Is The Federal Debt Unsustainable?
By Professor James K. Galbraith
Excerpt
A more prosaic problem with the runaway-inflation scenario is that the “nonpartisan, professional” economic forecasters of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whose work is often cited as the benchmark proof of an “unsustainable path,” do not expect it to happen. The CBO baseline resolutely asserts that inflation will stay where it is now: around 2 percent. So one can’t logically cite the inflation threat and the CBO baseline at the same time. So far as I know, the CBO does not trouble itself to model the exchange value of the dollar.
What the CBO does warn is that, under their assumptions, the ratio of US federal debt (held by the public) to GDP will rise relentlessly, passing 200 percent by 2035 and 300 percent by midcentury. Correspondingly, net interest payments on that debt would rise to exceed 20 percent of GDP. This certainly seems worrisome, and the CBO warns about “investor confidence” and “crowding out” without actually building these things into their model. Indeed, in their model this remarkable and unprecedented ratio of debt to GDP goes right along with steady growth, full employment, and low inflation, world without end! Why one should care about mere financial ratios if they produce such good—and, according to the CBO model— “sustainable” results is another mystery the CBO does not explain.
Tag Archives: James Galbraith
Galbraith on what can be done
Old Mistakes Die Hard
As part of the Roosevelt Institute’s 10-part series on the Jobs Crisis, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog from Nov. 12-25, I was asked to reflect on what can be done to get Americans working again. Here’s my take.
I’m tempted to say that the United States is plainly unable to cope with the economic crisis in a serious way. The barriers are philosophical, procedural, and constitutional. So long as economic thinking is mired in a world that disappeared with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, so long as any action requires 60 Senate votes, and so long as political capital erodes from the start of a fixed four-year presidential term, we’re stuck.
Technically it would have been fairly easy, 10 months ago, to get this bus back on the road. There could have been open-ended fiscal assistance to stop the budget hemorrhage of the states and cities. There could have been a jobs program and effective foreclosure relief. There could have been a payroll tax holiday. There could have been a strategy for sustained massive effort on infrastructure, energy and climate. There could have been prompt corrective action to resolve, instead of coddle, the worst of the banks.
I mostly don’t blame President Obama; he and his team went as far as they felt they could. I blame the head-in-the-sand politicians in Congress, the over-optimistic forecasters, the half-educated press, and the power of the financial lobby. I blame the avatars of fiscal virtue, the public debt scare-mongerers, the astrologers for whom thirteen significant digits (a trillion) for the stimulus package was just too much. I blame the Senate, which hands the balance of power to small states at the expense of disaster areas like California, Florida and New York. I do blame the Bush-Obama financial policy team, who either believed that “credit would flow again” if you stuffed the banks with money, or knew that it wouldn’t.
The Bretton Woods point deserves another word. According to the system established in 1944, the U.S. current account deficit — and by extension our public budget deficit — was limited by an obligation to exchange foreign-held dollars for gold. Richard Nixon abolished that arrangement. Since the early 1980s, the world has held the Treasury bonds that the U.S. chose to issue. The system is fragile. But so long as it lasts, it doesn’t discipline our budget (and if it broke, we could replace it). Low interest rates prove this: despite all the dire predictions, there is no difficulty in placing Treasury debt. Hence, we are free to pursue high employment, if we choose to do it.
Can anything be done now? Well yes, technically: the same steps that could have been taken in January 2009 could be taken in January 2010. But they won’t be, because for the moment we are seeing the inventory bounce, a productivity surge, real GDP growth, and other “good signs.” So we’ll be told to wait, to be patient, and to make sure we don’t buy what we can’t afford. And double-digit joblessness will linger on, breeding frustration and anger — perhaps all the way through to the mid-term elections. After which, what will be possible is anyone’s guess.
Sorry to be defeatist — it’s the way I feel. Prove me wrong.
[top]
Galbraith video
In Every Way a Good Thing”: The Upside of Soaring Federal Budget Deficits
by Aaron Task
With the federal budget deficits expected to exceed $1.8 trillion this fiscal year and borrowing expected to top $9.3 trillion over the next decade, it’s no wonder many policymakers, politicians, economists and everyday Americans fear the worst.
But rising federal budget deficits are “in every way a good thing,” according to University of Texas professor James Galbraith.
Higher budget deficits are a natural result of declining tax revenues and rising unemployment and serve as a “great stabilizer” to the consumer and the economy as a whole, he argues — as you’d expect from the son of famed Keynesian economist John Kenneth Galbraith.
The government’s bailout of the banks was an “unproductive use of Federal borrowing,” but Galbraith is otherwise fully supportive of the administration’s borrow-and-spend efforts so far.
Furthermore, he believes those calling for the government to reverse course soon are being “terribly imprudent,” noting it took more than 20 years for the private sector to fully recover after the 1929 crash.
[top]
America’s Triple A Rating at Risk
He’s public enemy #1 and senior spokesman for all the deficit terrorists.
He’s also an intellectually dishonest, paid propagandist.
I’ve got the recording posted on my website from the Mike Norman show where he agrees government solvency is not a risk.
If anyone has his email address feel free to email this to him.
The ratings agencies, however, don’t understand the monetary system, and it is indeed possible they will downgrade the US much like they have downgraded Japan.
While this did no harm to Japan and won’t hurt the US, it could be damaging for eurozone nations who are institutionally dependent on funding. However, even in Europe, the ECB has already stretched the limits of the Treaty and would likely go further as needed (though that is not a certainty.)
America’s Triple A Rating is at Risk
by David Walker
May 12 (FT) — Long before the current financial crisis, nearly two years ago, a little-noticed cloud darkened the horizon for the US government. It was ignored. But now that shadow, in the form of a warning from a top credit rating agency that the nation risked losing its triple A rating if it did not start putting its finances in order, is coming back to haunt us.
That warning from Moodys focused on the exploding healthcare and Social Security costs that threaten to engulf the federal government in debt over coming decades. The facts show we are in even worse shape now, and there are signs that confidence in America’s ability to control its finances is eroding.
Prices have risen on credit default insurance on US government bonds, meaning it costs investors more to protect their investment in Treasury bonds against default than before the crisis hit. It even, briefly, cost more to buy protection on US government debt than on debt issued by McDonald’s. Another warning sign has come from across the Pacific, where the Chinese premier and the head of the People’s Bank of China have expressed concern about America’s longer-term credit worthiness and the value of the dollar.
The US, despite the downturn, has the resources, expertise and resilience to restore its economy and meet its obligations. Moreover, many of the trillions of dollars recently funneled into the financial system will hopefully rescue it and stimulate our economy.
The US government has had a triple A credit rating since 1917, but it is unclear how long this will continue to be the case. In my view, either one of two developments could be enough to cause us to lose our top rating.
First, while comprehensive healthcare reform is needed, it must not further harm our nation’s financial condition. Doing so would send a signal that fiscal prudence is being ignored in the drive to meet societal wants, further mortgaging the country’s future.
Second, failure by the federal government to create a process that would enable tough spending, tax and budget control choices to be made after we turn the corner on the economy would send a signal that our political system is not up to the task of addressing the large, known and growing structural imbalances confronting us.
For too long, the US has delayed making the tough but necessary choices needed to reverse its deteriorating financial condition. One could even argue that our government does not deserve a triple A credit rating based on our current financial condition, structural fiscal imbalances and political stalemate. The credit rating agencies have been wildly wrong before, not least with mortgage-backed securities.
How can one justify bestowing a triple A rating on an entity with an accumulated negative net worth of more than $11,000bn (€8,000bn, £7,000bn) and additional off-balance sheet obligations of $45,000bn? An entity that is set to run a $1,800bn-plus deficit for the current year and trillion dollar-plus deficits for years to come?
He knows as per the recording on my website that the US government spending in USD is not constrained by revenues, and that any default would be due to a political decision not to pay, and not financial circumstances per se.
James Galbraith and I recently testified at the gao/fasb hearings on sustainability immediately following Walker.
Our presentation is on my website.
The panel agreed with us and reportedly has changed their report, including the elimination of the concern over intergenerational transfers.
I have fought on the front lines of the war for fiscal responsibility for almost six years. We should have been more wary of tax cuts in 2001 without matching spending cuts that would have prevented the budget going deeply into deficit. That mistake was compounded in 2003, when President George W. Bush proposed expanding Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit. We must learn from past mistakes.
Fiscal irresponsibility comes in two primary forms – acts of commission and of omission. Both are in danger of undermining our future.
First, Washington is about to embark on another major healthcare reform debate, this time over the need for comprehensive healthcare reform. The debate is driven, in large part, by the recognition that healthcare costs are the single largest contributor to our nation’s fiscal imbalance. It also recognises that the US is the only large industrialised nation without some level of guaranteed health coverage.
There is no question that this nation needs to pursue comprehensive healthcare reform that should address the important dimensions of coverage, cost, quality and personal responsibility. But while comprehensive reform is called for and some basic level of universal coverage is appropriate, it is critically important that we not shoot ourselves again. Comprehensive healthcare reform should significantly reduce the huge unfunded healthcare promises we already have (over $36,000bn for Medicare alone as of last September), as well as the large and growing structural deficits that threaten our future.
One way out of these problems is for the president and Congress to create a “fiscal future commission” where everything is on the table, including budget controls, entitlement programme reforms and tax increases. This commission should venture beyond Washington’s Beltway to engage the American people, using digital technologies in an unparalleled manner. If it can achieve a predetermined super-majority vote on a package of recommendations, they should be guaranteed a vote in Congress.
Recent research conducted for the Peterson Foundation shows that 90 per cent of Americans want the federal government to put its own financial house in order. It also shows that the public supports the creation of a fiscal commission by a two-to-one margin. Yet Washington still sleeps, and it is clear that we cannot count on politicians to make tough transformational changes on multiple fronts using the regular legislative process. We have to act before we face a much larger economic crisis. Let’s not wait until a credit rating downgrade. The time for Washington to wake up is now.
David Walker is chief executive of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former comptroller general of the US
[top]
Reuters: Obama says bailout may delay other programs
(email to J. Galbraith – one of Obama’s economic advisers)
Hi,
The ‘bailout’ adds nothing to aggregate demand and should not be a factor regarding other spending initiatives.
Any chance you can straighten him out on this?
Warren
Obama: Wall St bailout may delay spending programs
by Steve Holland
NEW YORK, Sept 23 (Reuters) – Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said on Tuesday a $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan would likely delay some campaign spending promises, as the reality sank in of the costs of the mammoth bailout.
Obama, who faces Republican John McCain in their first face-to-face debate on Friday in Mississippi, said if elected he might have to phase in some of his plans such as an overhaul of the U.S. health care system.
[top]
Professor James Galbraith on Obama economics team
More on Obamanomincs:
- He knows that government spending is not revenue constrained.
- He knows solvency is not an issue for the government.
- He knows the ‘pay-go’ notion is flawed and works against our standard of living.
- He knows the criticism of Bush leaving the debt to our children is absurd.
- He knows there is no operational risk of social security ‘running out of money.’
- He knows social security payments are not ‘paid for’ per se by taxes or the trust fund accounting.
- He knows the Fed is about price, and not quantity.
- He knows imports are a real benefit, exports a real cost.
- He knows our policy of blocking central banks and monetary authorities from accumulating $US financial assets is killing the goose that’s been laying the golden eggs.
- He knows that unemployment is the evidence that the deficit is too small.
- He knows that loans create deposits and reserves.
- He knows that savings is not needed to have funding for investment.
- He knows that our taxed advantage pension and retirement systems and programs reduce demand and cause the need for the government to run deficits to add that demand back.
- He knows the price level is a function of prices paid by govt. and not a function of interest rates set by the Fed.
- He knows the Saudis (and maybe Russians) are setting the price of crude.
- He knows this is causing a cost push ‘inflation’ that is punishing working people disproportionately.
- He knows biofuel policy is converting the world’s food supply to fuel and starving millions to death.
- And a lot more.
- And he knows the others on the Obama economic adviser list either don’t know, pretend to not know, or have long forgotten all the above.
- And he knows Obama’s vision can only accidentally be achieved with his current economic rhetoric.
- And I know he has a fighting chance to be heard.
[top]