Seht zu den ökonomischen Folgen, bzw. Kosten des “government shutdowns” auch den Artikel vom 30.9.2013 mit dem Titel “Economists agree: Government shutdown will hurt economic growth” in “The Raw Story“.
Einen Artikel mit dem Titel “Rebels Without a Clue” zum damals kurz bevorstehenden “government shutdown” hat auch Paul Krugman am 29.9.2013 in seinem Blog “The Conscience of a Liberal” in der “New York Times” veröffentlicht.
In diesem Artikel stellt Paul Krugman unter anderem fest: “O.K., a temporary government shutdown — which became almost inevitable after Sunday’s House vote to provide government funding only on unacceptable conditions — wouldn’t be the end of the world. But a U.S. government default, which will happen unless Congress raises the debt ceiling soon, might cause financial catastrophe. Unfortunately, many Republicans either don’t understand this or don’t care. (…).
First of all, hitting the ceiling would force a huge, immediate spending cut, almost surely pushing America back into recession. Beyond that, failure to raise the ceiling would mean missed payments on existing U.S. government debt. And that might have terrifying consequences.
Why? Financial markets have long treated U.S. bonds as the ultimate safe asset; the assumption that America will always honor its debts is the bedrock on which the world financial system rests. In particular, Treasury bills — short-term U.S. bonds — are what investors demand when they want absolutely solid collateral against loans. Treasury bills are so essential for this role that in times of severe stress they sometimes pay slightly negative interest rates — that is, they’re treated as being better than cash.
Now suppose it became clear that U.S. bonds weren’t safe, that America couldn’t be counted on to honor its debts after all. Suddenly, the whole system would be disrupted. Maybe, if we were lucky, financial institutions would quickly cobble together alternative arrangements. But it looks quite possible that default would create a huge financial crisis, dwarfing the crisis set off by the failure of Lehman Brothers five years ago.
No sane political system would run this kind of risk. But we don’t have a sane political system; we have a system in which a substantial number of Republicans believe that they can force President Obama to cancel health reform by threatening a government shutdown, a debt default, or both, and in which Republican leaders who know better are afraid to level with the party’s delusional wing. For they are delusional, about both the economics and the politics.
On the economics: Republican radicals generally reject the scientific consensus on climate change; many of them reject the theory of evolution, too. So why expect them to believe expert warnings about the dangers of default? Sure enough, they don’t: the G.O.P. caucus contains a significant number of “default deniers,” who simply dismiss warnings about the dangers of failing to honor our debts.
Meanwhile, on the politics, reasonable people know that Mr. Obama can’t and won’t let himself be blackmailed in this way, and not just because health reform is his key policy legacy. After all, once he starts making concessions to people who threaten to blow up the world economy unless they get what they want, he might as well tear up the Constitution. But Republican radicals — and even some leaders — still insist that Mr. Obama will cave in to their demands. (…)”.
Und Paul Krugmans sarkastisches Fazit in diesem Artikel “Rebels Without a Clue“: “This all sounds crazy, because it is”. But the craziness, ultimately, resides not in the situation but in the minds of our politicians and the people who vote for them. Default is not in our stars, but in ourselves”. (Fettdruck von mir!),
Da trifft Paul Krugman allerdings den Nagel auf den Kopf. Um solch “verrückte” Situationen wie einen “government shutdown” oder die noch viel aberwitzigere Konstellation einer Verweigerung der Erhöhung der Schuldenobergrenze (des “debt ceilings“) zu erzeugen, braucht es auch “verrückte” Politiker, die einen “government shutdown” als Mittel des politischen Kampfes einsetzen oder eine Verweigerung der Erhöhung des “United States debt ceilings” andenken und vielleicht tatsächlich eine solche ökonomisch völlig aberwitzige Verweigerung der Erhöhung der Schuldenobergrenze als Instrument des politischen Kampfes verwenden wollen.
Solche “durchgeknallte” Politiker findet man in den USA anscheinend in der “Tea-Party-Bewegung“.
Wie es im den aktuellen Kampf zwischen Barack Obama (Demokraten) und John Boehner (Republikaner) aussieht, erfährt man zum Beispiel im Artikel vom 2.10.2013 mit dem Titel “Latest House bid fails as bitter back-and-forth over shutdown rages” in der Website von “CNN“.