Home > Government > You Cannot Inflate the Debt Away

You Cannot Inflate the Debt Away

There is a popular meme that the government has an incentive to inflate, because the same debt is worth less in real terms at a higher price level. If inflation is high enough, then the government (it is said) can make the debt go away. Inflation is, after all, a tax; doesn’t it then follow that if the government increases that tax quite a bit then it can get itself out of hock in real terms?

It turns out that this is difficult to do, at least over a range of ‘normal’ inflation rates. The reason is that it is hard to get the debt to go away fast enough when the market adjusts interest rates to reflect the level of inflation. I want to try and illustrate the general idea here. I’ve looked at this before, so I know the answer, but I’ve never put this in a blog post before.

First, let’s start with the current distribution of debt for the US. The chart below is from Bloomberg, showing how many trillions of Treasury bill/note/bond maturities will happen every year. For a host of reasons, prime among them being incompetence, the US did not take advantage of the artificially ultra-low interest rate environment to extend maturities. That makes inflating the debt away even more difficult.

The average interest rate on US debt is 3.21%, about double what it was in early 2022 and the highest it has been since 2009 (and there is a lot more debt outstanding now than there was then, thanks to a decade and a half of massive deficits designed to save the world). Having a lot of debt mature every few years is a great way to increase the sensitivity of your interest expense, and therefore deficit, to short-term inflation and interest rate fluctuations. That’s not feature, it’s a bug!

Starting from the distribution above, let’s model how the debt would grow over time using a couple of simple assumptions and then tweaking those assumptions. We will start with this: assume that the maturing debt, plus the annual Treasury deficit, is rolled into new debt distributed 1/30th to each year. We will assume a 4% inflation rate, and an interest rate of 1% over the inflation rate. Because we are spreading out the maturities, we are explicitly extending the maturity of the debt. The more rapidly the average interest rate reacts to the current interest rate, the harder it is to inflate the debt away. If we started with that 3.22% interest rate and rolled the debt as I have just described, here is how the average nominal interest rate evolves over the next 25 years.

I should note that I am also assuming that the deficit is initially $1 Trillion, and grows by the rate of inflation every year. So, in year 0 it is $1T; in year 1 it is 1.04T, which is the same amount in real terms. Note that this implies that discretionary spending is decreasing rapidly. In year 0, the Treasury would pay interest of about $876 billion ($27.2 trillion in debt * 3.22% interest rate). In year 1, the average interest rate rises to 3.80% and the deficit is $1T larger, so the interest paid rises to $1072 billion. Since we assumed that the overall deficit increased by only $40bln, the implication is that discretionary spending fell $156bln ($1072 – $876 – $40). So, the notion that the deficit grows only equally with inflation is not realistic. But even using such magical thinking, the total debt rises from $27.2T to $72.5T over 25 years. The real debt (remember, we’re inflating it away!) stays basically steady at $27.2T in today’s dollars.

So constant inflation actually doesn’t do it. It’s even worse than the picture suggests, as I said. If we instead assume the nominal debt increases by the change in the interest outlays – which means discretionary spending still decreases, but only in real terms – then that chart looks distinctly uglier. The nominal debt in 25 years with these assumptions gets to $294T, and the real debt steadily climbs over $100T.

We can see that this is just not going to work unless we decrease discretionary spending. Again, we’re just trying to figure out if there is some way to inflate ourselves out of this mess. So let’s go back to the assumption that the deficit only rises pari passu with inflation, but now let’s get rocking on inflation and increase it 1% every year, from 4% to 30% over the next quarter-century. Assuming that investors still demand a positive 1% real rate on all new debt, we get this picture.

We finally make some headway on the debt! Because so much of it is short-term, though, it takes a good 6-7 years before we see a lot of progress on the real debt because we’re just rolling it over at higher rates too quickly.

By the way, I neglected to mention that Medicare is an off-balance-sheet ‘debt’ that we can’t outgrow in this fashion. And it’s a big item. It is impossible to inflate away Medicare.

Now, most people who suggest that we can inflate our way out of debt do not imagine a steadily-accelerating inflation rate forever. That’s not what we would call a ‘re-electable outcome’. So let’s instead assume that we spike inflation for two years to 10%, and then drop it back to 4%. You can look at the chart below and see that once again this doesn’t work because the debt is turning over too quickly. There is a quick, small benefit to the real debt, but then it levels off again.

Unless you can spike inflation to, say, 100% for a year or two and then put it right back down to the prior level, you really need accelerating inflation because you need the principal amount of the outstanding debt to fall in real terms more than the interest payments are accumulating. If you can have inflation a bit above the average interest rate on the debt, then you’ll make headway but since the interest rate responds you have to keep doing this for a while. And remember, we are assuming that the government outside of interest payments is steadily shrinking in real terms.

What about if we balanced the budget? Well, then obviously the real debt will tend to decline over time, although more and more of the budget becomes interest payments.

So far, we can find no realistic way to inflate our way out of debt, other than moving toward hyperinflation (and the faster, the better). And even with these simulations, I am making a very unrealistic assumption about how the deficit evolves when the interest costs of the debt blow up. Hyperinflation, with a balanced budget, is what you need. Good luck with that. The only way that happens is if the dollar collapses and no one will lend us any more money anyway. And there is no one in government today, I feel confident in asserting, who thinks that outcome is a decent tradeoff in order to get out from under the mountainous debt. At least…let’s hope not.

Have a better idea? Let’s hear it!

  1. Andy
    May 2, 2024 at 6:30 pm

    your assumption is the interest rate paid is 1% real, but what if it is negative, so the real interest rate is -1%, will that solve the problem?

    • May 2, 2024 at 6:48 pm

      In the real world, it will improve things because that would make the deficit smaller for any given year…in my simulations, which are already too low because I’m assuming discretionary spending declines offset the interest payment increases, it doesn’t really make much of a difference. If I build the model so that discretionary spending is separated from the interest payments, then it definitely improves the picture versus +1% real (but the overall picture is worse because discretionary spending doesn’t go down automatically). But again…doesn’t really solve it. Nothing, in the short-term, does much to it at all.

      Of course, to get decently high inflation with a negative real rate you’d need the real definition of stagflation! Normally, high inflation rates are associated with high nominal AND high real interest rates…

  2. beermug69
    May 2, 2024 at 10:19 pm

    The people I’ve heard talk about inflating the debt away always say it will require financial repression– keeping the interest rate below the rate of inflation. They usually cite the post WWII period in the US in which this was allegedly used to inflate away the wartime debt. They say bond ownership will be mandated in some way such as regulations requiring banks, pension systems, or other institutions to hold a certain amount of them. Russell Napier calls it macroprudential regulation and says it’s a system much closer to a centralized rather than a capitalist economy. He says this sort of thing in the post WWII period led to bonds being known as “certificates of confiscation.” He also jokingly refers to it as “stealing money from old folks slowly,” which is why the gap between the interest rate and inflation would have to be modest. If I recall correctly he said something like 400 basis points for example. He thinks developed economies will be forced into such actions as their debt crisis come to a head: Japan first, then Europe, the UK, and the US last of all. He acknowledges it will be a tough pill for Americans to swallow which is why he thinks we’ll be the last holdout, but will finally have no other choice in the end in order to deal with the debt. Once the debt to GDP ratio has fallen to a manageable level after a number of years (a decade or more), then the system could change and we’d move to whatever comes next.

    • May 2, 2024 at 10:53 pm

      It’s an interesting theory but wrong in history. Post WWII, US growth was huge and the federal government cut spending after the wartime expenditures and ran massive surpluses up to about 5% of GDP. THAT is how the debt came down – it wasn’t the real value of the debt only, but the nominal value that fell sharply.

      There are all kinds of ways to eliminate the debt if you don’t care about legal niceties or your credit rating. But if you’re gonna do that. But you better balance that budget first because unless you’re gonna cram ALL of the $22T in debt to banks, pensions, and so on, then you still need other buyers.

      The bottom line is that the only responsible way out is to get the budget back to surplus – FAST, before the interest costs of the debt make it impossible to balance without confiscatory taxes.

  3. Dog
    May 3, 2024 at 9:53 am

    I think the first three comments here (Andy, Michael and Beer…) demonstrate public understanding of the situation to a tee.

  4. Dog
    May 3, 2024 at 10:30 am

    The two Trackbacks with consideration of hindsight after experiencing the era are quite informative. I highly recommend reading the two trackbacks. I am especially appreciative of Marshall’s comment to “Yeehaw…” It was my experience that inflation helped me to cover my mortgage, but the lag was difficult. The medical insurance benefit reality is cyclical oscillating between paying more for less and receiving more for the same subscriber cost.

  5. Bob B
    May 6, 2024 at 9:42 am

    All roads lead to yield curve control?

  6. May 9, 2024 at 3:20 pm

    Why would anyone buy US 30Y Treasuries now at below 5 per cent?

    • Dog
      May 10, 2024 at 10:21 am

      Because such persons (anyone) are buying into the sales pitch of negative interest rates.

      Yes, I am still stuck on that topic. I can’t get it out of my head, negative interest rates.

      • May 10, 2024 at 9:27 pm

        Did you ever read my column “Wimpy’s World?” One of my all-time favorite columns.

    • May 10, 2024 at 9:26 pm

      Only because they have dollars in trade, and the alternative is to buy stocks! No rational reason…

  1. May 3, 2024 at 2:59 am

Leave a Reply

Discover more from E-piphany

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading