Maybe even under Treas. Sec. Bessent sometime before 2028. They may not even use the word "restructure". Certainly not "default". In fact, it will seem normal and inevitable, and salutary even!
And when it happens, nobody will care. When the shit hits the fan America goes to Disneyworld and looks to the future!
That will amaze all the Austrians, who will console themselves thinking that if such magic actually works humanity can never be redeemed even by God. They'll double down until they die.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ..." - Max Planck
(I'm not arguing in favor of MMT. Just in favor of real-politick, old-school political economy. It's all politics, money is just a derivative of something else that has its own laws, the laws of culture/psyche/incentives/etc. Money floats on the surface of a very deep well of something else than what money is.)
But then an elected official has no reason to give a damn whether you like what he's doing. Joe just pardoned Hunter and there's nothing you can do about it. How would he have handled things if he was seeking reelection?
I understand your view, but my sense is if it is one term only, we will attract a different class of person to be in politics. someone with a true sense of the idealism that infects first term politicians with limited chance to fall into the trap of incumbency
I didn’t expect the Cato institute to say this but I’m glad they did. The debt ceiling needs to be eliminated. Stop the theater. And the bond market should price us debt accordingly.
Eliminate the debt ceiling? I don't see it, no way. One valuable consequence of having the debt ceiling is that hitting the debt ceiling, and all the press and hand-wringing that ensues serves as a loud and public reminder to Joe Q Public that his government is spending above its means, and that maybe he needs to vote for someone else. It focuses attention on the problems created in Washington, rather than quietly robbing another trillion from working folks in the dark of night.
It's wonderful to see that "implications" can be piled to the sky atop one another until a federal government of initially-limited powers under a Constitution and Bill of Rights becomes both a leviathan that swallows everything in its path and a creature (from an island off the coast of Georgia) that destroys 98+ % of the value of the currency in a little over 50 years. God forbid we should continue to be forced to occasionally recognize the extent of the ravages of the economy/lives of the citizenry by contemplation of a "Debt Ceiling".
The debt ceiling is a theatrical joke! It was reading Ross Perot's, United We Stand that opened my eyes to the fiscal irresponsibility of our government. Amazing that was half a lifetime ago for me. How naive to think that having a debt ceiling and forcing debate before spending tomorrow's saving for today would be somewhat effective in slowing down the train. It appears there is no more road to kick the can as we witness the 4th turning progress before our eyes. There is NO more road to kick the can. And as Lynn Alden puts it, "there is no stopping this train." So let's rip the band aid off eliminate the debt ceiling, let Congress spend to oblivion and I will happily watch my metals and bitcoin appreciate in value, as we look forward to smooth sailing into the 1st turning.
Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and I hope that President Trump and his spectacular selection of people around him can make the significant changes we so desperately need for a brighter future.
This seems like a serious of mostly weak arguments derived from "implications" of "authorized expenditures". For example, by the author's same mode of argument, those expenditures could also be argued implicitly support taxation to fund such expenditures or new regulation to help channel and "best" implement the spending's efficacy.
I also guffawed at the author's "take care" argument premised on the President's obligation to ensure the Constitution and laws are faithfully executed. From illegal war and intervention to open borders, to illegal student debt forgiveness, to ignoring the EXPRESS provisions of the Bill of Rights, neither party has done anything of the sort. But, we are asked to accept the "take care" argument seriously when it comes to spending not expressly authorized for funding by debt nor supported by taxes. LOL.
If Congress wants to question the wisdom of issuing more debt, it can and should do so during the appropriations process rather than by imposing a debt limit. EASY THEN?
As always, the can will be kicked down the road.
Eventually it will all be restructured.
Maybe even under Treas. Sec. Bessent sometime before 2028. They may not even use the word "restructure". Certainly not "default". In fact, it will seem normal and inevitable, and salutary even!
And when it happens, nobody will care. When the shit hits the fan America goes to Disneyworld and looks to the future!
That will amaze all the Austrians, who will console themselves thinking that if such magic actually works humanity can never be redeemed even by God. They'll double down until they die.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ..." - Max Planck
(I'm not arguing in favor of MMT. Just in favor of real-politick, old-school political economy. It's all politics, money is just a derivative of something else that has its own laws, the laws of culture/psyche/incentives/etc. Money floats on the surface of a very deep well of something else than what money is.)
Spending discipline will only return when congress has term limits and it is an unpaid service.
one and done term limits I think
But then an elected official has no reason to give a damn whether you like what he's doing. Joe just pardoned Hunter and there's nothing you can do about it. How would he have handled things if he was seeking reelection?
I understand your view, but my sense is if it is one term only, we will attract a different class of person to be in politics. someone with a true sense of the idealism that infects first term politicians with limited chance to fall into the trap of incumbency
Very interesting perspective. But any way you look at it, we are still racing toward the cliff, and arguing over who should be leading the charge.
I didn’t expect the Cato institute to say this but I’m glad they did. The debt ceiling needs to be eliminated. Stop the theater. And the bond market should price us debt accordingly.
In a free market, every one has " their" own debt ceiling, i.e that
at some stage, NOT trusting the value of the decreasing paper interest rate
that must be devaluede or defaultet on,
so buying a UST 10y for a 4,5% return is actually competing against gold that has averaged 9% since 1971 and thus has failed to "store" its value.
Maybe the friends og usa will play along for a while longer, but its enemies sure won´t.
To think that Russia will accept us$, IF the war ends will be a shocker.
Why should Russia end the war IF they have to pay for the rebuild with the confiscated funds. ?
If russia gets their funds back, they will buy MORE gold and silver, + not sell any platinum,palladium...ect for paper dollars.
Sanctions are a..Bitch...when they BOOMarang.
As fucked up as the debt ceiling is, nothing is worse than Congress repeatingly violating Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution .
Eliminate the debt ceiling? I don't see it, no way. One valuable consequence of having the debt ceiling is that hitting the debt ceiling, and all the press and hand-wringing that ensues serves as a loud and public reminder to Joe Q Public that his government is spending above its means, and that maybe he needs to vote for someone else. It focuses attention on the problems created in Washington, rather than quietly robbing another trillion from working folks in the dark of night.
Hilarious that now that it's about to be Trump's problem, the Austrian economist MAGAs are like "acktually, the debt ceiling is bad".
It's wonderful to see that "implications" can be piled to the sky atop one another until a federal government of initially-limited powers under a Constitution and Bill of Rights becomes both a leviathan that swallows everything in its path and a creature (from an island off the coast of Georgia) that destroys 98+ % of the value of the currency in a little over 50 years. God forbid we should continue to be forced to occasionally recognize the extent of the ravages of the economy/lives of the citizenry by contemplation of a "Debt Ceiling".
The debt ceiling is a theatrical joke! It was reading Ross Perot's, United We Stand that opened my eyes to the fiscal irresponsibility of our government. Amazing that was half a lifetime ago for me. How naive to think that having a debt ceiling and forcing debate before spending tomorrow's saving for today would be somewhat effective in slowing down the train. It appears there is no more road to kick the can as we witness the 4th turning progress before our eyes. There is NO more road to kick the can. And as Lynn Alden puts it, "there is no stopping this train." So let's rip the band aid off eliminate the debt ceiling, let Congress spend to oblivion and I will happily watch my metals and bitcoin appreciate in value, as we look forward to smooth sailing into the 1st turning.
Have a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and I hope that President Trump and his spectacular selection of people around him can make the significant changes we so desperately need for a brighter future.
Excellent essay.
I'm sure the unelected NGOs and Korporate Lobbyist that have a say in the government won't be happy about reducing the debt ceiling.
After all, don't they " influence" election$.....?
I feel that the amount needed to "run for office" should be completely public.
This seems like a serious of mostly weak arguments derived from "implications" of "authorized expenditures". For example, by the author's same mode of argument, those expenditures could also be argued implicitly support taxation to fund such expenditures or new regulation to help channel and "best" implement the spending's efficacy.
I also guffawed at the author's "take care" argument premised on the President's obligation to ensure the Constitution and laws are faithfully executed. From illegal war and intervention to open borders, to illegal student debt forgiveness, to ignoring the EXPRESS provisions of the Bill of Rights, neither party has done anything of the sort. But, we are asked to accept the "take care" argument seriously when it comes to spending not expressly authorized for funding by debt nor supported by taxes. LOL.
If Congress wants to question the wisdom of issuing more debt, it can and should do so during the appropriations process rather than by imposing a debt limit. EASY THEN?