Libre opinion,
couple Karl Eychenne
The debt has become uncontrollable since we are demanding measures to calm its ardor. If we are so zealous about controlling debt, it is because the beast is annoying. Because if the debt was solvent, how can we explain the hysteria it motivates? No sequitur. Whether the debt is excessive, unbearable, insolvent, all of this is admissible. But like any proposition, it is not enough to state the prose to produce the gloss. The evidence does not paralyze the demonstration, contrary to the adage. As for the expression “everyone sees that” the debt is not solvent, it is not worthy of an ex professo expertise.
Presumed guilty
And yet and yet, it would seem that the screams of orphans have replaced lucid criticism, the fear testifying to the urgency. Today, time is no longer for analysis, it is for charging. We no longer try to understand the debt, we punish it. Because she didn't obey somehow. She ventured beyond the authorized area. She didn't do what was expected of her, or not well, or not enough. Like Xerxes who had the sea whipped for breaking a bridge. So, no more time to try to understand. The time has come for the accusation. The debt is responsible, and the debtor is the culprit. If he wants to defend himself, it is up to him to produce proof of his innocence, that is to say, his solvency. The debtor is presumed insolvent until he proves otherwise. The burden of proof lies with him. Curious moment in legal theory, where you are presumed guilty until you have proven your innocence. Only dictatorships of thought offer such treatment.
“We too often criticize the debt not because it is insolvent, but because it is maintained by the opposing camp”
The statement is caricatured. But it is to better serve the cause he defends. Just a little intellectual honesty. There is no question here of supporting the debt at will, of being left 'left', or of the crooked right. This is the difference between a committed economist and a furious economist. No need to claim any school of thought to try to think correctly. Right thinking begins by overturning a few false beliefs, which most often serve as pretexts for stubborn grudges rather than for constructive debate. In other words, debt is too often criticized not because it is insolvent, but because it is maintained by the opposing camp.
A prayer, risks and arithmetic
Debt is not a promise, it is a prayer. Even if he wanted to, the debtor could not promise anything since the future cannot be reduced to his good will alone. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? The debtor can just pray to be able to repay his debt. But promising is a provocation made to chance. Debt is a doubtful debt. No one can completely escape the whims of fate. Quite simply because the list of all possible bad news is not known in advance. Thus, even the most solvent debtor, the least objectionable, will not resist the expression of a risk which was not part of the list of possible risks at the start, the arrival of extraterrestrials for example, or the covid crisis .
“Even the most solvent debtor, the least objectionable, will not resist the expression of a risk which was not part of the list of possible risks at the start, the arrival of extraterrestrials for example, or the covid crisis”
A budget deficit of almost -5%, as today, is not prohibitive. The debt-to-GDP ratio at nearly 110% could very well be reduced, even with a deficit of -5%. To do this, it is sufficient for the differential between economic growth and real interest rates (rate minus inflation) to be at least +3% (0% today), in order to cover a primary deficit (budget deficit without interest) of -3%. Is this possible? Economically, this is a fantasy. But technically, you have to say yes. Just imagine real GDP growth of 1%, which is the current level, a level close to potential growth. To this we add inflation at 2%, which is the current level for underlying inflation (excluding the effect of energy and food prices). Finally, we end with 10-year interest rates which fall to 0% as in the heyday of unconventional monetary policies, compared to 3% currently. In such a scenario, the budget deficit could remain at -5% while allowing a reduction in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Incredible, but arithmetically true.
A matter of creditor opinion
Even if the debt were declared unbearable, it would only be an expert opinion, an opinion, sound advice addressed to the creditor. But absolutely nothing to do with a demonstration. Because the ontology of debt is not soluble in logical deduction or calculation. Economic rationale fails to summarize the dynamics of debt. Debt can never be declared insolvent because of a number, a ratio, or a level. The debt will be insolvent if and only if the creditor decides to do so. Only he can refuse to lend you again, just as he can agree to lend you again, even if common sense suggests the opposite.
“Then the very existence of this debt would be proof that paradoxes exist. Because the debt is unbearable and yet we have been supporting it for so many years”
Finally, let's admit that the debt is indeed unbearable, like an axiom falling from the sky dictating its truth to economic reality. So the very existence of this debt would be proof that paradoxes exist. Because the debt is unbearable and yet we have been carrying it for so many years. However, a paradox can only survive if it results from an error of assessment, of a model in scientific language, of false beliefs in economic language. Otherwise we would be dealing with an antinomy. Harder to fight. The debt exists, so it is good that it is not unbearable; because debt cannot be and not-be at the same time.
A story to believe in
But the cup is full it seems, and that must be enough to convince us. There is no longer any question of watching the debt escape even higher. And this even if governance by numbers alone fails to impose its verdict. We decided that the debtor was close to bankruptcy and even closer to the vulture funds, and that we now had to react while keeping a grim eye on the lifelines. This article does not defend either the debtor or the creditor, but questions the turn of events. He just suggests remembering that a debt is not just a number darkening a picture or a trajectory drawing a curve. A debt, no matter how big, tells a story that you can never believe, even if the accumulation of broken promises motivates nervous laughter.
“This article defends neither the debtor nor the creditor, but questions the turn of events”
Because the debt is ambiguous. It has this dual ability to be able to push you to the bottom of the hole as well as to pull you out of nothingness. “We don’t know, with each step we take, if we are walking on a seed or on a piece of debris.” Musset, 'The Confession of a Child of the Century'.
Related News :