Log in

View Full Version : U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It: Laurence Kotlikoff



Ares
11th August 2010, 06:20 AM
Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

palani
11th August 2010, 06:36 AM
Which U.S. is bankrupt? The one formed in 1868 with the 14th amendment was intended to go bust by its framers. They fully expected it because they had the French 50 year experiment with fiat currency as a failed example of what they intended by the 14th amendment.

Another clue? Look at the 14th amendment itself as a public notice.


...neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Now consider the red U.S. formed by the 14th amendment as being insurgent to the republic U.S. framed on constitutional money (gold/silver specie). In this context the republic declared by VERY public notice (as an amendment no less) that they would not be responsible for the debts of their insurgent counterpart. All this begs the question ... Why does anybody believe their is a public debt?

If you are getting a divorce you place a public notice in the paper that says you will not be responsible any longer for your spouses debts. That notice places a DATE from which you will not be responsible. Debts incurred before that date are still your responsibility. Debts incurred after that date are not debts. So the "insurrection or rebellion" referred to in the 14th amendment cannot refer to the debt collection activities of the southern states. That action was already settled.

Ares
11th August 2010, 06:39 AM
Which U.S. is bankrupt? The one formed in 1868 with the 14th amendment was intended to go bust by its framers. They fully expected it because they had the French 50 year experiment with fiat currency as a failed example of what they intended by the 14th amendment.

Another clue? Look at the 14th amendment itself as a public notice.


...neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Now consider the red U.S. formed by the 14th amendment as being insurgent to the republic U.S. framed on constitutional money (gold/silver specie). In this context the republic declared by VERY public notice (as an amendment no less) that they would not be responsible for the debts of their insurgent counterpart. All this begs the question ... Why does anybody believe their is a public debt?

If you are getting a divorce you place a public notice in the paper that says you will not be responsible any longer for your spouses debts. That notice places a DATE from which you will not be responsible. Debts incurred before that date are still your responsibility. Debts incurred after that date are not debts. So the "insurrection or rebellion" referred to in the 14th amendment cannot refer to the debt collection activities of the southern states. That action was already settled.


Interesting I never looked at it that way before. But the way you explained it basically says they set up a corporation knowing full well it would go bust, but that it wouldn't matter because they would "own" the Republic at that point.

palani
11th August 2010, 07:07 AM
While it might be possible to slam the legislators of the period for their actions I suppose they considered these actions necessary. For a republic to exist the southern states would have to voluntarily come back to the table and the only way to get them there was at the point of a gun. It was necessary for some form of government to occupy the office (nature abhors vacuum etc) so an interim measure was established. A tribute should be made to the politicians who were able to pull the sham off for as long as they have.

Ponce
11th August 2010, 08:56 AM
To many fancy words for my little old head..........our debt is to the Federal Reserve which to me is an illegal organisation, get rid of them and lets go back to square one.........sorry Ponce, to late for that.