State and Private Debt of Market Economics

In recent economics debt is in the foundations of business and equity – state debt limits governments’ expenses, social, educational, infrastructure, policies and international relations – private debt limits individuals’ expenditures, abilities to access better education, housing, and etc; however, ‘credit’ that could fall into ‘debt’ is a main market tool giving governments and individuals the abilities to expand infrastructure, business, equity, and etc using capital, which could not be approachable but by through crediting. The difference between ‘credit’ and ‘debt’ is in the momentum – whereas ‘credit’ is targeted investment considered in motion, a ‘debt’ is a negative after deficiency market imbalance. The distinction between working ‘credit’ and accumulating ‘debt’ is a thin line that could be crossed by global recessions, works of nature, or political turbulence. Between ‘credit’ and ‘debit’ comes public financing – in case the ‘risk’ is taken partially by the investors thus limiting the issuers (could be governments or corporations) liability; however, in cases like “Bond holders against Argentina”,

CAMBRIDGE – Argentina and its bankers have been barred from making payments to fulfill debt-restructuring agreements reached with the country’s creditors, unless the 7% of creditors who rejected the agreements are paid in full – a judgment that is likely to stick, now that the US Supreme Court has upheld it. Read more at

or “IMF, ECB, Germany and other lenders against Greece” bonds are capitalized into loans and the governments of Argentina and Greece are required to pay these in full.

There are many historical occasions when ‘debt’ on countries level was forgiven or let it die in time:

The revolutionary war setup the United States’ new monetary system – all partially causal to the austerity measures and trade restrictions on the Colonies implemented by the Minister George Grenville – by year 1763 Britain’s national debt had risen to £122 million, or over 150 percent of the Gross Domestic Product that prompted strict austerity and trade restrictive policies:

“Grenville passed the Currency Act of 1764, which forbade the colonies to emit any new currency. Finally, in 1765, Grenville ushered the American Stamp Act through the House of Commons, a measure that was designed in part to restrict the colonial land market.” se 1776: The Revolt Against Austerity”

Germany after the Second World War  and Poland after the fall of Communism are the best example of such …

Yet debt forgiveness has an established historical precedent in Europe. Poland, for example, had accrued external debts of about 57% of GDP by the time the Communist system had collapsed, with the majority of that debt (around $33 billion) being owed to Western governments. Poland’s largest creditor at the time was Germany, which reluctantly agreed in 1991 (under pressure from the United States) to go along with the “Paris Club” of creditor nations and forgive half of Poland’s debt to the West (though this was less than the 80% write-off Poland had originally been seeking). An even more dramatic example is provided by Germany itself. Historically, Germany has been described as the biggest “debt transgressor” of the 20th Century, with restructurings in 1924, 1929, 1932 and 1953. Total debt forgiveness for Germany between 1947 and 1953 amounted to somewhere in the region of 280% of GDP, according to economic historian Albrecht Ritschl of the London School of Economics. Today, Greece has an external debt-to-GDP ratio of roughly 175% (by comparison, Germany’s external debts currently stand at about 145% of GDP).

On individuals or corporate level ‘debt’ has been washed out by bankruptcy procedures – in the US bankruptcy courts are much speedier and over all easier than these in the EU, that some economists consider a main reason for the better way US economy has performed in post 2007-9 Recession times. By giving debtors a second chance bankruptcy courts play some fundamental role in taking individuals and businesses out of the big hole of debt into the market opportunities, thus boosting business and consumption.

The most unorthodox economic approaches to flood capital into underperforming markets is the used by the US, UK, Japan and now EU central banks so called ‘quantitative easing’, while instead of borrowing publicly or privately capital to revive their economies these central banks ‘produced’ such capital from ‘thin air’ into the system. The ‘status quo’ economics predicts that additional capital – such not product of an economy market activities (debit/credit) – would prompt inflation; however, no inflations but deflations have occurred in the post recession times? Neither, the huge debt accumulations by Japan, the US, many EU countries, and others have prompted inflations either! Thus, neither the quantitative easing nor the huge debt has yet created sweeping inflationary forces. In context with the ‘status quo’ economics are the ways government accounting is done by not properly deducting QE from the overall debt even so the capital infusion by QE writes off debt by acquiring issued bonds? In referring to inflationary forces or the lock of it for the last 20 plus years the ongoing Globalization, rising Productivity, China’s Industrialization, and the Internet could be considered causing the increasing exogenous economic pressures over national economies indicated in by their deficit adding to their debt.

The world is crippled by too much debt. The borrowings of global households, governments, companies and financial firms have risen from 246% of GDP in 2000 to 286% today. Since the financial crisis began in 2007, debt-to-GDP has risen in 41 of 47 big economies. For every extra dollar of output, the world cranks out more than a dollar of debt. The Economist explains why the world is addicted to debt

As simple as things may look like the results of this system of economics not being able to accommodate these exogenous forces cause fundamental global market imbalances – unemployment, declining middle class, small business and investment, and accumulation of high national debt.[1]

Market Economics employs exogenous market forces and thus capitalize on the 21th Century irreversible developments by not only enhancing the international accounting but further by employing the immense powers these exogenous forces posses to boosting national and global Market Development through alleviation of poverty and environmental Earth protection.

The countries debts are considered by Market Economics as the present corporate and individual debts involving bankruptcy, mitigations, negotiations, and etc; whereas investors take their reward and risk; however, Foreign Direct Investment and Productivity are not considered primary force for global development but supplementary such, because the more important consideration such as Earth protection requires poverty alleviation by not prompting mass industrialization.

The Capitalism uses foreign direct investment by transnational corporations to raise productivity and bring return on this investment that could be only achieved through industrialization, and the global accounting system is setup on these principles;

The Marketism uses subsidies, low interest financing, and etc along with foreign direct investment to prompt environmentally friendly Market Development that will alleviate global poverty and thus save Earth from destruction using market principles and saving individual freedoms.   Joshua Konov 2015 [1]