rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

S&P pantsed by U.S. Treasury

I have been reluctant to condemn the credit-rating agencies for sovereign downgrades because it seemed like shooting the messenger. As the bond markets have noticed, a few European countries have serious fiscal problems. Blaming the raters for also noticing did not seem like an effective response.

However, I think that Standard and Poor's decision -- alone among the major raters -- to downgrade the U.S. has severely discredited the agency (bad pun intended). The U.S. Treasury has posted a stinging note about a calculation mistake underlying this decision. Interestingly, the magnitude of S&P's error was equal to the amount by which it judged the U.S. deficit-reduction plan to fall short: $2 trillion over ten years.

Paul Krugman emphasizes the amateurish nature of S&P's mistake. But what strikes me is that, when Treasury officials pointed out the error, the agency just changed its main rationale for the downgrade and immediately proceeded with the public announcement. It seems that S&P had made up its mind and did not want to be confused by the facts.

A few commentators have tried to defend S&P by claiming that its initial assumptions were as legitimate as, or more realistic than, the Treasury's assumptions. I am no expert on American budgeting, but I do not think that is the issue.

My reading of the Treasury's post is that S&P costed the deficit deal based on one assumed baseline and then subtracted the result from a different baseline. Doing so would be wrong, whichever baseline is right.

Update (August 7): Andy Watt from the European Trade Union Institute has more.

Update (August 8): Krugman has more.

This article was first posted on The Progressive Economics Forum.

Thank you for reading this story...

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all. But media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our only supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help.

If everyone who visits rabble and likes it chipped in a couple of dollars per month, our future would be much more secure and we could do much more: like the things our readers tell us they want to see more of: more staff reporters and more work to complete the upgrade of our website.

We’re asking if you could make a donation, right now, to set rabble on solid footing in 2017.

Make a donation.Become a monthly supporter.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.