Ask HN: What country would you lend money to?
Many nations besides the United States are seeking to borrow funds by issuing bonds.
While in the past the U.S. has always been a "preferred" borrower because of a world "dollar standard" and a presumption of good governance there are many indications that this perception is changing.
With so much of our exploding debt being short-term any fall off in a willingness of others to finance it could be disastrous for our future.
If you were one of those bond buyers (and being broke I'm definitely not a bond buyer, but very interested in our future)...
What country would YOU lend to?
Are we still the best "bet" on the planet? Are other nations "tied" to us in ways that prevent them for NOT lending to us?
Or should we all start hoarding stocks of non-perishable foods?
33 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 87.7 ms ] thread1. Isn't in the EU
2. Isn't the US or too closely tied to the US
3. Isn't too closely tied to the UK
4. Isn't terribly unstable, unpredictable or currently at war
That doesn't leave me with much, I guess... though then again, I'm doing this for the citizenship, not the investment, so maybe my criteria isn't the most useful ;-)
I heard an idea once that high mobility could lead to countries having to 'compete' for citizens!
My criteria is based around the fact that the one EU country is as good as the rest, really (and I already have an EU passport), same goes for commonwealth countries. Finally, theres no point in "hiding away" in a country that will give in to US pressure without a fight either.
Some of these may work: Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra, maybe Panama? I'm sure theres a bunch more, but I have never seriously looked into it.
EDIT: The original Commentor's criteria are exceedingly difficult to meet.
That said, I think Singapore and Indonesia are the nations which provide the closest matches to the required criteria.
Singapore's main trading partners are China, Malaysia, EU then US.
Indonesia's main trading partners are Japan, EU, Singapore then US.
I would throw in Malaysia but I am not altogether certain about their immigration laws.
The Emirates might fit, but while they are stable at the moment, I'm uncertain as to whether that stability is enduring. Think Lebanon in the 60's.
Most reports that I read point to nations like Indonesia and Malaysia as providing the most mid-term upside while reducing the perceived 'American Risk' via the idea broadly known as 'de-linking'.
For the longer term believe it or not, places like Madagascar, and the eastern African Islands are looking increasingly well positioned. Think increasing African trade with China.
singapore
(this is partially driven by the fact that it is one of the 2 places in the world I would consider moving too to live)
So maybe not sound business; but as long as there isn't a net loss in the reasonably long term...
The investment has to be in a viable business (property does not qualify, obviously, nor does deposit in a bank), and cannot be for personal use.
Citizenship takes 5 years of residence, like most places.
I don't think any country will sell you citizenship (at least, not any country you'd want to go to :)
India is even more interesting because there are a lot of educated people, but still very low living costs. Early America is the last time there's been a combination like that.
http://blogs.reuters.com/japan/2009/11/14/japans-bulging-deb...
It's credit rating is ranked lower than Botswana:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/japan-falls-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/japan.html
2.2 percent on a 30 year bond, which means that the maximum upside on the principal is roughly 20 percent. So, a 10K investment could theoretically rise to 12K if the 30 year yield drops to 0, which it won't. If it rises to something sensible, like 6 or 8 percent, you take a bath.
People seem to think of bonds like they do savings accounts, but they aren't. There's a huge principal risk. And government debt always seems "off" to me. For instance, Japanese debt is largely held by the Japanese themselves, for patriotic reasons sometimes. This distorts the market.
Norway would just pay you back immediately, thus making your lending pointless. And if we're actually talking about lending them an amount that they'd need, like, say, a trillion dollars, I'm not sure that I'd bet long term on the Norwegian economy at that scale.
The Euro has been strong over the majority of the past decade. Yes, less than 10 years time. Remember that from 1999 to 2002, the Euro was falling with decent consistency.
The US Dollar has been a stable currency for a lot longer and the US economy has done well for a long time.
People are worried about debt, but it might not be that much of a risk. If the banks pay back the money that was lent to them, the treasury can take that money and destroy it and there's no expansion of the money supply beyond a short stop-gap. Likewise, if they pay back the money with interest (and there's little chance this won't be the case), the US government can gain funds as well as not expanding the money supply.
The perception has changed a little, but not drastically with those devoid of political intent. Sure, part of it is that the Bush administration played loose with the currency and, in fact, sometimes argued for a weaker dollar and the current wars make the US look less of a good investment, but part of it is definitely political. I mean, if you're China you sure want to create the perception that the US won't be the continuing standard. If nothing else, it's like having two parts suppliers even if you don't consider one of them to be a serious option - you can always use them as a negotiating chip with the supplier you do consider a serious option even if it's a hollow threat. Likewise, many European politicians would like to consider their power rising; Iranian officials love to blast the US; people opposed to the wars want to play the debt card; etc. And some of it is legitimate, but some of it is FUD. I mean, if I came on here and said, "Linux just doesn't do graphics" there's a bit of truth there in that graphics card drivers might not come out as quickly or be as optimized, but it's not like you can't have a nice GUI or use the GIMP or whatnot, but I can say "truthful" things that are completely misleading because I want to advance an anti-Linux agenda. And the same is true here, one can say that the treasury (doubled|tripled|whatnot) the debt and not talk about how most of that is being repaid and it doesn't look like there's much of a chance it won't be repaid. It's the "truth", but it's still misleading. And if you have an agenda, those truths are your friend. Again, not to say that there aren't problems, just to say that some people might be pushing those problems out of proportion to advance an untrue agenda.
Oh, and one thing is important to note: government debt doesn't need to be financed. It does in the long-run, but not in the short term. A government with its own currency has the option to print money. When a government just prints money, it can cause inflation since if each dollar is a fraction of the economy as a whole and there are now more dollars, each dollar is a smaller fraction of the economy. Now, I say "can" there, because there isn't some automatic mechanism - it's based on people's perceptions. In fact, inflation can happen even without an expansion of the money supply simply based on people's fear that inflation should be happening.
And it looks like the "exploding debt" will only be short term as many of the banks have already repaid their loans.
You can try betting on hoarding food or whatnot, but you're most likely going to turn out wrong. It's not that other nations are "tied" to us so much as the US is still a very good economy. Plus, US debt isn't so bad. As of 2008, it was at ~38% of GDP. Compare that with Japan at ~172% of GDP and you can see that many countries do live with a lot more debt (Italy 105%; Greece 97%; Egypt 86%; Israel 76%; Canada 63%; France 68%; Germany 66%. . .). And as long as all the TARP money comes back to the government, there hasn't been any real expansion of the debt - it was a short term loan that looks like it'll be repaid quickly if it hasn't been repaid already.
Now, there are challenges. Rising healthcare and...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
USA
Public Debt: 37.5% of 14 Trillion Dollars (GDP)
External Debt: $13.75 Trillion
Total Debt: 138% of GDP
Canada
Public Debt: 63.8% of 1.303 Trillion (GDP)
External Debt: $0.7811 Trillion
Total Debt: 123% of GDP
ALSO, it is very important to clarify that Canada does Net Present Value accounting for our retiree programs (our version of Social Security actually has a FUND where we save money for our retires, its not a cash in cash out program). If the USA did account like Canada did you guys would be at roughly double our debt level. Check out IOUSA for a better explanation.
But help me out on some greater understanding of "GDP"...
When wages stay constant or go down, but a profitable financial industry instead is created that lends money to consumers at say 20% or more (for simple consumption and/or speculation with no potential to increase the productive economy at that rate)...
Isn't that financial industry profit part of the GDP? As are naked credit default swap trading profits? Etc...
Are these kinds of profits the same as profits from a physical export? Or development of natural resources?
Wouldn't higher wages and less lending have been a better use of national wealth and productivity?
Are all "profits" truly equal in terms of their real long-term effect on an economy
The deal is this: China lends money to the US and US consumers buy chinese exports for that money. I'm not quite sure what will happen when this scheme ends. It may be ending right now so we will see.
The US is not going to formally default on its debt. What they are going to try is to inflate the debt away and TIPS protect you against that if your income is in USD.
Still, if inflation is your concern then better a halfhearted adjustment than none at all.