"Political" Equilibrium is Not the Same as Natural Equilibrium

When might politically motivated budgets create too much confusion for general equilibrium conditions? Even though there's no clear answer, economic dynamism and long term growth potential may depend on how these matters are ultimately approached. It's now apparent that the fiscal dominance of today's service centered economies, could hinder progress in the near future.

Until recently, ultra-low interest rates were becoming taken for granted as inevitable. And not only did this prompt national governments to borrow in excess of earlier norms, it discouraged a rational general equilibrium framing as output driven. This loss of a quantitative understanding, has made it even more difficult to create productivity improvements in domestic markets. Instead, the fiscal "freedoms" of late are fueling the ambitions of multiple political parties. Alas, the results aren't encouraging, since fiscal policies tend to reward specific group preferences instead of positive market outcomes.

However, does fiscal irresponsibility account for a rising equilibrium rate, and might this impact equilibrium stability? Scott Sumner considers equilibrium effects, and notes: 

The "natural" or equilibrium interest rate also has multiple meanings, but generally refers to the interest rate that provides for some sort of macroeconomics equilibrium, such as stable prices. Throughout most of the world, the equilibrium interest rate has been trending lower since the early 1980s. Until now...

He continues:

A more complete model of the equilibrium interest rate might also account for the political economy of fiscal policy. Suppose that the natural interest rate falls so low that politicians become tempted to run larger budget deficits. Eventually, the deficits become so large that the equilibrium interest rate begins rising again. 

In retrospect, the new UK Prime Minister also went too far with the extensive tax cuts of her fiscal package.

All of this makes me wonder whether ultra-low interest rates are not a stable equilibrium, at least in most places. I still believe that low rates are a technically feasible equilibrium, but perhaps it is inevitable that politicians in many countries will abuse the privilege of almost costless borrowing - right up to the point where that privilege is removed.

Indeed, the Washington Post notes the new Prime Minister's predicament and adds

Across the supposedly advanced economies, the return of inflation has magnified the riskiness of extravagant political gestures. For the most part, however, politicians have not gotten the message.

How to think about all this? For one thing, I'm inclined to believe that fiscal policy (rather than monetary and supply side circumstance) would not be responsible for a rising natural interest rate, whether or not a government "crosses the line" in this regard. Especially since fiscal policy correlates with credit dominant outcomes which substantially differ from the time correlated aggregate output of natural equilibrium. 

In terms of aggregate output potential, total hours worked are an important part of the equation. Specifically, when considering equilibrium potential, one might ask: How much aggregate output is defined by exponential representation, versus the linear representation of (naturally scarce) time and place dominated output? Especially since fiscal dominance could eventually be undermined by expectations in the secondary markets of applied knowledge. And if service sector output doesn't presently appear linear, it's because areas of exponential gain are not being adequately defined in relation to the scarce resources of time and place defined product. In all of this, the fiscal dominance of political equilibrium is not well suited for the creation of a better defined and stable general equilibrium.