|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : World
Economy
US debt ceiling to be lifted
By Nick Beams
8 November 2004
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
In a sign of financial turmoil ahead, the day after the presidential
election the Bush administration announced that it will have to
ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling in order that it can organise
the governments massive borrowing needs.
The current debt ceiling of $US7.384 trillion was reached on
October 14, but fearful of the political consequences of increasing
the national debt in the lead-up to the elections, the administration
undertook a series of manoeuvres to keep financing government
activities without breaching the debt ceiling. However these measures
can only be continued until the middle of this month, necessitating
a new authorisation from Congress.
The need to raise the debt ceiling stems from the record budget
deficits of the past two years. The deficit for the 2004 budget
year, which ended on September 30, was $413 billion, following
a deficit of $377 billion in 2003.
The growing fiscal debt is only one of the indicators of growing
imbalances in the financial position of the US. The other major
sign of disequilibrium is the balance of payments deficit, now
running at just under $600 billion per year, or almost 6 percent
of gross domestic product (GDP).
In a study published just before the elections, well-known
economists Maurice Obstfeld and Kenneth Rogoff warned that the
risk of what they called a current account collapse
sparked by the withdrawal of funds from international investors,
had to be problem number one on the new presidents
international financial agenda.
However, they doubted that it would be because of the proliferating
versions of the revisionist theory that there is simply no problem.
According to this view, the US international debt presents no
problem because foreign investors, particularly official ones
such as central banks, will continue to finance it, and even if
the value of the dollar did fall dramatically the consequences
would not be severe.
We are very sceptical, Obstfeld and Rogoff wrote
in a Financial Times article. When one looks closely
at the US twin deficits (current account and fiscal) in the context
of open-ended security costs, geopolitical tensions, rising old
age pensions, higher energy costs and extraordinarily stimulative
macroeconomic policies, we see stronger parallels to the early
1970s than to the late 1980s. The years following Richard Nixons
1972 re-election were not pretty for the dollar or for the world
economy. If current accounts are forced towards balance in the
context of a difficult global economy, the effects could include
financial crises, higher interest rates and a big drop in global
output.
The US dollar is at the centre of a series of processes that
are contributing to global financial imbalances. On the one hand,
the growing US balance of payments gap threatens to bring about
a collapse in the dollars value. On the other hand, action
to close the balance of payments gap would almost certainly set
off a global recession as the US is the chief market for the export
industries of China and East Asia, many of them US-based firms.
So far intervention by the Asian central banks which have sold
their own currencies in order to purchase US financial assets,
including a growing amount of government debt, has prevented a
precipitous decline in the dollars value. But they need
to keep the money flowing in and with the US needing around $2
billion a day the amounts are not small. In 2003 dollar purchases
by foreign central banks were $616.6 billion, compared to $351.9
billion the year before. The total reserves of the countries of
so-called emerging Asia rose by more than $350 billion
in the year to March 2004, with the central bank of China the
biggest buyer of US dollar assets.
While some economists have argued that this system of recycling
can go on virtually indefinitely, it does have objective limits.
For example, the continued dollar purchases by the central bank
of China are helping to fuel a financial bubble in the property
market and generate financial speculation in the economy as a
whole. So far the Chinese authorities have sought to contain the
expansion of credit with so-called administrative measures, but
the recent decision to lift interest rates indicates that these
measures are not working and stronger action may be needed. The
danger is that action to prick the bubble can set off a financial
crisis in China, leading to a withdrawal of funds from the US
in order to help prop up the banking system.
There are also objective limits to this recycling
process on the US side. The continued inflow of foreign funds
has allowed US monetary authorities to pursue a low-interest rate
regime. This in turn has produced a rise in the housing market,
facilitating in turn an expansion in consumer debt which has helped
sustain US economic growth.
But in the face of slow growth in incomes this process cannot
continue indefinitely. National accounts figures for the third
quarter show that the US economy expanded at a less-than-expected
rate of 3.7 percent, below the 4 percent level considered necessary
to ensure an increase in job numbers.
Consumers, however, increased spending at a rate of 4.6 percent,
well above the 1.4 percent increase in after-tax personal income.
This has been the trend for at least the past three and half years
with consumption spending growing at a rate of 3.2 percent while
pre-tax income has grown at a rate of 1.3 percent, and after-tax
income at 2.6 percent.
The upshot of these trends is that there is a rising ratio
of household debt to income.
In a recent speech Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan
pointed to this process and acknowledged that the ratio of household
debt to income had risen especially steeply over the past
five years and, at 1.2, is at a record high. But he concluded
that measures of household financial stress do not ... appear
overly worrisome.
Greenspan based his assessment on the fact that property values
have continued to rise and therefore the debt does not represent
an increasing financial burden. In other words, the process can
continue so long as money keeps flowing into the property market.
But that depends on whether the US can continue to attract a sufficient
inflow of foreign funds.
According to Morgan Stanley chief economist Stephen Roach,
Greenspans argument reflected the circular thinking that
now pervades financial markets. Greenspans assessment, he
insisted, ducks the key risk factorinterest rates
and whether rates can stay low for a saving-short US economy
with massive current account and budget deficits.
Noting that the increase in household liabilities over the
2000-2003 period was 65 percent faster than the cumulative growth
of GDP over the same interval, he warned that Americas
consumer debt bomb is ticking louder and louder in a climate where
the artificial depressants to interest rates and debt service
are on thinner and thinner ice.
See Also:
Growing imbalances belie Greenspan's
confidence
[23 July 2004]
US balance of payments gap
widens again
[22 June 2004]
US Fed set to lift rates
[9 June 2004]
China "overheating"
spells trouble for world economy
[5 May 2004]
US budget deficit to hit half
a trillion dollars
[4 February 2004]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |