As a political moderate, I certainly do not agree with any of those positions (indeed, I find them morally repugnant). However, the purpose of this post is not to criticize any of the listed views of Donald Trump. Instead, I want to discuss one of Trump's outlandish positions that is unlike the others.
What distinguishes the position I have in mind is that it is one from which Trump cannot ever back away effectively. That matters because mainstream conservatives appear to believe that Trump will soon moderate his stances on these issues in order to make himself more electable to moderates (like myself). Whether he will do so remains to be seen, but the Republican establishment appears hopeful that Trump will repudiate his endorsements of those positions that are well outside the norms of American political beliefs, including all of those listed above (war crimes, religious persecution, torture, etc.).
What distinguishes the position I have in mind is that it is not one where Trump can undo the damage simply by backing away. For issues like war crimes or torture, if Trump changes position, becomes president, and never carries out his earlier proposals, you can argue that no real harm was done. No crimes were committed. No one was tortured. While his statements were disturbing, the damage pales in comparison to that of actually carrying out these ideas. So if he were to back away and never follow through, one could argue that there was little harm done.
For one of his proposals, however, I will argue that the damage is already done merely by it's suggestion. That proposal is the idea of defaulting on the US debt.
Before I begin in earnest, let me note that Trump was careful to avoid the word "default". That word has a negative connotations. Instead, he suggested that we "re-negotiate" our debt. However, the latter is something that occurs in default, so he is simply skipping mention of the step that sounds bad, despite the fact that it occurs before the part he did mention.
At present, US debt has the highest possible credit rating. It is referred to as "risk-free" because, while not literally risk free, it is believed to have less risk than any other financial asset. One key reason for that belief is that US government, regardless of which party is in control, has continued to publicly state that it would not, under any circumstances, default on that debt. It is generally believed that, in the worst case, rather than default, the US would increase taxes on its citizens in order to make good on the payments it has promised to debt holders.
The benefit of the belief that US debt is "risk-free" is that there is a large market for that debt. A great many individuals, corporations, and governments want to purchase our debt because they wish to avoid risk. As a result, the US is able to issue debt (i.e., sell bonds) at very low prices, meaning that the interest payments for the US are smaller than those of countries whose debt is seen as riskier.
The effects of low interest rates are probably familiar to anyone who owns a home (or who finances the purchase of a car): the lower the interest rate, the lower the monthly payment. Hence, the US has lower monthly payments per dollar of debt than most other countries in the world, which means we get to keep more of our money to spend on services for US citizens.
The key part of this for our discussion is that the interest rate on US debt is driven by perceived risk. The US pays a low rate because investors believe that debt is risk-free. If they start to worry that there is risk of default (even a little), then rates start to increase.
That may not sound so bad, but worries about default often become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When fewer investors want to buy, interest rates go up, which means the US has to pay more, which increases the risk of default.
Cosmo: ... Everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality...
Bishop: but on the perception of reality.
Cosmo: Posit: people think a bank might be financially shaky.
Bishop: Consequence: people start to withdraw their money.
Cosmo: Result: pretty soon it is financially shaky.
-- Sneakers (1992)If you want a real world example of this, see the crisis of confidence in Greek debt that led to its default in 2012.
While Trump may furiously back-pedal on his suggestion of defaulting on US debt, as Cosmo noted in Sneakers, financial markets operate not on reality but on the perception of reality. If worldwide investors believe that there is even a small increase in real risk of default due to Trump becoming president, then interest rates will start to rise if he is elected. (Indeed, even Trump's nomination may cause an increase in perceived risk of default.)
That perception has real world consequences. In the short run, our debt will be harder to pay off, which means there will be less money remaining for services benefiting US citizens. In the long run, the risk of actual default will undoubtedly increase as well.
As hard as Trump may try to disavow this proposal, his one-time suggestion of default is a permanent stain on his candidacy that I do not believe can ever be fully erased.
No comments:
Post a Comment