In an attempt to respond to a couple of viewer comments and a question, I wanted to post some comments from Paul Craig Roberts, a former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service.
Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under the Reagan administration, and was awarded the Treasury Departmentē“ Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy".
We would all like to believe that our economic policies are being implemented for the public good, but at times we need to understand that sometimes there not.
Roberts is one guy who tells it like it is. Here are some of his comments on the current middle east situation, and why oil is at the center of many of the evils we are witnessing.
In response to some comments from Alan and Robin, here is what Roberts has to say about America's involvement with Iran and China:
Article by: Paul Craig Roberts
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes have calculated the cost to Americans of Bush's Iraq war to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. This figure is 5 to 10 times higher than the $200 billion that Bush's economic adviser Larry Lindsey estimated.
Lindsey was fired by Bush because his estimate was three times higher than the $70 billion figure that the Bush administration used to mislead Congress and the American voters about the burden of the war.
Stiglitz's $2 trillion estimate is OK as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. My own estimate is a multiple of Stiglitz's.
Stiglitz correctly includes the cost of lifetime care of the wounded, the economic value of destroyed and lost lives, and the opportunity cost of the resources diverted to war destruction. What he leaves out is the war's diversion of the nation's attention away from the ongoing erosion of the U.S. economy. War and the accompanying domestic police state have filled the attention span of Americans and their government. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has been rapidly deteriorating into Third World status.
In 2005, for the first time on record, consumer, business and government spending exceeded the total income of the country. Net national savings actually fell.
America can consume more than it produces only if foreigners supply the difference. China recently announced that it intends to diversify its foreign exchange holdings away from the U.S. dollar. If this is not merely a threat in order to extort even more concessions from Bush, Americans' ability to consume will be brought up short by a fall in the dollar's value, as China ceases to be a sponge that is absorbing an excessive outpouring of dollars. Oil-producing countries might follow China's lead.
Now that Americans are dependent on imports for their clothing, manufactured goods and even high technology products, a decline in the dollar's value will make all these products much more expensive. American living standards, which have been treading water, will sink.
A decline in living standards is an enormous cost and will make existing debt burdens unbearable. Stiglitz did not include this cost in his estimate.
Even more serious is the war's diversion of attention from the disappearance of middle-class jobs for university graduates. The ladders of upward mobility are being rapidly dismantled by offshore production for U.S. markets, job outsourcing and importation of foreign professionals on work visas. In almost every U.S. corporation, U.S. employees are being dismissed and replaced by foreigners who work for lower pay. Even American public school teachers and hospital nurses are being replaced by foreigners imported on work visas.
The American Dream has become a nightmare for college graduates who cannot find meaningful work.
This fact is made abundantly clear from the payroll jobs data over the past five years. December's numbers, released on Jan. 6, show the same pattern that I have reported each month for years. Under pressure from offshore outsourcing, the U.S. economy only creates low-productivity jobs in low-pay domestic services.
Only a paltry number of private sector jobs were created -- 94,000. Of these 94,000 jobs, 35,800 -- or 38 percent -- are for waitresses and bartenders. Health care and social assistance account for 28 percent of the new jobs, and temporary workers account for 10 percent. These three categories of low-tech, nontradable domestic services account for 76 percent of the new jobs. This is the jobs pattern of a poor Third World economy that consumes more than it produces.
America's so-called First World superpower economy was only able to create in December a measly 12,000 jobs in goods-producing industries, of which 77 percent are accounted for by wood products and fabricated metal products -- the furniture and roofing metal of the housing boom that has now come to an end. U.S. employment declined in machinery, electronic instruments, and motor vehicles and parts.
Two thousand six hundred jobs were created in computer systems design and related services, depressing news for the several hundred thousand unemployed American computer and software engineers.
When manufacturing leaves a country, engineering, R&D and innovation rapidly follow. Now that outsourcing has killed employment opportunities for U.S. citizens and even General Motors and Ford are failing, U.S. economic growth depends on how much longer the rest of the world will absorb our debt and finance our consumption.
How much longer will it be before "the world's only remaining superpower" is universally acknowledged as a debt-ridden, hollowed-out economy desperately in need of IMF bailout?
Concerning the direction of interest rates by RC on January 24th:
"Isn't it true that financials are good buys nearing the peak of the interest rate cycle? Although we aren't there yet, seems to me banks should start drawing some attention..."
"Flaws in this logic?"
RC, all things being equal your are correct. But what if china decides the following as stated by Roberts above:
"China recently announced that it intends to diversify its foreign exchange holdings away from the U.S. dollar. If this is not merely a threat in order to extort even more concessions from Bush, Americans' ability to consume will be brought up short by a fall in the dollar's value, as China ceases to be a sponge that is absorbing an excessive outpouring of dollars. Oil-producing countries might follow China's lead".


Comments (1)
This "global economy" presented by Wall Street and their undisclosed agent, Alan Greenspan, was nothing more than a hoax against the majority of Americans whereby interest rates went down,which is good for banks, stocks, bonds, and real estate temporarily, but for a very immoral reason, concentration of wealth, ie, a few people got rich at the expense of the majority in the US.
Posted by alan | January 25, 2006 7:25 AM
Posted on January 25, 2006 07:25