Debasement Trade Explained: What you should know

Capital Reallocation in response to Debt

The “Debasement Trade” is a prominent investment strategy in current finance, defined by the systematic movement of capital out of assets denominated by sovereign promises, such as fiat currencies and traditional fixed-income securities, and into assets characterized by verifiable, finite supply, often referred to as “hard assets” [1]. This strategy is fundamentally a defensive measure, designed to preserve the real value of wealth against the risk of the currency’s diminishing purchasing power, which results from accelerating national debt and large/rapid monetary expansion [2]. The shift reflects a growing, fundamental loss of confidence in the long-term fiscal solvency of major economies, especially the United States, whose currency serves as the global reserve.


I. Historical Context: Debasement as a Sovereign Tool

The act of currency debasement, the reduction of a currency’s intrinsic value without altering its face value, has been a recurring fiscal strategy throughout history. While the methods have evolved, the economic rationale remains consistent: to increase the effective money supply to meet government financial needs, typically to fund large expenditures or manage mounting debts [3].

Physical Debasement: The Precedent

In the ancient and medieval worlds, debasement was a physical process. The Roman Empire offers a classic example, where successive emperors reduced the silver content of the denarius over several centuries [4]. By substituting precious metals with cheaper base alloys, the government could mint a greater volume of currency from the same reserves, allowing the Treasury to stretch its resources for state expenses. This practice, however, led directly to rising prices (inflation) as merchants recognized the coin’s diminished intrinsic worth.

Another significant example occurred in 16th-century England under King Henry VIII, a period often cited as the “Great Debasement” [5]. To finance ongoing conflicts, the silver purity of English coinage was drastically reduced (From over 90% to as low as 25%). This act, while providing short-term funding for the Crown, destabilized domestic and international trade, leading to public mistrust and prompting the widespread hoarding of older, purer coins—an economic phenomenon later formalized as Gresham’s Law (“bad money drives out good”) [5].

The Structural Shift to Fiat Debasement

The transition to a fiat monetary system fundamentally redefined debasement. Following President Nixon’s 1971 decision to suspend the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, the global financial system moved entirely away from the commodity-backed anchors of the Bretton Woods agreement [6] (See our Article on Bretton Woods). In this modern context, debasement is not about physical manipulation but about administrative action: the unconstrained expansion of the money supply through central bank policy. The erosion of a currency’s value is now primarily a function of excessive issuance relative to underlying economic productivity [7].

US M2 Money Supply

Figure 1 Source: Federal Reserve


II. The Conditions of the Modern Debasement Trade

The current period is characterized by macroeconomic conditions that have accelerated investor concern and institutionalized the Debasement Trade as a key portfolio consideration.

The Scale of Sovereign Indebtedness

The primary catalyst is the unprecedented scale of the U.S. National Debt, which is over $37 trillion [8]. Unlike previous debt cycles, the current trajectory is sustained by structural spending (23 consecutive years with deficit, last 5 $trillion+), regardless of the political party in power [9]. This fiscal reality presents governments with a limited set of options: implement politically unpalatable spending cuts or tax hikes, or employ the politically more palatable solution of allowing the currency’s value to decline.

The Debasement Trade is predicated on the rational assumption that policymakers will inevitably choose the latter, utilizing monetary tools to reduce the real burden of the debt and its service costs [1]. Through inflation, the real value of the debt owed to bondholders is effectively diminished over time, a process often described as “financial repression.”

Investor Flight to Scarcity

The response from institutional investors has been explicit. Citadel CEO Ken Griffin has been a vocal proponent of this thesis, characterizing the current market environment as a “debasement trade” [10]. Griffin notes a tangible shift in capital, with investors seeking to “de-dollarize” and “de-risk their portfolios vis-a-vis US sovereign risk” by accumulating non-fiat assets [10].

This trend is observable through market data:

  • Currency Depreciation: The U.S. dollar index (DXY) has experienced significant periods of sharp depreciation against major currencies and, more dramatically, against hard assets like gold [11].
  • Reserve Diversification: Globally, the dollar’s share as the primary reserve currency held by central banks has been steadily declining, reaching multi-decade lows [12]. This signals a structural move by foreign governments to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, further supporting the debasement thesis [13].

US Dollar Valuation

Figure 2 Source: Federal Reserve


III. Monetary Policy, QE, and Hyper-Liquidity

The mechanics of modern debasement are inextricably linked to central bank interventions, specifically Quantitative Easing (QE).

Quantitative Easing and Money Supply Growth

QE, a policy initiated following the 2008 Financial Crisis and dramatically expanded during the 2020 COVID pandemic response, involves the central bank (the Federal Reserve) creating new electronic money to purchase vast amounts of government and mortgage bonds [14]. This injects large amounts of money (hyper-liquidity) into the financial system, resulting in an exponential, historically unprecedented surge in the M2 money supply (See Figure 1) [14].

This expansion is the engine of modern debasement. When the volume of money in circulation grows at a pace far exceeding the underlying growth in the economy’s productive capacity, the result is an inevitable loss of the currency’s value [15].

Inflation as the Mechanism of Debasement

The consequence of this imbalance is widespread inflation, which acts as the functional manifestation of currency debasement. Inflation is not merely a rise in prices but a measurable loss of the currency’s ability to retain its value [15]. Some consider this type of inflation a hidden tax (See our Article on Is Inflation a Stealth Tax?). Data confirms this erosion: significant cumulative price increases over recent five-year periods have fundamentally lowered the purchasing power of the dollar [10].

The Debasement Trade views inflation as structural rather than temporary—a direct result of governments financing massive deficits through the printing press, effectively taxing the population through reduced purchasing power rather than legislative mandate.

US Inflation

Figure 3 Source: Federal Reserve


IV. Political Debate and the Precedent of the Plaza Accord

The current anxiety surrounding debasement is focused on specific policy discussions within Washington concerning the intentional manipulation of the dollar’s value.

The Deliberate Devaluation Thesis

Certain U.S. economic advisors, notably within the Trump administration, have argued that the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency creates a structural “overvaluation” that persistently harms U.S. trade competitiveness [16]. Proponents of this view suggest that managing a controlled depreciation of the dollar is a necessary measure to correct global trade imbalances and support domestic manufacturing [16].

This thesis has led to policy suggestions, sometimes grouped conceptually under the name “Mar-a-Lago Accord.” These suggestions include strategies such as utilizing tariffs to adjust global currency levels or even taxing foreign holders of U.S. Treasury debt [16]. Such discussions signal a willingness by policymakers to consider actions to achieve fiscal and trade goals, even at the expense of currency stability (Inflation).

Mar-a-Lago Accord

Media 1 Source: DW News

The Plaza Accord as Historical Parallel

These modern devaluation proposals directly reference the Plaza Accord of 1985.

  • Purpose: The Plaza Accord was a multilateral agreement signed by the G5 nations (France, West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) [17]. Its specific goal was to engineer an orderly depreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Japanese yen and German Deutsche Mark. At the time, the U.S. dollar was considered significantly overvalued due to high U.S. interest rates and robust capital inflows, which led to a massive U.S. trade deficit [18].
  • Mechanism: The participating nations agreed to coordinate currency market interventions, specifically selling U.S. dollars, to achieve the desired depreciation [18].
  • Outcome and Relevance: The Accord successfully achieved its short-term goal, weakening the dollar significantly [18]. However, it ultimately failed to deliver long-lasting correction to the underlying U.S. trade imbalances because the structural domestic factors—namely, low private savings and high government borrowing—remained unaddressed [19].

The historical parallel is crucial: while a new “accord” might temporarily achieve a devaluation target, the Debasement Trade argument suggests that without fundamental fiscal discipline, any managed decline will merely lead to renewed instability and require further monetary interventions.

The Official Stance

Despite the policy discussions, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly distinguished between short-term currency fluctuations and long-term policy [20]. He maintains that the core of the U.S. “strong dollar policy” is to take long-term steps to ensure the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, focusing on U.S. economic growth and stability, rather than obsessing over the exchange rate [20]. This distinction is intended to reassure global markets that the U.S. is not actively pursuing the dollar’s demise, even if domestic fiscal and monetary choices suggest otherwise.


V. Implications for Citizens and the Move to Hard Assets

The consequences of currency debasement are most keenly felt by the average citizen, whose financial well being may depend on the dollar’s stability. This is especially true after the post COVID rapid inflation period felt by most Americans who are now keenly aware of the negative impacts of inflation.

Inflationary Wealth Transfer

Debasement operates as a stealthy wealth transfer mechanism [21].

  • Erosion of Fixed Income: Citizens holding dollar-denominated assets, such as savings accounts, fixed pensions, and bonds, see the real value of their wealth diminish steadily [7]. This is especially punitive for retirees and those on fixed incomes.
  • Asset Price Distortion: While nominal asset prices (stocks, real estate) reach record highs in dollar terms, this surge is often an illusion. When these assets are measured against hard assets like Gold or Bitcoin, the appreciation is significantly tempered, reflecting the currency’s dilution rather than pure economic growth [22].

This disparity: those who are asset-rich (owners of real estate, commodities, or equities) are protected, while the working class and cash holders are negatively effected as their wages and savings buy less in real terms.

The Embrace of Hard Assets

The Debasement Trade is the strategic answer to this inflationary trap. Investors are choosing assets defined by their scarcity:

  • Gold (Traditional Hedge): Gold has served as a reliable store of value and inflationary hedge for millennia, its value enduring precisely because it cannot be created by a central bank [23]. Surges in the gold prices directly reflect the decline in the dollar’s relative value [12].
  • Bitcoin (Digital Scarcity): Bitcoin has been increasingly adopted as a contemporary hard asset [1]. Its maximum supply of 21 million coins is secured by cryptography and network consensus, rendering it immune to sovereign fiscal or monetary manipulation [2]. Its inclusion in the Debasement Trade reflects a redefinition of “hard money,” moving beyond the physical limitations of precious metals to the mathematical certainty of code [22]. The dramatic appreciation of Bitcoin is viewed by many investors not as a speculative frenzy, but as a rational re-pricing of mathematical scarcity relative to infinitely expanding fiat currency [1].

USD vs Hard Assets

Figure 4 Source: TradeView


VI. Conclusion: A Structural Shift

The Debasement Trade is more than a momentary market tactic; it is a structural investment shift reflecting deep seated concerns over fiscal integrity of the world’s leading economies. Driven by high and persistent debt accumulation, coupled with the unconstrained power of central banks to expand the money supply through QE, the trade represents a fundamental shift in investor trust, from faith in government promises to reliance on the verifiable scarcity of hard assets. As long as the structural imbalance between monetary creation and productive capacity persists, the strategic movement toward assets like gold and Bitcoin will continue to be a defining feature of the global financial landscape.


Citations and References

  1. The Guardian. (2025, October 9). ‘The debasement trade’: Is this what’s driving gold, bitcoin and shares to record highs? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/09/the-debasement-trade-is-this-whats-driving-gold-bitcoin-and-shares-to-record-highs (The Guardian)
  2. XTB. (2025, October 9). Debasement trade: Why investors seek refuge in gold. https://www.xtb.com/int/market-analysis/news-and-research/debasement-trade-why-investors-seek-refuge-in-gold (XTB.com)
  3. Investopedia. (2024). What is currency debasement, with examples. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debasement.asp (Investopedia)
  4. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Debasement (monetary theory). https://www.britannica.com/topic/debasement (Encyclopedia Britannica)
  5. Munro, J. H. (2010). The coinages and monetary policies of Henry VIII (r. 1509–1547) and Edward VI (r. 1547–1553). University of Toronto Department of Economics Working Paper No. 417. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-417.pdf (Department of Economics)
  6. Westminster Wealth Management. (2025, October 8). Understanding the “debasement trade” on Wall Street. https://www.westminsterwm.com/blog/understanding-the-debasement-trade-on-wall-street (westminsterwm.com)
  7. DPAM. (2025, April 23). The hidden cost of monetary debasement. https://www.dpaminvestments.com/professional-end-investor/at/en/angle/the-hidden-cost-of-monetary-debasement (dpaminvestments.com)
  8. FinancialContent. (2025, October 7). Investors flee U.S. dollar for bitcoin and gold amidst ‘debasement trade’ warnings from Citadel CEO Ken Griffin. https://www.financialcontent.com/article/marketminute-2025-10-7-investors-flee-us-dollar-for-bitcoin-and-gold-amidst-debasement-trade-warnings-from-citadel-ceo-ken-griffin (FinancialContent)
  9. Fair Observer. (2025, October 5). FO° Exclusive: US dollar will continue to lose value. https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/fo-exclusive-us-dollar-will-continue-to-lose-value/ (Fair Observer)
  10. Mitrade. (2025, October 7). Citadel’s Ken Griffin says gold, silver, BTC lead ‘debasement trade’. https://www.mitrade.com/insights/news/live-news/article-3-1176417-20251007 (Mitrade)
  11. Morgan Stanley. (2025, August 6). Devaluation of the U.S. dollar 2025. https://www.morganstanley.com/insights/articles/us-dollar-declines (Morgan Stanley)
  12. The Economic Times. (2025, October 8). U.S. stock futures today: Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq flat amid AI bubble fears as gold surges past $4,000 — check which stocks are surging and sinking now. https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/u-s-stock-futures-today-october-8-2025-dow-sp-500-nasdaq-flat-amid-ai-bubble-fears-as-gold-surges-past-4000-check-which-stocks-are-surging-and-sinking-now/articleshow/124383646.cms (The Economic Times)
  13. J.P. Morgan Research. (2025, July 1). De-dollarization: The end of dollar dominance? https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/currencies/de-dollarization (JPMorgan Chase)
  14. McMillin, R. (2025, October 7). Gold, bitcoin and the debasement trade. Livewire Markets. https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/gold-bitcoin-and-the-debasement-trade (Livewire Markets)
  15. Roberts, L. (2025, August 4). Debasement explained: What it is—and what it’s not. Advisorpedia. https://www.advisorpedia.com/markets/debasement-explained-what-it-is-and-what-its-not/ (Advisorpedia)
  16. The Mining Journal (Editorial Board). (2025, August 16). Trump’s pick wants to devalue dollar. https://www.miningjournal.net/opinion/editorial/2025/08/trumps-pick-wants-to-devalue-dollar/ (miningjournal.net)
  17. TD Economics. (2025, May 1). The non-starter playbook of the Mar-a-Lago Accord. https://economics.td.com/us-mar-a-lago-accord (PDF: https://economics.td.com/domains/economics.td.com/documents/reports/ms/Mar-a-Lago_Accord.pdf) (TD Economics)
  18. Investopedia. (n.d.). Plaza Accord: Definition, history, purpose, and its replacement. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plaza-accord.asp (Investopedia)
  19. Frankel, J. (2015, December). The Plaza Accord, 30 years later (NBER Working Paper No. 21813). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21813 (PDF: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21813/w21813.pdf) (NBER)
  20. Webull (syndicated from Bloomberg/Benzinga). (2025, July 3). U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent refuted claims that the recent depreciation of the U.S. dollar would affect its status as the world’s major currency. https://www.webull.com/news/13098149616067584 (Webull)
  21. Opening Bell Daily. (2025, October 6). Everything rally is a mirage next to the debasement trade. https://www.openingbelldailynews.com/p/bitcoin-stock-market-outlook-debasement-trade-jpmorgan-wall-street-investors (Opening Bell Daily)
  22. GRAVITAS. (2025, October 8). Investors turn to gold, silver, and BTC in ‘debasement trade’ [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pde-sodiyE (YouTube)
  23. Investopedia. (2025, October 7). Investor anxiety fuels gold’s rise: Understanding the ‘debasement trade’. https://www.investopedia.com/what-is-the-debasement-trade-and-why-does-it-matter-gold-bitcoin-11825589 (Investopedia)

Debasement Trade Explained: What you should know

R > G: The Silent Threat to American Stability

If interest rates rise faster than growth, debt becomes a trap.

I. Introduction – The Spread That’s Breaking the System

For decades, America managed to grow its economy faster than the cost of borrowing. That dynamic kept deficits manageable and debt levels sustainable. But today, a worrying shift is underway: the effective interest rate on government debt (R) is now greater than the real growth rate of the economy (G). In economic shorthand, we’ve entered an era of R > G.

This equation may sound academic, but it has very real consequences. When borrowing costs exceed economic growth, the debt burden doesn’t just increase – it compounds. This creates a growing strain on the federal budget, limiting our ability to invest in future needs.

The R > G concept was popularized by economist Thomas Piketty in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, where he applied it to inequality: when the return on capital exceeds the rate of economic growth, wealth concentrates at the top. But the same logic can apply to nations. When the interest rate on debt exceeds growth, public debt compounds and can overwhelm fiscal capacity.

As of 2024, the U.S. national debt reached $36.2 trillion[1], with annual net interest payments of $1.125 trillion, consuming approximately 22.0% of all Federal revenue, according to the latest FRED data[2][3]. This means that more than $1 of every $5 dollars in revenue goes just to service debt. In fact, interest has now surpassed National Defense spending to become the third-largest Federal expense, after Social Security and Medicare[4].

II. What Happens When R > G? A Costly Imbalance

There are negative consequences when the government’s interest payments (R) rise above its economic growth rate (G), and those consequences can build quickly. The result is a compounding debt burden that becomes more difficult to manage each year.

At its core, the National debt grows based on a simple formula:

Debt(T+1) = Debt(T) × (1 + R – G)

Where:

Debt(T) = total debt in the current year
Debt(T+1) = total debt in the following year
R = effective interest rate on the debt
G = real GDP growth rate

As long as Growth (G) exceeds Interest Rates (R), debt tends to shrink relative to the economy – that’s GOOD! But when R > G, even a stable budget with no new spending deficits leads to rising debt as a percentage of GDP – that’s BAD! This is worse in the U.S. context, because the Federal government has run over 20 consecutive years of deficits. We are compounding the problem even before adding the negative effects of R > G.

In 2023, the average interest rate on publicly held debt rose above 3.3%, while real GDP growth hovered near 2%[2]. This gap means the government must devote more revenue for the same services just to stay in place—and even more to reduce debt.

Figure 1 Source: FRED


III. The Cost Spiral: Interest is Crowding Out the Future

Interest on the National debt is now the fastest-growing part of the federal budget. In FY2024, interest payments exceeded $1.1 trillion, surpassing military spending for the first time[3][4].

As interest rises, it reduces the budget available for priorities like:

  • Infrastructure and clean energy projects
  • Scientific and medical research
  • Education, public health, and social services

These tradeoffs are already showing up in budget negotiations. If trends continue, interest could consume more than 25% of federal revenue by 2030, even under conservative projections[5]. That would mean better than 1 in 4 dollars would be spent servicing debt payments. Imagine the dinner table discussion if your credit card interest alone was taking a quarter of your income, that is the situation America could soon face.

Figure 2 Source: FRED

Figure 3 Source: FRED, CBO


IV. Why are Interest Rates Rising? What It Means for the Future?

To understand the R > G dynamic, we first need to ask: why are interest rates rising?

Interest rates are set by a combination of factors:

  • The Federal Reserve’s target rates
  • Investor expectations about inflation
  • The supply and demand for government bonds

Since 2022, the Federal Reserve has raised rates to fight inflation. Meanwhile, investors have demanded higher returns to protect against rising prices from inflation. Additionally, increasing government borrowing has added more bonds to the market, pressuring yields upward[6]. All of which are putting upward pressure on interest rates.

Can we control interest rates?

The Federal Reserve’s role in Monetary policy gives them huge power to influence rates, however even they are subject to market forces during their Open Market Operations. So in short, yes they have great influence, but not control and where that control occurs changes based on the term.

  • Short-term rates? Generally yes, the Federal Reserve sets the Fed Funds rate which sets short term rates.
  • Long-term rates? No—those are driven by global investor confidence, inflation expectations, and the perceived durability of U.S. fiscal policy and trust in the dollar.

That’s why many economists believe elevated interest rates may persist, especially if inflation remains sticky or if global lenders become more cautious about U.S. debt levels. In fact, nearly $11 billion exited U.S. long-term bond funds in Q2 2025 amid concerns over debt and inflation, while investors favored short-term securities[6]. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell recently emphasized that the Fed will maintain its “wait-and-see” approach due to persistent inflation risks shaped by tariffs and uncertainty[7].

What it means for the future?

When looking at our current situation and what the future may hold, you must evaluate the impact of rising Interest Rates (R) would have on the budget and our debt costs. We created a sensitivity table using our current National Debt to show the effects of a 1% to 3% increase in Interest Rates (R). As you can see the increase in Debt Servicing costs goes up substantially, exacerbating an already challenging problem. Is this likely to happen? Interest rates have been fairly stable and the Federal Reserve monitors this closely, but is it unheard of? In the late 70’s early 80’s with inflation out of control, interest rates peaked over 20%, and were over 10% for more than 3 years, and never dropped below 6% for Paul Volker’s entire term as Chair of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.

Avg Interest Rate (%)Est. Interest Cost ($T)Increase from 2024 ($B)
0% (2024 Actual 3.36%)$1.10T (Actual)0
1% Increase (4.36%)$1.43T$327B
2% Increase (5.36%)$1.75T$655B
3% Increase (6.36%)$2.08T$982B


V. Ignoring the Problem Makes It Worse

The future may come faster than we expect, and this isn’t one of those challenges that if you ignore gets better on its own.

Just a few years ago, some projections warned interest might eventually exceed 30% of Federal revenue[5]. But with today’s rate environment, we’re already at 22%, and climbing – you don’t have to imagine too hard with annual structural Federal Budget deficits adding to the National debt, reaching 30% no longer seems like a stretch.

If left unresolved, rising debt interest may eventually leave policymakers with only difficult choices:

  • RAISE TAXES: Broad increases that may include middle-income earners
  • REDUCE SPENDING: Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, defense, or other mandatory programs
  • PRINT MONEY: Central bank debt monetization—risks inflation or currency credibility

This is no longer a theoretical risk. It’s embedded in the current budget and growing with every year of inaction. Interest is no longer just a line item — it’s becoming as challenging as Medicare, and Social Security entitlements. All growing, or having funding challenges simultaneously.

Figure 4 Source: FRED, CBO


VI. Japan: A Glimpse into the future? A Blueprint to Not follow?

Some point to Japan as evidence that high debt can be sustained without any issues provided inflation remains under control if the debt is held in the states fiat currency. But key differences limit the comparison:

  • Japan’s debt is largely owned domestically
  • It has a current account surplus
  • It battled deflation, not inflation

However, even Japan is now being tested. After years of ultra-low rates and decades of stagnant growth, it has begun reversing policy, increasing interest rates, and weakening the long-standing yen carry trade where people would borrow from Japan at low interest rates and invest in higher returning areas outside of Japan. These shifts have raised Japan’s borrowing costs and led to rising debt service burdens as interest rates rise (R) [8][9].

Analysts from Barclays and the IMF have noted that Japan’s growing interest expenses could strain its fiscal outlook if growth remains weak[10]. This has important implications for the U.S., which faces a more inflation-prone environment and heavier reliance on foreign buyers of US Debt.


VII. How Do We Escape? The Tough but Necessary Choices

Solving the R > G imbalance will require a mix of political will power, discipline, and hard policy choices:

  1. RAISE REVENUE: Greater revenue sources through taxation, tariffs, and fees
  2. SPENDING DISCIPLINE: Slow or reduce spending, reevaluate larger budget items including mandatory spending on entitlements
  3. BOOST GROWTH: Invest in productivity, innovation, infrastructure, and labor force participation
  4. RESTORE FISCAL CONFIDENCE: Send clear signals that America’s Fiscal position is sound to reduce risk premiums
  5. AVOID MONETARY SHORTCUTS: Don’t Print Money to ease debt that risks creating runaway inflation

It is likely to require a combination of a number of these solutions. The solutions are not mysterious—they’re well known. As noted by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and former CBO directors, the issue isn’t technical—it’s political will[11].


VIII. Conclusion

We are no longer warning about R > G — we’re living it. It may not scream that the sky is falling or that America will become insolvent tomorrow. However, it is quietly altering the structure of our National budget by crowding out other items, limiting our ability to provide services, putting pressure on our structural annual deficits, and creating growing economic risks that continue to build over time creating great and greater consequences for the health of America’s future.

In the past, fiscal hawks cautioned that rising interest costs could one day consume a dangerous share of revenue. That day has arrived. As of 2024, 22.0% of federal revenue is already going to interest — and rising.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s a structural shift embedded in the fiscal outlook. Every year we delay action compounds the problem. Interest becomes the dominant force in our fiscal future — not a side expense, but a driver of debt itself.

The good news? The earlier we act, the more options we have, and the easier (not easy) managing it becomes. With thoughtful, balanced reform, the U.S. can navigate this challenge and return to fiscal stability. However, it starts with recognizing that this isn’t about politics or beliefs — it’s about math.

Because when the Rate of interest (R) exceeds the rate of Growth (G), time is not on our side.


Citations

[1] U.S. Debt Clock, 2024. https://usdebtclock.org/

[2] FRED Series ID: A204RC1A027NBEA (Federal Government: Net Interest Payments, Annual). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A204RC1A027NBEA

[3] FRED Series ID: AFRECPT (Federal Government: Current Receipts, Annual). https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AFRECPT

[4] Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Federal Budget Outlook: 2024 to 2034.” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59096

[5] Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. https://www.crfb.org

[6] Financial Times. “Investors flee long-term US bonds amid debt and inflation concerns.” https://www.ft.com/content/75a4acf6-b3fa-4a90-8b4e-4c0724afd407

[7] Associated Press. “Powell says Fed will ‘wait and see’ on rate cuts, citing persistent inflation risks.” https://apnews.com/article/df5b9ac09f0cd283797c6c294a98da9c

[8] Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/BOJ-faces-fiscal-strain-as-government-debt-service-rises

[9] Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/japan-debt-costs-hit-record-boj-policy-shift-raises-yields-2023-10-01/

[10] IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/11/15/japan-staff-concluding-statement-of-the-2023-article-iv-mission

[11] Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/events/ben-bernanke-on-americas-fiscal-future/

R > G: The Silent Threat to American Stability

Tax Project Institute

Get the Newsletter

Sign up to get the newsletter