Nation in Trouble

[Dardedar]

America and the Dollar Illusion
By Gabor Steingart
Der Spiegel

Wednesday 25 October 2006

The dollar is still the world's reserve currency, even though it hasn't deserved this status for a long time. The devaluation of the dollar can't be stopped - it can only be deferred. The result could be a world economic crisis.

The following essay has been excerpted from the German best-seller "World War for Wealth: The Global Grab for Power and Prosperity" by Spiegel editor Gabor Steingart.

DAR excerpts:

Steroids for the Giant

Last century, the United States already suffered from one deep economic crisis that gradually spread to the rest of the world. The Great Depression lasted 10 years and brought mass unemployment and starvation to the United States. The country's economic power sank by one-third. The crisis virus wrought havoc all over the West. Six million people were unemployed in Germany when the economic fever was at its peak.

Today's investors face a difficult choice, one they're not to be envied for. They can see the relative weakness of the US economy and they're registering the tectonic shifts in the world economy. They know that a great statistical effort is being made to prolong the American dream. For some time now, government statistics have announced sensational productivity leaps for the US economy - productivity leaps that, strange as it may seem, haven't led to any rise in wages for years. This is in fact genuinely bizarre: Either capitalists are reaping the fruits of increased productivity all by themselves - which would be a political scandal even in capitalism's heartland - or the productivity leaps exist only on paper. There is much to suggest that the second hypothesis is correct.

Half the world is impressed by the low levels of unemployment in the United States. The other half knows that these statistics aren't official, but the result of a voluntary telephone survey. Many of those who declare themselves employed are assistants and day workers. Working just one hour a week is enough for one to be classified as "employed." Given that it's considered antisocial to declare yourself unemployed, the US statistics may well say more about American society's dominant norms than about its actual condition.

The US economy's high growth rates aren't to be completely trusted either. They are the result of high public and private debt. In no way do they express an increased output of domestically produced goods and services that the United States has achieved by its own strength. They say more about the successful sales ventures of Asians and Europeans. New loans taken by the US government were responsible for fully one-third of US economic growth in 2001. In 2003 they were responsible for a quarter. The United States is an economic giant on steroids - doped so its decline in performance doesn't become too apparent.

...SNIP...

Self-Delusion

The extent of this self-delusion can be read in the balance sheets of the banks: Almost no one is saving money in the United States today. The US foreign debt grows by about $1.5 billion every weekday and has now reached about $3 trillion. Private household debt, both at home and abroad, has reached $9 trillion - and 40 percent of these debts has been incurred since 2001. The Americans are enjoying the present at the cost of selling off ever larger chunks of their future. Arguably, the imminent economic crisis is the most thoroughly predicted one in recent history. Rather than refuting the crisis, the current US economic boom merely heralds it.

Biologists have observed similar phenomena in plants contaminated by toxins. Before they wither, they produce one last batch of healthy shoots - to the point that they can hardly be distinguished from healthy plants. Some speak of a panic bloom.

So who will be the first to destroy the dollar illusion? Aren't all investors bound together by an invisible link, since every attack on the key currency would lead to a loss of value for them, perhaps even destroying a large part of their financial assets? Why should the central banks of Japan or Beijing throw their dollars onto the market? What could make US pension funds wilfully destroy their wealth, held in dollars? What sense would it make to send the United States into a deep crisis when that crisis could drag all the other states along?

The underlying motive is the same as the one that once prompted investors to buy dollars - fear. This time it is fear that someone else may be faster, fear that the dollar's strength won't last, fear that every day spent waiting may be one day too long. It's fear that the herd instinct of global financial markets will set in and overtake those who can't keep up.

Weaker Than They Say

These days, the dollar is making a lot of people uncomfortable. One morning many dollar-owners will wake up and look at the facts about the US economy without their rose-colored glasses - just as private investors woke up one day and took an unflinching look at the New Economy, only to see companies whose market value couldn't be justified by even the most dramatic of profit increases. Some of the revenue forecasts that had been issued far exceeded the total value of the market. The Nasdaq presented the spectacle of a stock market whose added value increased by 1,000 percent in just a few years, when the nominal growth of the US economy during the same period was only 25 percent.

Greed triumphed over fear for a few years - but then fear came back. The value of high-tech shares plummeted by more than 70 percent in just a few months, and they're still less than half as high as they were then. Even the Dow Jones, a stock market index based on the value of the largest US companies, was devalued by some 40 percent.

Much the same fate is in store for the dollar and for dollar loans. The United States has sold more security than it has to offer. The expectations traded will turn out to be valueless because they can't be met. Just as the New Economy was unable to provide investors with either the growth or the profits that had been predicted for investors, currency traders will one day have to admit that the economy backing the currency they sold is weaker than they claimed.

The Crash Can Be Deferred, but Not Stopped

The dependence of foreign central banks on the dollar will defer its crash, but it won't prevent it. Today's snowdrift will become tomorrow's avalanche. The masses of snow are already accumulating at breathtaking speed. The avalanche could happen tomorrow, in a few months or years from now. Much of what people today think is immortal will be buried by the global currency crisis - perhaps even the leadership role of the United States.

Incidentally, the commission that former US President Bill Clinton created to investigate the negative balance of trade concluded in clear terms that the government has to do whatever it can to put an end to the growing disparity between imports and exports. It demanded that the public give up its optimism and return to realism, that people start saving again and that the state reduce its imports in order to prevent too hard a crash landing.

None of that has been done. In fact, what is being done is the opposite of everything the experts recommended. Debt is growing, imports are increasing and an optimism now lacking every basis in reality has become official state policy. Lester Thurow, a member of Clinton's commission, draws the sober conclusion that no one will believe the US balance of trade could produce a crisis "until it happens."

***
LINK

MORE:

America's Middle Class Has Become Globalization's Loser
By Gabor Steingart
Der Spiegel

Tuesday 24 October 2006

DAR excerpt:

Producing All Over the World

...

The US national economy clearly bears the signs of this break with its golden age, when the country produced prosperity for almost everyone. Until the 1970s, the productive core of the country burned with such a fiery light that it illuminated the entire world. The United States provided dollars and products for everyone. The American empire's nuclear power helped in the reconstruction of war-torn Europe and Japan. The United States was the world's greatest net exporter and greatest creditor for four decades. Everything went just the way the economy textbooks said it should: The world's wealthiest nation pumped money and products into the poorer states. The United States used the energy from its own productive core to make other countries glow or at least glimmer. It was indisputably the world's center of power, a source of energy that radiated out in all directions.

US capital was at home everywhere in the world, even without military backing. Many experienced this state of affairs as a blessing, some as a curse. Either way, it was good business for the United States: At the peak of its economic power, the West's leading nation disposed of assets abroad whose net value amounted to 13 percent of its GNP. To put it differently: The country's productive core had expanded so dramatically that it opened up branches and subsidiaries all over the world.

What Remains

This undoubtedly superior United States doesn't exist anymore. As a center of power, it is still more powerful than others, but for some years now that energy has been flowing in the opposite direction. Today, Asian, Latin American and European nations are also playing a role in the United States's productive core. The world's greatest exporter became its greatest importer. The most important creditor became the most important debtor. Today, foreigners dispose of assets in the United States with a net value of $2.5 trillion, or 21 percent of gross domestic product. Nine percent of shares, 17 percent of corporate bonds and 24 percent of government bonds are held by foreigners.

Neither laziness nor the obvious American penchant for consumerism can be blamed for this changed reality in America. US industry - or at least what little is left of it - is responsible. In the span of only a few decades, US industry has shrunken to half what it once was. It makes up only 17 percent of the country's GDP, compared to 26 percent in Europe.

Every important national economy in the world now exports products to the United States without purchasing an equivalent amount of US goods in return. The US trade deficit with China was about $200 billion dollars in 2005; it was a solid $80 billion with Japan; and more than $120 billion with Europe. The United States can't even achieve a surplus in its trade with less developed national economies like those of Ukraine and Russia. Everyday, container-laden ships arrive in the United States - and after they unload their wares at American ports, many return home empty.

Those looking for something good to say about the superpower won't find it in the trade balance. The growing imbalance can't be attributed to natural resources or the import of parts for manufacturing firms. Oil imports, for example, don't make as significant a difference to the trade balance as is often assumed: They account for only $160 billion dollars, a comparably small sum. Instead, it's the top products of a developed national economy that the United States is importing from everywhere in the world - cars, computers, TV sets, game consoles - without being able to sell as many of its own products on the world market.

***
LINK

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Neither of these articles note that much of our industry moved overseas because of tax programs encouraging them to do so combined with tax-dollar subsidies to the energy industry that take most of the cost of transportation out of the cost of production. If transportation was at its true costs, we'd see factories moving back here (higher cost of labor would be balanced by cost of lower transportation).

That being said - actually, I've been expecting a crash for some years and it hasn't happened yet. That doesn't mean I think it won't - that means I think it will be worse the longer we stave it off with "funny money" and make-believe economic gains.

[Dardedar]

Top Government Official Says US on Verge of Economic Disaster
By Matt Crenson
The Associated Press

Saturday 28 October 2006

A dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

David M. Walker sure talks like he's running for office. "This is about the future of our country, our kids and grandkids," the comptroller general of the United States warns a packed hall at Austin's historic Driskill Hotel. "We the people have to rise up to make sure things get changed."

But Walker doesn't want, or need, your vote this November. He already has a job as head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government.

Basically, that makes Walker the nation's accountant-in-chief. And the accountant-in-chief's professional opinion is that the American public needs to tell Washington it's time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.

From the hustings and the airwaves this campaign season, America's political class can be heard debating Capitol Hill sex scandals, the wisdom of the war in Iraq and which party is tougher on terror. Democrats and Republicans talk of cutting taxes to make life easier for the American people.

What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows, or at least should. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.

There's a good reason politicians don't like to talk about the nation's long-term fiscal prospects. The subject is short on political theatrics and long on complicated economics, scary graphs and very big numbers. It reveals serious problems and offers no easy solutions. Anybody who wanted to deal with it seriously would have to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits, nasty nostrums that might doom any candidate who prescribed them.

"There's no sexiness to it," laments Leita Hart-Fanta, an accountant who has just heard Walker's pitch. She suggests recruiting a trusted celebrity - maybe Oprah - to sell fiscal responsibility to the American people.

Walker doesn't want to make balancing the federal government's books sexy - he just wants to make it politically palatable. He has committed to touring the nation through the 2008 elections, talking to anybody who will listen about the fiscal black hole Washington has dug itself, the "demographic tsunami" that will come when the baby boom generation begins retiring and the recklessness of borrowing money from foreign lenders to pay for the operation of the U.S. government.

"He can speak forthrightly and independently because his job is not in jeopardy if he tells the truth," said Isabel V. Sawhill, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

Walker can talk in public about the nation's impending fiscal crisis because he has one of the most secure jobs in Washington. As comptroller general of the United States - basically, the government's chief accountant - he is serving a 15-year term that runs through 2013.

...SNIP...

To show that the looming fiscal crisis is not a partisan issue, he brings along economists and budget analysts from across the political spectrum. In Austin, he's accompanied by Diane Lim Rogers, a liberal economist from the Brookings Institution, and Alison Acosta Fraser, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"We all agree on what the choices are and what the numbers are," Fraser says.

Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. That's almost as much as the total net worth of every person in America - Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and those Google guys included.

A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.

And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.

People who remember Ross Perot's rants in the 1992 presidential election may think of the federal debt as a problem of the past. But it never really went away after Perot made it an issue, it only took a breather. The federal government actually produced a surplus for a few years during the 1990s, thanks to a booming economy and fiscal restraint imposed by laws that were passed early in the decade. And though the federal debt has grown in dollar terms since 2001, it hasn't grown dramatically relative to the size of the economy.

But that's about to change, thanks to the country's three big entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicaid and especially Medicare. Medicaid and Medicare have grown progressively more expensive as the cost of health care has dramatically outpaced inflation over the past 30 years, a trend that is expected to continue for at least another decade or two.

And with the first baby boomers becoming eligible for Social Security in 2008 and for Medicare in 2011, the expenses of those two programs are about to increase dramatically due to demographic pressures. People are also living longer, which makes any program that provides benefits to retirees more expensive.

Medicare already costs four times as much as it did in 1970, measured as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product. It currently comprises 13 percent of federal spending; by 2030, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will consume nearly a quarter of the budget.

Economists Jagadeesh Gokhale of the American Enterprise Institute and Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania have an even scarier way of looking at Medicare. Their method calculates the program's long-term fiscal shortfall - the annual difference between its dedicated revenues and costs - over time.

By 2030 they calculate Medicare will be about $5 trillion in the hole, measured in 2004 dollars. By 2080, the fiscal imbalance will have risen to $25 trillion. And when you project the gap out to an infinite time horizon, it reaches $60 trillion.

Medicare so dominates the nation's fiscal future that some economists believe health care reform, rather than budget measures, is the best way to attack the problem.

"Obviously health care is a mess," says Dean Baker, a liberal economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. "No one's been willing to touch it, but that's what I see as front and center."

Social Security is a much less serious problem. The program currently pays for itself with a 12.4 percent payroll tax, and even produces a surplus that the government raids every year to pay other bills. But Social Security will begin to run deficits during the next century, and ultimately would need an infusion of $8 trillion if the government planned to keep its promises to every beneficiary.

Calculations by Boston University economist Lawrence Kotlikoff indicate that closing those gaps - $8 trillion for Social Security, many times that for Medicare - and paying off the existing deficit would require either an immediate doubling of personal and corporate income taxes, a two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits, or some combination of the two.

Why is America so fiscally unprepared for the next century? Like many of its citizens, the United States has spent the last few years racking up debt instead of saving for the future. Foreign lenders - primarily the central banks of China, Japan and other big U.S. trading partners - have been eager to lend the government money at low interest rates, making the current $8.5-trillion deficit about as painful as a big balance on a zero-percent credit card.

...SNIP...

But the last six years of Republican rule have produced tax cuts, record spending increases and a Medicare prescription drug plan that has been widely criticized as fiscally unsound. When President Clinton faced a Republican Congress during the 1990s, spending limits and other legislative tools helped produce a surplus.

So maybe a solution is at hand.

"We're likely to have at least partially divided government again," Sawhill said, referring to predictions that the Democrats will capture the House, and possibly the Senate, in next month's elections.

But Walker isn't optimistic that the government will be able to tackle its fiscal challenges so soon.

"Realistically what we hope to accomplish through the fiscal wake-up tour is ensure that any serious candidate for the presidency in 2008 will be forced to deal with the issue," he says. "The best we're going to get in the next couple of years is to slow the bleeding."

***
LINK

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The oh-so-carefully nonpartisan partisan issue of social security! Medicare (federal health insurance for retirees) and Medicaid (entitlement program of healthcare for the indigent) are running us into the ground and the answer to that is reform healthcare. Social security is not and will not be in trouble. That 12.4% tax is not really a 12.4% tax - it's a 6.2% tax on the worker's income matched by the employer. The only folks who pay close to the 12.4% are the self-employed and they pay the employer's half on 90% of gross income (and it's a business deduction on the income tax portion). The article notes social security is not only covering all of it's own expenses, but it produces an annual surplus that Congress "raids every year to pay other bills" - and then goes on about how will "begin to run deficits during the NEXT century" (my emphasis) requiring an infusion of $8 trillion "if the government planned to keep its promises to every beneficiary". They don't note that since the Reagan years the money Congress raids from social security is in the form of treasury notes at 3% interest - Congress has to pay it back. The interest rate may not be much, but it's "secure". The article also assumes extended lifespans and apparently extrapolates boomer-sized growth in the drawdown into the next century. Nonsense. Not only will Americans have to do a 180 on obesity and other health issues to maintain the average lifespan we've got at the moment, but the boomers are going to go through the system like a toad through a garter snake. By the time the next century rolls around, we'll be long gone.

These are economic experts, which is why I say carefully nonpartisan partisan - they have to know these facts, but they keep shilling for the "social security is doomed" group.

Are we in trouble economically? Big time. Is medicare/medicaid a big problem? Absolutely. But notice nobody mentioned the cost of the war in Iraq (or anywhere else), the "star wars" program or any of the old Cold War programs that are blythely using up our tax dollars for no purpose except to keep Congressional lobbyists happy. We won't solve what is a problem of cataclysmic proportions by ignoring the real problems and scapegoating social security. (Which, considering how much Congress depends on borrowing money from social security, is a pretty stupid.)

[Dardedar]

they have to know these facts, but they keep shilling for the "social security is doomed" group.

DAR
I thought they didn't do that. Projections about a problem "in the next century" is so far off as to be a yawner, (almost):

"Social Security is a much less serious problem. The program currently pays for itself with a 12.4 percent payroll tax, and even produces a surplus that the government raids every year to pay other bills. But Social Security will begin to run deficits during the next century, and ultimately would need an infusion of $8 trillion if the government planned to keep its promises to every beneficiary."

Good heavens, we can't predict many things "economically" even a few years out. Projections regarding almost 100 years out are hardly worth mentioning.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Of course economic predicts a century out are ridiculous as a basis for "fixing" a program that works quite well, thank you. But how else are they going to continue the fiction that we need to "do something" (like privatize) Social Security if they don't (besides lying, like the Bush administration does). Oh well, global warming may make the whole thing moot, if we have already passed the "tipping" point.