Category Archives: Bonds

Jackson Hole- comments tomorrow’s speech by Fed Chairman Bernanke

Posted on by

First, I see no public purpose in burning any crude oil to fly the Chairman and his entourage to make any speech.

He could just as easily deliver this one from the steps of the Fed in DC.
Congress should demand a statement of public purpose before endorsing any travel by its agents.

Next is what I expect from the speech.
The short answer is not much.

I don’t see more QE as the purpose of QE is to bring long rates down, and they are already down substantially. And the Fed now has sufficient evidence to confirm that long rates are mainly a function of expectations of future FOMC votes on rate settings.

To that point, when the Fed announced QE, and market participants believed it would spur growth, and therefore FOMC rate hikes somewhere down the road, long rates worked their way higher. And when the Fed ended QE, and market participants believed the economy would be slower to recover, long rates worked their way lower. Not to mention China hates QE and it still looks to me there’s an understanding in place where China allocates reserves to $US as long as the Fed doesn’t do any QE.

The Fed could cut it’s target Fed funds rate, the cost of funds for the banking system, down to 0 and lower that cost of funds by a few basis points. But those few basis points can hardly be expected to have much effect on anything.

It’s not the Fed has run out of bullets, it’s that the Fed has never had any bullets of any consequence.
And with the few it’s fired, it hasn’t realized the odds are the gun has been pointed backwards.
For example, it still looks to me lower rates, if anything, reduce aggregate demand via the interest income channels.

And QE isn’t much other than a tax on the economy, that also removes interest income.

So look for a forecast of modest GDP growth with downside risks, core inflation remaining reasonably firm even as unemployment remains far too high, all of which support continued Fed ‘accommodation’ at current levels.

Share

I’m ok, eur ok?

Posted on by

First, the euro funding issue/crisis could vanish with a simple announcement, like:

The ECB hereby guarantees all the debt of the national governments.

But they won’t do that.
They are worried about their ability to subsequently enforce the Growth and Stability Pact, which has already proven unenforceable.

In fact, the only enforcement tool for austerity seems to rest with the ECB, which conditions its funding on austerity.

This is also the disciplinary principle behind my proposed ECB annual revenue distribution of maybe 10% of euro zone GDP to the national govts on a per capita basis-
The ECB would have the right to withhold future distributions to members who fail to comply with deficit rules. But this proposal isn’t even a consideration, so not likely to happen.

Mosler bonds (in the case of default they can be used for payment of taxes) for individual euro nations offer real hope, but time is short and the political process long.

That leaves the euro zone with what it’s been doing all along.
Muddle along anticipating, entertaining, debating, various funding proposals,
but ultimately,
when it gets bad enough,
relying on the ECB writing the check and buying national govt debt in the market place to facilitate ongoing funding.

All contingent with the member nation in question complying with terms and conditions of austerity set by the ECB.

It’s all highly deflationary, strong euro medicine, while it lasts.
It’s also operationally sustainable.
And phase 1- where austerity reduces deficits- has proven politically sustainable as well.

However we may now be entering phase 2,
where austerity results in falling GDP and higher deficits for all the euro members.
Yes, it’s operationally sustainable and continues to support the euro.

So the question is whether austerity measures intended to bring deficits down, that instead cause deficits to increase, are politically sustainable.

And, if not, what next?
And when?
How bad does it all have to get before they change policy?
And what change would that be?
The first step would probably be some ‘new’ form of QE,
and maybe even an interest rate cut,
which only make things worse,
as they wait for the appropriate lag before said policy ‘kicks in’.

And how long would it all continue to deteriorate before they stop waiting for it to ‘kick in’ and again change policy?

US deficit reduction round 2 coming soon as well.

To again quote that carpenter working on his piece of wood,
‘no matter how many times i cut it, it’s still too short’.

Is a misguided fuss over a reserve drain going to bring down global capitalism?

Share

S&P downgrades US on ability to pay

Posted on by

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics,” S&P said in a statement late yesterday after markets closed.

Credit ratings are based on ability to pay and willingness to pay.

David Beers of S&P knows this and has discussed this in the past.

Including direct discussion with me where he acknowledged a nation like the US always has the ability to make US dollar payments.

Therefore any downgrade would necessarily be based on willingness to pay.

In fact, I downgraded the US on willingness to pay several months ago on this website. And the debt ceiling debate more than demonstrated a willingness to default by far too many members of Congress for even consideration of a AAA rating.

So why then did David T. Beers decide to downgrade the US on ability to pay, and not explicitly on willingness to pay?

Sure looks like a case of intellectual dishonesty.
And I have no idea why.
So much for his legacy.

And, as previously discussed, markets probably won’t care, much like when Japan was even more severely downgraded.

A credit rating simply needn’t be applicable for the issuer of its own currency, as David should well know.

Share

Consumer credit up, Friday update

Posted on by

It doesn’t look to me like anything particularly bad has actually yet happened to the US economy.

The federal deficit is chugging along at maybe 9% of US GDP, supporting income and adding to savings by exactly that much, so a collapse in aggregate demand, while not impossible, is highly unlikely.

After recent downward revisions, that sent shock waves through the markets, so far this year GDP has grown by .4% in Q1 and 1.2% in Q2, with Q3 now revised down to maybe 2.0%. Looks to me like it’s been increasing, albeit very slowly. And today’s employment report shows much the same- modest improvement in an economy that’s growing enough to add a few jobs, but not enough to keep up with productivity growth and labor force growth, as labor participation rates fell to a new low for the cycle.

And, as previously discussed, looks to me like H1 demonstrated that corps can make decent returns with very little GDP growth, so even modestly better Q3 GDP can mean modestly better corp profits. Not to mention the high unemployment and decent productivity gains keeping unit labor costs low.

Lower crude oil and gasoline profits will hurt some corps, but should help others more than that, as consumers have more to spend on other things, and the corps with lower profits won’t cut their actual spending and so won’t reduce aggregate demand.

This is the reverse of what happened in the recent run up of gasoline prices.

Japan should be doing better as well as they recover from the shock of the earthquake.

Yes, there are risks, like the looming US govt spending cuts to be debated in November, but that’s too far in advance for today’s markets to discount.

A China hard landing will bring commodity prices down further, hurting some stocks but, again, helping consumers.

A euro zone meltdown would be an extreme negative, but, once again, the ECB has offered to write the check which, operationally, they can do without limit as needed. So markets will likely assume they will write the check and act accordingly.

A strong dollar is more a risk to valuations than to employment and output, and falling import prices are very dollar friendly, as is continuing a fiscal balance that constrains aggregate demand to the extent evidenced by the unemployment and labor force participation rates. And Japan’s dollar buying is a sign of the times. With US demand weakening, foreign nations are swayed by politically influential exporters who do not want to let their currency appreciate and risk losing market share.

The Fed’s reaction function includes unemployment and prices, but not corporate earnings per se. It’s failing on it’s unemployment mandate, and now with commodity prices coming down it’s undoubtedly reconcerned about failing on it’s price stability mandate as well, particularly with a Fed chairman who sees the risks as asymmetrical. That is, he believes they can deal with inflation, but that deflation is more problematic.

So with equity prices a function of earnings and not a function of GDP per se, as well as function of interest rates, current PE’s look a lot more attractive than they did before the sell off, and nothing bad has happened to Q3 earnings forecasts, where real GDP remains forecast higher than Q2.

So from here, seems to me both bonds and stocks could do ok, as a consequence of weak but positive GDP that’s enough to support corporate earnings growth, but not nearly enough to threaten Fed hikes.

Consumer borrowing up in June by most in 4 years

By Martin Crutsinger

May 25 (Bloomberg) — Americans borrowed more money in June than during any other month in nearly four years, relying on credit cards and loans to help get through a difficult economic stretch.

The Federal Reserve said Friday that consumers increased their borrowing by $15.5 billion in June. That’s the largest one-month gain since August 2007. And it is three times the amount that consumers borrowed in May.

The category that measures credit card use increased by $5.2 billion — the most for a single month since March 2008 and only the third gain since the financial crisis. A category that includes auto loans rose by $10.3 billion, the most since February.

Total consumer borrowing rose to a seasonally adjusted annual level of $2.45 trillion. That was 2.1 percent higher than the nearly four-year low of $2.39 trillion hit in September.

Share

Comments on Chairman Bernanke’s testimony

Posted on by

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:55 AM, wrote:
>   
>   I see Bernanke is speaking your language now…
>   

Yes, a bit, but but as corrected below:

“DUFFY: We had talked about the QE2 with Dr. Paul. When — when you buy assets, where does that money come from?

BERNANKE: We create reserves in the banking system which are just held with the Fed. It does not go out into the public.

Not exactly, as all govt spending is done by adding reserves to member bank reserve accounts. Reserve accounts are held by member banks as assets, and so these balances are as much ‘out into the public’ as any.

What doesn’t change is net financial assets, as QE debits securities accounts at the Fed and credits reserve accounts.

But yes, spending is in no case operationally constrained by revenues.

DUFFY: Does it come from tax dollars, though, to buy those assets?

BERNANKE: It does not.

Operationally he is correct, and in this case, to the extent QE does not add to aggregate demand, he is further correct. In fact, to the extent that QE removes interest income from the economy, it actually acts as a tax on the economy, and not as a govt expenditure.

However, and ironically, I submit he believes that QE adds to aggregate demand, and therefore ‘uses up’ some of the aggregate demand created by taxation, and therefore, in that sense, it would be taxpayer dollars that he’s spending.

DUFFY: Are you basically printing money to buy those assets?

BERNANKE: We’re not printing money. We’re creating reserves in the banking system.

Technically correct in that he’s not printing pieces of paper.

But he is adding net balances to private sector accounts, which, functionally, is what is creating new dollars which is generally referred to as ‘printing money’

All govt spending can be thought of as printing dollars, taxing unprinting dollars, and borrowing shifting dollars from reserve accounts to securities accounts.

DUFFY: In your testimony — I only have 20 seconds left — you talked about a potential additional stimulus. Can you assure us today that there is going to be no QE3? Or is that something that you’re considering?

BERNANKE: I think we have to keep all the options on the table. We don’t know where the economy is going to go. And if we get to a point where we’re like, you know, the economy — recovery is faltering and — and we’re looking at inflation dropping down toward zero or something, you know, where inflation issues are not relevant, then, you know, we have to look at all the options.

DUFFY: And QE3 is one of those?

BERNANKE: Yes.

Very hesitant, as it still looks to me like there’s an tacit understanding with China that there won’t be any more QE, as per China’s statement earlier today.

PAUL: I hate to interrupt, but my time is about up. I would like to suggest that you say it’s not spending money. Well, it’s money out of thin air. You put it into the market. You hold assets and assets aren’t — you know, they are diminishing in value when you buy up bad assets.

But very quickly, if you could answer another question because I’m curious about this. You know, the price of gold today is $1,580. The dollar during these last three years was devalued almost 50 percent. When you wake up in the morning, do you care about the price of gold?

BERNANKE: Well, I pay attention to the price of gold, but I think it reflects a lot of things. It reflects global uncertainties. I think people are — the reason people hold gold is as a protection against what we call “tail risk” — really, really bad outcomes. And to the extent that the last few years have made people more worried about the potential of a major crisis, then they have gold as a protection.

PAUL: Do you think gold is money?

BERNANKE: No. It’s not money.

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: Even if it has been money for 6,000 years, somebody reversed that and eliminated that economic law?

BERNANKE: Well, you know, it’s an asset. I mean, it’s the same — would you say Treasury bills are money? I don’t think they’re money either, but they’re a financial asset.

Right answer would have been gold used to be demanded/accepted as payment of taxes, which caused it to circulate as money.

Today the US dollar is what’s demanded for payment of US taxes, so it circulates as money.

In fact, if you try to spend a gold coin today, in most parts of the world you have to accept a discount to spot market prices to get anyone to take it.

PAUL: Well, why do — why do central banks hold it?

BERNANKE: Well, it’s a form of reserves.

Yes, much like govt land, the strategic petroleum reserve, etc.

PAUL: Why don’t they hold diamonds?

Some probably do.

BERNANKE: Well, it’s tradition, long-term tradition.

PAUL: Well, some people still think it’s money.”

“CLAY: Has the Federal Reserve examined what may happen on another level on August 3rd if we do not lift the debt ceiling?

BERNANKE: Yes, we’ve — of course, we’ve looked at it and thought about making preparations and so on. The arithmetic is very simple. The revenue that we get in from taxes is both irregular and much less than the current rate of spending. That’s what it means to have a deficit.

So immediately, there would have to be something on the order of a 40 percent cut in outgo. The assumption is that as long as possible the Treasury would want to try to make payments on the principal and interest of the government debt because failure to do that would certainly throw the financial system into enormous disarray and have major impacts on the global economy.

So this is a matter of arithmetic. Fairly soon after that date, there would have to be significant cuts in Social Security, Medicare, military pay or some combination of those in order to avoid borrowing more money.

If in fact we ended up defaulting on the debt, or even if we didn’t, I think, you know, it’s possible that simply defaulting on our obligations to our citizens might be enough to create a downgrade in credit ratings and higher interest rates for us, which would be counterproductive, of course, since it makes the deficit worse.

But clearly, if we went so far as to default on the debt, it would be a major crisis because the Treasury security is viewed as the safest and most liquid security in the world. It’s the foundation for most of our financial — for much of our financial system. And the notion that it would become suddenly unreliable and illiquid would throw shock waves through the entire global financial system.

And higher interest rates would also impact the individual American consumer. Is that correct?

BERNANKE: Absolutely. The Treasury rates are the benchmark for mortgage rates, car loan rates and all other types of consumer rates.”

“BERNANKE: A second problem is the housing market. Clearly, that’s an area that should get some more attention because that’s been one of the major reasons why the economy has grown so slowly. And I think many of your colleagues would agree that the tax code needs a look to try to improve its efficiency and to promote economic growth as well.”

While housing isn’t growing as in the past, housing or anything else is only a source of drag if it’s shrinking.

It’s not that case that if housing were never to grow we could not be at levels of aggregate demand high enough to sustain full employment levels of sales and output.

We’d just be doing other things than in past cycles.

G. MILLER: Well, the problem I had with the Fannie-Freddie hybrid concept was the taxpayers were at risk and private sector made all the profits.

BERNANKE: That’s right.

That’s the same with banking in general with today’s insured deposits, a necessary condition for banking. Taxpayers are protected by regulation of assets. The liability side is not the place for market discipline, as has been learned the hard way over the course of history.

G. MILLER: That — that’s unacceptable. What do you see the barriers to private capital entering mortgage lending (inaudible) market for home loans would be?

BERNANKE: Well, currently, there’s not much private capital because of concerns about the housing market, concerns about still high default rates. I suspect, though, that, you know, when the housing market begins to show signs of life, that there will be expanded interest.

I think another reason — and go back what Mr. Hensarling was saying — is that the regulatory structure under which securitization, et cetera, will be taking place has not been tied down yet. So there’s a lot of things that have to happen. But I don’t see any reason why the private sector can’t play a big role in the housing market securitization, et cetera, going forward.”

As above, bank lending is still a public/private partnership, presumably operating for public purpose.

See my Proposals for the Banking System, Treasury, Fed, and FDIC (draft)

And there’s no reason securitization has to play any role. Housing starts peaked in 1972 at 2.6 million units with a population of only 200 million, with only simple savings and loans staffed by officers earning very reasonable salaries and no securitization.

“CARSON: However, banks are still not lending to the public and vital small businesses. How, sir, do you plan on, firstly, encouraging banks to lend to our nation’s small businesses and the American public in general?

And, secondly, as you know, more banks have indeed tightened their lending standards than have eased them. Does the Fed plan to keep interest rates low for an extended period of time. Are the Fed’s actions meaningless unless banks are willing to lend?

CARSON: And, lastly, what are your thoughts on requiring a 20 percent down for a payment? And do you believe that this will impact homeowners significantly or — or not at all?

BERNANKE: Well, banks — first of all, they have stopped tightening their lending standards, according to our surveys, and have begun to ease them, particularly for commercial and industrial loans and some other types of loans.

Small-business lending is still constrained, both because of bank reluctance but also because of lack of demand because they don’t have customers or inventories to finance or because they’re in weakened financial condition, which means they’re harder to qualify for the loan.

Right, sales drive most everything, including employment

“PETERS: Do you see some parallels between what happened in the late ’30s?

BERNANKE: Well, it’s true that most historians ascribe the ’37- ’38 recession to premature tightening of both fiscal and monetary policy, so that part is correct.

Also, Social Security was initiated, and accounted for ‘off budget’, and, with benefit payments initially near 0, the fica taxes far outstripped the benefits adding a sudden negative fiscal shock.

The accountants realized their mistake and Social Security was put on budget where it remains and belongs.

I think every episode is different. We have to look, you know, at what’s going on in the economy today. I think with 9.2 percent unemployment, the economy still requires a good deal of support. The Federal Reserve is doing what we can to provide monetary policy accommodation.

But as we go forward, we’re going to obviously want to make sure that as we support the recovery that we also keep an eye on inflation, make sure that stays well controlled.

Share

Debt ceiling dynamics

Posted on by

Here’s my take:

A. They get a few trillion in long term cuts and maybe a few that kick in reasonably soon and extend the debt ceiling

This would help ensure aggregate demand stays low for long, which is bond friendly, and stocks muddle through in a range with slowing earnings growth but just enough top line growth to stay positive.

B. They don’t extend the debt ceiling

This would immediately and directly reduce aggregate demand, which is very bond friendly and very bad for stocks, as many top lines go negative until federal spending is restored.

And either way the economy remains vulnerable to looming external shocks, including a China slowdown, euro zone default and/or slowdown, UK slowdown, and a strong dollar.

Share

The Mosler Plan for Greece

Posted on by

The Mosler Plan, as previously posted on this website, is now making the rounds in Europe as an alternative to the French Plan that is currently under serious consideration:

Abstract
The following is an outline for a proposed new Greek government bond issue to provide all required medium term euro funding for Greece on very attractive terms.

The new bond issue includes an addition to the default provisions that eliminates the risk of loss to investors. The language added to the default provisions states that while in default, and only in the case of default, these transferable securities can be used directly, by the bearer on demand, at face value plus accrued interest, for payment of any debts, including taxes, owed to the Greek government.

By eliminating the risk of loss, Greece will be able to independently fund all required financial obligations in the market place for the foreseeable future. The immediate benefits are both reduced interest costs that substantially contribute to deficit reduction, and the elimination of the need for the funding assistance from the European Union and the IMF.

Introduction- Restoring National Sovereignty
Current institutional arrangements have resulted in Greece being faced with escalating interest costs when it attempts to fund itself in the market place, to the point where timely funding is not currently available without external assistance. This requirement for external assistance to avoid default has further resulted in a loss of sovereignty, with the EU and IMF offering funding only on their approval of deficit reduction plans by the Greek government that meet specific requirements. Compliance with these demands from the EU and IMF not only include tax increases, spending cuts, and privatizations, but also include aggressive time lines for achieving their deficit reduction goals. It is also understood by all parties that the immediate near term consequences of these imposed austerity measures will include further slowing of the economy, and rising unemployment.

Greece will restore national sovereignty, and regain control of the process of full compliance with the general EU requirements for all member nations, only when it restores its financial independence. Financial independence will allow Greece to again be master of its own destiny, on an equal basis with the other EU members. And the lower interest rate that result(s) from this proposed bond issue will itself be a substantial down payment on the required deficit reduction, easing the requirements for tax increases, spending cuts, and privatizations.

While this proposal restores Greek national sovereignty, and eases funding burdens, we recognize that it is only the first step in restoring the Greek economy. Even with funding independence and low interest rates the Greek government still faces a monumental task in bringing Greece into full compliance with EU requirements and restoring economic output and employment. However, it should also be recognized that financial independence and low cost funding are the critical first steps to long term success.

The Bond Issue- No Risk of Financial Loss
Market based funding at the lowest possible interest rates requires investors who understand there is no ultimate risk of financial loss, and that the promise to pay principal and interest by the issuer is credible. To be credible, a borrower must have the means to meet all contractual euro obligations on a timely basis. For Greece this has meant investors must have the confidence that Greece can generate sufficient revenues through taxing and borrowing to repay its debts.

The credit worthiness of any loan begins with the default provisions. While there may be unconditional promises to pay, investors nonetheless value what their rights are in the event the borrower does not pay. Corporate debt often includes rights to specific collateral, priorities in specific revenues, and other credit enhancing support.

The new proposed Greek bond issue, with its provision that in the event of default the bonds can be used at face value, plus interest, for the payment of taxes by the bearer on demand, gives the bond holder absolute assurance that full maturity value in euro can always be achieved. And with this absolute assurance that these new securities are necessarily ‘money good’ the ability to refinance is established which dramatically reduces the risk of the default provisions actually being triggered. And, again, should there be a default event, the investor will still get full value for his investment as the entire euro value of the defaulted securities can be used at any time for the payment of Greek taxes. So while this discussion concerns the case of default, the removal of the risk of loss means there will always be demand for them at near risk free market interest rates, and that the default discussion is, for all practical purposes, hypothetical.

These new Greek government bonds will be of particular interest to banks, which, again, encourages bank ownership, which makes default that much more remote a possibility. This is because, in the case of default, a bank holding any of these defaulted securities will be able to use them for payment of taxes on behalf of bank clients (using that bank for payment of their taxes). Under these circumstances, a bank depositor client making payment of euro would, in effect, simultaneously buy the defaulted securities from the bank and use them to pay the Greek government taxes due. Again, the fact that the bank would be fully paid for its defaulted securities in the process of depositors paying their taxes means there will be no default in the first place, as these favorable consequences mean there will be continuous demand for new securities of this type at competitive market interest rates, to facilitate all Greek refinancing requirements.

The new ‘money good’ Greek bonds will be attractive to all global investors, both private and public. This will include international banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and other private investors, as well as sovereign wealth funds and foreign central banks which are accumulating euro reserves.

Fiscal Responsibility
As a member in good standing of the European Union, Greece, like all the member nations, is required to be in full compliance of all EU requirements. Therefore, while this proposal will restore national sovereignty, financial independence, and lower interest rates for Greece, austerity measures will continue to be required to bring Greece into EU compliance. However, Greece will gain substantial flexibility with regard to timing and other specific detail, and will be able to work to achieve its goals in an organized, orderly manner, without the continued pressures of default risk and without the specific terms and conditions currently being demanded by the EU and the IMF. Nor will the ECB be required to buy Greek bonds in the market place, obviating those demands as well.

Share

CBO Congressional Report- U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis

Posted on by

How about the accounts sticking to accounting.

Just in case you thought there was any hope:

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

U.S. Could Face European-Style Debt Crisis: Congressional Report

June 22 (AP) — The rapidly growing national debt could soon spark a European-style crisis unless Congress moves forcefully, the Congressional Budget Office warned Wednesday in a study that underscores the stakes for a bipartisan group working on a plan to reduce red ink.

Republicans seized on the non-partisan report to renew their push to reduce costs in federal benefit programs such as Medicare — the federal government health care program that benefits the elderly.

The report said the national debt, now $14.3 trillion, is on pace to equal the annual size of the economy within a decade. It warned of a possible “sudden fiscal crisis” if it is left unchecked, with investors losing faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs.

Democrats and Republicans have been stepping up budget talks aimed at averting what could be the disastrous first-ever default on U.S. government debt. A bipartisan group led by Vice President Joe Biden tasked with reaching an agreement has not made the politically difficult compromises on the larger issues, such as changes in Medicare, or tax increases.

The study reverberated throughout the Capitol as Biden and negotiators and senior lawmakers spent several hours behind closed doors. The talks are aimed at outlining about $2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade, part of an attempt to generate enough support in Congress to allow the Treasury to take on new borrowing.

Biden made no comment as he departed, except to say the group would meet again on Thursday and probably Friday as well.

The CBO, the non-partisan agency that calculates the cost and economic impact of legislation and government policy, says the nation’s rapidly growing debt burden increases the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors lose faith in U.S. bonds and force policymakers to make drastic spending cuts or tax increases.

“As Congress debates the president’s request for an increase in the statutory debt ceiling, the CBO warns of a more ominous credit cliff — a sudden drop-off in our ability to borrow imposed by credit markets in a state of panic,” said Republican House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

The findings aren’t dramatically new, but the budget office’s analysis underscores the magnitude of the nation’s fiscal problems as negotiators struggle to lift the current $14.3 trillion debt limit and avoid a first-ever, market-rattling default on U.S. obligations. The Biden-led talks have proceeded slowly and are at a critical stage, as Democrats and Republicans remain at loggerheads over revenues and domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

With Republicans insisting that the level of deficit cuts at least equal the amount of any increase in the debt limit, it would take more than $2 trillion in cuts to carry past next year’s elections. House Republican leaders have made it plain they only want a single vote before the elections.

That $2 trillion-plus goal is proving elusive. And a top Senate Democrat warned Wednesday that it would be insufficient anyway.

“While I am encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the leadership negotiations being led by Vice President Biden, I am concerned by reports the group may be focusing on a limited package that will not fundamentally change the fiscal trajectory of the nation,” said Senate budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat. “That would be a mistake.”

Democratic leaders, however, held a news conference Wednesday to argue for more economic stimulus measures such as a proposal floated by the White House to extend a payroll tax cut enacted last year. The move demonstrates the continuing appeal of deficit-financed policy solutions — suggested even as warnings of the dangers of mounting debt grow louder and louder.

“We absolutely need to reduce our deficit. We know that,” said Demoratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “But economists tell us that reducing spending is only half the equation. The other half is measures to create jobs.

President Barack Obama planned to meet with House Democratic leaders Thursday to discuss the status of the deficit reduction talks. The meeting comes as Democrats want the president to rule out Medicare benefit cuts as part of any budget deal.

The White House said the meeting will address deficit reduction through a “balanced framework,” a term the White House uses to describe cuts in spending coupled with increased tax revenue.

With the fiscal imbalance requiring the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends, the CBO predicts that without a change of course the national debt will rocket from 69 percent of gross domestic product this year to 109 percent of GDP — the record set in World War II — by 2023.

The CBO’s projections are based on a scenario that anticipates Bush-era tax cuts are extended and other current policies such as maintaining doctors’ fees under Medicare are continued as well. The debt would be far more stable under the budget office’s official “baseline” that assumes taxes return to Clinton-era rates and that doctors absorb unrealistic fee cuts.

Economists warn that rising debt threatens to devastate the economy by forcing interest rates higher, squeezing domestic investment, and limiting the government’s ability to respond to unexpected challenges like an economic downturn.

But most ominously, the CBO report warns of a “sudden fiscal crisis” in which investors would lose faith in the U.S. government’s ability to manage its fiscal affairs. In such a fiscal panic, investors might abandon U.S. bonds and force the government to pay unaffordable interest rates. In turn, the report warns, Washington policymakers would have to win back the confidence of the markets by imposing spending cuts and tax increases far more severe than if they were to take action now.

Share

Greece on the slippery slope

Posted on by

First, I think there isn’t enough political or popular support to leave the euro and go back to the drachma.

As previously discussed, it’s not obvious to the population or the political leadership that there is anything wrong with the euro itself.

Instead, it probably seems obvious the problem is the result of irresponsible leadership, and now they are all paying the price.

So staying with the euro, Greece has two immediate choices:

1. Negotiate the best austerity terms and conditions they can, and continue to muddle through.

2. Don’t accept them and default

Accepting the terms of the austerity package offered means some combination of spending cuts, tax hikes, assets sales, etc. that still leaves a sizable deficit for the next few years, with a glide path to some presumably sustainable level of deficit spending.

Defaulting means no more borrowing at all for most likely a considerable period of time, which means at least for a while they will only be able to spend the actual tax revenue they take in, which means immediately going to a 0 deficit.

What matters to Greece, on a practical level, is how large a deficit they are allowed to run. This makes default a lot more painful than any austerity package that allows for the funding of at least some size deficit.

Therefore it’s makes the most sense for Greece to accept the best package they can negotiate, rather than to refuse and default.

Additionally, the funding Greece will need to keep going is probably funding to pay for goods and services from Germany and some of the other euro member nations.

In other words, if Germany wants to get paid for its stream of exports to Greece it must approve some kind of funding package.

Reminds me of a an old story Woody Allen popularized a while back:

Doctor: So what’s the problem?

Patient: It’s my brother. He thinks he’s a chicken.

Doctor: Have you tried to talk to him about it?

Patient: No

Doctor: Why not?

Patient: Well, we need the eggs

Likewise the euro zone needs the eggs, and so the most likely path continues to be some manner of ECB funding of the banking system and the national govt’s, as needed, last minute, kicking and screaming about how they need an exit strategy, etc. etc. etc. And the unspoken pressure relief valve is inflation, with a falling euro leading the march. It’s unspoken because the ECB has a single mandate of price stability, which is not compatible with a continuously falling euro, and because a strong euro is an important part of the union’s ideology. But a weak euro that adjusts the price level, as a practical matter, is nonetheless the only pressure relief valve they have for their debt issues in general. And, also as previously discussed, it looks like market forces may be conspiring to move it all in that direction.

Share