IPA Newspack
  • Home
  • now
  • politics
  • business
  • markets

IPA /

IPA Special

IPA Special

US Debt Ceiling Programme Of President Joe Biden Is Beset With Contradictions

By Prabhat Patnaik

Under pressure from globalised finance capital, most countries of the world have enacted legislation fixing the size of the fiscal deficit as a proportion of GDP; generally it is 3 percent, and in India it is 3 per cent for the centre and 3 per cent for the states. The US however has no such legislation; instead what it has is a ceiling on the absolute stock of public debt that can be held at any point of time. This is a very odd procedure, for as the economy grows, this ceiling has to be revised, and, not surprisingly, since 1960 the debt ceiling has been raised, revised or extended 78 times.

It currently stands at $31.4 trillion; and this limit has been reached, forcing the Biden administration to approach Congress to raise it. But the Congress dominated by the Republicans refuses to do so in a routine manner; it insists on certain budgetary cuts being carried out, which Biden, though willing to negotiate after the ceiling is raised, is unwilling to do as a precondition for it. This is the cause of the present impasse. Unless it is resolved, the Biden administration is holding out the prospects of a default on interest payments on past public debt, and on salaries for government employees.

There are two separate issues here. One relates to the rationale for government borrowing. When a government borrows rather than raising tax revenue for financing its expenditure, this fact is indicative of its unwillingness to tax the rich. In the US, as everywhere else in the world, the period of neoliberal capitalism has witnessed a substantial increase in income and wealth inequality, and raising taxes on the rich, whether through the corporate profit tax or through a wealth tax, should be the obvious way of raising resources to finance government expenditure.

Balancing public expenditure with equivalent taxation, even if levied on the rich, will not reduce wealth inequality. Since the working people are more or less constrained to balance their income with their consumption, it is the rich who carry out the bulk of the savings in any economy. Government spending of, say, $100, if financed by borrowing, puts an additional savings of $100 into the hands of the rich (if we ignore foreign transactions for a moment), without their having done anything to earn these extra $100, which the government then borrows. Expenditure financed by borrowing therefore increases wealth inequality, while expenditure financed by taxation does not. Expenditure financed by equivalent taxation simply leaves wealth inequality where it was to start with.

The fact that neither the Biden administration nor the Republican-majority Congress is considering heavier taxation of the rich, is symptomatic of complete bourgeois dominance over US politics; they both conduct the debate leaving out this alternative. Biden issues dire threats about government employees going without salaries, never once mentioning the possibility of raising taxes on the rich; and the Republicans never once justify their intransigence by suggesting that taxes on the rich should be raised instead.

All this is hardly surprising in the leading bourgeois economy of the world. There is however a second issue here that merits attention. Going beyond the immediate disagreement between the Biden administration and the Republicans, there is a deeper underlying difference in economic understanding and economic strategy. The two approaches can be called respectively the “liberal bourgeois” and “orthodox bourgeois” approaches.

The former has an awareness of the long-term impasse to which neoliberal capitalism has entered; and would like a revival of Keynesian policies in the US. It is not averse to enlarging the fiscal deficit, for which the debt-ceiling has to be revised. Of course its demand to raise the debt-ceiling is not motivated directly or immediately by the desire to adopt expansionary policies; but the demand to raise this ceiling and its outlook on the need for expansionary policies are interlinked. True, such policies have been put on the backburner at present because of the upsurge in inflation that has occurred in the US and in the world as a whole.

The “liberal bourgeois” approach does not see inflation control as the sole or over-riding objective of economic policy. A reduction in unemployment and the achievement of a high level of economic activity are also considered important policy objectives; these will come on to the agenda the moment inflation has been reduced to “manageable” levels. It follows that while inflation-control remains a matter of immediate concern, the imposition, for this purpose, of an acute recession on the economy through a drastic curtailment of government expenditure is sought to be avoided.

By contrast, the “orthodox bourgeois” position sees inflation control as the over-riding objective. It favours cuts in government expenditure incurred on “transfers” to the working people, or on welfare schemes meant for them. These cuts are thought of as necessary not just for achieving control over inflation but as a perennial feature of economic policy.

Keynes himself had to contend with this “orthodox bourgeois” position, articulated in his time by City of London, the financial centre of Britain. In fact, the point of his theory was to show that in a situation of unemployment and unutilised capacity, namely in a situation of demand constraint, a fiscal deficit, ignoring possible balance of payments implications, does no harm whatsoever (other than increasing wealth inequality when compared to tax financed government spending, as noted above); it certainly does not “crowd out” private investment as the City of London and the British Treasury (influenced by the City) were arguing.

Keynes himself was a defender of the capitalist system. But he was writing in the shadow of the Bolshevik Revolution, and he believed that unless the system provided higher employment, the disgruntled workers, inspired by the Soviet example, would overthrow the system. In fact, the main difference between the “orthodox bourgeois” position (reminiscent of that of the City in the 1930s) and the “liberal bourgeois” position (whose lineage can be traced back to Keynes), lies precisely in this: the former believes in coercion, including through a massive reserve army of labour, to cow down workers into acquiescing in the preservation of the system, while the latter believes in enlisting workers’ support, through the avoidance of massive unemployment and through appropriate “transfers” towards them, for the system’s preservation.

It is these two differing perspectives that are implicit in the current American debate over raising the debt-ceiling. The “liberal bourgeois” position which entails significant State intervention in the capitalist system runs contrary to the spontaneous tendencies of capitalism; this is why Keynesianism was overthrown by the neoliberal regime in the first place. The attempt to revive it when neoliberalism has run into a dead-end, will also run into severe contradictions, and will be a still-born one.

I shall mention just one particular contradiction here. The balance of payments implications of a fiscal deficit were mentioned above in passing; to the extent that the demand caused by larger US government spending partly “leak out” abroad, in the form of higher import demand, when such spending is financed by larger borrowing, it enlarges the balance of payments deficit. Larger, borrowing-financed, government spending therefore presupposes that foreigners are willing to hold US government bonds against the extra goods they sell to meet this higher US import demand.

This presupposition of course is valid as long as the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, considered universally to be “as good as gold”. But if the US imposes sanctions, not just against an odd “hostile” country, but against scores of countries, then it begins to wear thin. In fact, three things happen: first, the US forgoes the possibility of importing from these countries, which means a rise in its cost of production, and a continuation of inflationary pressures. Secondly, it encourages the getting together of “sanctioned” and “non-sanctioned” countries to form bilateral arrangements that eliminate the dollar as medium of circulation and hence reduce the willingness of all these countries to hold dollar-denominated assets. And third, the fact that a country that holds dollar-denominated assets may suddenly face sanctions which “lock” its holding of such assets, preventing their use by it, also increasingly makes the dollar an unattractive currency to hold.

An obvious problem with the “liberal bourgeois” position of the Biden administration is that its bourgeois liberalism is at sharp variance with its “sanctions” against a large chunk of the world that area fall-out of “neo-con” imperialist aggressiveness. The US cannot ride for long a Keynesian and a “neo-con” boat simultaneously in today’s world. (IPA Service)

Courtesy: People’s Democracy

 

IPA Special

Nepalese Prime Minister’s Four Day Visit Bring Ties With India Closer

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

What Will Be India’s Response To US’s Bid To Offer NATO+ Membership

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Narendra Modi Has Been Most Successful In Using Technology For Governance

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Law Commission Parrots Views Of BJP, RSS Rather Than An Expert View

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Rahul Gandhi’s Alternative Vision Can Be A Good Basis For June 12 Discussion

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Labour Market Recovery Still Under Hostage Of Multiple Crises

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Erdogan’s Presidential Win Is A Clear Loss For People Of Turkiye

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

July 23 General Election In Spain Is The Test Of Left For Its Political Survival

June 3, 2023
Happening Now

One of Independent India’s worst rail accidents

June 3, 2023
Politics

Cong slams BJP for criticising Rahul’s remark on IUML

June 3, 2023
Politics

SGPC flays Rahul Gandhi statement about Guru Nanak

June 3, 2023
Politics

Kejriwal asks Cong to choose between Constitution and Modi

June 3, 2023
Politics

‘Free power’ parties will have to pay some way: Minister

June 3, 2023
IPA Special

Opposition Can Follow A Five-Point Approach To Defeat BJP In 2024 Lok Sabha Polls

June 2, 2023
IPA Special

Bigger Muslim Support To The Congress In Karnataka Poll Is A Positive Signal For 2024

June 2, 2023
IPA Special

Kejriwal Gathering Opposition’s Support Against Centre’s Ordinance

June 2, 2023
IPA Special

Modi Govt Is Planning To Make Sedition Law Stricter Before 2024 Polls

June 2, 2023
IPA Special

‘Deglobalisation’ Talk By Experts Means Tendency Of Western Powers To Discriminate Against China

June 2, 2023
IPA Special

Bengal BJP Revamps Its Campaign Strategy Focusing On Both Left And TMC

June 2, 2023
Happening Now

Law Commission backs sedition law with tougher punishment

June 2, 2023

An appeal

The legacy of IPA, founded by Nikhil Chakravartty, the doyen of journalism in India, to keep the flag of independent media flying high, is facing the threat of extinction due to the effect of the Covid pandemic. Only an emergency funding can avert such an eventuality. We appeal to all those who believe in the freedom of expression to contribute to this noble cause.
Click here to learn more

Share

Reply

  • 0
More on IPA

Nepalese Prime Minister’s Four Day Visit Bring Ties With India Closer

June 3, 2023 5:00 pm | IPA Staff

By Arun Kumar Shrivastav During his 4-day India visit, Nepalese Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal completed formal engagements with the Indian leadership and is visiting...

IPA Special

What Will Be India’s Response To US’s Bid To Offer NATO+ Membership

June 3, 2023 3:37 pm | IPA Staff

By Girish Linganna In what could be a significant turning point in global geopolitics, the United States is reportedly contemplating extending an invitation to India...

IPA Special

Narendra Modi Has Been Most Successful In Using Technology For Governance

June 3, 2023 3:35 pm | IPA Staff

By Harihar Swarup Prime Minister Narendra Modi has completed his Ninth Year as Prime Minister. Look at how he has already left his imprint on...

IPA Special

Law Commission Parrots Views Of BJP, RSS Rather Than An Expert View

June 3, 2023 3:34 pm | IPA Staff

By K Raveendran The Law Commission has taken a political stand in its report about sedition rather than a policy stand, which a body of...

IPA Special

Nepalese Prime Minister’s Four Day Visit Bring Ties With India Closer

in IPA Special
Jun 3, 2023   ·  

What Will Be India’s Response To US’s Bid To Offer NATO+ Membership

in IPA Special
Jun 3, 2023   ·  

Narendra Modi Has Been Most Successful In Using Technology For Governance

in IPA Special
Jun 3, 2023   ·  

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow us on
Up Next: Saving The Public Sector Banks From Privatisation Is The Prime National Task
©2020 -2021 India Press Agency, All Rights Reserved.
Newspack by India Press Agency | Statement of Ownership | Contact Us
logo
  • Home
  • now
  • politics
  • business
  • markets