Gavyn Davies is a macroeconomist who is now chairman of Fulcrum Asset Management and co-founder of Prisma Capital Partners. He was the head of the global economics department at Goldman Sachs from 1987-2001, and was chairman of the BBC from 2001-2004.

He has also served as an economic policy adviser in No 10 Downing Street, an external adviser to the British Treasury, and as a visiting professor at the London School of Economics.

Schizophrenia about debt, October 9, 2011 4:10 pm by Gavyn Davies, Financial Times, www.ft.com

German Finance Minister Schauble has graphically described his own attitude to the debt crisis. “You cannot”, he says, “cure an alcoholic by giving him more alcohol.” Maybe not, but the alternative of cold turkey does not seem to be working all that well, either. Like it or not, the global economy needs a mixture of policies which write off debt in some cases, pay off debt in others, and extend debt in still others. A one-size-fits-all approach which encourages the simultaneous deleveraging of all sectors at maximum speed could cause a genuine economic calamity.
If the debt is transferred to the government balance sheet, these risks come in the form of higher rates of taxation in the long term. If transferred to the central bank balance sheet, they come in the form of higher inflation. All this is justified on the grounds that the alternative is worse, for everyone.

Not everyone agrees with this. In the 1920s, Friedrich von Hayek wrote that the rapid expunging of debt would rid the economic system of what he called “malinvestments”.

Most recently, these malinvestments have been made in finance and real estate. Allowing them to fail, Hayekians believe, will encourage a fresh start. (Robert Skidelsky, Keynes’ biographer, discusses the Hayekian view in an excellent piece in the New Statesman this week.) Those who believe in Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction” may be tempted down the same path.

James Grant’s latest “Interest Rate Observer” contains an interesting account of what happened the last time a policy of outright cold turkey was tried in the US, which was in the depression of 1920-21. In the face of a deep slump, credit growth was stopped in its tracks. The Fed, under Benjamin Strong, raised interest rates and the Treasury, under Democrat Carter Glass, ran budget surpluses. “The Treasury has no money to lend. It is not in the banking business, and should not be”, said Secretary Glass. Deflation was treated as inevitable. “No-one could have stopped it…in our opinion, it was bound to come” said Chairman Strong.

The unemployed, deliberately it seems, were left to fend for themselves, even when the jobless rate increased eight-fold to over 12 per cent in 1920. Policy did not change. The public books were balanced, and the Fed even repelled an influx of gold which might have ended the downturn quicker. So did cold turkey work?

James Grant says it did. The recession was over by 1922, and unemployment was back down to 2.4 per cent by 1923. But in the meantime, real GDP fell by over 8 per cent, industrial production was down by 23 per cent, and consumer prices fell by 22 per cent.

That, says Grant, is better than a policy of endless stagnation. But surely we can find a better way.
Creative destruction, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative destruction is a term originally derived from Marxist economic theory which refers to the linked processes of the accumulation and annihilation of wealth under capitalism. These processes were first described in The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1848)[1] and were expanded in Marx's Grundrisse (1857)[2] and "Volume IV" (1863) of Das Kapital.[3] At its most basic, "creative destruction" (German: schöpferische Zerstörung) describes the way in which capitalist economic development arises out of the destruction of some prior economic order, and this is largely the sense implied by the German Marxist sociologist Werner Sombart who has been credited[4] with the first use of these terms in his work Krieg und Kapitalismus ("War and Capitalism", 1913).[5] In the earlier work of Marx, however, the idea of creative destruction or annihilation (German: Vernichtung) implies not only that capitalism destroys and reconfigures previous economic orders, but also that it must ceaselessly devalue existing wealth (whether through war, dereliction, or regular and periodic economic crises) in order to clear the ground for the creation of new wealth.[1][2][3]

From the 1950s onwards, the term "creative destruction" has become more readily identified with the Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter,[4] who adapted and popularized it as a theory of economic innovation and progress. The term, as used by Schumpeter, bears little resemblance with how it was used by Marx. As such, the term gained popularity within neoliberal or free-market economics as a description of processes such as downsizing in order to increase the efficiency and dynamism of a company. The original Marxist usage has, however, been maintained in the work of influential social scientists such as David Harvey,[6] Marshall Berman,[7] and Manuel Castells.[8]