The
Theory of Inevitable Compromise, and why it is probably
wrong
Dicing
with debt and the future
The
Economist, July 14, 2011
“We
have a system of government in which everybody has to give a
little bit.” So said Barack Obama at the start of this
week. But parse that sentence. Does the president mean that
America already has a system in which everybody has to give
a little bit? Or does he mean only that it ought to have
such a system? It is not too much to say that the
country’s economic well–being hangs on the answer.
As
the whole world knows, America’s government is in danger
of defaulting after August 2nd unless Congress raises the
federal debt ceiling so that it can keep borrowing enough to
pay its bills. For a while the markets assumed that because
a default would be so scary, Republicans and Democrats would
have in the end to agree on the spending cuts the
Republican–controlled House demanded as its price for
raising the ceiling. The Theory of Inevitable Compromise was
that each party would have to give a bit because voters will
punish whichever proves too stubborn. But here are eight
reasons to wonder whether the theory is true.
First,
for the theory to work, both parties need to believe that
failing to raise the ceiling will trigger a default and the
“huge financial calamity” Ben Bernanke, the chairman of
the Fed, gave warning of this week. Not all Republicans do
believe that. John Boehner, the House speaker, is a
believer, but the freshmen who bobbed into Congress last
November on a tidal wave of tea are not. Some say that the
government could keep paying foreign creditors by slashing
domestic spending, and that this would be just fine—even
though Mr Obama refuses to guarantee even that Social
Security (pension) cheques would go out without a deal.
Second,
the Republicans are divided among themselves. The party’s
leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, has aired a
convoluted last–ditch plan that would avert a default by
letting Mr Obama increase the ceiling even without a
spending agreement between the parties, provided he makes
cuts of the same size. Senior Democrats have welcomed the
idea, but Eric Cantor, the Republican majority leader in the
House, has not. Mr Cantor had already rejected Mr
Boehner’s secretive attempt to negotiate what could have
been an historic bargain with Mr Obama embracing a higher
tax take (anathema to Republicans) as well as vast
reductions in entitlement spending (music to their ears).
Noises
off are the third problem. Outside Congress, the
Republicans’ presidential wannabes are taking up their
starting positions for 2012. Craving power but not yet
possessing it, these hopefuls are not constrained by
responsibility. Indeed, further economic trouble on Mr
Obama’s watch might suit them nicely. Whether for this
reason or from conviction, most profess themselves unfazed
by the prospect of a failure to raise the debt ceiling. Newt
Gingrich called Mr McConnell’s last resort “an
irresponsible surrender to big government”. Michele
Bachmann says she is proud never to have voted for raising
the debt ceiling in the past.
Fourth,
the Theory of Inevitable Compromise holds that fear of the
voters will push the parties together. But which voters?
Candidates in the general election of November 2012 would
not want to be thought reckless. That election, however, is
an age away. Republican candidates and the new House members
are now fixated not on voters in general, who want the
parties to co–operate, but on the more ideological ones
who will vote in the primaries. Many of these do not want
the debt ceiling to rise.
Why
not? In part because, fifth, the theory assumes that voters
understand what the debt ceiling is. This assumption is
almost certainly false. Many are under the misapprehension
that it is a vote to authorise new spending, not permission
to pay the bills that this and earlier Congresses have
already run up. According to Gallup, 60% of Republicans, 46%
of independents and 21% of Democrats oppose increasing the
debt ceiling at all.
Just
crying wolf
Couldn’t
politicians explain things better? Dream on. The sixth
argument against the Theory of Inevitable Compromise is the
virtual impossibility in today’s polarised America of
shaping a consensus. In the 1930s Franklin Roosevelt
delivered soothing chats explaining the theory of banking.
But the president’s bully pulpit is not what it was before
the rise of partisan cable television and the cacophony of
the blogosphere empowered the obfuscators. For every
commentator wringing his hands over the danger of default,
another accuses the “liberals” of crying wolf.
Seventh,
the listless state of the economy makes it hard for
politicians of both parties to do the hard things that are
needed to reduce the deficit. The Republicans say rightly
that increasing the tax burden would damage jobs and growth.
Democrats are right to retort that so would the spending
cuts the Republicans want.
Last,
and most important, both sides have made a stand on
principles that will be hard to abandon without losing face.
The Republicans’ is that there can be no increase in tax
revenues, because that is how public spending ratchets ever
higher. The Democrats’ is that a deal that reduces the
deficit by spending cuts alone would fall too heavily on the
most vulnerable Americans.
Over
the past few weeks, however, Mr Obama has at least shown
himself open to compromise, by proposing a mix of spending
cuts and tax increases, tilted heavily towards the former.
By midweek, a few anxious Republican voices were beginning
to argue that their side had held firm long enough, and had
better bend too if it did not want to be blamed for the
approaching calamity. Senator McConnell said that a default
could “destroy” the Republican brand. But the zealots in
the House were continuing to stand firm as the clock ticked
down. On July 13th Moody’s put the United States on review
for a downgrade. This is a season of dangerous brinkmanship
in America. Compromise may still be possible, but there is
nothing inevitable about it.
Cesación de pagos de EEUU
Un escenario improbable, pero también
de alcance imprevisible
Por Javier Blanco
La Nación, 16/07/11
La posibilidad de que Estados Unidos
incurra, dentro de dos semanas, en un default si no se
flexibilizan los topes que su Tesoro tiene habilitados para
financiarse con endeudamiento es considerada "altamente
improbable" por los analistas locales.
No lo creen posible. De hecho,
convocados por La Nación para plantear escenarios sobre su
posible impacto sobre la Argentina, los analistas no
lograron bosquejarlos más allá de advertir que se estaría
ante una interrupción en el sistema internacional de pagos
de imprevisibles consecuencias sobre la economía real.
"Sería el evento más grave a
nivel global en términos macroeconómicos que me pueda
imaginar. Algo comparable a un golpe climático que, de
repente, afecte a todo el mundo y haga bajar la temperatura
promedio en el Ecuador a 10 grados bajo cero", graficó
Alejandro Bianchi, analista de InvertirOnline.com.
"Abriría un nuevo paradigma
global con profundas implicancias en los flujos financieros
y comerciales que podrían resultar caóticas", juzgó,
por su parte, el consultor Gustavo Ber.
"Es muy poco probable", dice
Javier Salvucci, del Silver Cloud. "Sería como pensar
en qué hacer después de suicidarse", citó en su último
informe la consultora Delphos, al repasar esa posibilidad
citando a un analista de Wall Street y recogiendo el ánimo
del mercado.
La baja chance de ocurrencia que le
asignan a este fenómeno los analistas locales está en línea
con la que evalúan los grandes inversores con sus apuestas
de mercado. Después de todo, los títulos de deuda que
emite ese Tesoro siguen siendo considerados eventuales
seguros.
"No parece probable un default de
Estados Unidos. No es parte de su ADN", dice el ex
viceministro de Economía y actual jefe de Quantum Finanzas,
Daniel Marx, para quien, "de ocurrir, la Argentina
estaría afectada en sus aspectos comerciales y de cobranzas
en el exterior".
"Ni la voluntad ni la capacidad de
pago de Estados Unidos están en duda, más allá de
circunstanciales incumplimientos técnicos como ya
sucedieron por restricciones legales", coincide Ber, al
aludir a lo que podría pasar desde el 2 de agosto.
La negativa a imaginar ese escenario
responde a que, con un default, Estados Unidos pondría en
riesgo la valiosa potestad de imprimir más y más dólares
que ganó por décadas y tan útil le fue en los últimos años
para no repetir la experiencia de la crisis del 30. Es, ni más
ni menos, que a lo que Ben Bernanke alude cuando lo compara
con un "suicidio".
Igual valoración realizan los
inversores. "Si bien ayer el costo del seguro contra
default norteamericano se elevó de 40 a 55 puntos, muy
lejos del de Grecia (2364); Irlanda (1082); Portugal (1094);
Italia (285) y España (323), y revela que aún el mercado
piensa que los bonos estadounidenses siguen siendo los más
seguros del mundo", apunta Ber.
Traducidos en porcentajes esos precios
dicen que el mercado asigna una probabilidad de ocurrencia
de default superior al 76% en Irlanda; al 54%, en Portugal,
y en torno al 17%, para España e Italia. Pero de apenas
4,7%, para Estados Unidos.
|