The Savings Glut Thesis: What is the True Net Savings?

I will discuss that chart in a bit, first let’s play a thought game.

Thought Game Conditions

• The Government pays a NYSE listed corporation a $1 trillion to build a bridge
• Money Supply rises by $1 trillion
• The expected life of the bridge is 30 years.
• Via increased economic activity and tax collection the government will collect $250 billion (the government will lose $750 billion).
• The builder pays employees $700 billion and records a $300 billion profit paid out as dividends. 
• The employees spend $630 billion and save $70 billion.
• Assume interest is zero and there is no time preference or time value of money.

Q: What is the True Net Savings?

New Conditions 

• The first day in service a terrorist blows up the bridge or an act of God destroys it. 
• The bridge is worthless. Moreover there are now $100 billion in cleanup costs. 

Q: What is the True Net Savings Now?

True Savings 

From a personal point of view the dividend recipients saved $300 billion and the employees saved another $70 billion.

The dividend recipients made out like bandits but even more so did the corporate executives who undoubtedly got huge bonuses and stock options. Hooray!

But where did the money come from? 

We have a redistribution not savings. Government took money from future taxpayers and wasted it on unproductive assets. 

After the bridge collapses and is cleaned up, there is an additional $1.1 trillion sloshing around as M2 and alleged personal savings in the bank. 

That is offset by $1.1 trillion in debt. The government created winners and losers, nothing was saved.

Total  Credit Market Debt Owed

Total credit market debt owed is $85.9 trillion!

That number comes from the Fed. 

How much of that can possibly be paid back?

Savings Glut?!

Former Fed chair Ben Bernanke says interest rates are so low because of Part 3: The Global Savings Glut

… My conclusion was that a global excess of desired saving over desired investment, emanating in large part from China and other Asian emerging market economies and oil producers like Saudi Arabia, was a major reason for low global interest rates. I argued that the flow of global saving into the United States helped to explain the “conundrum” (to use Alan Greenspan’s term) of persistently low longer-term interest rates in the mid-2000’s while the Fed was raising short-term rates. 

The idea is of course preposterous. Bernanke confuses monetary printing and financial speculation with saving.

What is Saving?

Saving = Production – Consumption 

Here’s a classical example. A farmer producers 100 bushels of wheat. He eats 10 of them and saves 90. But wheat rots. So he sells those 90 bushels for dollars. Those dollars are now his saving. 

Personal Savings

Take a look at the lead chart. 

The three spikes are three rounds of Covid stimulus, the first under Trump and the second two spikes under Biden.

This money was handed out willy-nilly.

What was produced? The answer of course is nothing. 

Negative Saving

If nothing was produced, there can be no saving. But most of that money has now been spent.

Ah, but what about the bill?

Yes, thanks to the handouts there are trillions of dollars of negative savings added to the US debt stockpile that someone has to pay back. 

We spent (borrowed from the future) what we never produced. That is net negative saving. 

This discussion does not imply the government should have stood back and done nothing at all, but the stimulus checks were not targeted and the third was total overkill, with consequences.

Consider Military Spending

The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year on military equipment.

At least the government (taxpayer) gets something, investment in bombs and military equipment. 

Let’s consider another identity regarding savings.

Savings = Investment 

Since Savings = Production – Consumption we can derive:
Investment = Production – Consumption

The government invested in bombs. When they are dropped the value of that investment is now zero. The bombs have been consumed, but the money and alleged saving is still sloshing around. 

The same thing happens to military equipment. It becomes obsolete over time. 

Wheat rots, equipment gets obsolete. Both are forms of consumption.

If the spending was truly for defense, we would get something for our money. Unfortunately, we unwisely use taxpayer money to be the world’s policeman.

And what about Vietnam, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan? 

That is totally unproductive debt that keeps piling up. And don’t forget interest on the debt.

There are winners and losers. The winners in this example are the politically connected, the banks, and the industrial-military complex. 

Everyone else is a loser. Yet, out of this ridiculous mess, Bernanke proposes a “savings glut”.

What About GDP?

Let’s consider debt through the eyes of GDP with a spotlight on China and the developer Evergrande.

According to the New York Times, Evergrande has more than $300 billion in financial obligations, hundreds of unfinished residential buildings and angry suppliers who have shut down construction sites. Things got so bad that the company paid its overdue bills with unfinished properties and asked employees to lend it money.

A few days ago Evergrande was ordered to tear down some of those buildings. 

All of this activity added to GDP. Money spent tearing down the structures will add to GDP as well.

Is this ridiculous? Of course it is. 

Realistically, not just because of Evergrande, Chinese GDP is way overstated. In practice however, the malinvestment will come at the expense of future GDP. 

The same applies to the US.. And this is why it takes increasing amounts of money to goose GDP at all. 

The law of diminishing returns has kicked in. The marginal impact of more debt decreases over time. 

What About Inflation?

Those three rounds of stimulus in the US combined with QE forcing interest rates lower when they should have gone the other way produced a nasty bout of inflation.

Speculation is running rampant in stocks, houses, Bitcoin, NFTs, and even zombie companies via junk bonds. 

A zombie company is one unable to cover debt servicing costs from current profits over an extended period. The Fed has kept them alive with low interest rates. 

What is the True Net Savings in the US?

I have no idea. Nor does anyone else. But it is the sum of all the buildings, productive assets etc, not the alleged value of them in dollar terms at the moment.

The Fed has so distorted money supply and there is so much debt and financial speculation it is impossible to say what portion of total credit can actually be paid back (i.e. productive vs unproductive debt). 

Once again, talk of a savings glut is absurd. We also know the Fed blew another massive bubble.

Financial Crisis Coming

In June of 2017, then Fed Chair Janet Yellen proclaimed I Don’t See a Financial Crisis Occurring ‘In Our Lifetimes’.

Even if we let the Covid pandemic slide as a non-crisis, these debt levels ensure another global financial crisis is coming.

Meanwhile, the Fed is trying to undo its damage with a hawkish FOMC meeting. 

For discussion, please see The Bond Market Reacted to Hawkish Fed Meeting Minutes Days In Advance: Why?

Lots of words were spilled today in over the Fed’s allegedly hawkish FOMC meeting minutes. Let’s go over several things no one else seems to have caught.

It’s far too late for the Fed to stop the now inevitable crash. Yet, there still no way to time the event. 

However, expect the outcome to be a deflationary crash not hyperinflation. That’s what happens when debt bubbles implode. And this is the biggest debt bubble in history.

Correction and Additions

One of my bright readers accurately pointed out my first example was redistribution from one set of taxpayers to another with no net savings, now corrected. 

I also added discussion from another identity Savings = Investment with an example of military equipment.

Thanks for Tuning In!

Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen.

Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

41 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mbartv1234
Mbartv1234
2 years ago
Glad to see you mention wastage on Military industrial complex, needless wars.  You are always concerned about debt when it comes to domestic spending, which at least might have some tangible benefit in this country.  The military spending is far more wasteful, but of course the “conservative” republicans party doesn’t give a hoot.  Not that the dems are much better, but at least they’re more focused on improving lives in this country.  With a health insurance system that’s 150 years behind Germany’s and an infrastructure about the quality of Turkey’s, we can use some govt investment here.
GodfreeRoberts
GodfreeRoberts
2 years ago
Realistically, not just because of Evergrande, Chinese GDP is way overstated.
A popular meme, but unsupported by facts. The PRC has been debt- and risk-averse since its inception.
Whenever they’re faced with a problem, they always ask, “How can we make a profit/break even on this?” Usually, they figure out a way. Their high speed rail system, for example, is profitable because (a) the PRC is in a position to capture/create revenue flows and (b) there are no ‘competing factions’ that can cream off profits.
Most Chinese debt is thus self-liquidating and what remains is between government departments (like the State owned banks and State enterprises. ALL of it is denominated in RMB, off course. And, since growth eats debt and China is growing twice as fast as the US, its rapidly expanding economy keeps defaults to a minimum. Even Evergrande has $345 billion in assets backing its $300 billion in liabilities.
The BIS ranks China as the least indebted major economy.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
2 years ago
Savings = production – consumption; the US hasn’t produced anything since who knows when, yet has been spending like a drunken sailor…..
Can you imagine just how utterly vapid and stupid one must be, to believe that adds up to, of all things, a savings “glut….”
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
“Can you imagine just how utterly vapid and stupid one must be, to believe that adds up to, of all things, a savings “glut….””
Absolutely.  One (of many) reason why I tuned out Larry Summers long ago.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Thanks TT 
I made a pretty big mistake last night, now corrected. 
I also added another identity “Savings = Investment” to my military example.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
MISH, I may not always agree with you on non financial subjects but your in detail analysis of the present  economic/financial situation is definitely remarkably and admirably impressive, on the other hand though it only takes some common sense or merely a couple of braincells to realise that we are togetherly, and preferably vaccinatedly :-), living in a UNSUSTAINABLE bubble…. and within this context  I ll even refrain from mentioning potentially nefast geopolitical and even earthly related  issues….that being said Mish , how do you suggest, with a view on a unfavourable future, that people with a pleasant moderate comfortable life style like you(I think) and me and many others with us, prepare for a not so pleasant future ????   Thanks Mish , I do like your blog…      
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
You need the oracle of Thebes to answer that. Oh wait, she doesn’t exist. Never mind, any of the biblical catastrophes would be in the ballpark.
Bam_Man
Bam_Man
2 years ago
There is a “Printing Glut”, not a “Savings Glut”.
km72
km72
2 years ago
Mish, can you do a post on what you think the next financial crisis will look like?  Should we expect the same thing as the 2008 crisis only this time it is with government bonds instead of mortgage bonds and on a much large scale?  Thanks
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  km72
I think the next crisis comes in the car market (bonds). Right now new and used car prices are vastly higher than they have ever been before. To the point where people are selling 1 and 2 year old cars for more money than they cost new. Eventually, the supply chain will get fixed (maybe not till the end of 2022 or even early 2023) and at that time the supply of new cars will drive down the price of new cars and the used car market too.
This will put a LOT of car buyers in the 2nd half of 2020 and all of 2021 and maybe half or more of 2022 underwater by quite a bit of money (I’d guess on the order of 10k or more per car). We could see a lot of jingle mail with cars like we did with homes and that would start a crisis in the bonds for cars.
I’d also expect another mortgage crisis if the Fed follows through and raises rates by any meaningful amount (more than 1.5%) in the next couple of years. Even a 2% rise in mortgage rates would cause homes to devalue by 40+ percent causing a repeat of 2008.
US Government bonds are still far safer than the above bonds and thus much less likely to cause the next crisis.
FromBrussels
FromBrussels
2 years ago
Reply to  km72
Dunno whether  Mish will give you THE answer….lemme tell you though that 2008 will ve been a garden party compared with the total abyss that s coming our way….of that I am sure !  Miracles do NOT exist , definitely not the ones based on out of the blue created ‘money’ …. 
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
“lemme tell you though that 2008 will ve been a garden party compared with the total abyss that s coming our way”
Agree.  The one thing I do know is that The Generals have been busy preparing to fight the last war (mark to model / open discount window to every tom dick and harry / buy corporates) so there will be NO “Lehman Moment” … at least on Wall Street.  Something will arise from somewhere that will trigger collapse.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels
The unaccounted for risk is that the people’s deputies, or at least those who venture an opinion on it, believe the economy is fixed by the bold action of central bankers.
Christoball
Christoball
2 years ago
All of these debt problems existed before covid. Before covid all of the lack of savings were present also. The liquidity injected into the system the last two years was necessary to keep the ball rolling in the expansion direction. Covid offered plausible denial for, and acceptance of, this iquidity injection.
JeffD
JeffD
2 years ago
Most likely scenario? Hyperinflation followed by deflation. Look at history. Happens that way more often than not.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  JeffD
“Happens that way more often than not.”
But happens to some third world sap.  Not Majors whose currency are considered “reserve”.  
Our “hyperinflation” over (or nearly so).
JeffD
JeffD
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
We *are* some third world sap. Asia is where the bulk of real production occurs. The major US export today  is 1s and 0s produced in a computer at some financial entity.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  JeffD
Now that you mention it …
Seriously,  currency exchange rates are set on the open market.    Look around,  ECB and BOJ push the envelope on  Krazy  …  and only matter of time before China devalues.  
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago
A financial parable from Byzantium. 
“Once two clever Athenian policemen were pursuing a Theban thief towards the city boundaries when they came upon a sign: ‘The Sign of the Grape. Thebans made welcome.’ One said: ‘He will have taken refuge here.’
‘No,’ cried the other, ‘this is just the place where he will expect us to look for him.’ ‘Exactly,’ rejoined the first, ‘so he will have decided to outwit us by entering.’ They therefore searched the place thoroughly. Meanwhile the Theban thief, who could not read, had run on to safety across the boundary.”
― Robert Graves, 
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
2 years ago
The saving glut fairy tale is a thinly disguised TP created to hide the derriere of the cabal who engineered the financial crash, and QE forever.
Yeah, blame it on savers!
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
“Ah, but what about the bill?”
There was a story on local news last night, about a couple who ate at a local restaurant running up a $90 tab, each. They left without paying the bill. The manager caught it happening and stood in front off their car as they left. He wound up on the hood, rolling off to the right, as the driver hit the gas pedal to escape. The manager was shaken up, but not seriously hurt. A surveillance camera got a clean shot of one, without his Covid mask on. Once caught, L.A. D.A. Gascon will probably have them out on no bail, in no time at all.
RonJ
RonJ
2 years ago
They used to have that Year of Jubilee. It was every 50 years. Kondratieff rediscovered the 50 year cycle, with a seasonal themed version. Martin Armstrong combined two cycles into a 100 year cycle, splitting it into a private wave and a public wave of 50 years each. Roosevelt to Carter being the public wave and Reagan to ? being the private wave, into 2032, the 100th anniversary of the depths of the Great Depression.
Paul Volker wrote of rediscovering the business cycle, which never went away. The more they invent ways to change things, the more they stay the same. With new lipstick, it is still the same pig.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Mish, I don’t quite follow your bridge example.
Lets say there are 1000 people in a country and the government gives each 1000 dollars (1 million in total). The True Net Savings isn’t 1 million (1000×1000), it’s 0 since the people got 1000 each and the government is -1 million and each person owes 1000 dollars.
Now, lets say there are 1000 people in a country and the government gives 500 of them 2000 dollars (1 million in total). The True Net Savings is still 0 since 500 people got 2000 each and the government is -1 million and each person owes 1000 dollars. The difference here is what happened was the government redistributed 500K (the 500 people who didn’t get 1000 but still owe 1000).
Your bridge example falls into the 2nd category. It’s just a redistribution (assuming interest rate is 0 as per your example). All of the 1 trillion (including the 630 billion the employees spent) still ultimately ends up as someones savings somewhere down the line so the true net savings should be 0 (government spent 1 trillion, people ended up with 1 trillion). But when it comes to paying back the money, it’s equally distributed among everyone and hence some people make out like bandits while others are force to pay for something they got 0 value from. All government spending is redistribution because the government doesn’t produce anything, it only spends.
Yooper
Yooper
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I’d tend to agree if we had this conversation 15 yrs ago (at least the way the Fed worked officially), but now the money is blatantly created from nowhere, with really no means to pay it back. In today’s world, the government spending isn’t (or doesn’t have to be) through redistribution.
Now, how long this scheme lasts is a whole other topic, but seems to be inevitable.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
You are correct TT
I wrote that at 3:00 AM and not thinking clearly
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Hhmm, first week of 2022 and already 2 terrain warnings …
BIG miss on December vehicle sales … and a drop in rent:
Welcome to the first link to apartmentlist.com National Rent Report of 2022. Our national index fell by 0.2 percent during the month of December, marking the only time in 2021 when rents declined month-over-month. A slight dip in rents at this time of year is typical of seasonality in the market, but it’s especially notable after a year of record-setting growth. Over the course of calendar year 2021, the national median rent increased by a staggering 17.8 percent. To put that in context, annual rent growth averaged just 2.3 percent in the pre-pandemic years from 2017-2019.
Doug78
Doug78
2 years ago

Money is
just the best way to get people to work. Another way is coercion. Yet another
is status. Savings on the other hand is a way for people to not have to work so
money and saving are exact opposites. If you don’t want people to work you give
them savings and if you do want them to work you take the savings away either
by confiscation or by inflation. Looking at present policy we can see that the
process is self-correcting. Having given people too much savings thus giving
them too much “not having to work” power and since people not working means no
production, these savings are now being destroyed through inflation because now
there are too few goods and services compared to savings.  Eventually when enough savings has been destroyed
or confiscated people will have to go back to work which is by the way the
objective of any rational government. The Fed will do this by 1) allowing inflation
to run a bit devaluing savings then 2) raising interest rates which will eat up
remaining savings by causing the markets to decline. Excess savings will then
be sufficiently destroyed to force people back to work and work is the only true way to increase wealth for a nation. All others are illusion.

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
“But the distribution is hardly equal. “
Precisely.  I don’t care about how accurate savings rate is, since concentrated in the hands of those who least need it.
We all read these stories from time to time, but the latest one I saw from Bankrate – only 37% of Americans had $1000 on hand for an emergency.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
There’s no such thing as savings glut or savings rate or money on the sidelines. All money outside of physical cash is someone’s savings at all times. All money is in a cash account at all times. The stock market has no cash. The bond market has no cash. When you trade a stock or bond, you’re transferring money from your cash account to the sellers cash account. There’s a small commission going to the trading platforms cash account too. When you buy a house or buy anything, you’re doing the same thing. Moving money from your cash account to the sellers cash account. It might take a some billing cycles to sort out, but that’s the net effect.
The only thing that matters is how much money the FED creates every month. Once they stop creating money, aggregate prices can’t go up any more. People won’t have enough in their cash accounts in aggregate to pay more for the same stuff.
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
“The only thing that matters is how much money the FED creates every month.”
Like your first paragraph, but quibble here.  Federal Reserve QE is swapping of assets (digital $US for longer dated treasuries / mbs) and not creating money.  Commercial banks create money thru their lending.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
No. QE is money created by the FED that is then used to purchase MBS and treasuries. How do you think the FED gets money to grow their balance sheet?
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
No.  QE is a swap of assets.  The “money” that Federal Reserve uses to buy assets ends up as excess reserves of commercial banks.  It is up to the banks to lend to release this “money”.
Bernanke:
“Some observers have expressed the concern that, by expanding its balance sheet, the Federal Reserve is effectively printing money, an action that will ultimately be inflationary.  The Fed’s lending activities have indeed resulted in a large increase in the excess reserves held by banks.  Bank reserves, together with currency, make up the narrowest definition of money, the monetary base; as you would expect, this measure of money has risen significantly as the Fed’s balance sheet has expanded.  However, banks are choosing to leave the great bulk of their excess reserves idle, in most cases on deposit with the Fed.”
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
It’s a swap of assets. FED exchanges freshly created USD for debt. All the money eventually flows back to the banks as all money does. What the banks do with the money is up to them, but, it doesn’t change the fact QE is money printing.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
2 years ago
Reply to  KidHorn
Your link validates Bernanke’s view.
I think we are more or less in agreement.  Our difference is when money becomes money.  With QE it is trapped in banking system till it is lent out … and made public (my  position).  
And remember QE is a two way street.  When Federal Reserve reduces balance sheet – via sale of asset or run off – it sucks those digital $US back.
KidHorn
KidHorn
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Bennett
It becomes money right away. The money goes to the debt holders they purchased from. It adds directly to the money supply. The reason it juices stock prices is because the money that was invested in the debt the FED bought now has to find a new investment home and the new home is frequently the stock market.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
1: Since a large part of that stimulus money was spent buying goods  made in China, the impact also includes a massive wealth transfer out of the USA.
2: We are about to discover there is a real ‘difference’ between debt created by borrowing the excess of production – consumption, and debt created by adding zeroes to balance sheets, which are claims on future excess production.
thimk
thimk
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
good recap,  USA is a sad case , we misused much of our fiat debt .  Welfare or warfare.   JACK  MA back in 2017 :
       link to cnbc.com
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
2 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
“1: Since a large part of that stimulus money was spent buying goods 
made in China, the impact also includes a massive wealth transfer out of
the USA.”
I’m not sure this is true.
Lets say 1 trillion in stimmy money was sent for 1 trillion in goods. At that moment, there is no wealth transfer (both sides have 1 trillion, one in cash, one in goods).
Now, over time the value of the goods decreases (they get used up/wear out etc). At the same time, the value of the money also decreases (inflation). Yes, we have to pay interest (say 1-2%) but that’s far lower than the actual inflation rate (say 5+ percent) so even the cash holders are also seeing their assets decrease.
Over time, both sides end up at zero (goods used up, money inflated to no value).
 
So was there really a massive wealth transfer out of the USA? I’m not sure there was.
Mish
Mish
2 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Once again TT gets it
There are winners and losers in China as well.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
2 years ago
Reply to  Mish
Then, rephrase part of the statement. “A large part of the stimulus money was spent buying goods made in America.” Is the USA better off, or worse off, or the same? Agreed there will be a smaller amount of higher-priced goods; however, the trillion bucks stays in the US, and has an inflationary effect either way.
China’s phenomenal growth was initially financed by the transfer of wealth from the west, multiplied, and reinvested.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.