Zero Hedge

The Debt-Reduction Playbook: Can Today's Governments Learn From The Past?

The Debt-Reduction Playbook: Can Today's Governments Learn From The Past?

Authored by Joe Sullivan-Bissett via BondVigiliantes.com,

Government debt levels continue to linger in uncomfortable territory across developed markets, with fiscal deficits stubbornly high despite reasonably resilient growth and employment – especially when compared to past norms. This is not a post-crisis or post-war moment, yet debt levels resemble those of an economy fighting its way out of recession.

Runaway levels of debt, and the question of how they can be contained, could well be the defining macro story of the next decade. This not only has implications for public finances, but also the trajectory of yields, inflation, and the credibility of future policy.

High debt is not new, with history being full of examples of governments facing daunting fiscal positions, and each era has found its own way out: sometimes through discipline, sometimes through inflation, and sometimes through quiet financial engineering. Earlier this year, Rob Burrows explored options for dealing with debt in this blog.

Following on from that, below I explore if there are any useful lessons in history which could provide a solution for today’s backdrop.

Financial repression: The silent partner in debt reduction

After World War II, both the US and the UK emerged with debt-to-GDP ratios well above 100%, with the latter at 250%. Yet over the following decades, those burdens shrank dramatically, and without large fiscal surpluses or deep austerity. The solution was financial repression.

Governments and central banks effectively capped interest rates while letting inflation run high. With capital controls in place and a banking system that was required to hold government paper, real interest rates stayed negative for years. Investors earned less than inflation, and debt quietly melted away in real terms.

Source: Bank of England’s Eight centuries of global real interest rates, R-G, and the ‘suprasecular’ decline, 1311–2018

By the mid-1970s, the UK’s debt ratio fell to roughly 50% of GDP. Much of that adjustment came not from paying debt down, but from the erosion of its real value.

Could it work today? Not easily. Financial repression relies on closed capital systems and willing domestic savers, both of which are in short supply today. In open markets with moveable capital, measures such as yield caps or mandated sovereign debt holding would likely require complex regulatory interventions or indirect support from central banks. Such policies would be difficult in a globalised, market-oriented system.

Growth as the denominator: Britain after the Napoleonic Wars

After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain’s public debt exceeded 200% of GDP. Over the next half-century, it fell steadily, not through inflation (the gold standard ruled that out) but through real growth and persistent, if modest, budget surpluses.

The Industrial Revolution transformed output and tax revenues, while the state held spending flat. The result was a slow but powerful denominator effect: GDP grew faster than the debt stock, even as prices remained stable or fell.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/

* Definition of ‘International $’ on which this data set is based, can be found here:https://ourworldindata.org/international-dollars

Could governments grow themselves out of debt again? That depends on whether today’s economy can find an equivalent productivity revolution. Demographics, slower innovation diffusion, and lower investment all weigh against it. Unless of course, AI proves to be the answer…

Inflation: The blunt instrument

Inflation has historically been one of the fastest ways to reduce debt. Weimar Germany in the 1920s and Japan in the immediate post-war years both saw real debts wiped away by surging prices. Even moderate inflation, sustained over time, can do significant work: in the 1970s, UK debt ratios fell sharply again as inflation outpaced borrowing costs.

Could governments inflate their way out today? Using inflation to reduce debt today is less straightforward, given that central banks are independent and focused on keeping inflation close to 2%. The recent post-pandemic inflation spike showed how higher inflation can create economic and social pressures, and how institutions respond to keep it in check. If inflation stays above target for too long, it could affect the credibility of monetary policy. Still, a period of slightly higher inflation alongside nominal growth might be seen as a practical path if political constraints make fiscal tightening difficult.

So are there any useful lessons from history?

Perhaps not. Each historical escape route looks less accessible today:

  • Lowering debt through austerity is politically challenging, especially in societies already weary from years of spending restraint and rising inequality

  • Inflation is broadly constrained through central bank objectives

  • Growth remains elusive, unless technology delivers a genuine productivity revolution

  • Financial repression, while possible in partial form, risks distorting markets and undermining investor confidence.

That leaves a muddle-through scenario: persistent deficits, modestly higher inflation tolerance, and debt ratios that stabilise rather than fall. Markets may increasingly price this as the new normal: A world of structurally higher term premia and periodic fiscal scares.

History suggests that when governments can’t grow, tax, or inflate their way out, they simply wait it out: relying on time, moderate nominal growth, and the slow erosion of debt through steady, incremental policy.

It’s not a dramatic ending to this episode, but it may be the most realistic one.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 12:50

US 'In Trouble' - Ford CEO Can't Find 5,000 Mechanics For $120k Jobs

US 'In Trouble' - Ford CEO Can't Find 5,000 Mechanics For $120k Jobs

Ford Motor Company CEO Jim Farley has sounded an alarm about the state of the US job market, saying Ford has been unable to fill 5,000 mechanic jobs paying $120,000 a year. Those $120,000 salaries are nearly double the US average

“We are in trouble in our country. We are not talking about this enough,” said Farley in an appearance last week on the Office Hours: Business Edition podcast. He said the shortage of qualified manual laborers isn't confined to Ford, but is something businesses across the nation are struggling with. 

“We have over a million openings in critical jobs, emergency services, trucking, factory workers, plumbers, electricians and tradesmen. It's a very serious thing. We do not have trade schools. We are not investing in educating a next generation of people like my grandfather who had nothing, who built a middle class life and a future for his family.

Those jobs are out there. Mechanics in a Ford dealership -- as of this morning, we had 5,000 openings. A bay with a lift and tools and no one working in it. $120,000-a-year job, but it takes you five years to learn it. To take a diesel out of a Super Duty, it takes a lot of skill. You need to know what you're doing." 

"We are in trouble in our country," said Ford CEO Jim Farley in his appearance on Office Hours: Business Edition. 

Rich Garrity, a National Association of Manufacturers board member, expanded on Farley's lament about the country's deficit in training programs, telling the New York Post:  

We’re not just missing bodies, but we’re really missing ... skill sets that can connect to 21st-century manufacturing needs. The community colleges, the career tech programs do a solid job in providing foundational training, but we often see that they’re out of date when it comes to keeping up with how fast things are moving from a technology standpoint." 

Social media is awash in testimonials from young college grads bemoaning their inability to find jobs. Meanwhile, in August, BLS reported that America had over 400,000 available manufacturing jobs. There's an obvious disconnect, but, on a bright note, the long-running over-emphasis on college education may finally be waning. Trade school enrollment soared 16% in 2024, while college enrollment growth has been negligible in recent years.  

“For many years in the US, it was, you go to a four-year college and things are set up for you,” Farley said. "And the reality is, that path is not necessarily what it used to be. A more valuable path, in many cases, is getting a technical college or apprenticeship and starting to learn certain skills very early on.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 12:15

Watch: Media Leftists Tip-Toe Around Trump Amid Lawsuit Fears

Watch: Media Leftists Tip-Toe Around Trump Amid Lawsuit Fears

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Leftist media figures are increasingly walking on eggshells when discussing President Trump, hastily retracting or clarifying statements to avoid potential defamation lawsuits that could bankrupt their networks. 

In recent clips, MSNBC’s Jen Psaki and CNN anchors have been caught mid-sentence backpedaling on inflammatory remarks tying Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, signaling a broader chill in media rhetoric as Trump’s legal victories mount.

During a segment on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki,” the host quickly corrected herself after implying Trump was among “predators” linked to Epstein. 

Psaki stated, “The other predators out there, in addition to Trump! I mean, not, I’m not, not saying HE is…” This fumbling reversal came amid chyron headlines like “Trump White House Engulfed by New Epstein Bombshell,” highlighting how anchors are now second-guessing their words to evade legal scrutiny.

Similarly, CNN anchors went out of their way to absolve Trump during Epstein coverage, emphasising, “We wanna be clear. Trump didn’t receive or send any messages…he has not been accused of any wrongdoing with Epstein or Maxwell.”

This unsolicited clarification underscores the network’s caution, likely influenced by Trump’s aggressive litigation strategy against perceived smears.

These instances reflect a wider trend where media outlets are “tip-toeing” around Trump-related stories, fearing exposure and costly lawsuits. 

Critics argue this self-censorship stems from Trump’s track record of holding networks accountable, with legal experts noting that defamation laws are being weaponized to curb biased reporting. 

As one analyst put it, “The media is terrified of Trump’s legal team— they’re editing in real-time to avoid the next big payout.”

Democrats too have been forced to delete a previous completely unfounded claim that Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017, a remarkably stupid accusation given that Trump was serving as President at that time and Epstein was a known pedophile.

Tying into this caution is the ongoing BBC controversy over a deceptively edited video in their Panorama documentary, which spliced Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech to misleadingly suggest incitement. 

After the President issued an ultimatum, the BBC apologized, admitting an “error of judgment” and agreeing not to rebroadcast the episode, but rejected demands for compensation, stating there’s “no basis for a defamation claim.” 

Trump, however, brutally rejected the apology, vowing to proceed with a threatened $1 billion lawsuit, calling it insufficient and demanding full accountability. 

This scandal exemplifies how international media is also treading carefully, with the BBC’s partial concession highlighting fears of U.S. legal repercussions. 

President Trump’s successful suits against major networks are fueling this media restraint. In July 2025, CBS/Paramount settled for $16 million over deceptively edited “60 Minutes” footage of Kamala Harris, marking a major win against manipulative reporting.

Similarly, ABC agreed to a $15 million donation to Trump’s presidential library in December 2024 to resolve defamation claims from George Stephanopoulos’s on-air accusations. 

These settlements expose the leftist media’s agenda of biased editing and smears, forcing outlets to rethink their anti-Trump narratives or face financial ruin. 

Beyond these, recent cases abound. Trump filed a $15 billion suit against The New York Times in September for alleged defamation, prompting the paper to issue clarifications in subsequent stories.

In July, he sued The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over similar claims, leading to heightened editorial scrutiny. 

NPR and PBS have also faced threats, with insiders reporting “tiptoeing” in coverage to avoid litigation. 

Critics note this wave of suits—tying records for 2025—reveals how media giants are now prioritizing legal safety over aggressive reporting.

These developments underscore how Trump’s legal offensives are dismantling the leftist media’s unchecked bias, forcing accountability and exposing their agenda of manufactured scandals to undermine America First policies.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 11:40

The Pentagon's European Drawdown Won't Alleviate Russia's Security Concerns

The Pentagon's European Drawdown Won't Alleviate Russia's Security Concerns

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The Romanian Defense Minister recently confirmed that the US will withdraw around half of its 2,000 troops as part of its plans to reprioritize Asia, which could include drawdowns from other countries as well.

It was assessed last February that “Trump Is Unlikely To Pull All US Troops Out Of Central Europe Or Abandon NATO’s Article 5” since retaining a minimal presence in this region is psychologically reassuring for those countries that fear Russia and can also function as “a tripwire for deterring aggression”.

This is especially true for aspiring regional leader Poland. Trump said in early September that the US might even deploy more troops there upon request, and while that hasn’t yet happened, Poland’s Defense Ministry confirmed that US troop numbers remain stable amidst the latest news from Romania. Those two and the Baltic States also host multiple other allies’ forces, including nuclear-armed France’s and the UK’s, whose roles complement the US’ previously mentioned “deterrence” one.

Western, Central, and Eastern Europe are also being knit together through the “military Schengen”, which refers to the initiative for facilitating the flow of troops and equipment between members, while the last two regions are becoming more integrated through the “Three Seas Initiative”. Poland, which commands NATO’s third-largest army, plays a crucial role in both by connecting “mainland Europe” with the Baltic States. This explains why it’s tipped to become the US’ top European partner in the future.

From the US’ evolving perspective after the past 3.5 years of proxy warfare, its European junior partners are finally shouldering more of the burden for containing Russia, so the presence of so many of its troops on the continent is no longer required except for “deterrence” purposes. They’re much better put to use in Asia, as policy planners now seem to believe, for encouraging its junior partners there to replicate their European counterparts by shouldering more of the burden for containing China.

So long as nuclear-armed France and the UK retain their own military presences in the countries from which the US draws down its troops, then the US can expect them to “Lead From the Front” in a crisis while the US would only need to “Lead From Behind”. Those two and Poland would play the foremost roles in future tensions with Russia while the US would provide back-end support through logistics and intelligence. It could also directly escalate on its own if the going gets tough for its junior partners.

Minimal US troops along NATO’s eastern flank would draw lines that Russian troops would be deterred from crossing on pain of drawing America directly into the conflict. The direct involvement of French and UK troops in the region would complement that role by reminding Russia that the conflict could go nuclear so all sides should keep it conventional. If the crisis further worsens, then they could rattle their nuclear sabers, especially if they by then transferred some of their nukes to Germany and/or Poland.

The evolving geopolitical, military, and strategic situation in Europe is therefore such that the US is offloading most of the responsibilities for containing Russia onto Poland, the UK, France, and Germany. Of these four, Poland is the lynchpin upon which the success of this EU-fronted but US-backed containment plan is dependent for military logistical reasons, thus meaning that its ties with Russia will greatly determine the future of war and peace in Europe after the Ukrainian Conflict finally ends.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 09:20

Goldman Sees Brighter US Housing Outlook Taking Shape For 2026

Goldman Sees Brighter US Housing Outlook Taking Shape For 2026

Conversations around the housing market this week revolved around Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte floating the idea of 50-year mortgages, pitched by the Trump administration as a clever way to make homes more "affordable" by lowering monthly payments, expanding access, and attracting more buyers. But stretching mortgages out for roughly 65% of the average U.S. life expectancy is not affordable in the long run.

Our conversations with readers this week focused on the deepening downturn in the home improvement industry. This slide could deepen into a sharper contraction and may signal continued cooling in the housing market:

For more color on the housing market, we turn to Goldman Sachs Managing Director Kate McShane, who told clients Thursday the housing backdrop is set to improve in 2026, with mortgage rates drifting toward 6.15% and pent-up demand helping home-price appreciation recover.

Here is McShane's view on the housing market, based on her upgrade of flooring company Floor & Décor from "Sell" to "Neutral" as she sees a better 2026 environment: slightly improving housing turnover, stabilizing comps, margin recovery, and potential market-share gains as competitive pressures ease: 

  1. The housing market is anticipated to experience a more favorable environment in FY26 and our economists forecast mortgage rates at year-end 2025 and 2026 to be 6.25% and 6.15%, respectively. Our economists noted if mortgage rates remain around 6.15% (in line with their expectation), the pace of home price appreciation is likely to start to recover in 2026 due to pent-up housing demand. Our economists expect housing turnover to be flat to marginally higher in FY25 and projects a +5-7% increase in 2026 compared to 2025. Floor & Décor's comparable store sales (comps) are highly correlated to housing turnover, as replacing floors is one of the first improvements many new or existing home purchasers undertake. The company's focus on a growing Pro customer base and high-margin design services also provides growth opportunities as the market recovers.

  2. Our economists have noted that HELOC deal issuance has increased since 2023, with YTD 2025 (until 10/8/25) volume reaching post-GFC highs. The seemingly renewed interest in HELOC securitization is likely a function of both increased HELOC usage by homeowners and greater demand from investors in the securitization market. Our economists now suggest potential for significant further growth in HELOC in the coming years and expect home equity debt outstanding growth rate to tick-up slightly to around $15-17 bn/quarter in 2026 (vs. $14bn/quarter over the past 5 quarters), driven by lower financing rates and increased demand for tapping into equity. In spite of this higher activity level however, the company continues to see homeowners favor smaller-scope projects amid affordability constraints. However, we believe FND is positioned to capture potential HELOC-driven upside as macro transmission improves.

GS economists forecast 30 year fixed mortgage rate at year-end 2025 and 2026 to be 6.25% and 6.15%, respectively

Mortgage rates have started to show a declining trend

Housing turnover remains at historic low levels but could grow in FY26

Housing Affordability Index (Monthly NSA) vs. FND com

Remodeling activity picked up sequentially in 3Q

McShane's view gives readers her framework for what to expect in the spring selling season, which begins in 3 to 4 months. 

ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can access the full note and the complete chart pack in the usual place.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 08:45

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov Free To Leave France As Travel Ban Lifted: Report

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov Free To Leave France As Travel Ban Lifted: Report

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

French authorities have reportedly lifted Telegram CEO Pavel Durov’s travel ban amid an ongoing investigation into the messaging platform.

Durov had been ordered to remain in France following his arrest in Paris in August last year, facing multiple charges related to his operation of Telegram.

Durov was previously granted temporary exemptions, and French authorities have now fully lifted restrictions on his travel, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

As part of the latest decision, dated Monday, officials also removed the requirement for Durov to regularly check in at a local police station, the report said, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Investigation still ongoing

The report did not mention any details regarding the French investigation into Telegram, hinting that the case is still active.

According to a statement on preliminary charges by France’s Prosecutor’s Office, Durov was last year accused of facilitating a platform that enables illicit transactions. The prosecutors said the Telegram CEO is facing up to 10 years in prison, in addition to a fine of $550,000.

Pavel Durov met with Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev at the Digital Bridge 2025 forum in October. Source: Press office of the President of Kazakhstan (Aqorda)

Telegram and Durov have repeatedly denied the accusations, highlighting the messenger’s compliance with industry standards and the laws of the European Union.

While denying the accusations, Durov has consistently criticized the French government, including French President Emmanuel Macron, regarding what Durov has described as the country’s political trajectory around censorship.

“Emmanuel Macron isn’t making the right choices. I’m very disappointed. France is getting weaker and weaker,” Durov said in an interview with French outlet Le Point in June.

In October, Durov warned of the potential consequences of the EU’s Chat Control proposal, urging the world to fight against the “dystopian” measures proposed by the EU.

“Germany is persecuting anyone who dares to criticize officials on the Internet. The UK is imprisoning thousands for their tweets. France is criminally investigating tech leaders who defend freedom and privacy,” Durov wrote in an X post on Oct. 9.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 08:10

A US Think-Tank Considers Armenia & Kazakhstan To Be Key Players For Containing Russia

A US Think-Tank Considers Armenia & Kazakhstan To Be Key Players For Containing Russia

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

They’re fearmongering about Russia’s intentions towards those two in parallel with proposing closer US ties with them.

The Washington Post recently published a piece fearmongering that Putin’s “next stop” after Ukraine might be Armenia and/or Kazakhstan, which they released in the run-up to the C5+1 Summit in DC between the five Central Asian leaders and Trump. It was written by Seth Cropsey and Joseph Epstein, the president of the Yorktown Institute and the director of the Turan Research Center therein. Their organization focuses on “great power competition”, “military supremacy”, and “alliance-building”.

Those two’s mentioning of Armenia and Kazakhstan in this provocative context, as well as the timing of their article, was deliberate.

The first functions as the irreplaceable transit state along the new “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), which was assessed here in the summer shortly after its announcement as threatening to undermine Russia’s regional position. The fear is that NATO-member Turkiye will inject Western influence into the South Caucasus and Central Asia via this route.

Accordingly, Kazakhstan figures prominently in these plans since it’s the most prosperous country in the latter region and also shares the world’s longest land border with Russia, NATO’s rival.

It was assessed earlier this month that “The West Is Posing New Challenges To Russia Along Its Entire Southern Periphery” through TRIPP’s acceleration of those two regions’ engagement with the West. Even Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned about the bloc’s plans there as well as its de facto EU twin’s.

Armenia and Kazakhstan’s crucial roles in facilitating the Turkish-led injection of Western influence into their respective interconnected regions at the increasing expense of Russian interests there explains why Cropsey and Epstein decided to fearmonger that those two might be Putin’s “next stop” after Ukraine. The timing of their provocative piece importantly coincided with the C5+1 Summit and was therefore meant to influence off-the-record conversations there and/or Western reporting about the event.

According to them, last summer’s unrest in Armenia was a failed Kremlin-backed coup while Kazakhstan is being targeted through less visible forms of pressure such as the creation of pro-Russian influence networks, which they imply could precede a Donbass-like ethno-regional conflict in the north. The first was actually a patriotic revolt over the perception that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan sold Armenia out to its Turkic neighbors while the second is based on unverified leaked reports and attendant speculation.

The reality is that Russia accepts that the US successfully expanded its influence in the South Caucasus and respects Kazakhstan’s multi-alignment policy. The only concern that it has is that extra-regional actors like the US, EU, NATO, and Turkiye – all of whom it’s fighting by proxy in Ukraine to varying extents – could exploit those two and their regions to threaten its national security as part of their rivalry. That would risk expanding their proxy war from Eastern Europe to the South Caucasus and/or Central Asia.

Cropsey and Epstein propose more trade and investment between the US, Armenia and Kazakhstan, and their regions, which sounds innocent but could lead to or disguise closer cooperation on other issues like security that come at Russia’s expense. What they want to do is manipulate the perceptions of Russia’s partners against it and/or provoke an overreaction from Russia that ruins their relations for the same divide-and-rule ends, which is why it’s crucial that they’re aware of this so they can avoid falling for it.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/16/2025 - 07:00

Pages