2 years ago, Wharton predicted that the U.S. debt would be defaulted on in twenty years [0].
> Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies.
My prediction is that the deficit will continue to increase, and so the default will come by then or sooner.
Why would a currency issuer make the decision to default on bonds it's issued, when it can always issue new bonds and roll them over, or if it wanted to the Fed can always just buy the bonds back?
Don't think of the US (or any monetarily sovereign Government) as having the constraints of a household or business... It's fundamentally different and we make major errors (like the crazy idea the US would default) when we think of it in the wrong way...
> defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation).
The real constraint isn’t solvency, it’s inflation and currency value. If deficits are monetized well beyond the economy’s capacity, inflation will rise and long term yields will climb, unless the central bank caps them, which then shifts the pressure to prices and the currency.
I question if it is possible to always roll over the debt. At some point too many think that it is better to buy any other asset. Ofc, with Fed and printing money you can enter to hyperinflationary circle. Which then makes rolling over debt even harder... Or getting any in future.
On a long enough timeline we're all dead. In the near term, expect a lot of stupid decisions and huffing and puffing based on an ideological framing of what the national debt is.
I am not an economist or finance guy, but I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability. You cannot have buying without selling, and so on. Your mortgage is a liability for you, but an asset for your bank. Your checking account is an asset for you, but a liability for your bank.
I'm not saying the debt can grow infinitely, but clearly if some of that debt is held as assets by the non-government (most of the world including you and me) then paying off that debt means a wealth transfer from the non-government back to the government.
This isn't necessarily in my interests. If the government has to claw those dollars back from somewhere, I'd rather them start with the richest people. But that doesn't happen for obvious reasons.
> That is, one party's asset is another party's liability...
The people who don't understand accounting actually seem to be pretty consistent on that point, because one of their other major complaints is inequality, ie, the people doing the lending have too many assets.
> I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability.
This is correct, but... let me ask you, would it concern you, if my asset is your liability? I mean, would it concern you if you had to pay for my house? How about everything it is I do? How would this not be a concern? If it is not, then why don't you publicly disclose your credit card?
It's tied to everyone's retirement being automatically invested into it. I wonder what it would take for a bunch of white collar workers to cash out their 401k early.
I’ve always said America is the richest third world country on the planet. Just like tinpot dictatorships accumulating IMF debt, the orange dictator in the Whitehouse will keep taking on debt for completely selfish political points and zero consideration of “the people” or the future. He’s 79 years old. What future?
In the coming decades the USA will end up just like every other failed state.
Women will have their reproductive rights taken away so they can be men’s property and fulfil their traditional roles and responsibilities.
Intellectual institutions will be defunded or outright abolished, because they oppose the regime’s messaging.
The minority in charge will scapegoat some already powerless minority to distract the general populace. In the end, their own propaganda will force their hand and they’ll have to enact some sort of dire measure, a “final solution” like concentration camps.
Despite the dire state of the economy, military spending will paradoxically increase and the armed forces will be increasingly used against citizens.
if the debt ever causes actual problems, e.g. we can't sell our treasury bonds, then our politicians will suddenly remember how to tax rich people.
In the mean time the impossible, unsustainable, terrifying national debt will be used to justify benefit cuts (like the upcoming privatization/cut of social security when the trust fund runs out in 7 years)
I think even in that situation, politicians will try and play ball with the rich since the majority of them are on that same side. But having to implement emergency austerity measures in this scenario would just outright blow up the US economy.
If the wealthy donors and corporate interests were smart they'd take a haircut on their wealth to try and stave off this issue but it seems we're mostly in a loot-and-raze craze. Realistically I would sooner expect an American-style French Revolution before we see the rich grow a sense of self-preservation.
The revolution wont be like the French revolution, itll be like the Handmaids Tale.
A massive return to conservatism that manages to create a capitalist first theocracy loosely following American Calvinist principles (you have money because you are gods chosen, you are poor because you deserve it, for the poor here is this underclass to blame your problems on so that you dont aim your murder at the rich).
I don't think it'll work out like that, simply because my fellow Americans are still too used to being towards the top of the economic food chain. When the poor can no longer afford the bare minimum necessities and the middle class can no longer prop up their lifestyle I think people will get really, really mad. Like what happened with the healthcare CEO but on a much larger scale.
They've already been trying to sell some of the Calvanist dogma by trying to soften the blow of tariffs which by all indicators has been a massive failure of a messaging avenue, which is why they've moved towards trying to just ignore it instead.
Many of them will get really mad at whoever the person to blame points the finger at, regardless how plausible. But what good does getting really, really mad do, against a government with a functioning panopticon and an effective monopoly on force?
Until now, there has never been a time in human history when an oppressive government had the technical means to effectively surveil and control the population en masse in an automated fashion. It doesn't help that they have a monopoly on advanced weapons, lethal drones, and armed goons. As George Orwell put it: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever".
The possibility of taxing rich people would likely be factored in to the market for bonds. There's not really any alpha to "they could tax rich people".
If we genuinely can't sell treasury bonds, even at elevated payouts, we're probably at a point where we will either have to default in the near future. Or maybe intentionally inflating our currency until the debt is serviceable; no idea which is preferable, but would be curious to hear which and why.
DOGE already started the austerity measures, and tariffs are taxes, so it's already in play. Popularity may be moot depending upon how things play out in the next couple years.
Except neither of those do anything and they're actively counteracted 100 to 1 by the rest of the new fiscal policy introduced.
So weve lost a bunch of shit and gained... let me check here... oh, -2 trillion dollars. Okay.
But at least some poor sick people will lose Medicaid. Glad to see we're burning our money and then spending more on running the AC full blast so we don't boil.
If it makes you feel better, the owners of US treasury securities also do not want a debt-fueled collapse of the government. They are our assets as much as they are our liabilities.
Owners of US treasuries are: Japanese government, a whole bunch of rich Arab Middle East governments, Social Security, Federal reserve, and the Chinese government. With the exception of the last one, the other holders are political captives.
Incidentally, Chinese government stopped buying US Treasury instruments 2015.
All these to say that arguments that depend on freedom of choice ( like this is a free market, or for every seller is a buyer, or US treasury holders want this and that) do not apply to this situation. Which makes this situation so hard to predict.
I think between 5-10 years US will run into a deficit spiral: US will not be able to control its deficit. When that time comes make sure you will not need any additional credit and you have enough savings for 6 months to a year of expenses.
In the shorter term I predict that next summer Trump will replace Jerome Powell with someone else who will bring short term interest rates to close to 0%. This will allow the US admin to decrease the interest expense on its debt, and use these savings to further increase the deficit. The problem thus magnified will then be dumped onto the next US admin-which will be mocked by MAGA as incompetent (something along the lines of “we gave these guys a perfect economy and they wrecked it”)
Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't there be negative follow-on effects from the Fed deciding to reduce interest rates to zero because they can? If not, then wouldn't they have done that already or, better, simply kept it at zero?
Oh, there will be bad effects from that -like inflation spike. The reason the interest rates are not zero is because the Fed still has some political independence. This independence will go away next summer when Trump will replace Powell with same tool of his liking.
Turkey tried doing it for years. The result was high growth but utterly insane inflation - we're talking well over 100% per year, so that everything becomes unaffordable.
"Nobody wants to deal with it" except one of the two major parties which enjoys the support of the majority of the voters, who consistently deal with it when in power.
As long as the US maintains the western worlds largest military, I don't see the government being pressured to do much of anything remotely close to dealing with the problem in a long term (and likely painful) way.
If that power ever gets displaced, it'll tank the US quickly. As soon as the US loses its privileged status (something Trump is rapidly deteriorating) this becomes a serious burden that will require some serious policy decisions, of which most will be unpopular. It'll likely be cuts before tax increases, because even when facing the worst economic situation, neither party wants to pass meaningful tax increases.
I think we have at least a few more decades, but if we aren't the western worlds de facto military there's significantly less reason to let this house of cards go on.
We'd be better off dealing with it while we are still in a relatively privileged position, but no economic class wants the tax increases it will take just to get the debt into a manageable state.
As for no party wanting to deal with it, that is partly true. I think some Democrats actually want to deal with it, because they're much more comfortable proposing tax increases, but they don't have sway in the current leadership of the party.
