by Sell Everything » 12 Nov 2007 12:59
I've got to say, I agree with David on this - it seems like the book has taken a sidestep from basic economics.
Most debt creation is a simple reflection of financial innovation. For example, say I lend you £10 and in return, you lend me £10 (seems ridiculous, I know, but bear with me...) Are either of us worse off? No. The interest I charge on my loan can pay the interest I will owe. And we haven't created any value added (GDP is unchanged). Yet, both aggregate wealth and debt have risen by £20. Consequently, debt relative to the size of the economy has increased.
We can take this further. I don't know Minh from Adam, so what's to say he'll pay back the £10 he owes me? Nothing. But if he doesn't pay me back, the economy isn't necassarily worse off - he wins, I lose out. What I'm trying to get across is that the rise in debt and subsequent defaults we've seen in recent years might not have the big macroeconomic impact everyone assumes it will. In the long term, defaults will only matter to the extent that it affects confidence and causes lenders to be be excessively risk averse.