![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFrankly, I haven't stopped watching this counter for a few minutes. It's mesmerizing:
U.S. National Debt Clock: Real Time
Alright. Now thatall most of the hubbub surrounding the shenanigans on Capitol Hill has subsided somewhat, time to get back on topic, i.e. "Speculative Scenarios". And the topic I'm gonna occupy you with, is again... the debt ceiling! :)
Anyone know for sure what would've happened if Thursday came and went and Congress was still stuck at an impasse without being able to raise the debt ceiling? It's not like the US won't arrive at exactly the same point next year, right? Sure, we already know that, simplistically put, not raising the debt ceiling would mean the government would no longer have the authority to borrow money to pay its bills. Sounds bad at a first reading, that's for sure.
But what next? What would be the longer-term consequences? Could someone more well-versed in the financial matters spell it out to me, step by step? 'Cause, from what I've been able to gather from the various talking-heads on the media, it all sounds like a nightmare scenario. The government no longer being able to pay the interest on the debt, financial markets sinking, social security checks being delayed, and ultimately, another recession? Am I on the right track?
What exactly is the idea behind a borrowing limit? What's the rationale behind it? For a time it seemed to me-the-layperson that the US had deliberately put a system of obstacles and traps in its own path, relying that it'd never even consider stepping into them (deliberately) - only to realize that yes, yes it's perfectly possible to step into your own traps (as seen in the recent days). Or shoot yourself in the leg. Or stick a muddy rug inside your own throat. Etc.
And, since the national debt limit had already been reached once in May this year, isn't any subsequent measure that's been taken by the Treasury only an effort to postpone the inevitable, and treat cocaine addiction with increased cocaine intake? (Or as the PC term is, "extraordinary measures"). It's all starting to look more and more like an inflating balloon which can't go on pumping up forever.
Just one more thing I may not be competent enough to grasp. Couldn't the president just, you know, ignore the borrowing limit? From the 14th Amendment: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned". So does he or does he not have the authority to do that? Is "authorized by law" = "sanctioned by Congress"? And even if not so, would any investor buy bonds issued without congressional approval?
And while we're about the markets, ultimately, how would investors meet the news that the government of the world's presumed economic superpower has been compelled to prioritize among its payments, giving precedence of some of its obligations but falling behind on others? And all that said, in these circumstances why should anyone be surprised that governments around the world are already seriously considering shifting away from the US dollar as a reserve currency? How many more countries would have to be threatened of being bombed after having done that step, before a critical threshold is reached where national treasuries worldwide would start abandoning the increasingly worthless main US export (namely: green papers), regardless of the potential repercussions for such a bold/crazy action?
I know. These are probably too many questions. But, see, we furrinners have been compelled to listen to this stuff over and over for many many days now, so, methinks you guys do owe us at least some small explanation, even if it comes in the form of funny macros. I'm all ears/eyes!
U.S. National Debt Clock: Real Time
Alright. Now that
Anyone know for sure what would've happened if Thursday came and went and Congress was still stuck at an impasse without being able to raise the debt ceiling? It's not like the US won't arrive at exactly the same point next year, right? Sure, we already know that, simplistically put, not raising the debt ceiling would mean the government would no longer have the authority to borrow money to pay its bills. Sounds bad at a first reading, that's for sure.
But what next? What would be the longer-term consequences? Could someone more well-versed in the financial matters spell it out to me, step by step? 'Cause, from what I've been able to gather from the various talking-heads on the media, it all sounds like a nightmare scenario. The government no longer being able to pay the interest on the debt, financial markets sinking, social security checks being delayed, and ultimately, another recession? Am I on the right track?
What exactly is the idea behind a borrowing limit? What's the rationale behind it? For a time it seemed to me-the-layperson that the US had deliberately put a system of obstacles and traps in its own path, relying that it'd never even consider stepping into them (deliberately) - only to realize that yes, yes it's perfectly possible to step into your own traps (as seen in the recent days). Or shoot yourself in the leg. Or stick a muddy rug inside your own throat. Etc.
And, since the national debt limit had already been reached once in May this year, isn't any subsequent measure that's been taken by the Treasury only an effort to postpone the inevitable, and treat cocaine addiction with increased cocaine intake? (Or as the PC term is, "extraordinary measures"). It's all starting to look more and more like an inflating balloon which can't go on pumping up forever.
Just one more thing I may not be competent enough to grasp. Couldn't the president just, you know, ignore the borrowing limit? From the 14th Amendment: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned". So does he or does he not have the authority to do that? Is "authorized by law" = "sanctioned by Congress"? And even if not so, would any investor buy bonds issued without congressional approval?
And while we're about the markets, ultimately, how would investors meet the news that the government of the world's presumed economic superpower has been compelled to prioritize among its payments, giving precedence of some of its obligations but falling behind on others? And all that said, in these circumstances why should anyone be surprised that governments around the world are already seriously considering shifting away from the US dollar as a reserve currency? How many more countries would have to be threatened of being bombed after having done that step, before a critical threshold is reached where national treasuries worldwide would start abandoning the increasingly worthless main US export (namely: green papers), regardless of the potential repercussions for such a bold/crazy action?
I know. These are probably too many questions. But, see, we furrinners have been compelled to listen to this stuff over and over for many many days now, so, methinks you guys do owe us at least some small explanation, even if it comes in the form of funny macros. I'm all ears/eyes!
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 15:50 (UTC)I'm by no means an economics expert, but based on what I've read about this, a few things would happen. First, there would be panic on Wall Street. Investors would start dumping stocks and bonds, and there would likely be runs on banks -- essentially the same shitstorm that happened in 2008 that triggered a global recession. To compound this problem, most government employees would likely not be paid, causing unemployment to jump sharply, which would also have an effect on Wall Street. Other problems, which we're already seeing now simply due to the threat of default, are:
- Increased borrowing costs. Investors demand more money for riskier investments. S&P and Fitch were minutes away from sinking our credit rating last night.
- Economic output slows because a large chunk of the economy -- the federal government -- is stalled and federal employees aren't spending.
- Businesses halt spending and hiring due to economic uncertainty.
I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but you get the idea.Couldn't the president just, you know, ignore the borrowing limit?
Probably, but until the issue is resolved in an official capacity (the Supreme Court), investors will be wary of buying bonds in a questionably legal way. There's apparently a commemorative coin law in which a loophole exists that allows the Treasury to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin and deposit it into the Treasury's account. "Mint the coin!" was a popular chant during previous debt crises, though I'm not sure how realistic this is from a legal standpoint. It's certainly not a great precedent to set.
(no subject)
Date: 17/10/13 20:12 (UTC)Not a law, an idea. The Constitution restricts the issue of "coin" to the Federal Government. Dollars, paper and electronic, aren't literally coins. (Paper was very rare in the Constitution's day.) Therefore, the Mint would create a single trillion dollar penny and lock it in a vault. This would raise Treasury's assets by one billion dollars. Need more? Make more coins.
Treasury would then pay off bonds with this money. On the back of every bond is legalese explaining that the holder can be issued paper money at any time by the debtor (Treasury), instead of allowing the bond to accrue interest through its term.
Sadly, the value of both a bond and a bill are the same: what people believe they are. Bond holders would not be happy to lose the even modest interest.
There's another, really, really big problem with this. If it was done, bonds that were time dependent would become dollars overnight. The only way to get value from a dollar is to spend it. If there were not enough products available for sale, we could create overnight hyper-inflation as the unleased dollar supply swamped the markets and drowned everyone's purchasing power.