At Ecological Headstand, the Sandwichman has been documenting the plagiarism by Oslo mass murderer, Anders Breivik, and it’s relationship to the broader context of the right-wing boilerplate propaganda echo chamber. Yesterday, I traced the “scholarly apparatus” of Patriick J. Buchanan’s The Death of the West to the same illegitimate William S. Lind/Raymond V. Raehn sources as the Breivik manifesto.
What does this have to do with economic commentary. A lot, it turns out. The same make shit up, spread it around and repeat, repeat, repeat, animates what passes for economic discourse in the U.S. The anti-intellectual tradition that sanctions the lie and slander agitators suppresses thoughtful discussion of policy realities and options. The recent debt ceiling fiasco, with its subtheme of social securty and medicare de-funding is only an example. The lump-of-labor canard that the Sandwichman writes about is another enduring case.
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism features a worthwhile post by Matt Stoller that reviews the historical influence of S&P in overturning consumer protection laws against predatory lending in GA. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/matt-stoller-standard-poor’s-predatory-policy-agenda.html
This agency had a clear agenda in keeping the game going as far back as 2003. The presumption of Friday’s downgrade of the american electorate (I can’t evaluate their action under any other guise) is just part and parcel of that anti citizen strategery.
S&P CREDIT RATING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 5 AUGUST 2011
Apparently, Angry Bear main posters aren’t interested thus far in providing the background for or discussion of the S&P downgrade of the United States of America’s credit rating. As odd as that is, let’s fill the information gap on this issue.
Here are the S&P key documents that cover everything from Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions to the list of reports on the United States of America published since April 2011.
I recommend reviewing the rating methodology info under Basics of Sovereign Ratings before reading the USA reports. It’s apparent that some individuals publicly discussing the USA credit rating downgrade have no idea what methodology is being employed.
Also included are text documents for the Budget Control Act of 2011, CBO’s analysis of that legislation, and FY2012 federal budget information from OMB and CBO as well as CBO’s latest long term budget outlook.
S&P Credit Rating of the United States of America, 5 August 2011:
The following provisions are included in the Sovereigns link. All documents listed below have embedded links.
1. THE BASICS OF SOVEREIGN RATINGS
Standard & Poor’s appraisal of each sovereign’s overall creditworthiness focuses on political and economic risks and is both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative aspects of the analysis incorporate a number of measures of economic performance, although judging the integrity of the data is a more qualitative matter. The analysis is also qualitative due to the importance of political and policy developments and because Standard & Poor’s ratings indicate future debt-service capacity.
– Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions (June 30, 2011)
2. SOVEREIGN RATINGS, HISTORIES, AND RATING LIST
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services rate 126 sovereign governments.
– Sovereign Ratings and Country T&C Assessments (Aug. 5, 2011)
– Sovereign Rating And Country T&C Assessment Histories (Aug. 3, 2011)
3. RECENT SOVEREIGN RATING ACTIONS AND COMMENTARY
– Fiscal Challenges Weighing On The ‘AAA’ Sovereign Credit Rating On The Government Of The United States (April 18, 2011)
– A Closer Look At The Revision Of The Outlook On The U.S. Government Rating (April 18, 2011)
– United States of America ‘AAA/A-1+’ Rating Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Negative (April 18, 2011)
– Corporate And Government Ratings That Exceed The Sovereign Rating (June 3, 2011)
– United States of America ‘AAA/A-1+’ Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate (July 14, 2011)
– United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative (Aug. 5, 2011)
On the S&P rating I say given how badly they screwed up rating the CDO’s and the like its not clear that they have any credibitility. In addition given that the Fed and the Government own a logical printing press dollar demonitated debt need never not be paid back. (Yes there might be inflation but thats not the issue here). Of course in addition who is big enough to provide a safer place for money, Switzerland? I suspect that sooner or later the AAA rating will become extinct (it almost has for corporate bonds).
It is apparent that some individuals complaining about the S&P rating haven’t bothered to read the Sovereign methodology and assumptions that S&P provides at its website. Similarly, it is clear that they didn’t bother to read the S&P document file that begins back in April 2011 on matters related to the S&P credit rating of the United States of America. It is really all a matter of effort and research. There’s not much of that in play. These problems have been evident in many individuals’ public responses provided in interviews, statements, articles, and blog posts. Some of the personal remarks have been laughable.
There is a pathetic level of ignorance, immaturity, and political ideology bashing occurring which has very little to do with the S&P rating. A number of outright lies have been told during the last 48 hours including statements from some U.S. Government officials. Moreover, the Obama Administration demonstrated its immaturity on Friday when unnamed representatives launched a preemptive attack on S&P leadership prior to the release of the S&P credit rating report on the United States of America. Meanwhile, the President of the United States of America has failed to render a public statement. I am confident that the President will speak this week, but he needs to get his house in order. There is an astonishing lack of leadership and integrity in play.
Leaders around the world have set a serious, measured tone in their remarks. This is in sharp contract with the embarrassing immaturity being demonstrated by some public figures here in the United States. There are some Government officials who have provided statements that measure up to the bar of expectation in public remarks. I will probably cite some of their statements later on. I certainly applaud their efforts.
The downgrading of the credit rating of the United States of America shall provide an opportunity for American and global citizens to determine whether the U.S. Government will get its fiscal house in order or continue to let it burn, with consequences not only for this nation but nations around the world. All while some hillbilly idiots on both U.S. coasts continue to scoff at the idea that there is any needed urgency.
This is one of those events that separates the men and women from the boys and girls. We are going to find out who the real leaders are, in Government, industry, and all throughout the nation. The same will apply to the blogs if any leaders are to be found.
The second rate cartoons are over. The main feature is about to begin.
S&P is not rating the creditworthiness of the sovereign government. They are rating the stability and effectiveness of the congress and administration and by extension the electorate.
Presumptious doesn’t cover it. As Harry Shearer joked on his show today, who rates the raters? Does S&P qualify as AAA? Their actions beg the question.
Okay MG I looked at the methodology and what I can find about the reliability and validity of the ratings metric. From what I’ve seen, I cannot empirically justify applying to sovereign countries the many ordinal categories on the ratings scale. The methodology can credibly distinguish between, say, the AAA country and the BB country, even though all categories may overstate the risk relative to other investment vehicles. However, there is no reason to believe that the precision of the country ratings has any predictive value whatsoever. They should use a smaller number of categories for sovereign countries. Consequently, the downgrading from AAA to AA+ is meaningless, deserves to be inconsequential, and should not occur. On the other hand, the “negative outlook” is an appropriate warning: if trends continue, a significant/meaningful downgrading may be deserved.
You apparently didn’t understand the complete basis for the S&P downgrade. Pretending that S&P only rated the effectiveness of the U.S. Congress and Obama Administration most certainly ignores the fact that the United States Government was on an unsustainable fiscal path prior to the economic recession and release of the S&P credit report as acknowledged by the U.S. Treasury, CBO, Congress, and the President.
“The five key factors that form the foundation of our sovereign credit analysis are: · Institutional effectiveness and political risks, reflected in the political score. · Economic structure and growth prospects, reflected in the economic score. · External liquidity and international investment position, reflected in the external score. · Fiscal performance and flexibility, as well as debt burden, reflected in the fiscal score. · Monetary flexibility, reflected in the monetary score.”
“Under our revised base case fiscal scenario–which we consider to be consistent with a ‘AA+’ long-term rating and a negative outlook–we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act’s revised policy settings.”
“Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.”
“When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the […]
Which of the following five S&P Sovereign methodology categories of measurement would you eliminate?
“The five key factors that form the foundation of our sovereign credit analysis are: · Institutional effectiveness and political risks, reflected in the political score. · Economic structure and growth prospects, reflected in the economic score. · External liquidity and international investment position, reflected in the external score. · Fiscal performance and flexibility, as well as debt burden, reflected in the fiscal score. · Monetary flexibility, reflected in the monetary score.”
I wouldn’t eliminate any of them. I would add another category: fiscal performances of substate units (the 50 States of the United States of America).
I disagree with your claim that a downgrade from AAA to AA+ is meaningless and should not occur. AAA does have special meaning and the U.S. is not measuring up to that standard. The United States of America’s fiscal path is unsustainable.
The U.S. Government needed a wake up call. If the U.S. Congress does not act, the United States of America will be downgraded again. And again if they’re not careful.
I recommend the IMF Article 4 report on the United States of America for those who want verification of S&P’S downgrade action.
Enable clients in massive investment fraud by rating shitty MBS as AAA. When offered opportunity to verify quality of MBS by detailed analysis of security tranches, reject verification process and verification agency efforts. When legislators get uppity in GA and attempt to limit the most profitable part of the game by regulating predatory practices, threaten entire state mortgage market by refusing to rate mortgage bonds containing GA mortgages. After market implodes and taxpayers bail out bondholders, cut short criminal liability investigation by using politically motivated rating to embarrass administration and political opponents.
On February 7, 2008, Standard & Poor’s announced actions to further strengthen the ratings process and help restore confidence in the capital markets. The actions fell into the following four categories and are further described below: •Governance •Analytics •Information and •Investor Education.
Since the 2008 announcement, we have made significant investments and enhancements to our business. We have strengthened our governance and control framework by reviewing the quality and performance of our ratings and identifying areas for improvement; developing and enhancing the criteria we use to rate issues and issuers; interpreting and applying new regulations so we meet compliance requirements; and identifying and reporting on key areas of risk.
Significant areas of investment and change include: •Establishing the governance and control framework and significantly enhancing staffing levels, compliance and quality reviews of credit ratings actions and the independent review and approval of criteria. •Making significant updates to our criteria consistent with our ratings definitions. Criteria for most of the major asset classes has been rewritten and calibrated to the ratings definitions. On balance, our criteria now looks for stronger credit characteristics for securities seeking higher ratings. •Enhancing analytical training and education. In addition to increasing the number of hours required for continuing education, we introduced a new Analytical Certification Program which all analysts must pass in order to act as a primary analyst on a rating or to vote in a rating committee. We have also implemented measures regarding staffing levels. •Creating an independent Model Validation Group with responsibility for reviewing models used in the ratings process. We have also made changes to enhance the ratings process with respect to data and information as well as introduced additional analysis such as sensitivity scenarios. •Enhancing compliance oversight and training including areas such as the prohibition on structuring or providing advice to issuers.
S&P’s governance and control areas function independently of the analytic and commercial groups within Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.
S&P invested approximately $63 million in these areas in 2009 and $80 million in 2010. We forecast $12 million to $15 million incremental increase in costs for these areas in 2011.
While S&P has been undertaking its own changes, changes have occurred in regulations for credit rating agencies resulting in far greater accountability to, and oversight by, regulators around the world. S&P has taken major steps to meet these new regulatory expectations and integrate our reform initiatives into them.
Consequently, we have re-evaluated the voluntary actions we announced in 2008 in the context of the new regulations and this document provides a final update on these initiatives.
MG I would not get rid of any of the categories. I just would not accord them the ability to provide the claimed precise differentiations among sovereign countries regarding likelihood of default. They rely on qualitative, subjective judgments by committee. Precisely measuring or judging a country’s ability to pay is hard, but precisely measuring or judging the political will of a country to pay is another matter and mostly open to conjecture (not to mention bias). When it comes to prediction, economists have challenges, but they aren’t as challenged as political scientists.
Looking at data, S&P’s refined scale appears to validly reflect the risk of investments other than sovereign country debt. Historically, the percentages of default increase as one goes down the scale, even when going down by one increment. (The likelihood of an AA defaulting is slightly higher than the likelihood for an AAA, etcetera.) Note that for these investments other than sovereign countries, the percentages of default at AA and AAA are extremely small, and of course the difference is even smaller. Now when it comes to judging the validity of the same scale applied to countries, the size of the sample is a problem for measuring success, and the record has been mixed. The percentages are lower ast all levels on the scale (that is, lower for countries as compared to other investments), and many are zero because there are insufficient cases. Countries that have defaulted have, however, generally tended to have rather low S&P ratings (of those who were rated).
If S&P believes that a country rated AAA is less likely to default than a country rated AA, well, okay, that belief has not been refuted. Nor substantiated. So maybe the probability of a US default has moved from something like 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent or maybe, as I claim, S&P’s methodology is insufficiently robust to make such calls for countries.
MG I would not get rid of any of the categories. I just would not accord them the ability to provide the claimed precise differentiations among sovereign countries regarding likelihood of default. They rely on qualitative, subjective judgments by committee. Precisely measuring or judging a country’s ability to pay is hard, but precisely measuring or judging the political will of a country to pay is another matter and mostly open to conjecture (not to mention bias). When it comes to prediction, economists have challenges, but they aren’t as challenged as political scientists.
Looking at data, S&P’s refined scale appears to validly reflect the risk of investments other than sovereign country debt. Historically, the percentages of default increase as one goes down the scale, even when going down by one increment. (The likelihood of an AA defaulting is slightly higher than the likelihood for an AAA, etcetera.) Note that for these investments other than sovereign countries, the percentages of default at AA and AAA are extremely small, and of course the difference is even smaller. Now when it comes to judging the validity of the same scale applied to countries, the size of the sample is a problem for measuring success, and the record has been mixed. The percentages are lower ast all levels on the scale (that is, lower for countries as compared to other investments), and many are zero because there are insufficient cases. Countries that have defaulted have, however, generally tended to have rather low S&P ratings (of those who were rated).
If S&P believes that a country rated AAA is less likely to default than a country rated AA, well, okay, that belief has not been refuted. Nor substantiated. So maybe the probability of a US default has moved from something like 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent or maybe, as I claim, S&P’s methodology is insufficiently robust to make such calls for countries.
langelier Those are some interesting graphics. It would be helpful to those of us who are more verbal than graphics oriented if you could put in a word or two of explanation. From your own ppoint of view, of course.
Here is a much better discussion of why it is that an organization like S&P and its executives believe that they can produce indictments against the current administration without pause.
The final paragraph of that article: “But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.”
In short the guy, Obama, has proven himself to be a conflicted wimp who thinks that he’s won points when the other guy scores a field goal.
Looks to me like S&P took up TQM, just like DOD did, which is why the F-22 is grounded for a design fault after $88B worth of the pieces of trash have been paid for by the US worker.
Politically, S&P is conservative, and at this late date anti monetarist. Inflation has been the strategy the past 30 years. Who cares about deficits and inflation when the US is plundering the worker and running senseless perpetual wars on freely printed money?
Where were they in 1981?
“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns (US G taking up wall st debts). You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” (austerity to liquidate the banksters debt without nationalizing and cleaning out the banks’ equity).
The reality is very simple. Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credti rating of the United States of America. No amount of whining from leftists, Democrats, and others is going to change that fact. It is done.
S&P has not been comfortable with the USA’s unsustainable fiscal path for some time. S&P has cautioned the United States previously as has the IMF in its Article IV reports. In this latest round, S&P put the Obama Admiinistration on notice months ago.
Had S&P and other major global credit rating organizations downgraded the credit rating of President Bush II or any other Republican president, leftists and Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. The ongoing hypocrisy is absurd and completely foolish.
China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating Company previously downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from A+ to A. I don’t recall any whimpering from leftists and others when that happened. Russia’s leadership spoke up as well.
Private credit rating agencies Moody’s and Fitcah already warned of downgrades if debt reduction measures are not put in place and the economy weakens. If either of these organizations downgrade, leftists will have to split their offensive moves to discredit any organization or group questioning the fiscal sustainability of the United States of America.
You’re still suck in the second rate cartoons. We’re beyond that nonsense now.
S&P downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America. I recommend that you stop your whining, stop making excuses, and focus your attention on the U.S. Congress. It will be the current and future Congresses that must resolve the unsustainable fiscal path of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.
The reality is very simple. Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credti rating of the United States of America. No amount of whining from leftists, Democrats, and others is going to change that fact. It is done.
S&P has not been comfortable with the USA’s unsustainable fiscal path for some time. S&P has cautioned the United States previously as has the IMF in its Article IV reports. In this latest round, S&P put the Obama Admiinistration on notice months ago.
Had S&P and other major global credit rating organizations downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America under the leadership of President Bush II or any other Republican president, leftists and Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. The ongoing hypocrisy is absurd and completely foolish, and there is likely to be some payback in the next national election. But the leftists and Democrats raising hell aren’t smart enough to grasp that.
China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating Company previously downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from A+ to A. I don’t recall any whimpering from leftists and others when that happened. Russia’s leadership spoke up as well.
Private credit rating agencies Moody’s and Fitcah already warned of downgrades if debt reduction measures are not put in place and the economy weakens. If either of these organizations downgrade, leftists will have to split their offensive moves to discredit any organization or group questioning the fiscal sustainability of the United States of America.
You’re still suck in the second rate cartoons. We’re beyond that nonsense now.
S&P downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America. Any of the other global credit rating organizations could have downgraded and it wouldn’t have made any difference to me.
I recommend that you stop your whining, stop making excuses, and focus your attention on the U.S. Congress. It will be the current and future Congresses that must resolve the unsustainable fiscal path of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.
It is my judgment that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted. It is time for the U.S. Congress to put the United States of America on a sustainable fiscal path. It is time to stop screwing around and get the job done.
Jack – I’ll take a stab at it. Whoever made the chart connected the two big lows of 2002 and 2009 and is making it the lower boundary of a trend channel. The down slope connecting the tops is consistent with the idea of a secular trend heading lower.
Not shown is the previous high in 2000, making this a triple-top (head and shoulders formation) with a down-sloping neck line. None of this is a sign of technical strength.
The arrow points to an expected S&P low value around 600 at 13 July, 2013, based on the bottom of the channel, and a Fibonacci time relationship among the extremes. Even among Elliott wavers Fibonacci time relationships are highly speculative. And if you look at the fall from the previous peak, it could all happen much more quickly.
MG: Maybe you’ll live long enough to realize what a nakedly political act of aggression the executives of S&P undertook last Friday. At any rate that is my prayer for you.
A good thought, but the nation’s government was on an unsustainable fiscal path before the recession when unemployment was relatively low.
The U.S. Government has undertaken no actions to move to budget surplus during the next ten or twenty years. The government will add more trillions to the existing debt held by the public of $9.75 trillion. The debt ceiling plan only reductions future deficits by a total of $2.1 to $2.5 trillion over ten years. If that is the only plan going forward, the government will add roughly $7 to $9 trillion in additional debt held by the public by 2021. That won’t work.
It is not a sustainable fiscal path. More jobs will not erase the majority of this financial problem.
The jobs and related tax revenue will certainly help, but it’s not the magic answer. Besides, who really expects that we will reemploy all of the millions who are now unemployed? I see no indication that there is a viable path which will accomplish that worthy goal.
A good thought, but the nation’s government was on an unsustainable fiscal path before the recession when unemployment was relatively low.
The U.S. Government has undertaken no actions to move to budget surplus during the next ten or twenty years. The government will add more trillions to the existing debt held by the public of $9.75 trillion. The debt ceiling plan only reduces future deficits by a total of $2.1 to $2.5 trillion over ten years. If that is the only plan going forward, the government many trillions – perhaps $7 to $8.5 trillion – in additional debt held by the public by 2021. That won’t work. This U.S. Treasury chart tells the story of where we are headed without major budget changes: http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep/supp_info/fr_supplement_info_sustainability.html#chart4
It is not a sustainable fiscal path. More jobs will not erase the majority of this financial problem.
The jobs and related tax revenue will certainly help, but it’s not the magic answer. Besides, who really expects that we will reemploy all of the millions who are now unemployed? I see no indication that there is a viable support plan which will accomplish that worthy goal.
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done), I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any kind.
President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number. Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that.
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions. “First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And… “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions. “First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is? “Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And… “Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions. “First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And… “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions. “First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is? “Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And… “Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions. “First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And… “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions. “First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress? “Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse? “Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? “Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is? “Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And… “Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done), I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any kind.
President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number. Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that.
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done), I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any kind. President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number. Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that
coberly – “i could agree with you about the credit worthiness of the USA, but not about your faith in S&P.”
My view is not about faith in S&P. The decision that S&P made regarding the credit rating of the United States of American is over. It is done. The decision stands. Whining about S&P’s history or its USA credit rating decision is a waste of time. Pointing out that S&P indicates that it spend $63 million in its efforts to improve its operations since 2008 is a simple reference that others can read.
I don’t believe that there is anything to be gained by bashing S&P. Those efforts won’t change the S&P rating.
We should focus attention on a speech that Greenspan gave in the early years of the last decade in which he stated that the U.S. Government was not going to be able to meet its promises for recipients of U.S. social support programs. That is when it was obvious that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path unless major changes were undertaken.
I raised that Greenspan speech as a point of contention on a few econ blogs. I was roundly booed for critcizing Greenspan. This was during the days when most worshipped him.
This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?
The U.S. Government is badly broken. The Congresses have to take serious actions, many of which we may like or support, in order to salvage the future of the government’s operations and, perhaps, the nation itself. It is that serious in my opinon.
S&P made a decision. I happen to agree with it. It’s time to deal with it instead of complaining about the decision. The leftist whining is a bunch of bull.
coberly – “i could agree with you about the credit worthiness of the USA, but not about your faith in S&P.”
My view is not about faith in S&P. The decision that S&P made regarding the credit rating of the United States of American is over. It is done. The decision stands. Whining about S&P’s history or its USA credit rating decision is a waste of time. Pointing out that S&P indicates that it spend $63 million in its efforts to improve its operations since 2008 is a simple reference that balances out some of the ongoing bashing and whining.
I don’t believe that there is anything to be gained by bashing S&P. Those efforts won’t change the S&P rating.
We should focus attention on a speech that Greenspan gave in the early years of the last decade in which he stated that the U.S. Government was not going to be able to meet its promises for recipients of U.S. social support programs. That is when it was obvious that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path unless major changes were undertaken.
I raised that Greenspan speech as a point of contention on a few econ blogs. I was roundly booed for critcizing Greenspan. This was during the days when most worshipped him.
This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?
The U.S. Government is badly broken. The Congresses have to take serious actions, many of which we may like or support, in order to salvage the future of the government’s operations and, perhaps, the nation itself. It is that serious in my opinon.
S&P made a decision. I happen to agree with it. It’s time to deal with it instead of complaining about the decision. The leftist whining is a bunch of bull. It’s time to grow up and deal with the call at the plate.
On S&P, Downgrades, and Idiots – This is not going to be one of those posts that laments S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about our oh-so-dysfunctional political system. No, S&P was flat-out wrong — no caveats. They are, to put it very bluntly, idiots, and they deserve every bit of opprobrium coming their way. They were embarrassingly wrong on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, so they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. (Always a sign that you’re dealing with hacks.) Look, I know these S&P guys. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-limit on our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence.
I’ve seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. I’ve seen an S&P managing director who didn’t know the order of operations, and when we pointed it out to him, stopped taking our calls. Despite impressive-sounding titles, these guys personify “amateur hour.” (And my opinion of S&P isn’t just based on a few deals; it’s based on countless deals, meetings, and phone calls over 20 years. It’s also the opinion of practically everyone else who deals with the rating agencies on a semi-regular basis.)
Treasury has every right to be outraged. S&P mangled the economic argument so badly that they had to abandon it entirely, and then fell back on a political argument which they are in no position to make, and which isn’t even correct.
“This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?“
First, this is about political cheer leading, extending the chorus of propaganda veiled by tangential data, so that cause and effect relationship has been obscured. Four the past several years that cheer has been the raspberries coming from the political right in support of their financial benefactors. Whether the jeer comes from S&P or the choir at Faux News, it is an amalgam of truth and dare. The economy is skewed. I dare you to say how, why or what to do to fix it. Note that every suggestion which contributes to a proper adjustment is always described by those who jeer as “no, that’s not enough.” No new taxes. No control over military adventurism. No new jobs. Nay sayers have no solution because in fact they are well satisfied to keep the jeering loud and often lest the beast suddenly awakens to the reality of its lot. The wealth and income of our economy is skewed so far to the right that no amount of tampering will fully resolve the economic crisis because that skewed distribution of wealth and income is the crisis. The debt and deficit are only a symptom of the problem.
These comments are key: “… the ratings agency said was that it had growing concerns about whether political leaders would be able to come together in the near future to put the nation on a fiscal path that was comparable to other AAA rated countries.”
“More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures,”
This AM S&P again reiterated its downgrade was largely based upon economic performance and predictions of future economic directions. This is a hugely negative picture and rating of/for Obama’s economic policies. No confidence!
Dem leadership is attacking everything and everyone but themselves. When they are the group rated!
Jack, you are absolutely correct: “… this is about political cheer leading, extending the chorus of propaganda veiled by tangential data, so that cause and effect relationship has been obscured.” What tangential data? It’s S&P’s faulty analysis. It’s the Tea Party’s fault. It’s the Republican’s fault for fighting against the superior economic policies of Obama/Democrats.
Guess what? Those faults are not what the S&P rating was based. Obama/Democratic economic policies and their impact is upon which it was based!
Nouriel Roubini (a guy who unlike S&P actually predicted the mortgage securitization crisis) on the downgrade: “…the reality is that they contributed to the crisis that caused them leading to the downgrade, there is no fundamental reason at this point compared to few months ago for a downgrade the thing that has changed may be right now, there is a great risk of double dip recession and that’s may be the only fundamental difference…” – From an interview on Bloomberg. http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2011/08/08/roubini-bloomberg-interviews-on-sp-downgrade-and-u-s-growth/
You comment should be a main-page post. That would get AB back into the economics of the issue and not all the politics crap.(which is mostly the realization that we can’t fund an ever increasing government – the progressive agenda)
Well its a nakedly political act to not pass a budget in over 800 days. Its a nakedly political act to put out a budget plan for the next 10 years that increases the US debt at unprecedanted rates, with no hope of even an attempt at a balanced budget, and that’s with the fantasy land growth projections in it.
MG has brought data and facts to the table. Obama owns this one, has do the Dems who totally controlled Congress from Jan 2007. And all you can gripe about is you think S&P is after your messiah? What part of $1.5 Trillion YEARLY debt do you not get?
“can’t fund an ever increasing government” is probably true, but it sounds like a stock phrase from the Big Book of Lies.
and when we listen to the “debate” in congress we hear constantly the Biggest Lie of All: that it’s Social Security that is driving the deficit. Which at least you should know by now is not true.
I suspect there are some “progressives” who would keep adding to the size and cost of government while depriving the poor of any chance at self respect, but I have not seen those people have any effect on government since The Great Society.
MG’s comment might be worth of a main post, but I would make two suggestions: make it shorter. And try not to just swallow everything you like the taste of while making aggressive or condescending remarks about things you don’t like the taste of.
In other words, try to find out what careful critical thinking is.
no, it’s not all bush’s fault anymore. Obama and the present congress have definitely proved that much. But the answer is still to raise the taxes to pay for the Bush tax cuts that were going to pay for themselves but didn’t.
And if you think any of the Debt Ceiling Debate was other than insane you and I probably won’t agree on much. And if we can’t agree on much, then we might begin to understand why there are nakedly political failures to pass a budget.
remarks about messiah suggest you are not so much thinking as conducting an orchestra of your fantasies. otherwise you might have noticed that no one here likes Obama very much…. though I will grant that there was a lot of messiah thinking when Obama burst on the scene… but again, not so much here.
and do trace that deficit back to its origins. and try to forget the partisan bullshit. we know that party politics is mostly theater. you seem to be the only one here who thinks the world is divided up between the R’s and the D’s. the good and the bad.
do you really think the Republicans have had nothing to do with the current mess?
Does it ever occur to you that you can’t run a household, much less a country, without spending money. And “tax cuts all the time” will lead you to a situation where you aren’t spending enough money to pay the electric bill, the rent, or the cop on the corner?
Or that in any case, after you have run up the bill is not the time to “cut spending.” Pay the damn bills, and then we can talk about what future spending we want to do. But the “crisis” here is completely about refusing to pay for what we already bought.
And blaming it on Social Security, which pays its own bills.
you will note I am not complaining about S and P… though I agree with those who do. I am not at all happy that some prominent liberals i know are going to go “full court press” against A and P. I think they have far more important thins they should be doing.
But not whining about S and P is different from writing long posts praising them.
The way to deal with the credit worthiness of the United States is to raise the taxes to pay our bills. Rightest whining about “taxes kill jobs” is a bunch of bull, to use an MG expression.
As for Greenspan, some of us always thought he was wrong. U.S. “social support programs” Social Security and Medicare can always pay for themselves. Greenspan was either just another part of the conspiracy against SS, or he was just another fool of the Peterson Lie. Being a great admirer of Ayn Rand gives you some insight into his level of intelligence.
no doubt. S and P is not an objective actor. It’s a political actor.
As for the 40 cents per dollar deficit… that could be. But if you start a business or buy a house you are very likely borrowing forty cents of every dollar you spend. It is only when you talk about government that all of a sudden borrowing is a sin.
We borrowed to win WW2. We can borrow to end the recession… if we borrow and spend intelligently. Or we may not need to borrow at all… if we can tax those who have the money to pay for what they bought through their government without paying for it for the past twenty years.
Remember when Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”? What has changed?
And why did the R’s and the O agree to cut taxes while crying about the deficit?
CoRev: “Guess what? Those faults are not what the S&P rating was based. Obama/Democratic economic policies and their impact is upon which it was based!”
At best the S&P rating down grade was based on poor math and a political analysis that found our Congress lacking in an ability to carry out its responsibilities regarding the budget. There is undoubtedly enough room for blame on both sides of the aisle and the Prsident. There was tallk of allowing the country to go into a facsimile for bankruptcy. There has been an out right refusal to address a need for increased revenue and cutting military spending. There has been pressure from external sources to cloud the budgetary parameters. There has been a lack of leadership and too much reliance on brinkmanship.
CoRev’s assertion that the problem is the result of an economic policy originating with Obama and the Democratic side of the Congress is useless partisan bull shit and most of the recent opinion polls indicate that the average American is well aware of the role played by right wing extremism in its defense of the wealthiest Americans. Yes, we need better electoral representation in the Congress, but the people need to be better educated regarding who it is that has their best interests at heart. Too much propaganda is floating through the air waves and you, CoRev, are busy contributing to that misinformation campaign. Unfortunately the average voter knows better which football or basketball team is best positioned for championship status than he or she knows which candidate is peing truthful about economic issues. Most of the candidates seem no better informed.
Legend: 1. Sovereign local currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST) 2. Sovereign foreign currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST) 3. Transfer and convertibility assessment
Nation 1 2 3
Australia AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Austria AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Canada AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Denmark AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Finland AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA France AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Germany AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA Guernsey […]
http://astrofibo.blogspot.com/2011/08/sp500-next-bear-low.html
At Ecological Headstand, the Sandwichman has been documenting the plagiarism by Oslo mass murderer, Anders Breivik, and it’s relationship to the broader context of the right-wing boilerplate propaganda echo chamber. Yesterday, I traced the “scholarly apparatus” of Patriick J. Buchanan’s The Death of the West to the same illegitimate William S. Lind/Raymond V. Raehn sources as the Breivik manifesto.
http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/08/forensic-fun-with-footnotes-calumny.html
What does this have to do with economic commentary. A lot, it turns out. The same make shit up, spread it around and repeat, repeat, repeat, animates what passes for economic discourse in the U.S. The anti-intellectual tradition that sanctions the lie and slander agitators suppresses thoughtful discussion of policy realities and options. The recent debt ceiling fiasco, with its subtheme of social securty and medicare de-funding is only an example. The lump-of-labor canard that the Sandwichman writes about is another enduring case.
Who here knows who attacked whom at the WI State Fair?
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism features a worthwhile post by Matt Stoller that reviews the historical influence of S&P in overturning consumer protection laws against predatory lending in GA. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/matt-stoller-standard-poor’s-predatory-policy-agenda.html
This agency had a clear agenda in keeping the game going as far back as 2003. The presumption of Friday’s downgrade of the american electorate (I can’t evaluate their action under any other guise) is just part and parcel of that anti citizen strategery.
Federal Budget Reality Check 8.0
S&P CREDIT RATING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 5 AUGUST 2011
Apparently, Angry Bear main posters aren’t interested thus far in providing the background for or discussion of the S&P downgrade of the United States of America’s credit rating. As odd as that is, let’s fill the information gap on this issue.
Here are the S&P key documents that cover everything from Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions to the list of reports on the United States of America published since April 2011.
I recommend reviewing the rating methodology info under Basics of Sovereign Ratings before reading the USA reports. It’s apparent that some individuals publicly discussing the USA credit rating downgrade have no idea what methodology is being employed.
Also included are text documents for the Budget Control Act of 2011, CBO’s analysis of that legislation, and FY2012 federal budget information from OMB and CBO as well as CBO’s latest long term budget outlook.
S&P Credit Rating of the United States of America, 5 August 2011:
S&P RATINGS
Understanding Ratings
Credit Ratings Definitions & FAQs
GOVERNMENT – SOVEREIGNS
The following provisions are included in the Sovereigns link. All documents listed below have embedded links.
1. THE BASICS OF SOVEREIGN RATINGS
Standard & Poor’s appraisal of each sovereign’s overall creditworthiness focuses on political and economic risks and is both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative aspects of the analysis incorporate a number of measures of economic performance, although judging the integrity of the data is a more qualitative matter. The analysis is also qualitative due to the importance of political and policy developments and because Standard & Poor’s ratings indicate future debt-service capacity.
– Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions (June 30, 2011)
2. SOVEREIGN RATINGS, HISTORIES, AND RATING LIST
Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services rate 126 sovereign governments.
– Sovereign Ratings and Country T&C Assessments (Aug. 5, 2011)
– Sovereign Rating And Country T&C Assessment Histories (Aug. 3, 2011)
3. RECENT SOVEREIGN RATING ACTIONS AND COMMENTARY
– Fiscal Challenges Weighing On The ‘AAA’ Sovereign Credit Rating On The Government Of The United States (April 18, 2011)
– A Closer Look At The Revision Of The Outlook On The U.S. Government Rating (April 18, 2011)
– United States of America ‘AAA/A-1+’ Rating Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Negative (April 18, 2011)
– Corporate And Government Ratings That Exceed The Sovereign Rating (June 3, 2011)
– United States of America ‘AAA/A-1+’ Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate (July 14, 2011)
– United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative (Aug. 5, 2011)
–
On the S&P rating I say given how badly they screwed up rating the CDO’s and the like its not clear that they have any credibitility. In addition given that the Fed and the Government own a logical printing press dollar demonitated debt need never not be paid back. (Yes there might be inflation but thats not the issue here).
Of course in addition who is big enough to provide a safer place for money, Switzerland? I suspect that sooner or later the AAA rating will become extinct (it almost has for corporate bonds).
One of the links in my post doesn’t work. Here is the actual link:
An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012
April 2011
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12130
I see Lyle prefers the “their not trust worthy” level of denial over the reality of the down grade.
It is apparent that some individuals complaining about the S&P rating haven’t bothered to read the Sovereign methodology and assumptions that S&P provides at its website. Similarly, it is clear that they didn’t bother to read the S&P document file that begins back in April 2011 on matters related to the S&P credit rating of the United States of America. It is really all a matter of effort and research. There’s not much of that in play. These problems have been evident in many individuals’ public responses provided in interviews, statements, articles, and blog posts. Some of the personal remarks have been laughable.
There is a pathetic level of ignorance, immaturity, and political ideology bashing occurring which has very little to do with the S&P rating. A number of outright lies have been told during the last 48 hours including statements from some U.S. Government officials. Moreover, the Obama Administration demonstrated its immaturity on Friday when unnamed representatives launched a preemptive attack on S&P leadership prior to the release of the S&P credit rating report on the United States of America. Meanwhile, the President of the United States of America has failed to render a public statement. I am confident that the President will speak this week, but he needs to get his house in order. There is an astonishing lack of leadership and integrity in play.
Leaders around the world have set a serious, measured tone in their remarks. This is in sharp contract with the embarrassing immaturity being demonstrated by some public figures here in the United States. There are some Government officials who have provided statements that measure up to the bar of expectation in public remarks. I will probably cite some of their statements later on. I certainly applaud their efforts.
The downgrading of the credit rating of the United States of America shall provide an opportunity for American and global citizens to determine whether the U.S. Government will get its fiscal house in order or continue to let it burn, with consequences not only for this nation but nations around the world. All while some hillbilly idiots on both U.S. coasts continue to scoff at the idea that there is any needed urgency.
This is one of those events that separates the men and women from the boys and girls. We are going to find out who the real leaders are, in Government, industry, and all throughout the nation. The same will apply to the blogs if any leaders are to be found.
The second rate cartoons are over. The main feature is about to begin.
S&P is not rating the creditworthiness of the sovereign government. They are rating the stability and effectiveness of the congress and administration and by extension the electorate.
Presumptious doesn’t cover it. As Harry Shearer joked on his show today, who rates the raters? Does S&P qualify as AAA? Their actions beg the question.
Okay MG I looked at the methodology and what I can find about the reliability and validity of the ratings metric. From what I’ve seen, I cannot empirically justify applying to sovereign countries the many ordinal categories on the ratings scale. The methodology can credibly distinguish between, say, the AAA country and the BB country, even though all categories may overstate the risk relative to other investment vehicles. However, there is no reason to believe that the precision of the country ratings has any predictive value whatsoever. They should use a smaller number of categories for sovereign countries. Consequently, the downgrading from AAA to AA+ is meaningless, deserves to be inconsequential, and should not occur. On the other hand, the “negative outlook” is an appropriate warning: if trends continue, a significant/meaningful downgrading may be deserved.
anyone interested can read their statement (8 pp PDF) on the downgrade…
amateur socialist,
You apparently didn’t understand the complete basis for the S&P downgrade. Pretending that S&P only rated the effectiveness of the U.S. Congress and Obama Administration most certainly ignores the fact that the United States Government was on an unsustainable fiscal path prior to the economic recession and release of the S&P credit report as acknowledged by the U.S. Treasury, CBO, Congress, and the President.
The S&P Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions (June 30, 2011) document explains:
“The five key factors that form the foundation of our sovereign credit analysis are:
· Institutional effectiveness and political risks, reflected in the political score.
· Economic structure and growth prospects, reflected in the economic score.
· External liquidity and international investment position, reflected in the external score.
· Fiscal performance and flexibility, as well as debt burden, reflected in the fiscal score.
· Monetary flexibility, reflected in the monetary score.”
S&P’s August 5, 2011 report, United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ Due To Political Risks, Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative, explains in part:
“Under our revised base case fiscal scenario–which we consider to be consistent with a ‘AA+’ long-term rating and a negative outlook–we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act’s revised policy settings.”
“Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.”
“When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the […]
PJR,
Which of the following five S&P Sovereign methodology categories of measurement would you eliminate?
“The five key factors that form the foundation of our sovereign credit analysis are:
· Institutional effectiveness and political risks, reflected in the political score.
· Economic structure and growth prospects, reflected in the economic score.
· External liquidity and international investment position, reflected in the external score.
· Fiscal performance and flexibility, as well as debt burden, reflected in the fiscal score.
· Monetary flexibility, reflected in the monetary score.”
I wouldn’t eliminate any of them. I would add another category: fiscal performances of substate units (the 50 States of the United States of America).
I disagree with your claim that a downgrade from AAA to AA+ is meaningless and should not occur. AAA does have special meaning and the U.S. is not measuring up to that standard. The United States of America’s fiscal path is unsustainable.
The U.S. Government needed a wake up call. If the U.S. Congress does not act, the United States of America will be downgraded again. And again if they’re not careful.
I recommend the IMF Article 4 report on the United States of America for those who want verification of S&P’S downgrade action.
S&P Methodology, Ca 2000-2011:
Enable clients in massive investment fraud by rating shitty MBS as AAA. When offered opportunity to verify quality of MBS by detailed analysis of security tranches, reject verification process and verification agency efforts. When legislators get uppity in GA and attempt to limit the most profitable part of the game by regulating predatory practices, threaten entire state mortgage market by refusing to rate mortgage bonds containing GA mortgages. After market implodes and taxpayers bail out bondholders, cut short criminal liability investigation by using politically motivated rating to embarrass administration and political opponents.
Did I miss something?
as,
Yeah, you ignored this:
S&P’s Leadership Actions
On February 7, 2008, Standard & Poor’s announced actions to further strengthen the ratings process and help restore confidence in the capital markets. The actions fell into the following four categories and are further described below:
•Governance
•Analytics
•Information and
•Investor Education.
Since the 2008 announcement, we have made significant investments and enhancements to our business. We have strengthened our governance and control framework by reviewing the quality and performance of our ratings and identifying areas for improvement; developing and enhancing the criteria we use to rate issues and issuers; interpreting and applying new regulations so we meet compliance requirements; and identifying and reporting on key areas of risk.
Significant areas of investment and change include:
•Establishing the governance and control framework and significantly enhancing staffing levels, compliance and quality reviews of credit ratings actions and the independent review and approval of criteria.
•Making significant updates to our criteria consistent with our ratings definitions. Criteria for most of the major asset classes has been rewritten and calibrated to the ratings definitions. On balance, our criteria now looks for stronger credit characteristics for securities seeking higher ratings.
•Enhancing analytical training and education. In addition to increasing the number of hours required for continuing education, we introduced a new Analytical Certification Program which all analysts must pass in order to act as a primary analyst on a rating or to vote in a rating committee. We have also implemented measures regarding staffing levels.
•Creating an independent Model Validation Group with responsibility for reviewing models used in the ratings process. We have also made changes to enhance the ratings process with respect to data and information as well as introduced additional analysis such as sensitivity scenarios.
•Enhancing compliance oversight and training including areas such as the prohibition on structuring or providing advice to issuers.
S&P’s governance and control areas function independently of the analytic and commercial groups within Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services.
S&P invested approximately $63 million in these areas in 2009 and $80 million in 2010. We forecast $12 million to $15 million incremental increase in costs for these areas in 2011.
While S&P has been undertaking its own changes, changes have occurred in regulations for credit rating agencies resulting in far greater accountability to, and oversight by, regulators around the world. S&P has taken major steps to meet these new regulatory expectations and integrate our reform initiatives into them.
Consequently, we have re-evaluated the voluntary actions we announced in 2008 in the context of the new regulations and this document provides a final update on these initiatives.
To review the final update click here.
To review the final Ombudsman report click
Up next Enron’s comeback!
MG I would not get rid of any of the categories. I just would not accord them the ability to provide the claimed precise differentiations among sovereign countries regarding likelihood of default. They rely on qualitative, subjective judgments by committee. Precisely measuring or judging a country’s ability to pay is hard, but precisely measuring or judging the political will of a country to pay is another matter and mostly open to conjecture (not to mention bias). When it comes to prediction, economists have challenges, but they aren’t as challenged as political scientists.
Looking at data, S&P’s refined scale appears to validly reflect the risk of investments other than sovereign country debt. Historically, the percentages of default increase as one goes down the scale, even when going down by one increment. (The likelihood of an AA defaulting is slightly higher than the likelihood for an AAA, etcetera.) Note that for these investments other than sovereign countries, the percentages of default at AA and AAA are extremely small, and of course the difference is even smaller. Now when it comes to judging the validity of the same scale applied to countries, the size of the sample is a problem for measuring success, and the record has been mixed. The percentages are lower ast all levels on the scale (that is, lower for countries as compared to other investments), and many are zero because there are insufficient cases. Countries that have defaulted have, however, generally tended to have rather low S&P ratings (of those who were rated).
If S&P believes that a country rated AAA is less likely to default than a country rated AA, well, okay, that belief has not been refuted. Nor substantiated. So maybe the probability of a US default has moved from something like 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent or maybe, as I claim, S&P’s methodology is insufficiently robust to make such calls for countries.
MG I would not get rid of any of the categories. I just would not accord them the ability to provide the claimed precise differentiations among sovereign countries regarding likelihood of default. They rely on qualitative, subjective judgments by committee. Precisely measuring or judging a country’s ability to pay is hard, but precisely measuring or judging the political will of a country to pay is another matter and mostly open to conjecture (not to mention bias). When it comes to prediction, economists have challenges, but they aren’t as challenged as political scientists.
Looking at data, S&P’s refined scale appears to validly reflect the risk of investments other than sovereign country debt. Historically, the percentages of default increase as one goes down the scale, even when going down by one increment. (The likelihood of an AA defaulting is slightly higher than the likelihood for an AAA, etcetera.) Note that for these investments other than sovereign countries, the percentages of default at AA and AAA are extremely small, and of course the difference is even smaller. Now when it comes to judging the validity of the same scale applied to countries, the size of the sample is a problem for measuring success, and the record has been mixed. The percentages are lower ast all levels on the scale (that is, lower for countries as compared to other investments), and many are zero because there are insufficient cases. Countries that have defaulted have, however, generally tended to have rather low S&P ratings (of those who were rated).
If S&P believes that a country rated AAA is less likely to default than a country rated AA, well, okay, that belief has not been refuted. Nor substantiated. So maybe the probability of a US default has moved from something like 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent or maybe, as I claim, S&P’s methodology is insufficiently robust to make such calls for countries.
nice C & P
Nice C & P.
The problem is jobs. Fix hat and much of the problem goes away.
langelier
Those are some interesting graphics. It would be helpful to those of us who are more verbal than graphics oriented if you could put in a word or two of explanation. From your own ppoint of view, of course.
Here is a much better discussion of why it is that an organization like S&P and its executives believe that they can produce indictments against the current administration without pause.
What Happened to Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion
The final paragraph of that article:
“But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.”
In short the guy, Obama, has proven himself to be a conflicted wimp who thinks that he’s won points when the other guy scores a field goal.
amateur socialist,
Looks to me like S&P took up TQM, just like DOD did, which is why the F-22 is grounded for a design fault after $88B worth of the pieces of trash have been paid for by the US worker.
Politically, S&P is conservative, and at this late date anti monetarist. Inflation has been the strategy the past 30 years. Who cares about deficits and inflation when the US is plundering the worker and running senseless perpetual wars on freely printed money?
Where were they in 1981?
“You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns (US G taking up wall st debts). You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” (austerity to liquidate the banksters debt without nationalizing and cleaning out the banks’ equity).
I think this quote is from the robber baron age.
Jack,
The reality is very simple. Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credti rating of the United States of America. No amount of whining from leftists, Democrats, and others is going to change that fact. It is done.
S&P has not been comfortable with the USA’s unsustainable fiscal path for some time. S&P has cautioned the United States previously as has the IMF in its Article IV reports. In this latest round, S&P put the Obama Admiinistration on notice months ago.
Had S&P and other major global credit rating organizations downgraded the credit rating of President Bush II or any other Republican president, leftists and Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. The ongoing hypocrisy is absurd and completely foolish.
China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating Company previously downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from A+ to A. I don’t recall any whimpering from leftists and others when that happened. Russia’s leadership spoke up as well.
Private credit rating agencies Moody’s and Fitcah already warned of downgrades if debt reduction measures are not put in place and the economy weakens. If either of these organizations downgrade, leftists will have to split their offensive moves to discredit any organization or group questioning the fiscal sustainability of the United States of America.
You’re still suck in the second rate cartoons. We’re beyond that nonsense now.
S&P downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America. I recommend that you stop your whining, stop making excuses, and focus your attention on the U.S. Congress. It will be the current and future Congresses that must resolve the unsustainable fiscal path of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.
Jack,
The reality is very simple. Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the credti rating of the United States of America. No amount of whining from leftists, Democrats, and others is going to change that fact. It is done.
S&P has not been comfortable with the USA’s unsustainable fiscal path for some time. S&P has cautioned the United States previously as has the IMF in its Article IV reports. In this latest round, S&P put the Obama Admiinistration on notice months ago.
Had S&P and other major global credit rating organizations downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America under the leadership of President Bush II or any other Republican president, leftists and Democrats would be screaming bloody murder. The ongoing hypocrisy is absurd and completely foolish, and there is likely to be some payback in the next national election. But the leftists and Democrats raising hell aren’t smart enough to grasp that.
China’s Dagong Global Credit Rating Company previously downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America from A+ to A. I don’t recall any whimpering from leftists and others when that happened. Russia’s leadership spoke up as well.
Private credit rating agencies Moody’s and Fitcah already warned of downgrades if debt reduction measures are not put in place and the economy weakens. If either of these organizations downgrade, leftists will have to split their offensive moves to discredit any organization or group questioning the fiscal sustainability of the United States of America.
You’re still suck in the second rate cartoons. We’re beyond that nonsense now.
S&P downgraded the credit rating of the United States of America. Any of the other global credit rating organizations could have downgraded and it wouldn’t have made any difference to me.
I recommend that you stop your whining, stop making excuses, and focus your attention on the U.S. Congress. It will be the current and future Congresses that must resolve the unsustainable fiscal path of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.
It is my judgment that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted. It is time for the U.S. Congress to put the United States of America on a sustainable fiscal path. It is time to stop screwing around and get the job done.
Jack – I’ll take a stab at it. Whoever made the chart connected the two big lows of 2002 and 2009 and is making it the lower boundary of a trend channel. The down slope connecting the tops is consistent with the idea of a secular trend heading lower.
Not shown is the previous high in 2000, making this a triple-top (head and shoulders formation) with a down-sloping neck line. None of this is a sign of technical strength.
The arrow points to an expected S&P low value around 600 at 13 July, 2013, based on the bottom of the channel, and a Fibonacci time relationship among the extremes. Even among Elliott wavers Fibonacci time relationships are highly speculative. And if you look at the fall from the previous peak, it could all happen much more quickly.
At any rate, it is a starkly negative prediction.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
JzB
More condescension followed with liberal use of the ever popular copy and paste. Who could it be?
MG: Maybe you’ll live long enough to realize what a nakedly political act of aggression the executives of S&P undertook last Friday. At any rate that is my prayer for you.
run75441,
A good thought, but the nation’s government was on an unsustainable fiscal path before the recession when unemployment was relatively low.
The U.S. Government has undertaken no actions to move to budget surplus during the next ten or twenty years. The government will add more trillions to the existing debt held by the public of $9.75 trillion. The debt ceiling plan only reductions future deficits by a total of $2.1 to $2.5 trillion over ten years. If that is the only plan going forward, the government will add roughly $7 to $9 trillion in additional debt held by the public by 2021. That won’t work.
This U.S. Treasury chart tells the story of where we are headed without major budget changes:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep/supp_info/fr_supplement_info_sustainability.html#chart4
It is not a sustainable fiscal path. More jobs will not erase the majority of this financial problem.
The jobs and related tax revenue will certainly help, but it’s not the magic answer. Besides, who really expects that we will reemploy all of the millions who are now unemployed? I see no indication that there is a viable path which will accomplish that worthy goal.
run75441,
A good thought, but the nation’s government was on an unsustainable fiscal path before the recession when unemployment was relatively low.
The U.S. Government has undertaken no actions to move to budget surplus during the next ten or twenty years. The government will add more trillions to the existing debt held by the public of $9.75 trillion. The debt ceiling plan only reduces future deficits by a total of $2.1 to $2.5 trillion over ten years. If that is the only plan going forward, the government many trillions – perhaps $7 to $8.5 trillion – in additional debt held by the public by 2021. That won’t work.
This U.S. Treasury chart tells the story of where we are headed without major budget changes:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep/supp_info/fr_supplement_info_sustainability.html#chart4
It is not a sustainable fiscal path. More jobs will not erase the majority of this financial problem.
The jobs and related tax revenue will certainly help, but it’s not the magic answer. Besides, who really expects that we will reemploy all of the millions who are now unemployed? I see no indication that there is a viable support plan which will accomplish that worthy goal.
amateur socialist,
You made a phony claim at 3:34:42 PM and this is your follow up comment?
amateur socialist,
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done), I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any kind.
President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number.
Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that.
amateur socialist,
You made a questionable claim at 3:34:42 PM and this is your follow up comment?
WALTER
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions.
“First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And…
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions.
“First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs?
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
“Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And…
“Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
WALTER
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions.
“First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And…
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions.
“First, why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs?
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
“Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And…
“Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
WALTER
President Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and Obama asks him his name.
“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”
“I have 4 questions.
“First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs? And…
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh, that’s right, question time. Who has a question?”
Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.
“Steve,” he responds.
“And what is your question, Steve?”
“Actually, I have 6 questions.
“First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?
“Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it’s actually worse?
“Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preachings and beliefs?
“Fourth, why did Geithner say the credit rating of the United States would not be downgraded and now it is?
“Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And…
“Sixth, what happened to my friend Walter?”
amateur socialist,
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done), I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any kind.
President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number.
Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that.
amateur socialist,
You can paint your political pictures, but it doesn’t change the fact that the downgrade of the credit rating of the United States of America was warranted in my judgment. The U.S. Government is not on a sustainable fiscal path. I wish it was, but it isn’t.
Moody’s and Fitch have the USA on negative watch right now. I assume that you will make similar charges against them if either downgrade the credit of the United States of America.
If S&P had downgraded during Bush II’s second term (which I would have done),
I find it unlikely that you would be offering that administration a defense of any
kind.
President Obama could have avoided this, by the way. Obama locked himself into an deficit reduction agreement with the G-7 and then announced a plan for $4 trillion in deficit reductions. Bad call, as the three credit rating agencies anchored in on that number.
Moreover, his administration could have sealed the same type of agreement that occurred in August back in April or early May. Beyond that consideration, the House and Senate under Democratic majorities could have increased the federal debt ceiling no later than December 2010. Obama could and should have pushed for that option. He took a pass.
The Obama Administration from Day One has been an administraton that hasn’t been responsible for any problems since they took over. Nothing. As we are observing right now, the Obama Administration is not responsible for S&P’s downgrade. If President Obama pursues that game this week in any public statements, he is probably finished politically. I hope that he is smarter than that
MG
yep. now you understand the basic principle of government. it’s just that the USA started out with such promise.
i could agree with you about the credit worthiness of the USA, but not about your faith in S&P.
PJR,
Good points.
coberly – “i could agree with you about the credit worthiness of the USA, but not about your faith in S&P.”
My view is not about faith in S&P. The decision that S&P made regarding the credit rating of the United States of American is over. It is done. The decision stands. Whining about S&P’s history or its USA credit rating decision is a waste of time. Pointing out that S&P indicates that it spend $63 million in its efforts to improve its operations since 2008 is a simple reference that others can read.
I don’t believe that there is anything to be gained by bashing S&P. Those efforts won’t change the S&P rating.
We should focus attention on a speech that Greenspan gave in the early years of the last decade in which he stated that the U.S. Government was not going to be able to meet its promises for recipients of U.S. social support programs. That is when it was obvious that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path unless major changes were undertaken.
I raised that Greenspan speech as a point of contention on a few econ blogs. I was roundly booed for critcizing Greenspan. This was during the days when most worshipped him.
This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?
The U.S. Government is badly broken. The Congresses have to take serious actions, many of which we may like or support, in order to salvage the future of the government’s operations and, perhaps, the nation itself. It is that serious in my opinon.
S&P made a decision. I happen to agree with it. It’s time to deal with it instead of complaining about the decision. The leftist whining is a bunch of bull.
coberly – “i could agree with you about the credit worthiness of the USA, but not about your faith in S&P.”
My view is not about faith in S&P. The decision that S&P made regarding the credit rating of the United States of American is over. It is done. The decision stands. Whining about S&P’s history or its USA credit rating decision is a waste of time. Pointing out that S&P indicates that it spend $63 million in its efforts to improve its operations since 2008 is a simple reference that balances out some of the ongoing bashing and whining.
I don’t believe that there is anything to be gained by bashing S&P. Those efforts won’t change the S&P rating.
We should focus attention on a speech that Greenspan gave in the early years of the last decade in which he stated that the U.S. Government was not going to be able to meet its promises for recipients of U.S. social support programs. That is when it was obvious that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path unless major changes were undertaken.
I raised that Greenspan speech as a point of contention on a few econ blogs. I was roundly booed for critcizing Greenspan. This was during the days when most worshipped him.
This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?
The U.S. Government is badly broken. The Congresses have to take serious actions, many of which we may like or support, in order to salvage the future of the government’s operations and, perhaps, the nation itself. It is that serious in my opinon.
S&P made a decision. I happen to agree with it. It’s time to deal with it instead of complaining about the decision. The leftist whining is a bunch of bull. It’s time to grow up and deal with the call at the plate.
Tea party murdering the US.
Looks like Rome at the times of Tiberius Gracchus.
Who will rise to lead the Populares?
On S&P, Downgrades, and Idiots – This is not going to be one of those posts that laments S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about our oh-so-dysfunctional political system.
No, S&P was flat-out wrong — no caveats. They are, to put it very bluntly, idiots, and they deserve every bit of opprobrium coming their way. They were embarrassingly wrong on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, so they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. (Always a sign that you’re dealing with hacks.) Look, I know these S&P guys. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-limit on our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence.
I’ve seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. I’ve seen an S&P managing director who didn’t know the order of operations, and when we pointed it out to him, stopped taking our calls. Despite impressive-sounding titles, these guys personify “amateur hour.” (And my opinion of S&P isn’t just based on a few deals; it’s based on countless deals, meetings, and phone calls over 20 years. It’s also the opinion of practically everyone else who deals with the rating agencies on a semi-regular basis.)
Treasury has every right to be outraged. S&P mangled the economic argument so badly that they had to abandon it entirely, and then fell back on a political argument which they are in no position to make, and which isn’t even correct.
“This isn’t about S&P. This is about the operation of the government of the United States of America which is borrowing over 40 cents per dollar to function. Hell, that’s not going to work. Who are we trying to kid?“
First, this is about political cheer leading, extending the chorus of propaganda veiled by tangential data, so that cause and effect relationship has been obscured. Four the past several years that cheer has been the raspberries coming from the political right in support of their financial benefactors. Whether the jeer comes from S&P or the choir at Faux News, it is an amalgam of truth and dare. The economy is skewed. I dare you to say how, why or what to do to fix it. Note that every suggestion which contributes to a proper adjustment is always described by those who jeer as “no, that’s not enough.” No new taxes. No control over military adventurism. No new jobs. Nay sayers have no solution because in fact they are well satisfied to keep the jeering loud and often lest the beast suddenly awakens to the reality of its lot. The wealth and income of our economy is skewed so far to the right that no amount of tampering will fully resolve the economic crisis because that skewed distribution of wealth and income is the crisis. The debt and deficit are only a symptom of the problem.
These comments are key: “… the ratings agency said was that it had growing concerns about whether political leaders would be able to come together in the near future to put the nation on a fiscal path that was comparable to other AAA rated countries.”
“More than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on how to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures,”
This AM S&P again reiterated its downgrade was largely based upon economic performance and predictions of future economic directions. This is a hugely negative picture and rating of/for Obama’s economic policies. No confidence!
Dem leadership is attacking everything and everyone but themselves. When they are the group rated!
Jack, you are absolutely correct: “… this is about political cheer leading, extending the chorus of propaganda veiled by tangential data, so that cause and effect relationship has been obscured.” What tangential data? It’s S&P’s faulty analysis. It’s the Tea Party’s fault. It’s the Republican’s fault for fighting against the superior economic policies of Obama/Democrats.
Guess what? Those faults are not what the S&P rating was based. Obama/Democratic economic policies and their impact is upon which it was based!
Or fire the obviously corrupt and incompetent umpire.
Nouriel Roubini (a guy who unlike S&P actually predicted the mortgage securitization crisis) on the downgrade: “…the reality is that they contributed to the crisis that caused them leading to the downgrade, there is no fundamental reason at this point compared to few months ago for a downgrade the thing that has changed may be right now, there is a great risk of double dip recession and that’s may be the only fundamental difference…” – From an interview on Bloomberg. http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/2011/08/08/roubini-bloomberg-interviews-on-sp-downgrade-and-u-s-growth/
Thanks jazz – I figured it was negative but I’m not a chart guy…
Islam will change
MG,
You comment should be a main-page post. That would get AB back into the economics of the issue and not all the politics crap.(which is mostly the realization that we can’t fund an ever increasing government – the progressive agenda)
Islam will change
as,
Well its a nakedly political act to not pass a budget in over 800 days. Its a nakedly political act to put out a budget plan for the next 10 years that increases the US debt at unprecedanted rates, with no hope of even an attempt at a balanced budget, and that’s with the fantasy land growth projections in it.
MG has brought data and facts to the table. Obama owns this one, has do the Dems who totally controlled Congress from Jan 2007. And all you can gripe about is you think S&P is after your messiah? What part of $1.5 Trillion YEARLY debt do you not get?
Oh that’s right its all Bush’s fault.
Islam will change
MG – that was funny!
Islam will change
Buff
make an effort to think carefully
“can’t fund an ever increasing government” is probably true, but it sounds like a stock phrase from the Big Book of Lies.
and when we listen to the “debate” in congress we hear constantly the Biggest Lie of All: that it’s Social Security that is driving the deficit. Which at least you should know by now is not true.
I suspect there are some “progressives” who would keep adding to the size and cost of government while depriving the poor of any chance at self respect, but I have not seen those people have any effect on government since The Great Society.
MG’s comment might be worth of a main post, but I would make two suggestions: make it shorter. And try not to just swallow everything you like the taste of while making aggressive or condescending remarks about things you don’t like the taste of.
In other words, try to find out what careful critical thinking is.
buff
no, it’s not all bush’s fault anymore. Obama and the present congress have definitely proved that much. But the answer is still to raise the taxes to pay for the Bush tax cuts that were going to pay for themselves but didn’t.
And if you think any of the Debt Ceiling Debate was other than insane you and I probably won’t agree on much. And if we can’t agree on much, then we might begin to understand why there are nakedly political failures to pass a budget.
remarks about messiah suggest you are not so much thinking as conducting an orchestra of your fantasies. otherwise you might have noticed that no one here likes Obama very much…. though I will grant that there was a lot of messiah thinking when Obama burst on the scene… but again, not so much here.
and do trace that deficit back to its origins. and try to forget the partisan bullshit. we know that party politics is mostly theater. you seem to be the only one here who thinks the world is divided up between the R’s and the D’s. the good and the bad.
Jesus, Co Rev
do you really think the Republicans have had nothing to do with the current mess?
Does it ever occur to you that you can’t run a household, much less a country, without spending money. And “tax cuts all the time” will lead you to a situation where you aren’t spending enough money to pay the electric bill, the rent, or the cop on the corner?
Or that in any case, after you have run up the bill is not the time to “cut spending.” Pay the damn bills, and then we can talk about what future spending we want to do. But the “crisis” here is completely about refusing to pay for what we already bought.
And blaming it on Social Security, which pays its own bills.
MG
you will note I am not complaining about S and P… though I agree with those who do. I am not at all happy that some prominent liberals i know are going to go “full court press” against A and P. I think they have far more important thins they should be doing.
But not whining about S and P is different from writing long posts praising them.
The way to deal with the credit worthiness of the United States is to raise the taxes to pay our bills. Rightest whining about “taxes kill jobs” is a bunch of bull, to use an MG expression.
As for Greenspan, some of us always thought he was wrong. U.S. “social support programs” Social Security and Medicare can always pay for themselves. Greenspan was either just another part of the conspiracy against SS, or he was just another fool of the Peterson Lie. Being a great admirer of Ayn Rand gives you some insight into his level of intelligence.
CoRev
no doubt. S and P is not an objective actor. It’s a political actor.
As for the 40 cents per dollar deficit… that could be. But if you start a business or buy a house you are very likely borrowing forty cents of every dollar you spend. It is only when you talk about government that all of a sudden borrowing is a sin.
We borrowed to win WW2. We can borrow to end the recession… if we borrow and spend intelligently. Or we may not need to borrow at all… if we can tax those who have the money to pay for what they bought through their government without paying for it for the past twenty years.
Remember when Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”? What has changed?
And why did the R’s and the O agree to cut taxes while crying about the deficit?
CoRev: “Guess what? Those faults are not what the S&P rating was based. Obama/Democratic economic policies and their impact is upon which it was based!”
At best the S&P rating down grade was based on poor math and a political analysis that found our Congress lacking in an ability to carry out its responsibilities regarding the budget. There is undoubtedly enough room for blame on both sides of the aisle and the Prsident. There was tallk of allowing the country to go into a facsimile for bankruptcy. There has been an out right refusal to address a need for increased revenue and cutting military spending. There has been pressure from external sources to cloud the budgetary parameters. There has been a lack of leadership and too much reliance on brinkmanship.
CoRev’s assertion that the problem is the result of an economic policy originating with Obama and the Democratic side of the Congress is useless partisan bull shit and most of the recent opinion polls indicate that the average American is well aware of the role played by right wing extremism in its defense of the wealthiest Americans. Yes, we need better electoral representation in the Congress, but the people need to be better educated regarding who it is that has their best interests at heart. Too much propaganda is floating through the air waves and you, CoRev, are busy contributing to that misinformation campaign. Unfortunately the average voter knows better which football or basketball team is best positioned for championship status than he or she knows which candidate is peing truthful about economic issues. Most of the candidates seem no better informed.
Here’s the Standard & Poor’s Sovereign rating list:
Sovereign Ratings And Country T&C Assessments
S&P, August 5, 2011
S&P Sovereign Ratings And Country T&C Assessments
Legend:
1. Sovereign local currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)
2. Sovereign foreign currency ratings (LT/Outlook/ST)
3. Transfer and convertibility assessment
Nation 1 2 3
Australia AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Austria AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Canada AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Denmark AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Finland AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
France AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Germany AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA/Stable/A-1+ AAA
Guernsey […]