America Out of Economic Ammunition

by: Jean-Marc Vittori  |  Les Échos

America Out of Economic Ammunition
"And I say they're out of ammunition." (Cartoon: Shrewsbury Cartoon Festival)

    Faced with an increasingly uncertain economy, America has ever-fewer means to take action. At the exact moment when the two White House candidates are honing their programs and their teams, this weakness is becoming obvious. The great economic policy levers have already been totally activated, or nearly so, and without really succeeding in stimulating the machine.

    That is the case for monetary policy first of all. The Federal Reserve should announce today that it will not move its interest rates. The United States' central bank is stuck between two symmetrical risks. On the one hand, economic activity is not strong; consumers are depressed; unemployment is rising. So, the Fed should decrease its interest rates. However - on the other hand - interest rates are already low, barely two percent for the Fed's reference rate. And prices are increasing ever-more rapidly. One of the measures of this inflation published yesterday, the Personal Consumption Index, increased 0.8 percent in June, the strongest rise since 1981. Another measure, the classic Consumer Price Index, grew five percent in a year. Such a gap between prices and interest rates has not been observed on the other side of the Atlantic since the first oil shock. It would be perilous to increase it.

    Budget policy is in the same situation. The reductions in taxes the Bush administration granted this spring will have barely offset the erosion in income skyrocketing oil prices have exerted. The deficit will exceed $400 billion in 2008 and could approach $500 billion next year, if one believes the forecasts published last week by the White House. Of course, that's barely more than three percent of the enormous American GNP. But it is difficult under these conditions to set a vast plan in motion to support the economy while preserving the trust of investors likely to buy the bonds necessary for its financing.

    The United States is also not succeeding any better in using the trade weapon that would have allowed it to open new markets for its exporters. The recent injunctions directed at Beijing that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has just formulated look like a confession of impotence. America is left with barely any means to pressure China, Russia or the Emirates. All the more so as those countries' capital is indispensable to America's financial equilibrium.

    The last time an American president took the reins of an economy as stalled as this one was in 1981. But Ronald Reagan changed the rules of the game and created what we in France would call a "break" with the past. For example, he increased military spending by 40 percent in five years. It's difficult to imagine John McCain - and even less so Barack Obama - following that route. All the more so as problems of colossal budgetary impact loom on the horizon, such as financing health care and retirement costs. In reality, the next president of the United States will have no major economic weapon available. If growth resumes, that's not very serious. In the opposite event, the whole world will suffer as a result of this American impotence.

    --------

    Translation: Truthout French language editor Leslie Thatcher.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



I don't think it matters who

I don't think it matters who is elected or if there's even an "election" since the PTB plans on the complete destruction of the US. The plan is to completely destroy the US to force a NAU fascist dictatorship with it's amero. All candidates are "their" candidates or they can't get past the media or parties to get elected.


400 billion deficit? Hmmm...

400 billion deficit? Hmmm... don't know where this dude is getting his info, but he's about 300 million short for 2008. And 2009 - the sky is the limit... hell, let's go for 1 trill for a real thrill!


Yes, it certainly appears

Yes, it certainly appears that no more conventional economics levers exist which can be pulled to get the US out of the financial doldrums. We should all concern ourselves greatly about that. Would it not be logical to expect an unconventional reaction when the conventional ones are no longer available? Such as a large-scale hot war. All "options", after all, are "on the table."


If the world must suffer in

If the world must suffer in the process of liberation from US tyranny, then so be it.


I disagree that the whole

I disagree that the whole world would suffer when the US collapses economically, It's the triggering event for the end of the current US policy of looting the world, the Empire will be unsustainable and the whold world will be a freer and safer place without it


LaRouche: "Establish

LaRouche: "Establish Two-Tier Credit Rate, or Forget the United States" http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/08/05/larouche-fed-failed-must-have-special-session-establish-two-.html "Pass the Homeowners & Bank Protection Act" http://www.larouchepac.com/hbpa and co-operate with Russia, China, India, etc. to establish a "New Bretton Wood" fixed rate exchange system. Don't look for a candidate, look for the policy that can save the US of America and the rest of the World.


It is time for the US to

It is time for the US to make yet another "break with the past" and reverse the Reagan-Bush voodoo-economic doctrine that has led to this meltdown. Will Obama dare to cut military spending by 40 percent in five years and divert at least part of that money into green jobs instead of robber-baron "defense" contractors? Nothing short of that will help, but don't hold your breath. The first president who tries any such stunt will almost certainly be impeached!


This may seem naive and

This may seem naive and simplistic. If so, please educate me. But please tell me why war seems always to be a solution for economic woes. Why is it any better than creating an enthusiasm for some other large-scale endeavor which creates a wide range of jobs from non-skilled to highly skilled? And, why not aim this enthusiasm at creating and/or developing an industry which can be readily exported, filling an honest-to-goodness world-wide need? Wouldn't success in taking leadership in such an industry solve a large portion of the problems? To create jobs, increase the tax base, teach people how to fish, so to speak, and to grease the rails of exports? As we see almost every hour on TV from our friend Boon Pickens, the transfer of wealth out of the US is the largest in history. Obviously, it would seem the right industry at this moment would be clean energy. Everyone needs it, and, if it were made affordable, everyone would buy it. And I believe it is the one issue that could galvanize voters and representatives from both parties. So, instead of trying to push the boulder uphill while five roll down, we end up working the problem from both ends simultaneously, by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and increasing our capacity to produce products which represent truly renewable energy with a minimum of impact on the environment. And, to top it off, the companies who create these products can sell them world-wide, thereby helping to equalize the balance of trade while reducing the deficit. I don't claim this would be a complete solution, but it would certainly help, and would also put the US in a position of positive, healthy change for the good of the planet. Now, I am an admitted Obama partisan. One among many of the reasons is his energy plan, which is very appealing to me because of his willingness to invest $150 billion over ten years to support new technology and to help Detroit develop energy efficient cars (maybe it should be $120 billion a year to match the expenditure on Iraq. At least this investment would have the potential to pay dividends and save lives instead of the reverse). The only argument I can find against this (a short editorial from the Arizona Republic Gazette which ran today) seems to be that, because creating these industries does not also create an inherent competitive advantage for US companies, trade barriers would have to be erected to protect them from foreign competition. This would, in turn, create a trade war which would presumably jeopardize our access to cheap products from China and elsewhere. Obviously, this is debatable since it assumes we can't develop products that do indeed have a competitive advantage that would make trade barriers unnecessary, a defeatist and, dare I say, somewhat unpatriotic and highly debatable assumption. Can one of you smart people tell me why, in the event this chain of events actually took place, we would be worse off than we are now?


We haven't even come close

We haven't even come close to a true appraisal of the depths to which our economy has sunk. Maybe that's because such an appraisal is impossible. By means of instruments known as financial derivatives, so many bets have been made upon the future (I repeat, future) performance of real assets that such an accounting is impossible. However, it is no exaggeration to note that such bets, and they are bets, were made during a period that even the craven Allan Greenspan called a time of irrational exuberance. Nice euphemism for the bankrupting of our economy. This is not the dying out of a tatteredLibbie driven social order. Rather, it is social murder carried out by those who waved weapons about with no real inkling as to their power--or their value, for that matter.


Mike: Though I don't claim

Mike: Though I don't claim to fully understand the logic behind military Keynesianism--the policy of creating wars in order to create jobs--I do understand that it began in part as a fear after WWII that the U.S. could easily fall into another Great Depression if the government didn't find some method of planning which would keep people working all the time. By the time Eisenhower left office, the buildup of the arms industry had become what the departing president dubbed the "Military Industrial Complex", a snowball which has been rolling down the side of the mountain for over a half century and has gained the momentum of a full scale avalanche. The U.S. economy's #1 export is weapons and military vehicles. If we quit now, the economy would collapse. Any other non-renewable export (for war is sadly too easily created--look at how quickly America found a new enemy after the end of the Cold War, the so-called "War on Terror" which will cease only when...well, that's the point. It won't.) would not be nearly as profitable as exporting war. And doing so has its own benefit. Not making the world safe for democracy as the rhetoricians in the White House would put it, but making the world safe for American corporations. Creating sustainable energy is not a sustainable business. Once people have wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, you can't sell it to them anymore.


Actually I think we'll be

Actually I think we'll be fine once we get rid of W. There will be a collective sigh of relief and people can get back to work knowing they aren't going to be screwed out of every last penny they make in order to support oil-baron welfare/warfare. We've gotten out of some pretty big messes before and all it really takes is someone with a brain behind the wheel.