Jim Jubak: Tax deal -- US continues on dangerous debt path

Jubak's Journal12/9/2010 5:00 PM ET

Tax deal says we're deadbeats

Adding another trillion to the national debt tells the world the US doesn't intend to pay its bills. We're following the course of the great Spanish Empire -- which went bankrupt.

By Jim Jubak

The world has a fair deal of experience in dealing with small countries that can't pay their bills. And the world is gaining more experience by the minute.

Greece can't pay its bills? Put together a funding package that comes at the price of domestic austerity and higher taxes. Ireland can't pay its bills? (Or actually its banks' bills?) Put together a funding package at the price of domestic austerity and higher taxes. And when the small countries can't pay their bills again in a couple of years, go through the process over and then over again until creditors finally agree to take a haircut on their loans.

But what about a huge country, one that is at the center of the world's economic and financial system, one that can be described as the world's greatest power, one that controls the world's supply of money? What do you do with such a country, one that can pay its bills but shows no inclination to do so? And instead brazenly asks for more credit?

The world doesn't have a lot of experience working its way through problems like that. But I think that's the kind of problem that now confronts the world. The deal between the Obama White House and Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts for an additional two years at the cost of adding $1 trillion to U.S. debt says to the world that we have no intention of paying our bills.

And it pugnaciously adds, "So what ya gonna do about it?"

Another deadbeat nation

I've actually been able to find just one example in Western history that sheds any light on the situation the United States and the world finds itself facing -- the multiple bankruptcies of Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries.

In the 16th century, the Spanish Empire stretched farther across the globe than any previous empire. Starting from an Iberian peninsula unified under Castile and Aragon only in 1492, the Spanish empire grew to encompass first the island then known as Hispaniola, then Cuba, Mexico, the bulk of South America except for Brazil, and the islands of Guam and the Philippines. In Europe, Spanish monarchs ruled the Netherlands, Belgium, much of Italy and parts of Africa.

And it was a fabulously rich empire. The great silver mines of Peru and Mexico began to deliver a river of precious metal -- supplemented by gold from conquest and mining -- as early as 1511. Spain imported 260,000 kilograms of silver and 5,000 kilograms of gold from 1511 to 1550. And that was just the beginning. From 1591 through 1610, the country imported 4.9 million kilograms of silver and 31,000 kilograms of gold. The flood of gold and silver into Europe, a region previously starved for precious metals, was so great that the supply depressed the price for both metals and set prices for goods and services climbing.

But less than half of this silver and gold remained in Spanish hands. About a third went to China to pay for Spanish imports of silk, porcelain and other luxury goods. The remainder went to pay for Spanish imports from the rest of Europe. The Spanish economy itself was an increasingly uncompetitive hulk. Spain lived beyond its means, supported on that wave of New World silver and gold.

And that included the Spanish monarchy. Silver and gold poured in, but running an empire is expensive when it includes almost constant war in Europe with a constellation of national enemies that included France and England, plus local rebellions in the Netherlands and Italy, plus more than a century of land and sea battles against an Ottoman Empire that moved relentlessly westward after its capture of Constantinople in 1453.

Borrowed prosperity

The kings of Spain found it much easier to borrow money -- after all, what lender could afford to say no to the most powerful kingdom in Europe? -- than to reform the Spanish economy. But the seemingly inexhaustible flow of treasure from the Western hemisphere encouraged Spanish kings to think they could borrow and repay any sum -- and what bank would have had the courage to question the creditworthiness of the most powerful kingdom in Europe? The result was bankruptcy in 1557 that left the Fugger bank in Augsburg holding the bag.

The circumstances of that 1557 bankruptcy may sound familiar. The bank made the classic mistake of mismatching assets and liabilities: The Fugger bankers took out long-term loans in Augsburg in order to make short-term loans to the Spanish king. Payments on the long-term loans were to come from payments on the short-term Spanish loans. Then, in 1557, Phillip II of Spain decided that he had more use for two payments intended for the Fuggers than they did. In effect, Spain declared bankruptcy, and the bank renegotiated its loans with reduced interest payments and a longer payment schedule.

The same thing happened again in 1575 when Spain again stopped paying on its loans, and in 1596. That last Spanish bankruptcy ended the Fugger bank and gave lucky Genoese bankers the opportunity to finance Spain.

In a desperate attempt to satisfy its creditors, Spain debased its currency, replacing silver and gold in its coins with copper in 1599. That led to runaway inflation in the first half of the 17th century. From 1625 to 1650, prices climbed by 40%.

By the second half of the century, the Spanish economy was in rapid decline as high taxes on peasant producers -- just about the only class that would pay significant taxes -- led to a decline of food and wool production, and high inflation made Spanish exports uncompetitive against imports from England, France and the Netherlands.

And by 1675 Spain, once the greatest empire in the world, was ready to be picked apart by the France of Louis XIV.

Continued: Echoes of Spain today

More from MSN Money and MoneyShow.com

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowHigh
MoneyShow.com
133Comments
avatar

I really liked this article, it did a good comparison where I think we’re headed.  The problem is we cannot spend more money than we make and you cannot tax it out of people.  This is what this country needs to do:

 

  1. Everyone needs to pay the same rate in taxes and get off the rich need to pay more.  Flat rate it at the same rate, lets say 26%.  You pay that on every dollar.  So if I make a million I pay 26% if you make 10,000 you pay 26%.  That’s fare.  The more I make the more I pay, but we all are paying the same rate.
  2. We need to nationalize medicine and make it available to everyone.  Make it a branch of the military and make them responsible for the national health of each citizen.  We decided years ago that we are better, as a nation, if everyone is educated.  So everyone can get at least a HS education in this country.  We’ll the same is true for healthcare.  We will have a better work force if everyone is healthy.  You want something better, than you can pay for it like you do if the public school is not good enough, you go to a private school.
    1. Everyone graduating from HS, if they are NOT going to college needs to serve this country in the military.  Now with the NEW branch that is responsible for the health of the nation they can serve in it helping others and learning the medical field.
  3. The government can only spend what they take in and must balance the budget.  If they don’t have the money then they do just what everyone of us does.  They tighten their belt.
    1. Term limits for congress also needs to be enacted so you can only server for no more than 6 years.  So do the job you were sent there to do.
    2. Since there are term limits, there needs to be limits on lobbyist.  We do NOT want ‘them bubbling to the top’ because they are always there.  Therefore, a lobbyist can only be there 4 years until it is a criminal offense.
  4. Jobs, the way the world has worked in the past was we kept jobs here because  we had to make the goods here.  Well, technology has made it so you can do business anywhere in the world and ship your goods to anywhere.  Cell phones, computers, internet, fax, etc etc all make this possible.  You want to keep our jobs here than make it more affordable to have your company here.  How about ZERO taxes.
    1. Or increase gasoline to $25.00 a gallon and you’ll see company’s starting to locate in the US  to keep down transportation cost.  Also, if you did this can you say hello to small mom & pop stores, who’s going to drive to Wal-Mart when they can walk to Joe the Grocer?    Well not really practical ($25 a gallon gas), but in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s you couldn’t get around like you can today.  That is why the jobs were here.  Technology changed that, and now we have to change or all of our jobs will be gone.
1/03/2011 6:00 PM
avatar
Look at who is actually paying the taxes!!! The bottom 50% pay 2.7% of all the taxes. and they are the ones crying for the government to help.  Get a J-O-B. Where you say, try Mc D's.  Wait, most (not all) of them are the ones who know how to work the system and have figured they can sit on their a$$ and collect more in unemployment than by making an honest days wage at a Mc D's or a convenient store or some where.
Alright, let's say someone goes out to Mc D's or some other job that pays minimum wage and works forty hours a week. In a year they would make $15,080 assuming they worked through every holiday. Poverty line for one person is $10,956, and that statistic is from 2009, it has likely gone up as currency is worth less. Now let us pretend that this person is a single mother. Now the poverty line is $14,787. So congratulations, she is above the poverty line, she obviously does not need any federal aid of any kind.
1/02/2011 10:31 PM
avatar

Jubak your articles always interest me, your an awesome writer. Keep up the good work!

12/31/2010 9:56 PM
avatar

we need a new breed of young, bright political minds who will end this polarization of our country, unite us with a stance that both parties are correct and need to come together to compromise. we need to continue spending where it's really needed, cut spending that's not needed, and raise taxes for the rich.  EVERYONE has to bite the bullet until there are new american technologies.  we can give tax incentives to companies who manufacture here instead of outsourcing.  they'll still continue to outsource most services regardless.  we got fat, lazy, and high on booze, prescription and illegal drugs and let this country go to hell the past fifty years. ( back then they said it was all a communist plot.  i think "they" were right. )  we have to spend on education and health care, we can no longer find companies who can afford to.  we need a county of healthy workers.  we don't just let our people die.  one of the last industrialized nations with no health care.  it IS our responsibility.  the rich  living here, are not contributing ANYTHING any longer, no jobs, they're gone and never coming back.  outsourcing is a product of capitalism, as technology makes us a small world, we can't change what's been going on.  only protect what's left of this country.  republicans need to wake up and smell the deceit that's been fed to them the past 40 years.  even longer.  the year the anti trust laws went into effect and the giants moved their headquarters overseas to avoid them, then continued their hostile takeovers.  ever read  the chain pyramid of what giant  owns what? it would blow you away.

 

president obama has bright people around him and is compromising, and, i think he's doing a great job.  but he never should have let the rich tax cut expire.  the rich are only going to pocket their money, he knows it, his people know it and i'm surprised they did it.  but really needed unemployment to continue for all out of work, both democrats and republicans.  any republicans here collecting unemployment is a hypocrite if they speak against the democratic party.  these people would all be in soup lines right now without it.  you can't tell me only democrats collect unemployment.  be thankful a democrat's in office right now, or we'd all be dieing from being frozen in our tents.  eat the rich.  i don't include $250K a year as rich, either.  i mean, eat the real rich.  the one's whose companies are headquartered overseas and own the huge american ones.  those rich.  the 5% rich.  giving the rich back their money to line their pockets after taking away our jobs is not just bad, it's morally wrong.

 

 

12/27/2010 10:48 AM
avatar
who cares what other countries think of the US not me. we should take care of us first and only. I don't see another country trying to help us out! all of this countries money should stay here since it is our money to begin with and rebuild our economy instead of someones else. 
12/27/2010 9:21 AM
avatar

Essentially, it seems we are repeating the history of a great empire centuries before us. With more articles like this, perhaps we will become educated to history and not be doomed to repeat it?

12/26/2010 7:49 PM
avatar

@Active RIA,

could you please provide sample numbers for your net disposal income argument?  For example, making 25 K a year, paying 6 K in taxes, ~25%.  Making 250 K a year, paying 100 K in taxes, 40%.

 

I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about...

 

Also, could you please provide the net disposable income that you think would be reasonable to leave to people earning 25K and 250K respectively net of taxes?

 

Thanks.

12/26/2010 7:33 PM
avatar

I was just reading an article about Arnold's legacy in California and how he wasn't able to solve debt problems there because of unions and special interest groups.

 

While the US is a big country, it has smaller components such as the State of California that may become bankrupt first to give us a taste of what's to come.

 

When the country was growing rapidly, debt may not have been such a big problem as the tax revenue kept on increasing and blue-collar jobs were readily available.  Now, what we have are unsustainable social programs, including guaranteed pensions for government workers.  I am not an expert in our political system but I do not see how anything will be changed unless we've entered bankruptcy - similar to Greece and Ireland. 

 

Overall, I would hate to be the president who announces the end of social security - which is clearly where we are headed. At least that's what the current presidents should state as the goal, instead of passing on the problem.  Also, the job outsourcing will continue until China catches up with us in terms of wages, while our wages go down, unless our expertise can somehow keep on improving. With global economy, our kids compete with children from other countries and based on the disturbing test results in math and reading, I can say that the oursourcing will continue.

12/21/2010 9:05 PM
avatar

The Bush administration set the stage for this mess!  The Democrats, who controlled Congress for FOUR NOT TWO

years, sat on their hands (or heads) for the last two years

Bush was in power making him look as bad as possible without any regard for the welfare of the Nation.  They put political gain ahead of the welfare of the people they were elected to represent.  Now it's the Republicans turn to make

the current president look bad...and the Hatfield amd McCoy

saga continues as the Nation spirals into bankruptcy.

 

How do we stop the insanity?  This current governing body has too many axes to grind,too many "favors to return", too

much to hide.  We need to vote out all the incumbents and start over!  We need fresh minded, "debt free" , ethical men and women who are tired of being collateral damage in these

neverending political battles  and who are willing to put the good of the many before the wealth and job security of the few...politicians.

selfish politicians.

12/20/2010 12:18 AM
avatar

The deal between the Obama White House and Congressional Republicans to extend the Bush administration's tax cuts for an additional two years at the cost of adding $1 trillion to the US debt is very dangerous.

There is no question our debt is getting out of control.  This is bound to get painful at some point in time.  I think we are going to have to help our middle class more through education and providing them a place where they can get a good job.  Otherwise we will see more disintegration of our society and eventually possibly revolt if many of our people can't make it.

                                                           Lynn X

12/18/2010 10:11 AM
avatar

It amazes me that this  bill is touted as a tax cut bill. It is the same bill we have been under for years under Bush. Will jobs be created just because we don't get an increase in taxes? Yes, I know better than getting an increase in taxes but to the unemployed, they have no jobs, no income so no tax so how does it affect them? Have you gotten a job from a rich person or a homeless person? 

Both sides lost ground here. The republicans should have demanded spending cuts and the dems should have added some higher brackets on to the very wealthy. Clinton did this(not a fan) and balanced the budget. I'm sure a wealthy person would not mind a few more tax dollars going out if they knew it was spent properly but not by these crooks. Doesn't Warren Buffett's secretary pay more on her taxes(% wise) than he does?Why cut social security payroll taxes, isn't ss going bankrupt and has no money as it is now part of the general fund with bond iou's.

The real problem is our debt with helicopter Ben printing money, Obama, Reid, Polosoi and democrats spending like drunken sailors, we are going bankrupt and headed for trouble. Our true debt is 65 trillion according to the former head of the GAO so we headed for currency devaluation and there is nothing Ben or anyone can do to head it off. Yet the stock market continues to go up with all of the real estate problems, deflation on houses etc., debt, unemployment and on and on.

12/17/2010 9:28 AM
avatar
Wow, Jubak, wow! I am continually surprised and impressed by the scope and range of your money column topics.
While I don't always agree with you (you probably would like to take back a few articles yourself), I think you rock.
 Loose the shades and the baseball cap, however, unless the paparazzi are hot on your trail.
avatar

Arve:   You need to change the words Tea party to Democrats.

avatar

We can pay for the debt we have.  Just don't do it on the shoulders of the taxpayers.   The Federal Government was designed to protect the US with an army, not control the lives of everyone through politics.  

Both houses of Congress should only get 2 months a year to form a budget.  Then they go home to their other jobs.  The States should be able to handle themselves on what they can afford to do with balanced budgets.   Some states do not have a lot of natural resources or manufacturing so they shouldn't have large budgets and a whole lot fewer people.  As Sam Kinison said about the people starving in Africa from drought.   Move out of there, you idiots!  Go where there's water.

12/15/2010 7:01 AM
avatar
For eight long, long years the Republicans ruined America.  Now they blackmail the middle class and poor to give to the rich.  And our great nation goes bankrupt paying for the tax cut cult that is the anything but Grand, definitely Old Party.  President Obama didn't have the backbone to fight.  I strongly hope the Democrats in the House fight this know nothing gang of Republicans.  Better to block this awful "compromise," a misnomer for surrender, and raise all taxes and pay our way out of the Republican Recession than to go broke.
12/15/2010 5:26 AM
avatar
I agree 100% and am quite sickened by recent events.  The "tea party" impact (code word for "conservatives") shows their true direction - continuation of runaway greed.

Rather than taper back tax cuts AND taper back unemployment, the TP party (toilet paper party) demanded and got tax cuts AND ADDITIONAL DEBT.  They ran on and were voted in based on DEBT REDUCTION and SPENDING REDUCTION!!!!

$1 TRILLION in additional debt, even BEFORE they officially take office, is debt reduction.  It appears their true goals are 1) Get as much $ as possible for those not-in-need, 2) Run up so much debt (started big-time under GW Bush) that Social Security and Medicare can be dismantled.

This is greed - borrow trillions so those not-in-need can prosper even more, while planning and moving toward the dismantling of basic social programs that hugely benefit the masses and provide a basic standard of living for elderly Americans - most of who worked a lot of years and contributed taxes to both SS and Medicare.

TP-ers should be ashamed; we should all be disgusted with them.



12/14/2010 4:50 PM
avatar

I was reading an article the other day about the actions of the U.S. government during the financial crisis and the arguments today about what the eventual fallout of those actions will be.

 

One thing came to my mind: why is it that other countries when they spend money that more of that money is cycled into visibly public goods and not here? You can argue that they spend too much or that they borrow too much (an issue that can easily also be stated about the U.S.) but the difference seems to be that they at least got something out of it (free healthcare, free college tuition, better infrastructure, whatever).

 

Given the amount of money involved, I just don't get what we got out of de-regulation, free trade, the two wars, the bank bailouts, the stimulus and ultra-low interest rates. It all seemed to go to into a black hole (or someone's pocket - usually someone irresponsible or corrupt).

 

Has the wealth created by an entire generation being spent solely to build cities and societies overseas or castles for the very top of the pyramid?

 

12/14/2010 3:10 PM
avatar

History teaches us that even the great civilizations of the past like Rome and Spain fell apart when the leaders were to stupid to realize that you just can't spend more than you take in forever. And based upon what  have seen of our Democrat and Republican politicians I don't anyone who has the guts and leadership abilities to make the hard cuts necessary. And why should they if we keep rewarding them for their ineptitude by re-electing them?

12/14/2010 2:44 PM
avatar
In the country's best interest we the governed need to demand a smaller and more efficient government.  Way too many citizens see public service jobs as a good means to make a living.  This situation is not viable in the long run.  This situation only exists because of a politician's desire to remain in office by "bringing home the bacon" (jobs and other taxpayers tax revenue) which then results in more taxation to enforce more regulation.  This has to be addressed because it is simply unsustainable.  It could be fixed with term limits but that would be very hard to do and not the wisest choice.  Rather the amendment process should be tweaked so that greedy lawmakers are prohibited from exercising their silly self-interests and really get about the job of governing.
12/14/2010 4:39 AM
avatar
Thankyou for such an excellent, thought provoking article, oh, and rational.  Thanks
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of ConductPlease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
Additional comments(optional)
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
viewCounter