Earlier this month, New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced that the city government plans to issue NT$10 billion (US$332.9 million) in “city treasury bills” next month to relieve a budget shortage.
The National Treasury Administration said that issuing city treasury bills provides a new channel when a local government faces a shortage in funds, and because the interest rate is relatively low, the central government is pleased to see the issuing of the bills.
However, as China’s local-government debt crisis is worsening and the eurozone debt crisis remains unresolved, the move offers an excellent opportunity to revisit the fundamental question of whether borrowing money, issuing debt and public debt destroys the country involved.
The public pays taxes for the government to provide services, and the government can only do so within the budgetary limits set by the taxes levied each fiscal year.
In other words, its expenditure should not exceed its revenue. The services the government provides should be proposed by the public or by popularly elected public representatives who are there to monitor the government on the public’s behalf. After collecting relevant information through the relevant channels, the government then comes up with its annual budget, which, in theory, should be within its budgetary limits.
However, according to the economic theory of “functional finance,” the idea that expenditure should not exceed revenue was challenged by the proposition that it did not matter if expenditure exceeded revenue.
Since there is limited scope to increase taxes, governments then borrow so that they can increase expenditure. During election campaigns, candidates often promise to boost spending on infrastructure, and during the global economic panic of the 1930s, economist John Maynard Keynes’ theory of government-created “aggregate demand” was widely accepted as governments adopted costly policies to stimulate demand.
With the wide acceptance of deficit spending, it has been difficult to strike a balance between revenue and expenditure, as governments often spend more than they have in reserve and have no choice but to borrow money.
Almost every country in the world is doing this, and it is this practice that has caused the debt crises of the modern era. The debt crises around the world demonstrate that this is a serious problem.
How can this problem be resolved? There are two possible solutions: austerity or growth.
The former means reducing government expenditure while the latter entails borrowing to increase expenditure and stimulate the economy. The jury is out on which approach works best, but both Iceland and Greece have been forced to resort to austerity measures, and their economies are gradually recovering.
The word “debt” means “owing money,” which implies both a debt and the responsibility to return that debt. When deciding to borrow money, a clear and thorough plan is required, outlining how much is to be borrowed, under what conditions, when it is to be repayed and how the money required to repay it is to be raised.
Borrowing money was a big deal in pre-industrial agricultural societies. Debtors would be embarrassed and constantly thought of how to repay debt. If they were unable to do so, they would apologize and it even happened that they would repay it with their lives.
As society continues to develop, there are more types of debt, and the social stigma attached to it has gone. People think of taking out loans as normal, and one TV commercial even promoted the idea that borrowing was noble.
It is becoming common that people refuse to repay a debt even if they have the money, and they think they are doing the right thing. They are the envy of other people, who praise their capability.
Remember the saying that if you owe the bank a million dollars, your destiny is in its hands, but if you owe the bank 10 billion dollars, the bank’s destiny is in your hands? This is a reflection of today’s problem.
This attitude exists not only in the civil sector, but also in the public sector worldwide, and people are getting used to it.
As a result, rampant public debt is creating more crises, as governments often raise new debt to pay for old debt, thus creating a financial black hole. As they spend more than they should, the burden of debt falls both on the current and the next generation.
That being so, the axiom that public debt can be the demise of a country might be true.
To prevent the collapse of the nation, we need to remember that a person’s debt is their own responsibility. We need to increase sources of income and reduce expenses, and work particularly hard on the latter.
Individually, we should run our finances based on the past virtues of thrift and saving, while the government should resort to austerity policies.
Wu Hui-lin is a researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations