Live data from Hacker News

Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

treasury.gov

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#61
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They deserve to be called out. This isn't their only mistake . These clowns are the same bunch who kept giving AAA scores to complex mortgage-backed securities during the housing boom. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/moody-s-s-p-caved-t...

Well, they were raked over the coals (though more should have been done) when they were too lenient. Now they're being too strict, and are still getting crap for it. I'm not a big fan, but from a 'credit worthiness' standpoint, I'm not surprised the US was downgraded. With the sorts of people running the show, we demonstrated that we were cavalier enough to nearly get to a point where we couldn't pay our bills. And t…

"With the sorts of people running the show, we demonstrated that we were cavalier enough to nearly get to a point where we couldn't pay our bills."

s/couldn't/wouldn't

Our ability to pay our bills at present was never in question. The issue was whether we would merely decide not to pay. That induces a certain queasiness in the upper deck cabins on the ship of state.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#62
post #51
post #4

I hate it when students whine about the unfairness of their lousy grades and how they really deserved a higher one. It's even worse when the Treasury Department does it.

I ended up going to summer school for physics because my teacher "unfairly" gave me an F. She told us at the beginning of the school year that we only had to do 10 of those honor questions (out of 20 possible) every unit and at the end of the year told us "Oh, I meant you only had to do 10 to not drop a letter grade" which was retarded and the class went nuts at this. And once, another student accidentally took home…

You know, I'm not against people downvoting me, but I'd like to know why. I'd like people to tell me why they disagree so I can at least learn from my mistakes.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#64
post #27

They don't see publicly debating for a month about defaulting on a loan for the first time and coming close to being within a day of doing it as anything that could possibly shake investor confidence? Isn't the AAA rating for ultra rock solid, and that dragged on public debate gives off the impression of anything but ultra rock solidness.

The US did not come within one day of defaulting. It came within a day of hitting the debt ceiling, which is a very different thing. Despite the way it was portrayed, the government could have limped along for days our weeks without defaulting. (I'm not saying that would have been a good thing--just that the idea of August 2nd as the day default would have occurred is incorrect.)

We hit the debt ceiling back in May. We've managed to stay afloat due to some accounting tricks at the Treasury.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/federal-gove...

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#65

I continue to be amazed at how much credibility we seem to give this (and other) rating agency after they rated subprime-backed derivatives as safe, rated AIG & Lehman as safe. Is our collective short-term memory non-existent?

A broken clock is right twice a day. I hate the ratings agencies, but that doesn't make the downgrade wrong.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#66
S&P's response to the supposed Mistake:

Standard & Poor’s Clarifies Assumption Used On Discretionary Spending Growth

New York, Aug. 6, 2011. In response to questions, Standard & Poor’s today said that the ratings decision to lower the long-term rating to AA+ from AAA was not affected by the change of assumptions regarding the pace of discretionary spending growth. In the near term horizon to 2015, the U.S. net general government debt is projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption.

We used the Alternative Fiscal Scenario of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which includes an assumption that government discretionary appropriations will grow at the same rate as nominal GDP. In further discussions between Standard & Poor’s and Treasury, we determined that the CBO’s Baseline Scenario, which assumes discretionary appropriations grow at a lower rate, would be more consistent with CBO assessment of the savings set out by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Our ratings are determined primarily using a 3-5 year time horizon.

In the near term horizon, by 2015, the U.S. net general government debt with the new assumptions were projected to be $14.5 trillion (79% of 2015 GDP) versus $14.7 trillion (81% of 2015 GDP) with the initial assumption – a difference of $345 billion.

In taking a longer term horizon of 10 years, the U.S. net general government debt level with the current assumptions would be $20.1 trillion (85% of 2021 GDP). With the original assumptions, the debt level was projected to be $22.1 trillion (93% of 2021 GDP).

The primary focus remained on the current level of debt, the trajectory of debt as a share of the economy, and the lack of apparent willingness of elected officials as a group to deal with the U.S. medium term fiscal outlook. None of these key factors was meaningfully affected by the assumption revisions to the assumed growth of discretionary outlays and thus had no impact on the rating decision.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#67
post #45
post #4

I hate it when students whine about the unfairness of their lousy grades and how they really deserved a higher one. It's even worse when the Treasury Department does it.

This isn't whining - the Treasury isn't simply complaining about the downgrade. They are pointing out a fact that the original justification for the downgrade was proved to be wrong, yet after realizing this S&P maintained the same conclusion based on a different set of justifications. This would be like a student pointing out that the teacher incorrectly graded his paper; and after acknowledging that fact, the teach…

It is worse than that.

In the original guidance that S&P gave, their target level of deficits for the USA was exactly what the real plan, without their mistake, was. So the government actually is achieving exactly what S&P wanted them to achieve.

For better or for worse I believe that the reason for S&P's downgrade is that they gave guidance of $4 trillion, they didn't see a $4 trillion deal, and they would be embarrassed if they failed to downgrade given how publicly they said that they would if they didn't see $4 trillion.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#68
post #58

S&P's mistake is certainly incredibly embarrassing but apart from that I'm asking myself a much more fundamental question: Why is the ability to pay considered at all when it comes to the US? A country that is indebted in its own currency can theoretically never default on its nominal obligations. Not due to inability to pay at least. I don't think that credit rating agencies even try to pass judgement on the likelyh…

No one was seriously suggesting that we never pay our debts ever again, There really was two things proposed: One was too not raise the debt ceiling and use SS and Medicare funds to pay off the debt; The other was to default but just for a short while so as to provide more pressure on the Democrats. If we defaulted for say a month; it would hurt a minuscule fraction of the debt holders. If it actually would hurt debt…

I believe that the US government has an obligation under current law to make payments to Medicare and SS recipients. It's not a voluntary donation. I don't think the government can simply stop making those payments tomorrow without violating current law.

You see, it is this entire attitude of political parties negotiating in the 11th hour about whether or not to honor this or that obligation that isn't exactly encouraging. This is just not a responsible way to deal with political differences over government spending.

I also doubt the quality of the solutions coming out of that kind of process.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#69
post #62
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ended up going to summer school for physics because my teacher "unfairly" gave me an F. She told us at the beginning of the school year that we only had to do 10 of those honor questions (out of 20 possible) every unit and at the end of the year told us "Oh, I meant you only had to do 10 to not drop a letter grade" which was retarded and the class went nuts at this. And once, another student accidentally took home…

You know, I'm not against people downvoting me, but I'd like to know why. I'd like people to tell me why they disagree so I can at least learn from my mistakes.

I didn't downvote you, but your comment isn't very relevant to the topic. I'm guessing that's why.

Re: Just the Facts: S&P's $2 Trillion Mistake

#70
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you choose to look at it that way. But if you're going to make "Non-convertible floating FX currency regimes (ie fiat money) ... can meet any and all financial obligations by issuing currency", then you've got to consider that entire reference frame. Issuing currency is identically equal to inflation, which is itself nothing more than a tax levied against those holding assets denominated in that currency. Us…

Sure, it can cause inflation, but it is incontrovertible that governments can always replay local currency debt by issuing currency (except the EURO, where priting money has been offloaded to an external entity). Which is why sovereign debt in local currency is always the risk free credit, by definition. And the US is in the enviable position where, due to the nature of the dollar being the global reference currency,…

In the USA the printing of currency has also been offloaded to an external entity (the Fed), and the amount of currency to circulate has been fixed by Congress. Thus while in theory it is possible to just print money, in practice it is a lot more difficult than that.
Post reply on HN