Current Issue

Current Issue

Posted: July 01, 2011

The Economist: Are we headed for trouble?

Tucker Hart Adams

The Duchess of Doom title gets old after awhile. Except for pointing out the dangers of the housing/debt bubble back in 2006 and correctly forecasting that it would lead to a recession by the end of 2007, I've been pretty upbeat about the American economy over the years. But I'm starting to get worried again.

I think we face two intertwined and very dangerous issues. The first is the dollar exchange rate relative to other major currencies. The second is our unwillingness to address our long-term federal deficit/debt.

The dollar is at its lowest level against the currencies of our major trading partners, after adjusting for inflation and weighting for each country's share of foreign trade, since 1973. That's when the dollar's convertibility to gold was terminated, and it was allowed to float.

I'm certainly not an advocate of returning to the gold standard, an artificial construct sprinkled with fairy dust if there ever was one. Currencies need to float freely to enhance trade and adjust misalignments. That's the source of the dollar's problem.

It boils down to basic supply and demand. Our huge trade deficit causes us to flood the world with dollars, which must be used to purchase local currencies. Many governments buy up these dollars to keep their currency from appreciating and then use them to purchase assets in the U.S. Recently these governments have reduced these purchases, swapping their dollars for other currencies so they can diversify their portfolios by purchasing assets in other countries. Everyone tries to get rid of dollars; the price (i.e., exchange rate) falls.

This is occurring in the face of major uncertainties around the world, especially in northern Africa and the Middle East. In the past this would have triggered a huge flight to quality, which meant the dollar. It isn't happening this time around. This apparent loss of confidence in the outlook for the U.S. economy is extremely troubling.

That leads to my second concern - our unwillingness to address our huge federal deficit and soaring debt. I spent several days in May at a large financial industry conference in Washington, D.C., where I had the opportunity to hear presentations by most of the senior government financial officials, both Democrats and Republicans. To a person the message was the same: While it is a mistake to cut spending and raise interest rates in the face of a very weak expansion, a creditable plan to reduce the deficit in the very near future must be enacted now.

Everyone nods his head, but politicians refuse to address Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Remember that when we point our finger at them, three fingers are pointing back at us. We don't re-elect people who threaten those social programs, so anyone who wants to stay in D.C. leaves them alone.

But if you add up payments on those three programs plus the interest payment on the federal debt, it exceeds federal tax revenues, which were $2.21 trillion in 2009 and $2.39 trillion in 2010. We have no control over the interest payment on the debt. It is the result of the debt we have issued in the past and the new debt we issue each year (about $1.5 trillion in each of the last two years and into the foreseeable future) and the interest rates set by the market on that debt.

So even if we eliminate every other government program - defense, transfers to the states, agencies protecting workers and the environment, support for the arts and education, salaries, paper clips - we run a deficit! And the debt, currently $14.4 trillion dollars and growing at the rate of over $4 billion dollars a day, continues to increase. No wonder the rest of the world is losing confidence in the dollar!

I have great faith in our government and our voters to do the right thing in the face of a crisis. But we are running out of time. We need to keep that in mind when we head to the polls.

{pagebreak:Page 1}¨

Tucker Hart Adams, president of the Adams Group, monitored and analyzed the Colorado economy for 30 years. She can be reached via her website,

Enjoy this article? Sign up to get ColoradoBiz Exclusives. The opinions expressed in this article are solely that of the author and do not represent ColoradoBiz magazine. Comments on articles will be removed if they include personal attacks.

Readers Respond

No doubt, John. Wealthy Americans are wealthy in large part to the luck of the draw. They happened to be born into a system that allowed them to amass a fortune. Without the society they have no wealth. It's been running through my mind lately that maybe the most equitable solution to increasing revenue is to raise the estate tax to 99% of everything over $100,000 - and force everyone to start from nearly the same place. Practical, no. Theoretically equitable, maybe. In any event, there must also be a very large decrease in spending and there are no groups who will volunteer to have their budgets cut. By David Ess(EveryoneHasABoss) on 2011 07 22
Part of the solution is to eliminate tax loopholes. It is ridiculous to balance the budget solely on the backs of the most needy of society. While I am in agreement that there need to be some changes to entitlements, entitlements alone are not the whole problem. We need more revenue. That revenue should come from those who are able to pay more to play, but are not paying more to play. We have the lowest tax rates since 1950 while our financial house is falling apart. While taxing the middle class would be counter-productive, closing the tax loopholes for corporations and the very wealthy would be a start. It won't solve the problem alone, but WOULD produce, over the years, trillions in additional revenue. And don't try to scare us by saying that they'd leave. Some would, but most would stay. This is where their homes and businesses are....and closing these special interest tax loopholes will not cost the corporations nor the very wealthy an appreciable percentage of their assets or income. We CANNOT balance the Federal budget on cuts alone, unless you want to see riots in the streets as unemployment, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are eliminated. By John Heckers, MA, CPC, BCPC on 2011 07 22
Has there ever been a democratic system which hasn't failed as a result of the citizens voting themselves cash? Is it even possible that a people free to demand a seat at the government teat would refuse a place? Since no politician wants to cut a specific program, can they all agree that EVERY program get a 20% cut? Everyone who received $10 last year would get $8 next year and no one politician would be singled out as the one who cut funding to X. By David Ess(EveryoneHasABoss) on 2011 07 22

Leave a comment

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

ColoradoBiz TV

Loading the player ...

Featured Video