Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. Careens Over the Fiscal Cliff, Reaching Only Half of a Deal
New submitter Jetra wrote with word that the House of Representatives failed to vote on the "fiscal cliff" deal before midnight, technically sending the U.S. over the fiscal cliff. The White House and Senate, however, reached an agreement at the last minute to allow for some tax increases, and a House vote approving it is expected in the next day or two: "The agreement came together after negotiators cleared two final hurdles involving the estate tax and automatic spending cuts set to hit the Pentagon and other federal agencies later this week. Republicans gave ground on the spending cuts, known as the sequester, by agreeing to a two-month delay paid for in part with fresh tax revenue, a condition they had resisted. White House officials yielded to GOP wishes on how to handle estate taxes, aides said."
The battle over required spending cuts has predictably been delayed for another day, making the deal far from complete.
No, a balanced budget is the last freaking thing we or any country needs. National budgets aren't like your personal checkbook, hell they're not even like a companies balance sheet (btw almost no profitable companies have zero debt (a balanced budget) because a certain level of debt is positive as long as it's being spent on things that will increase profitability and/or revenue). No, a national budget is a much more interesting beast, and when you're in the enviable position that the US is currently in it's even more interesting. You'll note that the ratings agencies downgraded US debt and a few months later the markets actually drove the dividend on the t-note negative (yep, people paid the treasury money to buy our debt), what company or individual gets paid to issue debt?
No, what we need is to start electing adults to the House and Senate again that will stop doing things like cutting taxes for the hell of it while authorizing two unfunded wars during a time of plenty. We need to increase our R&D spending so that we can continue to be the center of innovation that we've been for the last century or so. Finally we need to start spending on useful infrastructure projects and stop building bridges to nowhere just because it brings temporary jobs to one district. In other words we need to be smart about how we spend our dollars, not slash the dollars spent.
Finally we as a society need to realize that as we increase our average lifespan we need to on average delay retirement while still allowing a safetynet for those unable to continue working.
None of those things would be solved by a balanced budget amendment.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I saw an interview with a fairly serious economist who said , when asked about the budget deficit , "Deficit is something that politicians worry about, not economists. The problem only really occurs when politicians make bad decisions based on a countrys deficit like what we are seeing in europe". His point is, that the european boondoggle is a problem caused by politicians freaking out about debt, rather than forces in the economy which are largely unaffected by deficit. The important thing is that money flows in an economy simulating trade and productive activity. You do not achieve this by austerity, which is why cutting government budgets have pretty much never actually helped an ailing economy.
Theres a reason why economists largely treat the austrian school of "surplus at all costs" as cranky.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
You're right. I think both sides are bit blind. I personally think the right is more blind than the left, and grossly unrealistic about what taxes are currently, and have been historically. We pay relatively low taxes for a first world country. But I do agree, this wouldn't be dragged out this way if there weren't people on both sides screaming in the ears of the legislators that they won't accept one inch of compromise.
We are actually lucky Obama is in his second term, it historically gives him more leeway to compromise because he doesn't have to prepare for another election. There is speculation that both sides, but the repubs especially would like to see the tax cuts expire, because then they wouldn't have voted for a tax increase and therefore wouldn't have violated their blood pact never to ever even think about once raising taxes (or Jesus might hate them), which they can then cut after the fact and call it a compromise, blame the big bad dems, and never had to violate the letter of their little agreement.
What you've described is the way in which countries can mitigate getting into debt. It's still better to balance the books. The costs go up with inflation too.
Shit, run a small surplus. You can then see through any 'bad' years without incurring debt. You can fund capital investments without incurring debt.
Anyway, your plan is flawed.
Year 0, borrow X at fixed interest rate Y for term Z.
Assume Y is the rate of inflation and that it never changes. (Without that predictability your plan is flawed anyway).
Each year, borrow X+inflation (to keep real spending the same, so it's compounded) at the same rate Y for the same term Z.
Even though you're borrowing the same amount (in real terms) because you're now having to use some of that money to pay the interest payments on the previous borrowings, your spending power isn't go up with inflation at all.
E.g. with Z at 40 years and Y at 2%, the year before you pay off the first gilt your spending power with the borrowed money (i.e. how much you can buy with what's left after paying interest) is half of what it was in year 0. The year after (and each subsequent year) your spending power is 0. You're now using the whole of the new debt to pay the interest of all previous loans, and the principle of the oldest one.
With Z at 40 years and Y at 5%, you're down to 15% the year before paying off the first gilt, and again at 0 forever after.
Actually, now I've done the maths, Z is irrelevant. Unless you adopt a strategy of recycling your debt: At year Z, borrow an additional X to pay off the original principle. That strategy yields an increase in spending power at year Z, but at year Z*2 you start paying more in interest than you're borrowing. (That amount tends towards zero over a long period).
Of course, there's a massively flawed assumption in my calculations: Y is very rarely going to be both the interest rate, and the rate of inflation. Occasionally the interest rate will be below inflation (e.g. in the UK at the moment) but often it will be higher.
Unless I misread the numbers (which is very possible, I'm not an economist) the Bank of England shows yields higher than inflation for 14 of the last 15 years. (It also shows yields lower than inflation for the next 7ish, then higher again for the subsequent 13ish - they only forecast 20 years).
As soon as the interest rate rises above inflation, you start losing money on your borrowings.
In short: Practice fiscal prudence. Don't go into debt (except as a demonstration of your financial health - don't even ask me how that one works). Balance your books and don't rely on inflation to mitigate your old debts.
Modern democracies go into debt because governments spend money that they don't have to try and get re-elected.