Does PETA know about this?
Maybe they should have read that dictionary instead of paraphrasing it.
Posted on 07/10/2006 10:59:12 AM PDT by Paul Ross
Synopsis
Is the United States bankrupt? Many would scoff at this notion. Others would argue that financial implosion is just around the corner. This paper explores these views from both partial and general equilibrium perspectives.
It concludes that countries can go broke, that the United States is going broke, that remaining open to foreign investment can help stave off bankruptcy, but that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation’s economic future.
The paper offers three policies to eliminate the nation’s enormous fiscal gap and avert bankruptcy: a retail sales tax, personalized Social Security, and a globally budgeted universal healthcare system.
_Preface
Is the U.S. bankrupt? Or to paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bear, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors?
Many would scoff at this notion. They’d point out that the country has never defaulted on its debt; that its debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio is substantially lower than that of Japan and other developed countries; that its long-term nominal interest rates are historically low; that the dollar is the world’s reserve currency; and that China, Japan, and other countries have an insatiable demand for U.S. Treasuries.
Others would argue that the official debt reflects nomenclature, not fiscal fundamentals; that the sum total of official and unofficial liabilities is massive; that federal discretionary spending and medical expenditures are exploding; that the United States has a history of defaulting on its official debt via inflation; that the government has cut taxes well below the bone; that countries holding U.S. bonds can sell them in a nanosecond; that the financial markets have a long and impressive record of mispricing securities; and that financial implosion is just around the corner.
This paper explores these views from both partial and general equilibrium perspectives. The second section begins with a simple two-period life-cycle model to explicate the economic mean-ing of national bankruptcy and to clarify why government debt per se bears no connection to a country’s fiscal condition. The third section turns to economic measures of national insolvency, namely, measures of the fiscal gap and genera-tional imbalance. This partial-equilibrium analy-sis strongly suggests that the U.S. government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds.
The world, of course, is full of uncertainty. The fourth section considers how uncertainty changes one’s perspective on national insolvency and methods of measuring a country’s long-term fiscal condition. The fifth section asks whether immigration or productivity improvements arising either from technological progress or capital deepening can ameliorate the U.S. fiscal condition.
--SNIP--[skipping ahead to the meat of the paper]
THE U.S. FISCAL CONDITIONAs suggested above, the proper way to consider a country’s solvency is to examine the life-time fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country’s policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy. Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke.
Consider, for starters, Gokhale and Smetters’s (2005) analysis of the country’s fiscal gap, which measures the present value difference between all future government expenditures, including servicing official debt, and all future receipts. In calculating the fiscal gap, Gokhale and Smetters use the federal government’s arbitrarily labeled receipts and payments. Nevertheless, their calcu-lation of the fiscal gap is label-free because alter-native labeling of our nation’s fiscal affairs would yield the same fiscal gap. Indeed, determining the fiscal gap is part of generational accounting; the fiscal gap measures the extra burden that would need to be imposed on current or future generations, relative to current policy, to satisfy the government’s intertemporal budget constraint.
The Gokhale and Smetters measure of the fiscal gap is a stunning $65.9 trillion! This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one’s head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent.
The Gokhale and Smetters study is an update of an earlier, highly detailed, and extensive U.S. Department of the Treasury fiscal gap analysis commissioned in 2002 by then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.
Smetters, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Economic Policy at the Treasury between 2001 and 2002, recruited Gokhale, then Senior Economic Adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, to work with him and other Treasury staff on the study. The study took close to a year to organize and complete. Gokhale and Smetters’s $65.9 trillion fiscal-gap calculation relies on the same methodology employed in the original Treasury analysis. Hence, one can legitimately view this figure as our own government’s best estimate of its present-value budgetary shortfall. The $65.9 trillion gap is all the more alarming because its calculation omits the value of contingent government liabilities and relies on quite optimistic assumptions about increases over time in longevity and federal healthcare expenditures.
_____________________________________________________
Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
© 2006, The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Articles may be reprinted, reproduced, published, distributed, displayed, and transmitted in their entirety if copyright notice, author name(s), and full citation are included. Abstracts, synopses, and other derivative works may be made only with prior written permission of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. -Thomas Jefferson
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations. -Andrew Jackson
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln
Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
http://www.themoneymasters.com/presiden.htm
The Federal Reserve - What Is It? Who Is It?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b13c8401f8f.htm
Yes. Fiscally, culturally, morally, and every other kind of way.
Brief examples of each:
Fiscally - The Social Security System is near bankrupt, yet illegal aliens are drawing benefits from it. We're also now giving illegal aliens benefits from Medicare.
Culturally - Hip-hoppers hold their crotches while they "sing". Hollywood is unable to make a movie without loading it up with F-bombs.
Morally - Same-sexers are now getting "married". "Booty calls".
The economy hasn't collapsed yet. (Which doesn't necessarily mean it won't tomorrow.)
I have a book written about 1930 or so that predicts the longterm failure of socialist systems.
It took 70 years for the Soviet Union to collapse.
When the prediction is made isn't as important as when it comes true.
It can happen, no matter how "unrealistic."
Let me guess. It's owned by foreign bankers? How much money do the evil owners of the Fed suck out in profits every year? Must be billions? Trillions? What kinda dividend do they pay?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b13c8401f8f.htm
This article has been deleted.
I bet the book didn't think it would take 60 years from 1930.
While the accuracy of past predictions does not necessarily indicate the accuracy of those for tomorrow, the record should also not be ignored.
Does PETA know about this?
Maybe they should have read that dictionary instead of paraphrasing it.
Their solution: More taxes, personalize the unfunded SS funds (personalize the debt, maybe?), and more BS spending.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
How about we just CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING!
Economists, with spell-checkers. Obviously the editor missed it.
globally budgeted universal healthcare system....
He lost me right there.....
??????? Is this paper actually from the Fed? You would think someone with the skill to write a paper like this would know the difference between bear and bare
I know the answer to this one.
No. No it isn't.
Businesses don't go bankrupt until the creditors cut off the cash flow........................
Me too!
Why is it so hard for the government to come to grasp with the notion that the solution to budget problems IS TO SPEND LESS. Just about every family and individual has had to do this at some point, it's not that difficult.
What boggles the mind is the thought that government programs need real growth, because most don't. The average program should be budgeted this way: take the population of the country and divide it into the program's budget, the following year take the rate of inflation, add it to the per capita dollar amount and multiply by the population.
I think we're on the same wavelength. The budget should be balanced, responsibly (i.e. with spending cuts), and entitlement spending (Medicaid, Social Security) must be brought under control.
Bush needs to veto some spending. Hell, he needs to veto SOMETHING!
Why is it so hard for the government to come to grasp with the notion that the solution to budget problems IS TO SPEND LESS
Spending less doesn't buy votes. Especially votes from the ones not participating in paying the bills.
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
APRIL 5, 2001
- "There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government.
Bush touts relief as tax day looms
Another 3.9 million Americans will have their income tax liability completely eliminated, officials said.
That's 3.9 million Americans more added to the spending constituency of 70% of the public clamoring for more from government, figuring someone else foots the bill.
It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
--- Walter Williams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
