Does America Need to Consider a Creditor's Agreement to Stop the National Debt

What do you think is this a better proposition than Growth or Austerity?

http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/i-had-this-published-at-huffington-post.html

 

Does America Need to Consider a Creditor's Agreement to Stop the National Debt

No.
We need to consider some changes to the Constitution, to include term limits, and a balanced budget amendment.

 

I think that we are approaching a leave before they will not let you situation here shortly.

 

Even if yo put limits on the debt you owe the debt will still grow with compounding interest. The creditors agreement will stop that compounding affect to stop bleeding of money that is currently around $230 billion a year. The figures I used in the article are optimistic in terms of the level of interest payments.

 

This is a technical default.

 

It is however another option. Is it time to consider it?

Besides isn't QE a technical default?

 

You make some good points, brother Morgan.

 

QE is not a technical default. If it is, then CDS on US would trigger. Same for the UK and Japan.

That's an important point: devaluation is a not a default - even if it has a similar effect.

So, a large sovereign can always inflate out of his debt rather than default outright. This point was shown empirically by Rogoff & reinhart's famous book.

But back to your premise. No, technical default is not a good option. It's not the time to consider it.

 

Perhaps another way to consider it is who pays the bill. If they QE it is America and the American consumer as much as the lender. If it is a creditors agreement it is lender solely who takes the loss. Sound more attractive now?

 

All that's needed is voters to give a damn about the debt.

And without that, NO mechanism will work.