Is This the End of American Capitalism?
If interest rates stop being market signals and become policy decisions, what survives may look less like capitalism—and more like permanent crisis management.
America's budget deficit is approximately $1.8 trillion—about 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). This is a very high level of indebtedness, especially given that we are running these large deficits during an economic expansion.
Deficits usually grow during bad times, as the government engages in countercyclical spending, such as stimulus checks, extended unemployment benefits, and direct industry subsidies. If the deficit is already 6 percent of GDP in good times, where will it be when the next downturn arrives? Probably about 12 percent of GDP (or higher), which would be the highest since World War II.
There was a sharp but brief recession during the pandemic, and a near-recession in 2015, but the last full economic cycle occurred in 2008, during the financial crisis. That means roughly 18 years without a full recessionary cycle.
Recessions are notoriously difficult to predict, but we're probably closer to the next one than to the last one. President Donald Trump appears determined to keep the economy running hot to prevent a recession prior to the 2026 midterms, which helps explain ideas like his tariff rebate checks. If we do get a recession in 2026 or 2027, we may get Keynesian stimulus spending at a level we have never seen before, adding trillions of dollars to the debt.
Interest rates usually fall during recessions. After 2008, for example, investors fled equities for the safety of Treasury bonds. Even amid the engorged spending of Barack Obama's early presidency, interest rates went down and stayed down, surprising professional investors who expected the increased supply of bonds to drive rates higher. Notably, the Federal Reserve began quantitative easing in November 2008 and continued it for years—long after the initial crisis—effectively capping interest rates. The enormous expansion of the money supply paved the way for the great inflation of 2021–2022.
If the U.S. enters a recession and deficit spending pushes rates higher, the Federal Reserve will likely be pressured to implement Yield Curve Control (YCC)—buying unlimited government bonds with newly created money to suppress interest rates. The U.S. cannot tolerate higher interest rates: The housing market is the most unaffordable in history, with mortgage rates at only 7 percent. If interest rates were to rise significantly, the economy would be in checkmate. But YCC is effectively debt monetization—the same thing that led to hyperinflationary episodes in Weimar Germany and elsewhere. Eventually, YCC would lead to very high inflation, even hyperinflation. But that could take several years.
This is why the next recession could mark the beginning of the end of capitalism in the United States. High inflation or hyperinflation has historically been associated with war, revolution, and massive political upheaval. Even stable democracies—with comparatively robust constitutions and systems of checks and balances—can become fragile during periods of economic upheaval. Sustained high inflation tends to fuel radical politics and extremism on both the right and the left. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve was primarily concerned about deflation and falling prices. By contrast, Japan—a country that experienced decades of falling prices—remained a safe and stable democracy. People adapt to falling prices, but inflation rips societies apart.
In an economy, prices are signals. Interest rates are the price of money, and they give the authorities a clue about how to manage the federal budget. If interest rates are too high, the market is telling the government it is spending too much. If interest rates are too low (like they were a few years ago), the markets are telling the government that it is spending too little (if such a thing is possible).
Right now, the government is spending too much. If the central bank were to cap the interest rate, its usefulness as a price signal would disappear. The government can borrow an unlimited amount of money with no immediate consequences but with one big long-term consequence: inflation.
This is what Alan Greenspan wrote about in his 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom." People can protect wealth from inflationary confiscation through gold—and with gold up over 60 percent in the last year, we can assess a measurable probability of future debt monetization.
The solution to all this is for the federal government to spend less and to get close to balancing the budget. At the very least, Congress must bring the deficit-to-GDP ratio under the rate of growth. But hardly anyone has an appetite for that right now. Hardly anyone wants to do the hard thing. If markets aren't producing the outcomes officials desire, officials subvert the markets.
This short-term thinking will have dire consequences. Our electoral choices are coalescing into right-wing socialism vs. left-wing socialism. Both will lead to high inflation, eventually.
Macroeconomics works on a very long timeframe, and this likely won't come to pass this year or next, but in 10 or more years. But the trajectory is clear. Unless Zombie Calvin Coolidge gets elected in 2028, the United States is headed toward financial ruin.
And yes, people have been predicting this since the mid-1980s, when President Ronald Reagan was running comparatively large deficits. But the overall debt load back then was a fraction of what it is today. We are much closer to the endgame today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
*clears throat*
It's just college kids, man!
https://www.jareddillianmoney.com/
I refuse to take financial advice from someone who spent that much money on shitty tattoos.
Umm... base rates have been an issue since the fed started.
Then the entire clinton/Obama of ignoring individuals in rate setting and forcing all consumers to share bad consumer risk creates even more of an issue.
This isnt new or recent.
base rates have been an issue since before the fed started.
"88. A merchant may collect interest of thirty-three and one-third per cent on a loan of grain, and twenty per cent interest may be charged on a loan of silver.
89. If a free person who has borrowed cannot repay the loan with silver but can repay it with grain, the merchant who made the loan is obligated to accept the grain at the rate of exchange set by the king; if the merchant tries to raise the interest-rate, that merchant shall forfeit both the capital and the interest.
92. If a merchant loans grain or silver at one rate but later tries to collect at a higher rate, that merchant shall forfeit both the capital and the interest." The Code of Hammurabi
FIFY
Likewise the Rosetta Stone. Those, along with virtually all ancient steles and 'law codes' are examples of how the laws were changed - and communicated to the public - in the aftermath of a real-world debt forgiveness/repudiation/jubilee. That happened often in the ancient world (usually at the beginning of the reign of every monarch - or when facing an invasion) as a way to reset debt/credit with a fresh start.
When a debt can't be paid, it won't be paid. That's where we are now. But with no idea of what we're doing, where we are, what's next, or anything else.
Libertarians for *checks notes* central banks?
I actually agree that capitalism is impossible without interest control, but once you accept that, the argument that free markers and capitalism are the same is annihilated.
So I guess we finally arrived at the separation of the love of money and love of markets here at REEEason.
Capitalism does not depend on free markets or any particular rate of interest. Capitalism continues even in Islamic theocracies where interest is illegal and large segments of the populations believe that profiting from investments is immoral. Maybe you meant that efficient or successful capitalism depends on interest "control," in which case you would simply be incorrect. Producers will always find a way to keep the profits from their enterprises, whether you call profits "interest" or not.
"Capitalism" cannot end or be ended. There is a very clear definition of the concept that makes it impossible to avoid in any human social context. It is impossible for any society or government authority to prevent capitalism no matter how successfully they try to interfere in its processes. Seventy years of communism in Russia followed by thirty years of Putin oligarchy failed to eliminate capitalism. Executive branches can impose regulations and forcefully manipulate the producers of goods and services, with the chief result being less efficient production with hidden assets and secret, illegal transactions. Producers continue to control their property, with or without violence; and continue to keep the profits from their activities.
If interest rates stop being market signals and become policy decisions, what survives may look less like capitalism—and more like permanent crisis management
Nothing says "free market" like a government-controlled centralized banking system governed by bureaucrats.
Trust the experts.
It is if the democrats have any say in the matter.
When have Federal Reserve interest rates not been policy decisions? This has always been the primary criticism of the Federal Reserve's existence.
The idea that the Fed has been previously run by utterly disinterested and dispassionate paragons is a fairy tale.
And they have always been slow to react, and are never proactive.
The end of capitalism? Of course not, but calling it Stage IV or End-Stage is not hyperbole. The end will come when Capital demands more and more State interventions to maintain its wealth and privileges. I don't want to use the F-word to label that condition because I'm not sure what it means anymore, but it's near the mark.
Capital demands nothing. Capital is inanimate. Perhaps you capitalized "Capital" to imply that capitalists demand state intervention to maintain their wealth. If so you have cause and effect totally reversed! The owners of corporate wealth would not desire handouts from government if there were not greedy officials offering special exceptions to the regulations that greedy officials impose in the first place. Perhaps you mean that socialists like you demand that greedy officials impose regulations on the owners of corporate wealth to protect the workers and then cannot understand why wealthy corporations pay off greedy officials for exemptions from those regulations?
"socialists like you demand that greedy officials impose regulations on the owners of corporate wealth to protect the workers"... You're talking about social democracy not socialism. Regulations in and of themselves do not remove ownership from the private owners and transfer said ownership to the collective. Beyond the misuse of terms you're largely correct.
The end? When did we have it? The period between Washington's inauguration and him putting down the Whiskey Rebellion? There's no separation of economy and state. There's no free market. Our government is coercive and violates our liberty on the daily.
"If interest rates stop being market signals and become policy decisions..."
HA HA HA HA HA HA!. Oh god! Ow my sides. Ouch, ouch. Oh it hurts. Christ. Oh my god.
Someone can't earnestly have written that sentence fragment, can they? You have got to be kidding me? Seriously?
Why did you post a picture of Trump?
This is Woodrow Wilson & [D]s doings by the 'Federal Reserve Act'.
Or LBJ 'Great Society' HUD program.
And YES it is the very roots of "permanent crisis management".
Anyone who got Gov mortgage plans like FHFA, FHA, HUD, etc, etc.. just a few years ago locking in Gov - 'Gun' demanded interest at 2% sells and now collect 5% interest on that same Government regulated 'borrowed' money.
This isn't rocket science. 'Guns' trying to dictate supply and demand is always going to end up destroying some and entitling others because at the end of the day 'Guns' don't make sh*t.
One always needs to keep in mind that economists are prognostigators attempting to see the future by looking at millions upon millions of past individual decisions and pretending that they were made in concert.
And it is the reasoning behind those individual decisions that is important --and economists can never know that.
Hence 'recessions are hard to predict.
They are, especially seeing as they have no fixed definition for recession and one economist will say 'recession' while another might say 'growth'.
Economics is not a science.
Well, we probably shouldn't increase defense spending by 50% as Trump wants to.
That's not the killer in the budget, as we all know.
Until "entitlements" stop being though of as entitlements and start being just another item that has to be paid for by taxes, this doesn't get fixed.
May FDR and LBJ burn in hell.