How it starts

by Andrew Coyne on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 1:03am - 124 Comments

In 1966, Canada’s finances were in remarkably strong shape. Twenty years of fiscal discipline after World War II had brought the debt-to-GDP ratio to less than 30 per cent. Interest costs absorbed less than 2% of GDP, or about 12 cents of every tax dollar. The budget was in slight surplus.

As it happens, that’s more or less exactly where we stood a couple of years ago, again after a prolonged period of fiscal discipline: 30% debt-to-GDP ratio, interest costs of about 2% of GDP, small surplus.

In 2008, our fiscal position seemed rock-solid, as it must have seemed in 1966. And indeed, there are those, including in government, who assure us that even today, with a deficit of more than $50-billion, we have nothing to worry about. Though the debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed to 35%, that’s still the lowest in the G7. Five years from now, according to the budget, it will be back down to 32%. What’s to worry?

But then, what was there to worry about in 1966? We were then at the height of the 1960s boom — from 1963 through 1967, real growth averaged an astonishing 6.4% per year, a performance never since equalled or even approached. It was a time to dream big dreams: the following decade saw the implementation of all of the main components of the modern welfare state — medicare, old age pensions, the Canada Assistance Plan. It was expensive — real federal spending per capita grew by 78% between 1966 and 1975 — but revenues grew very nearly as fast: though the economy had by now cooled off somewhat, rising taxes more than made up the difference. Federal tax collectors took in fully two-and-a-half percentage points more of GDP by the mid-1970s than they had a decade before.

And so although we started consistently running deficits in 1971, no one much cared. They weren’t very large, after all, just 1 or 2% of GDP. Indeed, the debt-to-GDP ratio continued to fall throughout this period. By 1975 it was down to less than 19%. To be sure, inflation was rising, and interest rates along with it, but nominal GDP growth was still more than fast enough to keep abreast of the rising tide of debt.

But then came the recession of 1975, and the puzzling new phenomenon of stagflation: high and rising inflation even as growth was nosediving. And suddenly our fiscal position did not seem quite so rock-solid. Over the next few years inflation tore huge holes in the federal tax code. But while revenues fell sharply, spending was not similarly curtailed. The deficit leapt to 3.6% of GDP in 1976 (about what it is now), then to 5% in 1978 and 5.4% in 1979. By 1980, the debt-to-GDP ratio was back to 28%, roughly where it had been in 1966. But where before the debt was stable or falling, now it was growing by more than 20% per annum.

Too late, an attempt was made to rein in spending. In 1980, real per capita spending, which had been growing by 8 and 9% per year earlier in the decade, actually fell by 5%. By 1982, program spending had been brought very nearly in line with revenues. But by now this was no longer the issue: the rising cost of servicing the debt was. The deficit that year, at 4.4% of GDP, was almost entirely accounted for by debt charges, that is by the cost of paying interest on past deficits. At $15-billion, debt charges were now five times what they were in 1975. The momentum of spending had been broken. But the momentum of compound interest it had set off would not be so easily stopped.

Then came a second recession, much worse than the last — and with federal finances in a much more exposed position than before. By 1983 the deficit was cresting 8% of GDP. Soon, debt charges were consuming more than 35 cents of every tax dollar — three times as much as they had been in 1966. It would take another twenty years to get them back to where they were.

Yet it had only taken a few years to get ourselves into this mess. What had seemed quite manageable at the time carried the seeds of later chaos. Each stage of the crisis had set in motion the next: The rapid spending increases of the late 1960s leading to the first descent into deficit spending in the early 1970s, before the headlong plunge into debt of the later part of the decade that set off the near-exponential compounding of interest. Yet as late as 1975, the debt had seemed well under control.

Moral: Maybe today’s deficits don’t seem like much to get worked up about. They never do.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

    I find it disconcerting that Andrew Coyne limits his analysis simply to numbers; in essence he has taken the "bean counter" approach. This simplistic approach ignores the varying needs of our society. Anyone with any memory can remember that the cuts made by Martin and Chretien to "slay the deficit" also severely damaged some important government programs, the prime example bring health care sevices. During this period I am sure Andrew Coyne wrote about how the country's ifrastructure was decaying, productiviyt was declining and research and development was not being funded properly. Andrew, let's have some real thoughtful analysis please; some that takes the issue beyond what any accountant can accomplish.

    • crazyfox

      Ah, dude… it is a mathematical equation. Numbers tell the story. Sorry if numbers are lost on you.

      As for the rest, would you have preferred national bankrupcy? Do you not recall Martin selling off our crown corp railway in an effort to keep this nation afloat? Do you not remember corporate/personal incometaxes skyrocketing to the moon with 7% GST's and still running deficits? Have you forgotten how extreme our credit crisis actually was (close to 40 cents of every government revenue dollar was going towards interest rates on debt never mind principle at our debt service peak) or how high interest rates on national debt and fresh debt actually was? I hear the same old, tired, warn out arguments over and over always coming from the same angle and its always promoted by false beliefs the most notable of which is… we actually had a choice with government spending. Too many of us actually lived through this tough times, ok? Try your false history lessons somewhere else.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

        You should avoid from juvenile stuff like "dude" and putdowns about numbers being lost on me. I am a professional with advanced degres in engineeing and business management. I have enough experience to know that establishing budgets for government, business or households is NOT simply a mathamatical equation; it is much messier and much more complicated than that. The budget needs to take into account how it will affect people. The budget needs to take into account the condition of the country's infrastructure and national institutions. The budget needs to take into account the income level and demographics of the population. Get the idea? Fiscal, social and religious conservatives often prefer to reduce complicated issues involving human beings and the economy to something more simplistic that they can understand and articulate. For fiscal conservatives the only thing they can focus on is taxes, debt and deficit. Religious conservative tend to look for the answer to everthing in the bible. Social conservatives want everyone to look and think just like they do. But hardly anyone thinks any of this is "just a mathamatical equation".

  • MacLean's Regular

    This post was a complete waste of Andrew Coyne's time.

    God, I wish I had job like that.

    • crazyfox

      I think what you really meant to say was that your own post was a waste of time and what you really want to do is become a propagandist so you can get paid for your own brainwashed, false beliefs.

      Of course, I'm probably over analyzing. Its much more likely that you just aren't that bright.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    And therein lies their mistake, my friend.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Yes!

      • kcm

        No!

  • chris h.

    Nice job, Andrew. Like some commenters, I wish you had pondered the possible futures in the event the growth never materializes. If the US double dips, then govt revenues will fall and the deficit will grow ever larger. Then what? Another round of stimulus spending? God help us! And yet that is the Keynesian version of Russian roulette that is staring us in the face. Another stimulus — oh well, what's another 50 billion between hockey fans?

    Is it just me or why is no one considering the possibility of a double dip recession in terms of this budget? Then we will be well and truly in the hole because there will be enormous political pressure to prime the pumps again and bail people out yet again.

    It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

  • meany

    Yes, but it seems the world is full of Keynesians now.

    And we all know (I think we all know at least) that the most important thing to get the budget fixed is to get economic growth back, and to get some real productivity growth too.

    And the economic consensus these days (personally, I don't believe in it, but it seems EVERYONE else does) is that these counter cyclical government spending binges will get us there.

    So as long as Harper follows through on a REAL austerity budget in the next couple years, we are on the right track, no?

  • crazyfox

    Excellent points, Andrew. For the rest of the readers out there…

    http://www.bcrealtor.com/d_bkcan.htm

    What do you all think will happen once interest rates begin to rise? Try the deflation of hard assets and if governments continue to rack up 100 billion in debt annually like they did last year, try a loonie under pressure causing inflation of imported goods. Where I come from, it spells stagflation. (I know, I know, the U.S. dollar woes… add them to the UK., Japan, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Irland, Germany… (cont)

  • crazyfox

    Canadians have been lucky. For the last 20 years, we've been in a credit expansion cycle created by falling interest rates with a loonie that has lowered the cost of imports over the last 11 years.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/loonie….

    This credit expansion has heavily accelerated by the combination of low/record interest rates and long 35 to 40 year mortgages with little to nothing down. As a consequence lines of credit have quadrupled in just ten short years. Credit card debt has skyrocketed. Canada is poised to hit a trillion worth of mortgages by the end of this year. This credit expansion is poised to contract with a rise in interest rates and when it does, it will breed a recession. Again, stagflation is where we are headed, it was preventable through tigher CMHC regs and prudent government spending/taxation. Eessentially, what we are witnessing is the creation of a stagflation environment breeding a long, drawn out recession. I wished I was making this stuff up. Maybe we'll vote more wisely next time?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Was there an alternative economic (fiscal/monetary) policy to vote for?

      • crazyfox

        Yes, there was. Its my belief that there was, most definitely all along. CMHC had 25/10 regs back in early 2006 for a reason. It didn't get there by mistake. The way I view it is simple. This isn't about left or right acronym's but rather, about policy that is either functional or dysfunctional. We are witnessing nations hitting debt crisis's as evidenced by intergovernmental debt to GDP ratios appraoching or past 100%. The U.S., Japan, U.K., Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Germany… all have one thing in common. They've committed the same policy sins I'm talking about here. They've created RE bubbles that don't generate real income… based on easy credit… cheap monthlies… and when interest rates rise, debt service swells, credit contracts, RE values fall, currencies spiral and inflation rises from the higher costs of imports. We've seen this movie before and the environments that breed this are playing itself out here, obvious to most who look.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

          And when has monetary policy ever been subject to plebiscite or vote? When has it been an election issue?

  • Elfie Fried

    Could you please explain the real difference between 'parliament' and 'government'

From Macleans