U.S. Credit Rating: American Hegemony in Decline?

08.09.11

U.S. Credit Rating: American Hegemony in Decline?

08.09.11

Standard and Poor’s (S&P) have reduced America’s sovereign credit rating from AAA to AA+. The rating puts the U.S. on par with Kuwait and Taiwan. America’s $14.3 trillion debt makes “the world’s richest nation” a worse credit risk than Australia, Germany, Britain and the Isle of Man. The downgrade followed the biggest weekly selloff in U.S. stocks in 32 months. S&P’s decision rested on two factors: America’s decision to raise the debt ceiling and concerns about America’s political processes. S&P were reportedly concerned about the “political brinksmanship of recent months” which had highlighted what they saw as “America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable” than what they had previously believed. S&P were “pessimistic” about the ability of Congress and the White House to reach a broader plan to rein in the deficit “any time soon.”

It has been widely reported that the legislation signed by Barack Obama on 2 August to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years was well short of S&P expectations of US$4 trillion. The rating agency is also reportedly considering the possibility of lowering the rating to AA within two years if the U.S. government does not cut spending as much as recently pledged, or if higher interest rates and new fiscal pressures worsen the state’s financial picture. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the S&P decision will likely send “shock waves through global financial markets and potentially undermine world economic growth.”

In July, S&P had placed the United States’ rating on “credit watch with negative implications” as the debt ceiling debate devolved into partisan bickering. In the same month, Moody’s Investors Services announced it had initiated a review of America’s sterling bond rating because of the likelihood of a U.S. default on its debts. Unlike S&P, who wanted to see no increase in the debt ceiling, Moody’s concern was based on the fact that the rise in the debt ceiling would not be high enough. In both cases, however, it seemed America’s rating was in trouble last month.

The downgrade of America’s credit rating is the first time the U.S. was downgraded since it received an AAA rating from Moody’s in 1917 and S&P in 1941. It is the first time that S&P has issued a “negative” outlook on the U.S. government since it began rating the credit-worthiness of railroad bonds in 1860.

“A downgrade is uncharted territory for the U.S., but one outcome seems likely: Americans could face higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, credit cardsand other consumer loans. Business probably will also have to pay more to borrow money,” according to MSN Money, none of which will boost the already flagging economy.

The likely domestic cost of the downgrading will be increased borrowing costs, which will have a drag effect on economic growth. It is predicted that the U.S. downgrade is likely to cost the U.S. economy $100 billion a year. Variable borrowing rates and mortgage rates will rise; conversely mortgage-backed bonds will face a downgrade. Money market mutual funds will come under significant pressure. The downgrade will negatively impact on the borrowing capabilities of American state and municipalities and companies, particularly those with debts linked to federal payments.

A larger concern will be whether the appetite for U.S. debt might change among foreign investors, in particular China, the world’s largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries. In 1945, foreigners owned just 1 percent of US Treasuries. Today, they own a record high 46 percent. U.S. Treasury bonds, once undisputedly seen as the safest security in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as Britain, Germany, France, or Canada.

Prior to the S&P decision, Dagong, China’s Global Credit Rating agency, had already pushed the U.S. rating from A+ to A, and placed the rating on negative watch (indicating the potential for a further cut). Other than the U.S. Federal Reserve, China is the biggest holder of American debt, with $1.16 trillion. It maintains the value of its currency through buying U.S dollars: a monetary policy that is likely to continue if only to protect its own currency.

The downgrade, accompanied by a continuing weak U.S dollar, could affect Chinese exports and this will directly affect the Australian economy. Less demand for consumer goods in both the regional and global economy would directly lead to weaker demand for China’s exported goods; this then weakens demands for imports, particularly in the energy sector. If the Chinese currency appreciates as a response to the weakening U.S dollar, it will make Chinese goods more expensive. This will result in China shifting its focus away from export production to production for domestic consumption. With China continuing to buy U.S debt and shifting its focus to domestic economic production, the results will mean less Chinese currency floating in the regional and global economy. This coupled with contractions in Eurozone spending, bodes badly for any economy that is being driven by exports: as Australia currently is.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has immediately responded to the downgrade saying: “Australia’s economy is strong and should not be badly affected.” She maintained the Labor mantra that the Australian economy was, and would remain strong, because of China’s demand for Australian resources. However, world stock markets had already plunged prior to the S&P decision, stripping more than $100 billion from the value of listed Australian companies. Following the downgrade decision, the Australian share market is expected to face more losses. No amount of Gillard or Swan rhetoric is likely to stop further significant domestic losses.

Similarly, the Canadian government is putting on a brave face in its acknowledgement of its interconnectedness with the U.S. The country’s finance minister Jim Flaherty has said that Canada is “well-positioned to face global headwinds.”

Apart from the economic impact of the downgrade on American and international economies, the downgrade has a political context. The world’s economic superpower has been sharply criticised for its political handling of the debt ceiling issue. S&P issued a “sharply worded critique of the American political system.”

There is a view that the U.S. does not deserve a triple-A rating, and the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with its debt ratios. America’s ability to pay is not the issue: the problem is its willingness to pay. It is not entirely clear that this is the position of Barack Obama and the Democrats, rather is likely being driven by those in Washington who are willing to “drive the U.S. into default.”

It is possible that the S&P factored in the machinations of the Republican Party, and in particular the Tea Party, that took the U.S. to the brink of default. A smaller deficit-reduction deal was on offer, but was refused by the Republicans possibly hyped up by the Tea Party, who are desperate to remain relevant is a rapidly changing political landscape. This being the case, the S&P have punished America because of the action of recalcitrant Republicans for refusing to accept any legislation that would increase taxes. The political machinations of Washington confirmed to S&P the debilitating state of American politics.

America emerged as the dominant, hegemonic power at the end of the Cold War. It played a preeminent role in shaping the post-war international economic system and was a key actor in many of the international organisations that now shape global economic and monetary policy. The decision to downgrade its credit rating is economic, political but also powerfully symbolic. In New Zealand, the downgrade was reported as “a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world’s largest economy.” The Australian media is reporting it as “a symbolic embarrassment for President Barack Obama, his administration and the Americans” and as a “symbolic blow.” As one American commentator has said: “The symbolism is undeniable.” The downgrade is a “blow to U.S. prestige.” The downgrade to America’s credit rating is a historic assault on the superpower’s prestige and a symbol of the changing world order: that is, the demise of the U.S. and the rise of China.

3 comments
3 comments
Igor

China’s government elected to peg the value of the Yuan to the US dollar some 15 years ago, which had the desired effect of keeping it unrealistically low. The cheap Yuan was compelling for US corporates to go “off shore” and manufacture products in China. US unemployment rose as our factory jobs vanished. Since China doesn’t import goods from the US it instead purchased our Treasury bills and bonds, lots of them, bringing their ownership to a staggering $1.160 Trillion in US debt. China’s purchase of all those Treasuries helped drive down US interest rates. So, we quickly discovered that we could still keep our “fat cat” lifestyles through borrowing. We could outspend our incomes by easily and continually refinancing our home, while its value kept rising. This refinancing credit scheme kept US families spending rates high. This approach worked well, as long as China continued to buy Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and our Treasury issues. Now that the topic has shifted to a lowered US debt rating, it's now becoming too risky to own US debt. Though they gradually shifted from short term bills to longer term bonds, China has now continued to buy more, though it recognizes the need to divest its US “holdings” longer term. If it does so aggressively, the US will feel an even tougher upcoming economic cycle, possibly a financial collapse. China and the US have, in essence created a huge liquidity bubble, and increasing our debt ceiling just made it worse. Is there a viable, immediate solution……not really. The prudent approach would have China opening their markets, allowing the Yuan to float on the open market, and the US would need to significantly lower its deficit spending. A serious enactment of paying off the piles of debt should start the process of economic recovery, investor confidence and a return to a more robust economy. This is the singular major issue facing the 2012 US Presidential candidates, and I have yet to hear any of them address it with a real world, viable solution, that includes Obama. The other looming concern is that the current administration has zero economic advisory guidance left, given that Romer, Wolfe, Summers, Volcker, Orszag, Bernstein, Goolsbee have all long departed. I must also admit that George Soros, not considered an economic advisory source to Obama, reinforces this impeding economic vulnerability-the need to control asset bubbles are as critical as controlling the money supply; "you must control the availability of credit. The best-known tools are margin requirements and minimum capital requirements. Currently, they are fixed irrespective of the market’s mood, because markets are not supposed to have moods. Yet they do, and the financial authorities need to vary margin and minimum capital requirements in order to control asset bubbles." Igor Sill

Jensen Kristen
Jensen Kristen

Great article....I hope to see more by this author.

  • Greg Webb

    The Nuclear Narrative

  • Reuters

    Libya: When an Agreement Isn’t

  • Screengrab

    The Almost Indomitable Islamic State

  • Reuters

    U.S.-Turkish War on ISIS: Disaster in the Making

  • Gijs Klooster/FAO

    Climate Change and Destabilization in the MENA Region

  • Screengrab

    The Dual Threat to Tunisia’s Democratic Transition

  • Jeroen Akkermans

    The Problems with an MH17 Tribunal

  • Screengrab

    Balancing Hope and Leadership: A Lesson from the Colombian Peace Process