US Debt Recovery: Feasible? Policy Responses Assessed

 

The vibrant and complex economic landscape of the United States has recently been shadowed by an unsustainable debt, now towering at a staggering $35 trillion. This looming figure, perceived as a double-edged sword, has instigated profound debates and controversies, especially in light of the upcoming presidential elections. Key figures such as Donald Trump have openly voiced support for increasing tariffs on Chinese imports, suggesting that such measures would alleviate the financial strain on America. Conversely, Kamala Harris warned that heightened tariffs would inevitably burden middle-class families across the nation. The underlying tension between the United States and China has escalated significantly over the last few years, driven by conflicting economic agendas and national interests.

America’s most pressing challenge remains its colossal debt, which has ignited a financial war targeting other nations. This financial conflict has not merely been a matter of economics; it reflects deeper geopolitical struggles where countries are increasingly relying on aggressive monetary policies to claw their way out of crippling debt. Many have wondered why ordinary Americans feel the weight of financial burdens heavier than before—this is no coincidence, as these difficulties are inextricably linked to the Federal Reserve's decisions to raise interest rates.

Advertisement

Initially, the intention behind these rate hikes was to destabilize the Chinese economy by crashing its stock, housing, and currency markets, thereby paving the way for the U.S. to harvest the fruits of China's rise since its economic reforms in the late 20th century. If the U.S. were to succeed, some speculated, even a debt of $50 trillion could be manageable. Such narratives underscore how America has been strategically positioning itself since 2016 to execute this vision.

 

Recalling 2016, one could observe the booming real estate market in China, which was spurred by easy access to credit. A common perception might lead one to believe that the dynamics of China's urban real estate market are irrelevant to the United States. However, the reality is quite the opposite. Rising property prices necessitated substantial investments by property developers—a funding influx that largely originated from American monetary policies designed to stimulate economic growth through low-interest rates.

Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. implemented an expansive monetary policy, creating a favorable environment where dollar-denominated debts flourished. Major corporations like Country Garden and Evergrande took advantage, issuing bonds to secure capital for development projects. This rapid acceleration of borrowing set the stage for a dangerously leveraged real estate sector in China.

Increased indebtedness led to a precarious financial structure where companies aimed to elevate project outputs and turnover rates, only to find themselves in dire straits when the Federal Reserve began increasing interest rates. The immediate consequences were staggering—dollar appreciation coupled with a depreciating Chinese Yuan resulted in ballooning debt obligations for these real estate firms.

To illustrate, previously, when the exchange rate was at 6.3 RMB to 1 USD, a USD 100 million loan would only require Evergrande to repay 630 million RMB. However, as the exchange rate climbed to 7.2 RMB to 1 USD, the same loan ballooned to 720 million RMB, an additional 90 million RMB burden. Such scenarios played out across countless developers, generating colossal amounts of debt tied to the U.S. dollar. This strategic interest rate hike can be seen as a means through which America siphoned considerable resources from its foreign stakeholders.

 

As real estate vulnerabilities became apparent by 2020, China's government took preemptive measures to build protective barriers against further financial incursions. The introduction of the so-called "three red lines" in real estate lending was a crucial step toward stabilizing the economy and preventing foreign capital from excessively uprooting domestic stability.

However, U.S. intentions remained steadfast, as their strategy unfolded in a calculated order: undermine the real estate market, subsequently target the stock market, and ultimately entice China into a completely open financial ecosystem. This would allow foreign influences to fully exploit perceived weaknesses in the Chinese economy, creating an unrestrained environment for American capital.

Particularly in 2023, prominent financial institutions such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs forecast rosy projections for the Chinese stock market. Yet, as inevitably occurs within volatile markets, sentiments shifted, revealing a readiness to capitalize on overinflated valuations before retreating, leaving smaller investors vulnerable to risk.

Yet, unbeknownst to many in the West, during these years of relentless rate hikes, China was busily recalibrating its economic reliance. By diversifying into sectors such as new energy, automotive, and machinery manufacturing, stability was achieved against external pressures. Trade flourished even as property and stock markets felt the sting of monetary tightening; China’s exports paradoxically surged, showing resilience in the face of adversities.

 

As hopes of an easily manipulable China withered, it became increasingly apparent that America itself faced mounting economic troubles. The cost of maintaining rising interest rates became evident, highlighted by a wave of small bank failures across the nation—a classic case of "alienating the ally while attempting to debilitate the adversary." With tensions on the rise, the superficiality of American recovery efforts was laid bare.

By July 2024, the reality of the U.S. economic landscape was undeniable; skyrocketing unemployment rates forced the hand of policymakers to consider interest rate cuts.

Lowering rates may serve as a temporary fix for crumbling economic conditions; however, this option is fraught with complications. An impulsive reduction risks dismantling the multi-year financial warfare strategy against China, leading to significant turmoil in U.S.-China relations and a potential rapid rise in Yuan strength as Chinese corporations liquidate dollar assets in favor of a stable currency.

Historical precedents show that nations under financial duress often seek scapegoats. The precarious financial state in the U.S. mirrors sentiments experienced in pre-World War II Germany, where financial elites wielded significant influence over national affairs, directing ongoing tensions toward minority groups in attempts to alleviate fiscal hardship.

 

In the context of American debt, it becomes paramount to recognize who the true debt holders are. Surprisingly, the stakes are not simply in the hands of China, which clutches less than $800 billion in U.S. Treasuries, representing a mere 2.5% of the total. Japan holds the largest share, exceeding a trillion dollars. Realistically, 80% of American debt is held domestically, primarily by financial institutions and pension funds that trace their roots back to powerful financial lobbies.

The conundrum facing mainstream perspectives is stark. For American policymakers, tackling this debt crisis appears deceptively straightforward—simply default through strategic means or aggressive policies toward any dissenting financial entities. Current financial holders facing pressure arise from occurrences reminiscent of historical scapegoating.

In this layered and intricate game, Trump’s erratic behavior could be interpreted as an intrinsic understanding of the vast economic networks at play. His repeated warnings about the impending 2024 elections serve as reminders not only of potential upheaval but on a more profound level, the intersection of personal ambition and national crises. As China remains steadfast, the focus shifts back to internal strife and future intra-state conflict, indicating a theatrical unfolding of events, where benefactors of power often find themselves at odds with one another.

In conclusion, as narratives of financial warfare and the quest for stability evolve, it becomes increasingly evident that the United States is engaged in a complex dance of economic strategy, one that is inevitably intertwined with global relations and historical context. The stage is set—not only to witness the outcome of fiscal policies but to understand the trajectories of power and influence as they impact both domestic and international arenas.