and provincial level". It's hard for me to understand that you support and venere a character like Macri, being the worst to govern a country, for his incompetence and his dark behavior. Knowing that this pending of I do not know how many previous causes, plus the surprise gift of the Papeles de Panama. And with the management that takes in something more than a year and a half, already began to arise legal problems. As if all this were not enough, his incapacity makes him take the country in the same way as the terrifying Economy Minister of the last dictatorship, to end in a monstrous default. This man is not qualified to rule a country. Please review your notes and finally correct your note. Thank you.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
emilio ros Jul 2, 2017

Totalmente indignado Sra. CARMEN REINHART por su comentario ya que parece que no ha hecho una revisión de los últimos acontecimientos en el orden mundial. El FMI, B. MUNDIAL y en la última reunión de Davos, donde George Soros pedía a todos con insistencia aprobar la Renta Básica Universal. Por qué ? por la sencilla razón que ahora se han dado cuenta de que han roto el contrato con la sociedad y el capital se ha distanciado tanto que es probable que estalle una revuelta social sin precedentes, de ahí que se quiere evitar. Por eso no se entiende como es que pide que profundice más en "el recorte de la masa salarial del gobierno a nivel federal y provincial". Me cuesta mucho poder comprender que Ud. apoye y venere a un personaje como Macri, siendo este de lo peor para gobernar un país, por su incompetencia y su oscuro comportamiento. A sabiendas de que esta pendiente de no sé cuantas causas anteriores, más el regalo sorpresa de los Papeles de Panamá. Y con la gestión que lleva en algo más de un año y medio, ya empezaron a surgir problemas legales. Como si todo esto fuera poco, su incapacidad lo hace que lleve a el país de la misma forma en que el terrorífico ministro de Economía de la última dictadura, para terminar en un monstruoso default. Este hombre no esta capacitado par gobernar un país. Ruego que revise sus notas y que finalmente corrija su nota. Gracias.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Linda Jamin Jul 1, 2017

Above all Gabriel Marquez would have appreciated the irony of a another very corrupt head of state and aspiring dictator in SA selling off those bonds to the very same corrupt banks and other corrupt investors responsible for his ascension. He would also have appreciated the combination of fact and fantasy in your economic analysis of Macri's "accomplishments" to date. When and where will predatory neoliberalism finally go to die? NOT in South America apparently.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Santiago Garcia Loriente Jul 1, 2017

I dont understand when you said that "Argentina’s political economy appears headed in the right direction". Are you talking about the 1.5 million of new poor people? Or maybe about a rise of 120% in the price of food? Perhaps, could be about the 500.000 new unemployed workers. Maybe it is just about financial markets. Definitely, no. There is no antecedent of an economy grow up by an average of 8% in a period of 100 years. Maybe you need to recheck the official data about employment, industry, fiscal deficit and how the internal market dramatically decrease. Maybe some economist need to think more about how to improve the life of workers and not just in e profit of a couple of financial companies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jun 30, 2017

There is nothing magical about debt. Nothing magical about passing debt to the next generation. Without debt banks do not exist. As banks create debt at will it follows debt can only expand, it has to for banks to exisit. Debt default is not important to banks since debt can be replaced. Debt default is waste but all production processes have waste. Debt default is particularly unimportant when the taxpayer underwrites losses directly or indirectly. The only issue is the availability of creditors and guvnts ensure that provision. Only an idiot would play this game which is why we have politicians.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Laventurier Jun 30, 2017

¡Una joya!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jun 30, 2017

Good article. Central banks in advanced economies need income as well as price tools. They can't help but wreak havoc at home and abroad by working with only prices. That should be one of the great lessons of the past 40 years.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.