Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 05/28/2012

Defaulting to Big Government

Leading U.S. lawmakers are determined to provoke a showdown with the  administration of President Barack Obama over the federal government’s debt ceiling. Ordinarily, you might expect House Republicans to blink at this stage of the negotiations, but there is a hard-line minority that actually appears to think that defaulting on government debt would not be a bad thing.

These representatives — with whom I’ve interacted at three congressional hearings recently — are convinced that the U.S. federal government is too big relative to the economy and that drastic measures are needed to bring it under control. Depending on your assessment of Tea Party strength on Capitol Hill, at least a partial debt default does not seem as implausible as it did in the past — and recent warnings from ratings agencies reflect this heightened risk.

But the consequences of any default would, ironically, actually increase the size of government relative to the U.S. economy — the very outcome that Republican intransigents claim to be trying to avoid.

The reason is simple: A government default would destroy the credit system as we know it. The fundamental benchmark interest rates in modern financial markets are the “risk-free” rates on government bonds. Removing this pillar of the system — or creating a high degree of risk around U.S. Treasuries — would disrupt many private contracts and all kinds of transactions.

In addition, many people and firms hold their “rainy day money” in the form of U.S. Treasuries. The money market funds that are perceived to be the safest, for example, are those that hold only U.S. government debt. If the government defaults, however, all of them will “break the buck,” meaning that they will be unable to maintain the principal value of the money that has been placed with them.

The result would be capital flight — but to where? Many banks would have a similar problem: A collapse in U.S.Treasury prices would destroy their balance sheets.

There is no company in the United States that would not be affected by a government default — and no bank or other financial institution that could provide a secure haven for savings. There would be a massive run into cash, on an order not seen since the Great Depression, with long lines of people at ATMs and teller windows withdrawing as much as possible.

Private credit, moreover, would disappear from the U.S. economic system, confronting the Federal Reserve with an unpleasant choice. Either it could step in and provide an enormous amount of credit directly to households and firms — much like the old Soviet Union’s central bank — or it could stand by idly while gross domestic product falls 20 percent or 30 percent, a decline that we have seen in modern economies when credit suddenly dries up.

With the private sector in free fall, consumption and investment would decline sharply. The United States’ ability to export would also be undermined because foreign markets would likely be affected. In any case, if export firms cannot get credit, they most likely cannot produce.

The Republicans are right about one thing: A default would cause government spending to contract in real terms. But which would fall more, government spending or the size of the private sector? The answer is almost certainly the private sector, given its dependence on credit to purchase inputs. Indeed, take the contraction that followed the near-collapse of the financial system in 2008 and multiply it by 10.

The government, on the other hand, has access to the Federal Reserve and could therefore get its hands on cash to pay wages. With the debt ceiling unchanged, this would require some legal sleight of hand. But the alternative would clearly be a collapse of U.S. national security. Soldiers and border guards have to be paid, the transportation system must operate, and so on.

Issuing money in this situation would almost certainly be inflationary, but the Federal Reserve might conclude otherwise. After all, the United States has never been in this situation before, credit is now imploding, and the desperate credit-expansion measures implemented in 2008 proved not to be as bad as the critics feared.

So this is what a U.S. debt default would look like: The private sector would collapse, unemployment would quickly surpass 20 percent, and, while the government would shrink, it would remain the employer of last resort.

The House and Senate Republicans who do not want to raise the debt ceiling are playing with fire. They are advocating a policy that would have dire effects and that would accomplish the opposite of what they claim to want. A default would immediately make the government more, not less, important.

The only law that Congress cannot repeal is the law of unintended consequences.

Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, is a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and co-author, with James Kwak, of “13 Bankers.” © Project Syndicate





This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment


Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook



Also in Opinion

There's Just One Nationality — Mathematician

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Russia's New Propaganda Minister

After Monday's announcement that historian Vladimir Medinsky was appointed the culture minister, critics quickly labeled him the new propaganda minister. Medinsky's academic ethics and historical distortions may raise serious questions, but for the Kremlin, he has three important attributes that are much more important: He is a model United Russia leader, a firm Putin loyalist and a skilled sophist.

Spinning Medvedev's Government

Were this 2008 and not 2012 — and had Dmitry Medvedev been named prime minister without having first served a full term as president — then the composition of his new government might have created a generally positive impression.

New Government Faces Old Problems

A longstanding platitude shared by both the Kremlin as well as domestic and foreign analysts is the need for Russia to diversify its economy away from energy dependence and reduce its non-oil budget deficit.

Putin's Postman Delivers Nothing at the G8

In the mid-1990s, former President Boris Yeltsin fought hard for the right to sit as equal at the same table with the leaders of the world's seven leading democracies. Using a lot of political wrangling, Moscow finally secured permanent membership in this elite club where the real heavyweights are supposed to solve the world's most pressing problems.

Russia Stays Home

Just three days before his return to the Kremlin as president, Vladimir Putin met behind closed doors at his residence in Novo-Ogaryovo, outside Moscow, with U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who was there to transmit President Barack Obama's renewed determination to strengthen cooperation with Russia.



print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read
MarketGid