"brian january" Discussed on Squawk Pod
"Look, I think what we've seen in prior crises is people are calm and confident until they're not. And the risk of pushing up to or beyond that point becomes compounded if people really if are people's expectations are dashed. The second thing is this brinksmanship, this this this experiment in in risk here can have longer lasting impacts, negative impacts. And this is why I say there's it's all what would happen. I'm a downside. Play it out in the macro I mean, we saw in 2011 when we when our what we got downgraded as a nation. It takes years to come back from that kind of thing. So even if they're able to go up to or close to the extent and resolve this, doing it at the last minute has consequences, economic consequences. The risk of putting upward pressure on our borrowing rates because we lose our triple A status would far swamp any impact that this deal would have economically. And so it's all negative. It's all downside. And so the sooner that we eliminate that risk, the better. But, you know, we don't want to there's a lot of conversation about what happens the day or two or three after the X date. And there's lots of planning going on on that front. But meaning what prioritization of spending, which bills we pay, which bills we don't. But what we can do, given the systems that we have. But all I can say is that while there is prudent planning going on, there is no prudent plan that can evolve the chaos and confusion. And once we go past that, we will do damage that will be very hard to repair. Would take years to do. And all of that is economic cost with no, you know, with no attendant benefits. So the sooner we get this out of our way, the better. Look, it's a big game of chicken, though. If you listen to the Republicans on this, they'll say we have a bill. We've passed a bill in the House. If you want them to not default, take it, take it and do something with it. We've been trying to talk for months and months. It's only been very recent that the negotiations are there. It takes both sides to come to the table and say, OK, here's where we're going to give. Why have we not been able to find some common ground around that? Well, I'd say a couple of things. The first is I think that there is has been and continues to be a common ground that can be found around the budget and budget levels. And in fact, that's how budget agreements happen consistently. And I've been involved in debt ceiling increases in the past. And if you look back in 2013, 2015, other times, you have a rational agreement around budget levels. And that's how you get things done. I think that what's different and what is particularly dangerous in this context is this close to the line, having anybody. And in this case, we are seeing this out of Republican leadership basically say. It's not our obligation. It's not our responsibility to increase the debt limit. That is on the other side. That's an incredibly dangerous dynamic, dangerous to the economy, because if the debt limit is not understood as a shared responsibility and a core congressional priority, then the risk that we end up making a incredibly damaging error at are now or at some point down the road goes up. And the markets are going to the markets are going to internalize that risk. But aren't we going to be here again in March? As I understand it, even if we get a deal, we're likely to be back at a debt. First off, the debt ceiling was actually breached January 19th. Was it not, Brian? January 19th. So you end up with extraordinary measures. So we've been we've been limping along. The debt ceiling is not breached on this so -called X date. The debt ceiling was breached on January 19th, and we've limped along. Number one, could we be here again in less than a year?
