Democracy and Institutions

Moody’s Meaningless Downgrade of USA

Moody’s Meaningless Downgrade of USA Moody’s Meaningless Downgrade of USA by Shanmuganathan N June 5, 2025 Democracy and Institutions, Public Policy, World Economy Moody’s downgraded the US Government’s credit rating on May 16th from AAA to AA1, citing the uncontrolled increase in government debt over the years. Moody’s also forecasted the debt-to-GDP to rise to 134% (98% in 2024) and the annual deficits to widen to 9% (from 6.4% in 2024) by 2035 as the rationale for the downgrades. The specific numbers are not very important at this stage, and in any case, Moody’s estimates are massive underestimates even from a 2030 perspective, let alone 2035. But more importantly, the agencies are missing the “Forest For The Trees” in their analysis. If one understands the actual state of US Government finances, anything more than a JUNK rating would be an overvaluation. The only significance of the recent downgrade is that this is the first time in more than 100 years that all the major rating agencies have downgraded the top-tier credit status the US Government had hitherto enjoyed. Before the numbers, readers must understand the unique position of the US Government. It is the ONLY government in the world where the external debt can be denominated in the currency it can create out of thin air. No other government has this privilege. That said, this was essentially an “earned” privilege due to the record budget and trade surplus that the US was running under the Gold Standard for more than a century and a half before the formal Bretton Woods agreement in 1944. The US Dollar also maintained its purchasing power over the period: viewed in terms of gold prices, the US Dollar had declined in value from 1/20th an ounce of gold during 1800 to 1/35th an ounce of gold by 1971. That is about a 75% decline in purchasing power over 180 years – almost a steady-state condition in the context of what has happened after 1971. Now for some numbers used by Moody’s: The number almost always used in the context of debt is the National Debt and that is nearing $37 trillion. The US GDP in 2024 was about $29 trillion and so the debt-to-GDP is already at 127%. It is unclear why Moody’s is reporting a lower debt-to-GDP at 98%, but this is probably because of excluding specific categories of debt. It could also be the case that they are using nominal GDP and not real GDP. But as I said in the beginning the specific numbers are not relevant in the context of the US. Let us assume the debt-to-GDP is 200%. Will the US Government default under those conditions? Not in the traditional sense of the word “default” i.e. non-repayment of the US Dollars owed. The US government can always print; even if the debt-to-GDP is 1000%, it does not need to default. Greenspan summarized this best when he said “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default” So, the debt-to-GDP condition reaching 134% or even 200% does not imply a default as it would for almost any other country. Now comes the critical question – if the probability of default by the US Government is ZERO under any debt condition, and it indeed appears to be the case, as Greenspan stated, then what are these rating agencies even measuring? – It is the default mechanism available to governments in general and, more specifically, to the government that owns the world’s reserve currency, “Default Through Monetary Inflation (DMI).” DMI is a mechanism in which lenders lose not the absolute amount of the currency they lent but the vastly decreased purchasing power of the currency they receive from the borrower. For example, if the borrower had been promised $100 at the end of 5 years during a time of stable prices (i.e., price inflation is zero or close to it) and if the government ran an annualized price inflation of 20% over the subsequent 5 years, then the lender would have lost almost 60% in terms of today’s purchasing power of the currency. The readers need to understand that the mechanism of DMI is an option specifically available only to governments and not to private borrowers. In practical terms, receiving the promised quantum currency that has lost 60% of its purchasing power is the equivalent of taking a 60% hair-cut on the debt with the currency retaining its purchasing power. The latter is indeed an honest default and a preferable option. Therefore, the PRIMARY RISK rating agencies have to measure the US Government against is DMI, not the normal default mechanism that they do for other countries/companies. From the perspective of DMI, the probability of losing substantive purchasing power of US Dollars over the next few years is 100%—maybe even near 100% of the purchasing power, i.e., hyperinflation, and that is increasingly looking like a probable scenario. The Numbers – Deep Dive Though Moody’s focussed on debt-to-GDP as well as deficit %, the latter is not a very meaningful indicator and can display wide fluctuations on an annual basis. The debt-to-GDP on the other hand, is a summary of the historical deficits to date and hence reflects the pattern of US Government spending over decades. Think of debt-to-GDP as the Balance Sheet and the deficit % as the Profit and Loss statement – it will be clear why we should focus on the former from a rating perspective. As one can observe, debt-to-GDP has been on an upward trajectory since 2000, and it has gone up from 55% to over 120% today. This has happened in the context of what is seen as spectacular prosperity – booming stock markets (Dow has gone from 11,000 to 42,000 in the last 25 years) and relatively stable prices (CRB Index has gone from 150 to 360 for a CAGR of 3.5%). This 120+% continues to increase as the annual

Moody’s Meaningless Downgrade of USA Read More »

Expansion of City Corporations and Municipalities Merely Does Not Guaranty Quality of Services and Facilities in Tamil Nadu

Expansion of City Corporations and Municipalities Merely Does Not Guaranty Quality of Services and Facilities in Tamil Nadu By B.Chandrasekaran Expansion of City Corporations and Municipalities Merely Does Not Guaranty Quality of Services and Facilities in Tamil Nadu By B.Chandrasekaran Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan January 28, 2025 Democracy and Institutions, Public Policy, Tamilnadu Economy, Urban Development As the nation embarks on Viksit Bharat@2047, its ambitious plan to make India a developed country by 2047, it is imperative that the country develops organically with the local bodies driving the economic development and also benefitting from it. If this opportunity is missed, the gains derived from the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments would dissipate. To this end, the second-generation institutional reforms of urban local bodies (ULBs) need to be taken up. Despite new initiatives like Smart City Mission, AMRUT, etc., the ULBs continue to face challenges in providing basic civic facilities like water supply, sanitation, urban public transport, all-weather road connectivity, stormwater and drainage, solid waste management, sewage, public sanitary facility, street lights, safety, and security, etc. Hamstrung by inadequate decentralisation, the local governments are unable to raise funds and channelise development projects to solve physical infrastructure facilities. Moreover, the funds allocated by the states are always disproportionate to the requirements and spending on developmental projects is scarce and riddled with quality issues. Status of Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu Take the case of Tamil Nadu, which envisions becoming a trillion-dollar economy by 2030. While the State is the most urbanised (53% population) in the country, the civic facilities that its cities and town offer to its residents are no different from any other poorly managed cities and towns in the country. The predominant reason is the lack of financial and administrative autonomy of the ULBs. The recent efforts to improve some of the services have also not yielded sustainable results. Given this background, the government of Tamil Nadu has recently announced proposals to expand the existing geographical coverage of urban ULBs limits by merging nearby municipalities into city corporations, town panchayats into municipalities, and village panchayats into town panchayats. Some of the major factors for the expansion of urban areas include increase in population, popular demand from people, and an increase in tax revenues. The following are the key announcements of the Government of Tamil Nadu’s Department of Municipal Administration through the issue of G.Os notified on 31st December 2024: Expansion of 16 municipal corporations including Greater Chennai, Coimbatore, Cuddalore, Dindigul, Erode, Karur, Hosur, Madurai, Salem, Tiruchirapalli, Tiruppur, Avadi, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur, Thoothukudi, and Sivakasi by annexing 4 municipalities, 5 town panchayats and 149 village panchayats; 41 municipalities including Tiruvarur, Tiruvallur, and Chidambaram, are to be expanded by annexing 1 town panchayats and 147 village panchayats; Formation of 13 new municipalities including Kanyakumari, Harur, and Perundurai; Formation of 25 new town panchayats including Yercaud, Kalayar Koil and Thirumayam; and Annexation of 29 village panchayats with 25 town panchayats. Advantages of Geographic Expansion Expansion through mergers increases land values thereby boosting the real estate and related sectors. The expanded city corporations and municipalities may get relatively higher fund allocation for improving the infrastructure development facilities and services. Decentralised regulation of planned development of the city at least on paper if not for implementation in letter and spirit. Disadvantages of Geographic Expansion The citizens of expanded ULBs may bear higher taxes for services like water, property tax, municipal waste disposal, etc. The expansion may result in parent ULBs being unable to cater to the needs of its newer territory. The newly added areas either continue with existing services or face neglect having lost its erstwhile independent identity. Incompatibility between the vision of the parent ULBs and the needs of the merging units. Issues with Expansion through Mergers Often ULBs are expanded for political reasons or to obtain approvals from the Centre for new projects, like metro train services, which require a particular size of population. Further, ULBs are already financially stressed and the state governments do not give adequate funds after the merger, aggravating their financial position. Furthermore, expansion through merger goes against the principle of local governance where small is considered beautiful. There is absolutely no need for mergers just to develop infrastructure, which may be developed as there are. Prerequisites for Expansion Any merger of ULBs should be done only after existing areas of an ULB achieve the desired levels of reasonable, minimum standards of urban infrastructure and quality of life. Further, a thorough study has to be made on the likely benefits and issues with prospective mergers from administrative, financial and other perspectives. If ULBs are really empowered through adequate decentralisation, mergers may be proposed by the ULBs themselves or, they may explore partnerships and sharing of resources without formal mergers. All the decision-making process has to be decentralised, moving closer to the local level and ward level for the participation of people. Only the technical aspects have to be decided at the state or regional level to support ULBs effectively and on timely. Anything on the contrary would create chaos as witnessed in big cities. like recent floods and inundations during regular monsoons. Several years ago, the scheme on Providing Urban Amenities to Rural Areas (PURA), a vision of Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, was implemented in a few states like Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Puducherry, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand. It is a Public Private Partnership scheme with a clear framework for governments, state governments, the private sector, and local government to take advantage of improving facilities and services with 10 years of maintenance services. Why not try something like this new scheme to make our semi-urban and rural areas with all infrastructure facilities? B.Chandrasekaran is an Economist and Founder Chairman of the AgaPuram Policy Research Centre, Erode. Views expressed by the author are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of the AgaPuram Policy Research Centre.  

Expansion of City Corporations and Municipalities Merely Does Not Guaranty Quality of Services and Facilities in Tamil Nadu Read More »

State-Democracy-and-Development-Institutional-Perspectives

Democracy and Development Democracy and Development Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan August 23, 2013 Democracy and Institutions The evolution of any civilisation depends on the formations and functioning of its institutional systems, the interplay of which allows the constituents of the society to pursue prosperity and happiness. The nature of these institutional systems and structures provide the fountainhead for ideas like democracy to germinate and flourish. However, as witnessed all over the world especially after the World War-II, preaching and eulogising about democracy as the ideal political system is much easier than practising and adopting it with all its limitations-political and otherwise. Most of the nations practise democracy in some form or the other and the differences exist only in the scale, times and methods employed. As the basic principles of democracy remain intact, the key question that emerges is which nation practices the most involved kind of democracy? In other words, in which nation has democracy attained its highest maturity? The answer would be relative and not absolute, as democracy like any other virtue would have a never-ending kind of perfection or maturity to be attained. The ingredients that make a nation democratic are so diverse and complex that the process or art of perfecting democracy would always be a work-in-progress. The nature of inclusive institutional systems, degree of economic and political freedom could always be refined and taken to the next level, where the benefits out of such evolution would be, at least, marginally higher than its previous level. The United States of America, which attained Independence way back in 1776, is believed to be having the most-evolved form of democracy. Comparatively, the World’s largest democracy, India has a system that is not as perfect or as evolved as the US. The U.S has a better and more inclusive democratic structure than India. This may be attributed to the high degree of political and economic freedom the US citizens enjoy compared to India, where citizens at best enjoy better political freedom than economic freedom. Nevertheless, both the nations may have to consider their respective democratic set-up as one that could still be substantially improved upon. While countries like the US could continue to work on the political, social and economic elements of democracy, nations like India would have to work on all the three main elements of democracy. The constitution of a country is the foundation for establishing the guiding principles for its inclusive institutional framework, which determines the endeavour of its citizens. As many nations have drafted their constitution based on the basic human values and principles practiced in other nations, inclusiveness has to be a definite outcome of a constitution. However, factors like ethos, history, cultural values of each nation also substantially decide the character of a nation. It is these basic yet significant elements that determine the nature, quality and direction of the democratic system practised in a nation. Making Democracy Work Better in India India, like other democracies, has come a long way during the last 65 years to make its democracy more inclusive. Unlike some of other nations, India has a strongly worded, well written and longest constitution in the world. As Dr.Pratap Bhanu Mehta rightly says that “the Indian constitution was self-consciously anti-revolutionary. This is manifest in all the debates in the Constituent Assembly at that time; its members knew very well that change would be slow and gradual. The political culture was one of democratic argument and decision-making based on consensus, initially embodied in the structure of the….practices of coalition politics”. Though the achievements in practising and perfecting democracy in India in the last 65 years may seem to be less satisfactory, the achievements in the three main spheres of democracy are worth cherishing. Improvements in the quality of freedom in the political and economic elements of the nation are considerable during this period. In a way, the relative success of Indian democracy is amazing considering the orderly interaction of the seemingly disorderly components of its society, polity and economy, primarily due to its cultural, linguistic and traditional complexities and diversities. Noted Indian historian Dr. Ramachandra Guha in his famous book “India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy” describes at least five social forces which are of pre-eminence in the social landscape of contemporary India after Independence. All these complex elements of class, religion, language, caste and gender are highly interdependent and the interplay of these factors shapes the society and its democratic institutions. According to Dr. Guha, “contemporary India is a democracy based on adult suffrage, with a free press and a largely independent judiciary. At no other time or place in human history have social conflicts been so richly diverse, so vigorously articulated, so eloquently manifest in art and literature, or addressed with such directness by the political system and the media”. Besides these social elements, there are also other economic and political elements that eventually guide the formation and functioning of the institutional structure and systems of the democracy. The differences and incompatibilities between these elements create the intricacies and shortfalls in the constitutionally created democratic institutions, which determine the quality and extent of democracy that prevails in the country. Further, Dr. Guha goes on to say that “democracy in India will turn out to be ‘more significant’ than comparable experiments in West”. This kind of optimism and faith is based on the strength of some of the successful and independent democratic institutions like the Supreme Court, Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, etc. According to Professor Ashima Goyal, “India started out with highly inclusive political institutions since it adopted democracy with universal suffrage at independence. But extractive economic institutions, inherited from the British, were made more so by economic controls.” It is because of the control raj in economic domain especially during the period 1966-1977, that the Western pundits painted a gloomy picture about democracy in India. As always in the past, Indian history disproved them once again. Indeed, the experiments with democracy in India have

State-Democracy-and-Development-Institutional-Perspectives Read More »