John Boehner, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, is leading the Republican Party’s charge on fiscal policy, arguing that his side needs to see “trillions of dollars” in spending cuts in order for Congress to approve an increase in the US government’s debt ceiling, but framing the issue this way creates a major problem for Boehner: It will directly, completely and quickly antagonize one of the Republicans’ most important constituencies — the US corporate sector.
Focusing on the debt ceiling creates a political trap for Boehner and the Republicans. It is true that the US Treasury’s ability to borrow will reach its legally authorized limit in early August. It is also true that whenever Republicans rattle their sabers about the debt ceiling and threaten not to raise it, the bond market yawns and there is no significant impact on yields.
If the Republicans’ threats were credible, any news that increased the likelihood of a problem with the debt ceiling would send US Treasury bond prices down and yields up. This is not happening, because bond traders cannot imagine that the Republicans would be able — or even willing — to follow through.
After all, the consequences of failing to increase the debt ceiling would be catastrophic. The entire credit system in the US — and in much of the rest of the world — is based on the notion that there are “risk-free assets,” namely US government securities. There is no provision in the US Constitution to guarantee that the US will always pay its debts, but the US has proven itself for 200-plus years to be about as good a credit risk as has ever existed.
US fiscal resolve has been tested at least five times — at independence, in the war of 1812, during and after the Civil War, and in World War I and World War II. We can debate the exact fiscal pressures in each case and precisely how various kinds of bondholders were treated, but the simple fact of the matter is that when the going gets tough, the US pays its debts.
At least in the near term, the chance that the US will not service its debt is vanishingly small — perhaps in the same order of probability as a large meteor striking the Earth. To be sure, there are big fiscal questions to be sorted out — including how much the government should spend and on what, as well as how much tax it should collect and by what means.
There is also the vexing question of how much debt is too much for the modern US. In a world where international investors (from both the private and public sectors) routinely wring their hands about US fiscal deficits — and then go out and buy more US government debt — who knows the answer?
Countries never default because they can’t pay their debts — there are always ways to decrease expenditures or raise taxes. Countries default because their political processes bring them to the point where the people in power decide, for whatever reason, not to pay the government’s debts.
It is not difficult to identify who would bear what costs if the US did not pay — or if it disrupted markets by not increasing its debt ceiling. Everyone who borrows or interacts with the credit system in any way would suffer a shock that would make the crisis of 2008 look small.
Among others, the US corporate sector — big and small business — would be livid. To be sure, executives and entrepreneurs like to shake their heads over the current US fiscal deficit and some of them engage constructively in debates about the real issues — how to control healthcare costs, prevent future financial crises and end expensive foreign wars, but these are the issues for next year’s presidential election, in which one hopes for debates that will set a more encouraging fiscal agenda for the next 20 to 30 years. How and when the US budget problems will be resolved is unknown, but US fiscal history is encouraging — the US has managed and survived crisis before.
Simply put, the US will not score an own-goal over the debt ceiling — and Boehner must know it. Symbolic gestures are to be expected, as with the threatened government shutdown earlier this year, which merely created fodder for political advertising by both parties, but any manufactured debt crisis now would deeply antagonize the corporate sector — and most of the electorate. In the wake of economic disaster, the party held responsible would presumably be exiled from power for a generation (the Great Depression kept the Republicans from the US presidency for 20 years).
The Republican leadership is making threats that are not credible. If the administration of US President Barack Obama plays its hand well, the result will be a last-minute extension of the debt ceiling with no significant concessions. It is unclear how Boehner or anyone else would be able to portray that as a political victory.
Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, is co-founder of a leading economics blog, baselinescenario.com, a professor at MIT Sloan and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US