PDA

View Full Version : Economist Tells Congress: U.S. May Be in ‘Worse Fiscal Shape’ Than Greece



Ares
10th March 2015, 07:05 AM
(CNSNews.com) -- The U.S. has a $210 trillion “fiscal gap” and “may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff told members of the Senate Budget Committee in written and oral testimony on Feb. 25.

“The first point I want to get across is that our nation is broke,” Kotlikoff testified. “Our nation’s broke, and it’s not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It’s broke today.

"Indeed, it may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece," he said. (See Kotlikoff---Testimony-to-Senate-Budget-Committe.pdf (http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/PDF.Kotlikoff---Testimony-to-Senate-Budget-Committe----------.pdf))

In January, Fitch downgraded Greece, whose debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio is 175 percent, from Stable to Negative.

“This declaration of national insolvency will, no doubt, shock those of you who use the officially reported federal debt as the measuring stick for what our country owes,” Kotlikoff told committee members who are considering President Obama’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2016.

“After all, federal debt in the hands of the public is only 74 percent of GDP. Yes, this is double the debt-to-GDP ratio recorded a decade ago. But it’s still a far cry from Italy’s 135 debt-to-GDP ratio or Greece’s 175 percent ratio.”

However, using the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 75-year Alternate Fiscal Scenario projection, Kotlikoff calculated that the U.S.' “fiscal gap” –which he defines as "the difference between our government's projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts" - is actually much higher than those of either Italy or Greece.

“We have a $210 trillion fiscal gap at this point,” Kotlikoff told the senators, which amounts to 211 percent of the U.S.’ $18.2 trillion GDP, making it higher than Greece’s 175 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

The fiscal gap is “16 times larger than official U.S. debt, which indicates precisely how useless official debt is for understanding our nation’s true fiscal position,” said Kotlikoff, a former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“Stated differently, the overall federal government is 58 percent underfinanced,” Kotlikoff testified.

“By way of comparison, the Social Security system, taken by itself, is 33 percent underfinanced.” Last year, Kotlikoff testified on Capitol Hill that the Social Security system was in “significantly worse financial shape than Detroit’s two pension funds taken together.”

Kotlikoff said that not counting “off book” liabilities like Social Security give lawmakers and the public a false sense of the nation’s true fiscal condition.

“What economics tells us is that we can’t choose what to put on the books. All government obligations and all government receipts, no matter what they are called, need to be properly valued in the present taking into account their likelihood of payment by and to the government,” Kotlikoff testified.

“Successive Congresses, whether dominated by Republicans or Democrats, have spent the postwar accumulating massive net fiscal obligations, virtually all of which have been kept off the books,” he noted.

“Congress’ economically arbitrary decisions as to what to put on and what to keep off the books have not been innocent,” he continued, criticizing what he called “the Enron-type accounting that’s been going on for decades under both parties.”

“A positive fiscal gap means the government is attempting to spend, over time, more than it can afford,” Kotlikoff explained, adding that every year of delay in addressing the problem makes it that much harder to close the fiscal gap.

For example, starting now, eliminating the fiscal gap would require an immediate 58.5 percent increase in all federal taxes or a 37.7 percent permanent, across-the-board decrease in federal spending.

But if the government waits 30 years, it would require a 77 percent tax increase or a 46.5 percent cut in spending by 2045 to eliminate the fiscal gap.

“Spending six decades raising or extending transfer payments and cutting or limiting taxes helped members of Congress get reelected. But it has placed our children and grandchildren under a fiscal Sword of Damocles that gravely endangers their economic futures,” said Kotlikoff, co-author of The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About Our Nation’s Economic Future, which was published in 2005.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/economist-tells-congress-us-may-be-worse-fiscal-shape-greece

mick silver
10th March 2015, 07:09 AM
what you posted here go's hand in hand with what you posted there about ............. 17 Elements Of Martial Law

Ares
10th March 2015, 07:14 AM
what you posted here go's hand in hand with what you posted there about ............. 17 Elements Of Martial Law

Indeed it does. Government needs its slave to repay their debts. Just like Monarchs of old used their peasants as collateral for the kings debts.

singular_me
10th March 2015, 07:45 AM
more to come... a glimpse


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNmXPuGiTiA

palani
10th March 2015, 07:50 AM
Its the commerce system that is broke. The country is doing just fine.

mick silver
10th March 2015, 08:46 AM
adding this , hope it ok ares ............The Fed Needs Humans ... U.S. legislators ... want to remove human judgment from its decisions on where to set interest rates. It's a terrible idea that could endanger the entire global economy. – Bloomberg
Dominant Social Theme: The Fed is an art form. Technocrats are the artists.
Free-Market Analysis: Our ongoing effort to analyze the arguments against an "audit" of the Fed has been helped immeasurably by Bloomberg View, which regularly advances arguments why the Fed should be left alone.
These editorials have become more frequent now that the Fed and other central banks are under regular political attack. The main issue in front of the Fed is an "audit" – presumably one that would name names instead of providing only sterile figures – but the Fed faces other challenges as well, and this article confronts one of them and tries to put it to rest.
The trouble with this stream of defensive editorials (they do seem defensive in tone) is that they never grapple with the main question facing central banking: How can humans, no matter how numerate or sophisticated, peer into the future to determine the rate and volume of currency that a US$15 trillion economy demands.
That's the first question. But the second question is just as pertinent and has to do with price fixing. Not only are Fed officials charged with a brief for fortune-telling, they are also involved in creating a price and mandating it by force.
We don't like to think of the Fed (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/1855/) as an authoritarian (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2606/) body because its brief is wonkish. Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke – these don't seem to be the faces of oppression. But try to set up a different monetary system in the US and the Fed's power will become clear. You may end up in prison.
The Fed is an authoritarian body. Central banking (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2958/) is an authoritarian paradigm. Ask any economist if a forcibly fixed price is a good idea and the answer will come back sharply and clearly: No. Yet when it comes to fixing the price of money, suddenly normal economic judgments do not apply.
So this is the position to start from. The Fed's brief is authoritarian; it asks individuals to predict how much money a US$15 trillion economy needs, though such predictions must be impossible; finally, it fixes prices on a regular basis, something any mainstream economist will tell you is bad policy.
Against this logical marshalling of facts, Bloomberg mounts editorial after editorial defending the indefensible. Each one editorial starts out bravely and then lapses into logical fallacy. This editorial is no different.
More:
U.S. legislators have a radical plan for the Federal Reserve, one of the world's most powerful policy-making institutions: They want to remove human judgment from its decisions on where to set interest rates. It's a terrible idea that could endanger the entire global economy.
The Fed's monetary policy has long been set by the Federal Open Market Committee, which consists of the governors of the Federal Reserve Board, the president of the New York Fed and four regional Fed presidents on a rotating basis. Now, some legislators led by Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, want to replace this group of people with a fixed mechanical rule.
Known as the Taylor rule – after its inventor, Stanford University economist John Taylor – the rule crunches numbers such as inflation, output and potential growth, then spits out an interest rate that in theory should set the economy on the right course.
The editorial is not a long one, but the difficulties deepen as the argument progresses. The justification for the "human element" we are told is that the Fed needs "human judgment." This is presented as if the Fed were engaged in some sort of art form or was providing us with an estimate of the economy's direction.
But the Fed is not engaged in a creative endeavor. Nor is it providing investors and businessmen with estimates. It is a deeply authoritarian body that FIXES the price and volume of money. It is engaged – though this is not a popular description – in making law.
Within this context, "human judgment" is a significant drawback because it is ... a judgment. A guess. A stab in the dark. The editorial attempts to back up the presentation of its logical fallacies by making three arguments.
First, it points out that economies are not physical systems "with immutable laws." Second, the Taylor rule relies on "imperfect inputs." Third, the Taylor law "ignores many of the most important risks that the Fed must consider."
All of this is sensible and perhaps would rebut the idea that the rate and volume of money ought to be set automatically. But the logical fallacy here is that "human judgment" is not going to be any better because of the aforementioned challenges.
When it comes to fortune-telling, whether the mechanism is automated or human, the challenges remain the same and the outcome cannot be any different.
The article acknowledges the Fed "isn't perfect." And it admits that there can be legitimate debates regarding the Fed's conduct. But it concludes by noting, "No mathematical formula can substitute for the expertise and leadership that such a group can provide, particularly in a crisis."
Given that central banks including the Fed have plunged the West and the world into the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression (http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2305/), given that the West still hasn't recovered and shows no real sign of doing so despite endless talk of "green shoots," given that the main tool of central banking is currency debasement – some US$50 trillion in the past six years – God save us from such expertise and leadership.
These Bloomberg articles continually show us that there is no justification for the Fed or any other central bank – no matter how much rhetoric is launched. There is no defense for its brief, no logical methodology to its actions and no possibility that the system will improve.
Whether human "judgment" is employed or a rules-based methodology, the mandate given to central banks will remain impossible to fulfill. Someday, perhaps, this central fact will become more insistent and supporters of central banking will finally be forced to address it.
Conclusion: But defenders of central banking are unwilling to do so because they have no real answers. This series of articles via Bloomberg seems to show that clearly.
- See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36146/Central-Banking-is-a-Technocratic-Art-Form/#sthash.G6MujtcT.dpuf