In recent years, the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—have taken decisive steps to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar, culminating in creating their own bank. While largely economic, this move carries a potent political message: these nations no longer wish to be tethered to a currency system dominated by U.S. fiscal policies. The global landscape is shifting, with the BRICS bank allowing transactions to be conducted outside the confines of the dollar. The implications of this go beyond geopolitics—it reveals a growing dissatisfaction with the U.S. monetary system, particularly its dependence on deficit spending.
At home, we are witnessing a similar recalibration. Major companies like Paramount, Disney, K Mart, Big Lots, Intel, IBM, and Amazon are downsizing their workforces in response to economic realities. This is not just about inflation; these companies are reacting to a confluence of pressures, including an increasingly costly supply chain and shrinking disposable income among consumers. As these businesses cut spending, they are preparing for what they perceive to be a prolonged period of economic contraction. Meanwhile, the closure of more than 700 banks signals a deeper crisis of confidence within the financial sector.
The connection between these corporate and international actions is a shared understanding that the nation is not simply in a temporary inflationary phase, but rather facing structural economic challenges that cannot be ignored. As companies retrench, they are doing so with an eye toward survival in an environment where profitability is increasingly difficult to achieve.
But at the heart of this economic reality is the elephant in the room: deficit spending. The U.S. government continues to spend beyond its means, relying on debt to fund everything from social programs to defense. While many argue that this spending is necessary to keep the economy afloat, there is a growing recognition that it comes at a steep cost.
For the average taxpayer, deficit spending might seem abstract, but it has real-world implications. Take, for example, the $1,200 stimulus checks issued during the pandemic. For many, this was seen as a lifeline—money to help cover basic needs during a time of crisis. But this same taxpayer is also saddled with the cost of the debt incurred to fund such spending. Factoring in interest on the national debt and inflationary pressures, the true cost of that $1,200 check to the taxpayer is estimated to be closer to $2,500 over time. What seemed like relief is, in fact, a deferred financial burden—paid through higher taxes, reduced purchasing power, and rising costs of living.
This brings us back to the issue of trust. Deficit spending, which was once seen as a tool to stimulate the economy, is now increasingly viewed with suspicion. For those responsible for paying the bill—whether through taxes or inflation—the long-term cost of government borrowing feels like a betrayal of trust. The real question is, how long can we sustain a system where debt is used to paper over deeper economic fractures?
The downsizing of corporations and the closure of banks point to a larger truth: businesses and financial institutions are losing faith in the long-term viability of the current system. They are cutting back not just in response to short-term challenges, but in anticipation of a more fundamental shift in the economic landscape. Likewise, BRICS nations are seeking alternatives to the dollar for the same reason—they no longer trust a system in which U.S. fiscal policy and deficit spending dictate the terms of global finance.
At its core, deficit spending does more than create financial debt; it creates a trust deficit. In a world where trust is the cornerstone of economic stability, this may be the most dangerous deficit of all.
More By This Author:
Good read, thanks.