“The System Is Blinking Red” 1.

            The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to report on the state of public finances.[1]  The CBO offers credible long-term projections.  They project an average annual growth of 2 percent.[2] 

            In 2001, U.S. government debt held by the public was $3.3 trillion dollars, amounting to 33 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.93 trillion in 2024 dollars.

            In 2024, U.S. government debt held by the public is $28 trillion, amounting to 99 percent of GDP.  So the debt has multiplied almost five-fold in real terms, while it has tripled as a share of GDP.  The national debt is growing faster than is the American economy.   

            In 2035, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 122 percent of GDP.  By 2054, U.S. government debt held by the public is projected to surpass $50 trillion, amounting to 166 percent of GDP.  To further complicate matters, the “reserves” of Social Security are forecast to run out by 2033; the “reserves” of Medicare are forecast to run out by 2036.  Then the federal government will assume responsibility for making up any difference between assets and obligations. 

            From the mid-Seventies to today, interest payments on the national debt averaged 2.1 percent of GDP.  In 2024 it is 3.1 percent of GDP.  In 2033 it will hit 4.1 percent of GDP.  This latter figure is highly optimistic because it assumes that the Trump administration tax cuts of 2017 will expire in 2025.  There is virtually no chance that this will happen.  The interest payment on the debt is growing as a share of GDP. 

            Why does this ballooning debt matter?  The United States government has been cutting taxes and increasing spending for a long time now.  Nothing bad has happened.  Yet.  Many people may assume that creditors will go on lending the government of the United States whatever it needs to fill the deficit.  This is not necessarily so.  While vast, the pool of global savings available to be borrowed by the United States is not infinite.  As the debt grows in tandem with America’s unwillingness to accept fiscal discipline, lenders may conclude that there is a mounting risk of at least partial default.  Rather than stopping lending at all, they may demand a “risk premium” in the form of higher interest rates.[3]  The point of the higher interest rates is for the investor to recover as much of his/her capital as possible before anything goes wrong.  Higher interest payments will crowd-out other spending categories from the budget. 

            This began as problem-solving or vote-buying in an earlier time.  People in both parties now are used to the government giving them things without any immediate cost.  Politicians who argue for austerity—lower spending, higher taxes—will lose elections.  Many people think that this is pathological.  Hard to be puritanical when Puritanism is culturally discredited. 


[1] William A. Galston, “A U.S. National Debt Crisis Is Coming,” WSJ, 18 September 2024.  Sources: Part 1 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov) and Part 2 of Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 (cbo.gov)

[2] By my own calculation, the American GDP grew by 58 percent between 2001 and 2023.  That averages at 2.5 percent per year.  However, the turn against globalization could slow growth everywhere.  GDP (constant 2015 US$) – United States | Data (worldbank.org) 

[3] See: Risk premium – Wikipedia 

Fiscal Problems and Inflation.

            Seeking to build a better world for whatever followed the Second World War, in 1944 the United States led the reconstruction of an international financial system.  The so-called “Bretton Woods System” included the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The IMF’s mission is “to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.”  Basically, this meant helping countries that had got themselves into a financial jam.  Give them money in return for spending and tax reforms. 

In recent years, says the IMF, tax cuts and increased spending in the United States have led to large budget deficits.  Donald Trump sponsored a substantial temporary tax cut; Trump and Joe Biden both sponsored spending bills to deal with the economic effects of Covid; Biden sponsored a stimulus bill; in 2021 Congress passed the substantial infrastructure bill; Biden sponsored generous additional spending to subsidize the development of semi-conductor manufacturing in the United States; and Biden has lavished money on shifting from carbon-based energy to other “green” sources. 

These deficits have been financed by borrowing.  Government spending then pumps money into the economy.  As a counter-cyclical measure to fight off a recession, such policies make sense.  However, says the IMF, the American economy is suffering from inflation attended by high levels of growth, consumption, and expanding employment, not a recession. 

Two problems arise in this view.  On the one hand, the deficit spending creates “short-term risks to the disinflation process” being pursued by the Federal Reserve Bank.  That is, the government is blunting the work of the high-interest policy being used to reduce inflation.[1]  Second, the scale of the borrowing “is out of line with long-term fiscal stability.”[2]  That is, one of these days, big spending cuts and tax increases will be necessary to prevent bankruptcy. 

“That’s ridiculous,” replied several spokespeople for the Biden administration.  According to Jared Bernstein, chairman of President Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, “I don’t think that the recent inflation story supports an excessive demand story…. We’ve been able to maintain historically low unemployment while getting significant disinflation.”  According to a Brookings Institution report, the Covid stimulus came to an end about the time that the new deficit spending began.  Hence it did not increase the large deficits of those year, merely kept them at about the same level.[3]  Many of the recent price increases (car insurance, home insurance, medical services, financial services, and housing prices) are one-time bumps, says the White House. 

What if Bernstein is making the best case for his boss and the economists at the IMF are correct?  The IMF has no dog in this fight.  They’re just used to sorting out banana republics. 


[1] The rapid pace of efforts to reduce—not reverse—inflation undertaken by the Federal Reserve Bank brought rapid progress.  Until they didn’t.  According to the NYT, “new data show that progress stalling out and, by many measures, beginning to reverse.”  Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Board declined to cut interest rates.  It did not suggest that it would raise rates again.  What with an election looming. 

[2] Jim Tankersley, “Split Beliefs on Dug-In Inflation and the Deficit’s Influence On It,” NYT, 30 April 2024. 

[3] Although I think that was the IMF’s point.