- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You don't see a problem with accepting such low expectations especially 2 years after the end of the recession? Accepting such low economic numbers ought to concern everyone especially with 24 million unemployed and underemployed Americans. I would have expected a lot better numbers from someone that the liberal media claims is the smartest person ever to hold the office.
I'm not arguing that such an outcome is acceptable to say the least. It isn't.
My point is that it is consistent with experience following recessions driven by housing busts. The extent of debt involved in the housing sector is enormous--indeed, at the height of the housing bubble, mortgage debt had briefly exceeded GDP. That debt will need to fall back toward more sustainable levels. Hence, household deleveraging remains underway. In turn, that deleveraging suppresses growth in personal consumption expenditures, which account for about 70% of U.S. GDP.
Following the end of the housing bubble, jobs that had existed in housing-related industries (mortgage finance, construction, etc.) will not return to previous levels anytime soon. That is a structural unemployment issue, as many from those industries cannot necessarily transition into new industries for which very different skillsets are required. In addition, given the intensity of global competition, many companies are not hiring the long-term unemployed out of concern that their skills are not up to date. That is also a structural issue. In short, both slow macroeconomic growth and structural unemployment issues will are leading to an anemic jobs recovery.
Longer-term, the nation faces very real challenges. IMO, it does not deserve a AAA rating.
1. Political dysfunctionality is a barrier. By political dysfunctionality, I mean that the nation's political leaders are unable to effectively reach agreements on tough issues related to fiscal consolidation. That raises medium- and long-term issues as to whether the U.S. can adopt a robust fiscal consolidation program to tackle its long-term imbalances, much less sustain such a program. Such a program won't be painless. It will, in the near-term, present an additional contractionary headwind.
2. Long-term macroeconomic outlook: The combination of current structural unemployment issues, relative decline in educational attainment, increased risk of a secular rise in the cost of capital, competitiveness gaps in key sectors, and lack of public-private investment in potential growth opportunities (energy to aerospace, etc.) suggest that the nation's long-term growth rate potential is less than it was in the past. 2.5% annualized growth over the next 10 years might be optimistic. 2.0% might be more realistic. That means less tax revenue growth.
3. Federal financial ratios, especially debt:GDP and debt:revenue have deteriorated. There is little evidence of a concrete program to address those issues. Political dysfunctionality reduces prospects of such a program.
4. States have enormous long-term fiscal problems. Despite balanced budget amendments in most states, state finances are weak in the long-term. The amendements have led to the illusion of balanced budgets only because the states significantly underfunded pension and health obligations. If the present value of changes in such obligations were required to be placed on the financial statements, most states would have been running chronic, significant budget deficits. Hence, the utility of such amendments is questionable at best.
5. Structural health system problems: Specifically, the excessive cost growth problem remains unresolved. U.s. health care costs continue to grow at a multiple of national income, even as a significant slice of the population lacks coverage, and one cannot reasonably expect foreigners to continue to finance the system. That multiple is well beyond what is explained by demographic change (population aging/life expectancy). Hospitals remain "inflation factories." Fundamental health reform to address those issues remains unlikely for the foreseeable future.
The result is that political, macroeconomic, and structural issues suggest that actual U.S. risk is greater than that suggested by a AAA rating. That the U.S. can currently meet its debt service obligations does not change the long-term outlook, which is decidedly more pessimistic than a AAA rating would suggest. A ratings downgrade will likely further increase the cost of capital and further damp macroeconomic growth. In turn, that means an even more aggressive fiscal consolidation program will be required to address the nation's long-term imbalances and, in the short-term, economic headwinds could be even stronger in the U.S.