Insanity: Getting Worked Up Over One Company's Slight Change Of Opinion In The Creditworthiness Of The US
from the it's-an-opinion dept
You may have heard (or, at least, I hope you heard) that, late Friday, S&P downgraded the US's credit rating from AAA to AA-plus, causing all sorts of hair pulling and worry. Here's the part that makes no sense: S&P's rating of the safety of US debt is simply an opinion. It's certainly a high profile opinion, but it's still an opinion. What I can't figure out is why anyone is making a big deal of one private company making a slight change to its opinion. People are acting as if this change is a change in facts. They're acting as if an S&P downgrade actually makes US debt less trusthworthy. It does not. The US may very well not be that trustworthy on its debt (in fact, I find that argument quite compelling these days), but having one company say that is meaningless.We've discussed this before. For absolutely no good reason, the US government decided to put the opinion of various rating agencies into law, requiring certain institutions to maintain certain percentages of "highly rated" bonds in order to engage in certain activities. The insanity is that it effectively forced the world to think about ratings from S&P and Moody's as if they were fact, even though they're really just opinions. And to do all of this even if their ratings go against one's own opinion. And, of course, we all know that the ratings agencies are far from perfect, and have an unfortunate history that suggests that, at times, they've succumbed to pressure.
So, even if you believe that the US government's financial position is a disaster (and, again, a case can be made for that), it's crazy to pretend that one company changing its opinion (just slightly) has any actual meaning. Most of the market can and does make its own decisions on the creditworthiness of US debt, no matter what S&P says. In other words, the (slim) risk of the US actually defaulting is already priced in. The S&P saying what people are already thinking doesn't mean that anything fundamental changed... other than its opinion.
Markets are made based on the interaction of buyers and sellers. Not the (sometimes questionable) opinions of just a few firms.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: debt, economy, opinions, ratings, united states
Companies: s&p
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How can you run a country where you continuously spend more money than you make and still expect you can get a good rating?
I understand the whole idea of 'you've got to spend money to make money', but in this case, it feels more like spending money for the sake of spending money. It's not as if the US is getting better because of it.
And let's just ignore the crazy amount of money that elections cost. I'd say vote for the person who tries to make it to the White House on the smallest budget possible.
Also, sure it's nice to hear that you have a AAA-rating, but what does it mean, and how is AAA better than AA+? What is the difference? Why not have an A-B-C rating or a 1-10 scale?
Ok, I'll stop rambling now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time of day...
http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Mountain/d/-7/java
Now spending money - I have to agree that spending less than you make seems reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time of day...
wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time of day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The difference between AAA and AA+ might be half a percent in interest. Doesn't seem like a lot, but on a debt in the trillions of dollars, it can hit hundreds of billions of dollars extra every year in interest.
That has to be factored into new budgets, which are already heavy with red ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article is very simolistic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the default risk grew substantially but the three ratings agencies kept the U.S. at AAA, would that mean the risk doesn't exist? Of course not.
Why we leave our economic well-being in the hands of dubious, private, for-profit companies with a recent history of making horrible decisions (AAA sub-prime mortgage packages?) is beyond me. I think that was a point Mike was making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time
Wait, what?
Most of the world trusts the US government to give them the correct time of day. One of the most common (perhaps THE most common) primary time sources all over the world is the GPS constellation (mainly because it is really convenient - no need for a cable to the national laboratory, you just need an antenna). And who adjusts the GPS satellites' time? The US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You use dollars don't you?
So you DO trust them with money!
ow can you run a country where you continuously spend more money than you make
Oh no! you've fallen for the "government finance is like household finance fallacy.
The basic point is that what you call money is in fact (mostly government) debt. The sum of all the debits and credits in the world is a big fat zero. If you want to have some credit in your bank account then someone else somewhere has to have a deficit.
The fact is that the government pretty much has to run a deficit in order to keep a supply of money in the economy. It is true that things go bad if the deficit goes too big - but they also go bad if the deficit gets too small (cf the 1930's).
The first problem with ratings agencies like S & P is that their main business is rating the creditworthiness of businesses. This is different from rating the creditworthiness of nations - and frankly I think they should simply not be doing it.
The other problem with ratings agencies is tha the people that work in them are not politically neutral ( no one really is). Consequently their ratings tend to push a certain political agenda. Big, first world countries like the US have in the past been able to ignore this because they got top rating more or less automatically - but it has wreaked havoc in the 3rd world - where a po faced idea of financial "soundness" has led to economic collapse and people dying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.loansafe.org/comparing-government-to-household-is-fallacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The household analogy is useful because fiscal discipline is a good quality, for people or governments. The punishment for fiscal mismanagement is just different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The free market requires a system of exchange in order to even exist. Governments that print money are in the business of supplying this requirement. The free market depends on them - not the other way around. The free market cannot punish the US government without committing suicide.
The US has to buy stuff from other countries.
Which is why the number that matters is the balance of payments - not the national debt - as I pointed out elsewhere in these comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most households can't arbitrarily increase their income because they want to, Nations can.
A better 'household' analogy would be to assume your own personal income was a percentage of what everyone else on your block earned/spent (i.e. income/sales tax). When people on your block curtail their spending it reduces sales tax. This causes some of your block goes out of business due to slower demand and now they don't have income so your income now goes down again.
If your response is to cut your spending, even more people go out of work and your income goes down yet again. It's quite the fun cycle.
OR you can provide the now unemployed people a stipend to tide them over until the economy improves. This gives them some money to spend and keeps other 'households' on the block from going out of business thus making the downturn less harsh and the recovery quicker. Bonus points if you had everybody on the block pre-pay into a fund to pay this unemployment amounts (which the US does do).
Oh and you can't cut enough to balance your books. The only thing you can possibly do is to increase your income through more economic activity.
But lets keep cutting because it 'sounds good'.
The old adage "Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking" applies in spades...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics of the Federal Deficit
Another aspect is that the “federal deficit” is so poorly defined as to be meaningless: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics: Federal Deficit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics of the Federal Deficit
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Read his profile. He's in the Netherlands, so no, in fact, he doesn't use US dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you believe that a bank lends an amount of money equal to deposits, they you don't understand how the financial system works. Banks typically lend more money than they have on hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This has no effect on the basic accounting identity - if you count everything up correctly.
The bank has simply created a debt-credit pair (just like an electron-positron pair)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you had visited Zimbabwe a few years ago you might well have declined to use their money on the grounds that you didn't trust it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
even if I don't trust the currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
even if I don't trust the currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But, it's actually quite simple to understand balancing.
You have a ledger sheet where you write down your expenses.
And you have a ledger sheet where you write down your income.
And the trick to making the balance is to somehow find a way to have about the same, or preferably less expenses than what your income is.
Obviously, that doesn't work all the time.
Sometimes you have to spend more than you make, that's when you tap into reserves or take out a loan.
This all also works for countries.
But in the US' case (and no doubt the case for many other countries, like for instance Greece), they've been spending more than they make for quite a number of years.
And that's just not a long-term tenable situation. Someone has to pay back those loans as well.
But because the balance is such that they don't have anything left except for a big gaping hole in the budget, the US can't pay back what its owed.
Sure, a country may not be the same as my household, but balancing for a country works the same way as balancing for a household, just with bigger numbers.
Fact is, if you keep spending more money than you make, you have a serious issue, and you need to figure out where you can cut spending AND/OR increase income.
In the case of the US there is a huge amount of extra income to be generated through the raising of the taxes for higher incomes (you know the people who have been tax exempt, because they 'create jobs' (in other countries)). That's why, for me as an outsider, it was quite bizarre to see how that just wasn't acceptable for the republican extremists (the tea party favourites).
Every economist said: the only sensible thing to do here is to cut costs and raise taxes.
But noooooooooooo, we're having none of that, we'd rather risk defaulting the entire country (and do more damage than any terrorist could ever do) than raise a single tax for the so-called job-creators (who don't really create jobs for Americans).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the trick to making the balance is to somehow find a way to have about the same, or preferably less expenses than what your income is.
The critical differences between a household and a state are.
1) A state can inflate its debt away by printing more money*.
2) Whatever a state does on the expenditure side has an impact on the income side so cutting expenditure (or raising taxes) can cause income to fall too.
It follows that the methods that work for a household dimply don't apply to a state.
* Of course Euro members are in a slightly different position. Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy gave up the ability to print their own money - which is (arguably) why they are in the current mess - until Germany either agrees to print money for them - or leave the Euro itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are very definite downsides to just printing more money in order to get rid of debts, maybe not for the governments per se but for their constituents definitely.
It'd be better to find a sustainable solution, and that's by making the balance more even. In so far as expenses and incomes more on the same level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never said it didn't - the core point though is this.
The government runs its finances primarily by looking at the effect its actions have on the wider economy and can ignore its own private balance sheet.
A household runs its finances by looking at its own internal balance sheet and can ignore the impact it has on the wider economy.
Sometimes the two will make similar decisions - but for completely different reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, the US is not at risk of dying.
So, the money lenders have very little risk that the country is going away anytime soon. But that isn't a 100% given certainty.
And at some point, you have to wonder: "are we doing the right thing?" At least, if you keep digging yourself deeper in debt for billions a year.
Money is, if you really think about it, already a bizarre thing, because where does it really come from, and why does it have such a weird effect on society?
But if countries can spend money willy-nilly, what would be the point of keeping a balance? Why not just keep spending without any regards for what comes in. After all you can just turn over the debt and bring in more money, right? "The sky is the limit"?
In fact, what would be the point of money? Would we really need it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I said in my original post governments are not completely unconstrained in their ability to increase debt. Essentially the trick governments have to play is to keep economic activity at the right level. Since government debt effectively forms the supply of money for the rest of us then getting rid of it would leave all of us broke (or at least using Gold or barter).
The other part of the supply of money is bank loans in excess of bank assets.
When we hit the credit crunch the banks stopped lending - reducing the supply of money and threatening a recession. Governments stepped in to fill the resulting hole - which is one reason why their debts went up.
The problem with government debt is that it is a red herring. The real number we should look at is the balance of payments. That is the aspect of national finance that really does resemble household finance (and btw it has been going south in most western countries ever since we decided it was a good idea to let our economies be dominated by middlemen profiting from good imported from other countries.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And no most of the economist, I work with for what its worth, agree with you (neither does Greenspan (about the best their is), as he stated on Meet the press yesterday, - Lowering Government expenditures has less negative impact on economy, and many benefits, but raising taxes has a short term improvement in government revenues, but retards the economy both short and long term)
The IMF also doesn't agree with your speaking head economist either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An overgeneralisation that seems to depend on faith (backed by not a little self interest) if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought not. So there is a point at which raising taxation would be prefereable to lowering expenditure. The remaining question is whether we (in any particular country) are above or below that point now? That is clearly something that requires detailed analysis and a sweeping statement like the one you made simply cannot possibly be the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Work" as in allow the economy to operate at a high level?
Absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Before that of course you will have anarchy be cause there will be no police force and all the prisoners will walk free when the prison guards knock off because they aren't being paid...
do I need to go on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone's a prisoner, Law enforcer, Military agent, criminal, slave, or overseer... Orson would be proud of you... Bread now coasts 200 million dollars, and you stand in long lines to get it. (Hmmmm sound like anywhere else in history? if not i would recommend a basic class in History)
Its fun to play the game...
Back to reality, no one advocated zero taxes, but as all true analysis shows (not your website, with a DNS Server listing as Antichrist. and Christ.) a point is reached with tax level and economic output where things level out (and the Government reaches maximum revenues). This isn't the high side or the low side, but some where in the middle. Given the current crunch right now you need to boost the Economic output, so you lower the taxes, allow the economy time to ramp up, then you begin to incrementally raise taxes if needed (dependent on spending), now if you as the government are spending less (why all the pork-barrel spending? creates no jobs), you do not need the revenue, or maybe you want it to pay down the debt much quicker, you can do this and while economic output will be retarded, it would be considered a bump in the road as you made sure to do this only when things are moving along robustly.
You problem right now comes in many facets, credit is hard to get, government is murky on regulations and taxes (we know about 5000 new regulations came from our beloved leaders this calendar year), and know really knows what that stupid disaster of a health care reform will cost (14 trillion was the last number I have heard). So when things get unstable and murky businesses must hold on to liquid assets (i.e. cash) before making investments in people and the like. A clear message and the backbone to do it would solve about half the problems in economy alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry - you did:
"Lowering Government expenditures has less negative impact on economy, and many benefits, but raising taxes has a short term improvement in government revenues, but retards the economy both short and long term)"
You didn't say "at current levels of expenditure" you made the statement as if it was universally true. If the statement is universally true then logic would drive spending and tax down to zero.
Once you admit that there is a sweet spot then it isn't enough just to make your original sweeping statement, you have to come up with some justification as to why the sweet spot is at lower levels of tax/spend rather than higher. That is a complicated argument beyond the scope of this forum and you certainly haven't offered enough evidence here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And and no faith at all, just look at the cold hard numerical facts from the reports, i recommend a compare and contrast of say Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton (the years, look at tax rates vs revenue vs GDP, as one simple comparison)
But oh wait your married to the idea of BIG Government and print our way free... no room for debate or free thought... le sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's just a matter of time until we ae downgraded to AA-check-minus!
And then it's just a slippery slope from there until AA-frownie-face!
Didn't you learn anything from elementary school quiz grading systems?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1
For a good time call (303) 499-7111
Marcel de Jong wrote:
"Well, I wouldn't trust the US government to give me the correct time of day"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much
i think you are completely out of line with your remarks. I am positive that the US government can give you the correct time of day. It's only a question of finding the right corporation to do the job, or perhaps forming a committee of in-house governmental experts on the subject of time, time-telling, and its implications thereof on the general public.
Giving the correct time is a mission that the US government can undertake and fulfill successfully, without raising the debt ceiling more than a few hundred billion dollars.
So shame on you, Marcel!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh, the housing market is just dandy, and here are some juicy mortgage derivatives you can bet the farm on-they're AAA+ credit worthy!"
Sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Today the credit rating of the US is reduced to AA+"
== "what we said yesterday was wrong"
So why should we believe them today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also how does using one experts opinion as fact based upon evidence change anything about our system? This is done throughout scientific communities, the preponderance of evidence says that asbestos is bad so it is made into law, the preponderance of evidence says that cigarettes are bad so we make it into law. The preponderance of evidence says investing in AAA rated institutions is the least amount of risk, especially for those most at risk. Not really different than anyone else, there are a lot of actuaries behind the downgrade and they deal in numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the cases of asbestos/cigarettes we make a specific pre-existing opinion into law.
With the ratings agencies we give them a blank cheque for any opinion they might come up with in the future. This is VERY different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People actually tried that one was the psychiatrists that thought they could diagnose people and were proven wrong in a spectacular way by means of the Rosenhan Experiment and by Greenspan absolute faith on Game Theory which is based on the sole assumption that everybody will do things because of their self interest but if ever some players become selfless those equations from the Nash Equilibrium become something else there can not be any other psychological items for it to work and if there are they fail spectacularly just like Greenspan failed to noticed that a financial market without regulation would fail spectacularly, the math is flawless the assumptions underlying that math are a problem though.
Trying to measure the level of what others will do or choose to do is not possible at the moment and I'm not sure it will ever be possible to quantify it, so I do agree with Mike that what those agencies do is to base things on guesses and politicians have made the dumb idiotic move of codifying it into law which as noted by some have real consequences for people.
Is like trying to estimate how much of a chance the US government had of pulling out of the ICBM Treaty, for 30 years nobody would have bet on it, but then came Bush Jr. and changed everything. So the USA can be triple-A but if some crazy dude comes along and decides the US needs to default to save its own ass that would make that rating meaningless.
Just trying to enforce your point there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsuprising really
The reasons for the changes in 1 direction or another rarely seem to make logical sense applied to the "real world" of products and services and people. So to me this kind of "Team America"-style hand-waving panic response is at the very heart of global economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Internal rating agency emails from before the time the credit markets deteriorated, discovered and released publicly by U.S. congressional investigators, suggest that some rating agency employees suspected at the time that lax standards for rating structured credit products would produce negative results.[7] For example, one email between colleagues at Standard & Poor's states "Rating agencies continue to create and [sic] even bigger monster--the CDO market. Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters."[8]"
source - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rating Firms Blew it Before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rating Firms Blew it Before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have over 2 Million dollars of wealth you get taxed at 2% of that wealth.
Income tax should be capped at 10% of the amount over 50K.
No deductions No expenses.
Companies get taxed at the same rate as individuals.
Then we deal with redistributive change, by getting rid of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A bonanza for the tax avoidance accountants.
I prefer Morton's Fork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grains of salt all round.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinions matter
The shadow is a fact. The interpretation is an expert opinion. Call the shadow our profligate government spending and debt load. The interpretation is the rubric by which a rating agency (expert opinion) assigns a particular rating.
Add to this phone call the knowledge that you have a family history of cancer and you've been living an extremely high-risk lifestyle for years. You've also had some severe symptoms the past three years or so. Would you get "worked up" about that phone call?
I'd like to say that I'd be completely calm and reasonable. But the stakes are high and this is not something I've personally dealt with, so who knows... At the very least, this is going to cost me more time and money, so it is already a real impact, regardless of the final outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't know what you're talking about again.
Normally I'm used to posting in response to your demonstrated ignorance on patents. It's nice to see that you're broadening your interests. Good for you!
It actually does make a difference. Some organizations have stated policies that say "thou shalt not own debt that is not AAA rated." So now all these people need to figure out whether they need to sell their U.S. treasury holdings, ignore the S&P rating in favor of Moody's rating (where that's an option), or amend their policy (so they can hold U.S. debt, and the debt of other AA+ rated countries). That probably translates into at least some selling.
Do you understand now how your claim is incorrect?
XXOO, Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
The fact is that the US government hasn't ever defaulted on a loan. That's why they had a AAA rating despite several trillion dollars of debt. Why allowing another trillion of debt (they don't actually owe that much more yet) changes that fact, I don't know.
So remember, if your job gets screwed by this downgrade, it's not the US government's fault (they'll be doing exactly what they've been doing before this) it's S&P's fault (and those that put too much stock in their opinion).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Just a little correction, the US also never paid any loans that they took, you can read all about it when other countries try to collect from the US government, they all complain that the hardest country to collect anything is called United States of America, it is also a meme on diplomatic U.N. corridors according to some inside sources(now retired sources probably).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Underhanded and unnecessary.
they need to sell their U.S. treasury holdings
They don't want to do that since they won't get face value.
ignore the S&P rating in favor of Moody's rating
This is what most organizations will probably end up doing. This doesn't force them to lose a ton of money short term, and still fits within their policy.
amend their policy
Most organizations won't change their policies. There's no point in having policies if you don't enforce them as they are.
Hugs,
TC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Since this whole debt ceiling/budget issue has blown-up there has been an immense amount of disinformation and word parsing to obfuscate what is really being said. The principle one being the phrase "debt reduction". There is NO proposed debt reduction. From what I can tell, the current plan of the Administration is to spend slightly less in the future than originally proposed. Since the Congress and the President have not proposed an honest or logical solution to deficit spending, a downgrade in the US credit rating would seem appropriate. (Even though the rating firms themselves have not exactly proven to be honest either.)
The misleading budget game plan exposed. As a quick allegorical summary. When Obama took office he proposed to buy an allegorical $100,000 luxury car, instead of (blame) Bush's $30,000 clunker of a car. The people get upset and begin to demand that Obama cut back on his proposed extravagant spending.
Obama comes back with a counter proposal to now buy a more modest $50,000 car. He then claims to have "saved" the American people $50,000. What is NOT mentioned is that he is still proposing to spend $20,000 more than originally proposed under (blame) Bush.
There will be NO reduction in the allegorical US credit card balance statement. If one keeps adding to their credit card balance, at some point - a lower credit score is justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Mike is talking about the insanity of allowing an opinion system dictating the very things you're talking about happening. Or, more accurately, he's talking about the insanity of allowing the opinion system create the worry that what you're talking about would happen. So, how is he wrong in that? Oh! Wait! It's an opinion! Impossible to be 'wrong'. Oops.
Opinions may be misinformed, but I certainly dont see anywhere (outside your opinion) that hes misinformed, so again, oops.
And congrats on the meta-fail logic there. First, attempting the logical fallacy of 'because Mike is wrong about patents, he must be wrong here', and dash in a bit of strawman since patents have nothing to do with this. And top that all off with the fact that "Mike is wrong about patents" is your opinion (evidenced by the fact that you support your claim with exactly nothing, but still say demonstrably wrong), and we have a nice pile of fail. Great way to start your week. Hopefully, nowhere to go but up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Ah, condescending opening that isn't just silly, but wrong. We've talked about financial stuff plenty over the years.
It actually does make a difference. Some organizations have stated policies that say "thou shalt not own debt that is not AAA rated." So now all these people need to figure out whether they need to sell their U.S. treasury holdings, ignore the S&P rating in favor of Moody's rating (where that's an option), or amend their policy (so they can hold U.S. debt, and the debt of other AA+ rated countries). That probably translates into at least some selling.
I love the fact that you claim I'm ignorant, and then as proof make a statement that is actually in my article.
I'll await your apology for commenting without reading.
Do you understand now how your claim is incorrect?
Considering you stated the same thing that's in my post, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't know what you're talking about again.
Great example by the way LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When The Establishment begins admitting problems, it's bad.
"...it's crazy to pretend that one company changing its opinion (just slightly) has any actual meaning."
The only thing backing Federal Reserve Notes (we don't HAVE dollars any more, people) is belief that those have value. I'd expect an "economist" to know about fiat currency. So a loss of trust in PAPER will ripple through. Collapse ould be quick, could be slow, but it's definitely been signaled.
You may have noticed Rosy Scenario has been the rule since the Reagan admin, so this change is alarming -- unless you've been awake for the last decade, then it's just next stage of a known program. Having saddled us with endless debt that's actually only on paper, they're getting people ready for the inevitable "austerity" program that reduces what we get from gov't. Not a dime less will be be spent on murdering foreigners who didn't attack the US, but Social Security and Medicare are now "on the table". -- From a supposed Democrat who isn't defending the foundations of the party. Obama is a just puppet of Wall Street as was Bush.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S7 P blame repubs
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=94855
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: S7 P blame repubs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Importance of rating agencies
However, as has been pointed out by Warren Buffet,this reduction makes no sense because the entire US debt is in US Dollars. To meet its debt payments (what the rating agencies are actually rating), it just needs to print more money. This would have negative effects on inflation, but that has little to do with the US' credit worthiness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Importance of rating agencies
Much like if I lent you a pound of wheat with the understanding that you'd give me two pounds back, but you ended up repaying me with only a pound and a half, you could consider such a thing a default on the original terms of the loan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real risk
Interest rates at 0%. The quantitative easing actions. Those are overt moves to devalue a currency.
Doing so has various positive effects. If the US devalues their currency, then US products become cheaper both at home, and abroad. That encourages people both inside and outside of the US to choose a US made product as opposed to a foreign product, either keeping that money in the US or bringing money from elsewhere into the US. Also, if money is easier to get (devalued), then entrepreneurs can more easily start up a company that produces jobs.
The trick is devaluing your currency at the right rate, first so you don't end up with too much inflation, and so other countries don't throw up tariffs or do the same thing back at you. Since this is a global recession, there obviously ends up being negotiations and agreements on how best to do these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real risk
Loss of revenues for the manufacturing and services, unless it is fallowed by increased consumption, which in the U.S. it ain't happening since the U.S. is considered to be at peak consumption times.
Devaluation means less expending since the money can buy less things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real risk
But there are also risks in not devaluing your currency.
And I'm not sure about what you're basing your ideas off of. Consumer spending (consumption) is waaay down from what it was, so we're obviously not at peak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total BS!
S&P should have been dragged up in front of Congress 2 years ago... and sued by every major institutional bond buyer out there!
These bozos (along with Moodys, Fitch, etc.) were giving piece of shit bond portfolios AAA ratings and are arguably the largest contributors to the global recession we now face. Why any person or institution now listens to their ratings is an absolute wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch the bond market collapse
All those banks and other financial institutions who are REQUIRED to hold onto a certain amount of AAA rated bonds are going to scramble to replace their former USA bonds with something that is still rated at AAA. These institutions are going to take a hard hit for selling bonds no one wants and buying bonds everyone suddenly needs. That will translate most likely to higher interest rates as well as other costs across the board (You didn't think these institutions would eat the difference did you?).
So hand wave today. And be proven FOS as the week progresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch the bond market collapse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch the bond market collapse
— Paul Krugman, Monday morning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch the bond market collapse
To be fair, most institutions that have requirements tend to focus on investment grade vs. non investment grade. S&P still says US is investment grade.
And, the point, again (as I raised in the post) is that any companies are required to have certain debt holdings based solely on the opinion of one firm with a bad track record
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, this will most likely mean that a lot of money will be soaked up, but in the long run, it's going to funnel money into the hands of individuals.
So, what I expect is a huge blow to the market, then a very slow but steady recovery once everyone realizes that this downgrade doesn't mean shit.
TC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only because we allow it to be.
I'm not saying that the opinion is valueless or uninformed... but instead of going all crazy over this and playing the blame game, how about we take a look at the numbers and see how to fix it or make a united stand behind 'the dollar' to show that the nation's faith isn't all that shaken by S&P's opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another facet of the Opinion Problem
I put it in the same hat as when oil prices rise because someone runs out of milk for their cereal one morning (exaggeration, I know... but you get what I'm saying). I understand that the Market is generally risk-adverse (or at least seems so now a days) and therefore errs on the side of caution... but this seems a little excessive. When in the middle of a recession (sorry, I don't feel like it's as over as they claim), wouldn't it make much more sense to say "ok, so S&P is down a grade... keep calm & carry on" so that the situation does not grow worse?
Or, to put it another way...
Choice 1: Buy into the S&P hype and definitely make things worse or,
Choice 2: Ignore the S&P and maybe suffer the consequences of buying into 'bad debt' (or whatever), which I don't think all economists agree with S&P on anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another facet of the Opinion Problem
You've forgotten one of the rules.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. - Keynes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another facet of the Opinion Problem
And ultimately, I was hoping to illustrate my concern over us perpetuating a system that is not even going to give us the opportunity to make the choice. Because we've put so much weight behind this opinion, we can't even choose to forge ahead in spite of the new 'poorer rating' because we're all too bogged down in the mire of "OMG What does it mean!?!" running about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even Weirder!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually hilarious is more like it.
All those left wing nut cases who post here believing that
"my means that I worked so hard for should go to support some lay about because that person has needs" are now up in arms about the simple fact that there are only two sources of income for the average person - the fruits of their current labor and the fruits of their past labor.
Future labor can be mortgaged to support present consumption up to a point but after that point there is insufficient potential future income to support the very necessities of life. At that point future income can not support additional current consumption.
If it stop there it would be tragic for that person as that person would have effective sold himself into slavery much like the so current crop of called so called elitists are doing with college loans. Maybe some day they can pay then off but I dough it unless there is a high rate of unanticipated inflation but that is there business and if that is what they want, to be a slave, it is of no concern of mine.
Where it gets ridiculous is when they expect me to work my life away supporting myself and my family so that they can charge me high taxes as a means of wealth transfer so that they or others can lay about.
The problem in a net shell is that those who have the ability to manage a business do not feel that they should work for others and get nothing for their effort while the majority lay about. So they don't. They set down. Because they can see that if they do work the system will simply take their work away and give it to some lay about.
And, since the managers of business do not want to work there is a high rate of unemployment. As there is no need for marginal help, off they go to the unemployment line.
But!It is morally unacceptable that people should have unfulfilled needs so governments steps in and supports these needs. All needs must be fulfilled anything less is not acceptable.
Now since the producers are not producing and there are unfulfilled needs and insufficient taxes to meet these needs there are only two acceptable solutions raises taxes, or borrow against producers future production. Under either solution producers income is reduces so producers do exactly wat slaves always do, work and produce as little as possible to get by which starts a down ward spiral. Producers stop producing as much as previously as they have no desire to be slaves, tax income current or future decreases so taxes are increased again to cover current needs.
It is hilarious.
The psychology was proven to be false centuries before the Romans tried it. [We just have better records of what the Romans did than their precursors so we have no idea of how far back the proof of the failure actually was with cave man the most likely source.] It did not work with chains in the Old South. It did not work in Soviet Russia. Nor is current form of bondage sponsored by the elitist left of government ownership and control of the means of production to support a group of lay about working.
No one in their right mind is going to spend their life working and get nothing so that a lay-abouts can continuously sponge off of them making then into nothing more than slaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
transl..
"If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
Thank you Mr Scrooge....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now when these people rate a country, bond, company, etc it determines interest rates because the market puts their faith in the opinion of the big three and as consequence their opinion is made fact.
I mean no disrespect but stick to copyright because your grasp of macroeconomics seem slightly askew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick PANIC!
Lets focus on what could happen, rather then have a rational discussion about what we should do next. Lets get a bunch of "experts" to come on TV and talk about how this is the fault of either side of the political spectrum, and what terrible thing could befall us next. Whose fault is it? We must know these things!!
Who cares whose fault it is. Getting to the bottom of that is not constructive and does not help us in any way shape or form. Depending on who you talk to this could be Obama's fault. It could be a further extension of a problem which was Bush's fault. Some can even go all the way back to say that this is actually Clinton's fault. Was it Reid or Boehner? What is Cantor or Pelosi? Perhaps Bernanke or Geinhtner.
Who's fault it is and the search for them is a waste of time and futher resourses we claim not to have. We need a solution. Not a tea party solution. Not a leftist solution. We need an actual solution. Both sides must act their age and do what is best for the country, not what is best for their reelection. They need to stop listening to the lobbyists and start listening to the experts. Assemble the economic department heads from Harvard, Standford, USC (FIGHT ON!), Columbia, Brown, NYU, MIT, and Princeton. Get them in a room together and give them the books. Ask them what they think, and what can we do. Call out the companies who are defrauding our nation, and wasting our tax dollars. We should no longer care what Bank of America, Wells Fargo, or any other corporate bank thinks. They are their for themselves and only themselves.
This is not a time to talk party lines or worry about where you might be working in the next 2 years. Worry about us (taxpayers/citizens) like you are supposed too. Do the job you were elected to do, Not the one you were payed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quick PANIC!
We need transparency in the budget. Once the public sees where their tax dollars are going, they will or will not have confidence in the markets backed by the govt and the ratings agencies can go suck it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reputation Ruining Industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but but but.
that said what other posters have said about the ratings requirements, and the abilities of the companies to rate, still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all of this, I sing the comedian Kevin Meany's song
repeat chorus
Works for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, the markets weren't fooled: they know that austerity measures will result in deflation and a depressed economy, and that whatever the letters are that S&P has assigned, US government debt is still just about the safest investment around. The result: interest rates down (i.e. the government can borrow more cheaply since the downgrade) as people buy more bonds, stocks down as people sell them to buy bonds.
Basically, the bond market knows that S&P is full of crap, and that they and all the other deficit hawks are ignoring the real problems with the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]