home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
The Seed Thieves
Read Elyssa Pachico’s amazing account how the US patents office is trying to privatize crops that the world’s common heritage. PLUS Eugenia Tsao’s brilliant report on the global trade in psychotherapeutic drugs. PLUS Alexander Cockburn’s account of how Libya’s al-Megrahi, was framed by the U.S. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and t-shirts make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page
|
Today's Stories September 15, 2009 Marshall Auerback Karen Korenoski / September 14, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts M. G. Piety Shamus Cooke Bouthaina Shaaban Alvaro Huerta John Ross Harvey Wasserman Adam Federman Stephen Fleischman Robert Jensen Website of the Day September 11-13, 2009 Alexander Cockburn JoAnn Wypijewski Carl Ginsburg Leonard Peltier Franklin Lamb Benjamin Dangl Mike Whitney John Berger Saul Landau Russell Mokhiber Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Felice Pace Jordan Flaherty Ron Jacobs David Macaray David Correia Robert Bryce Christopher Brauchli Paul Krassner Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 10, 2009 Joshua Frank Dean Baker Brian M. Downing Franklin C. Spinney Andy Worthington Chase Madar Farzana Versey Ronnie Cummins Binoy Kampmark Timothy Lebrón Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 9, 2009 Richard Neville Melissa Checker Nadia Hijab Robert Weissman Jonathan Cook Russell Mokhiber James Ridgeway Richard W. Behan James McEnteer Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day September 8, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Stephen Soldz John Ross Jeff Leys Mike Whitney Ashcroft: Repugnant to the Constitution Shamus Cooke Ellen Brown Norman Solomon Men With Guns: In Kabul and Washington Deepak Tripathi Laray Polk Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 7, 2009 Vicente Navarro Bouthaina Shaaban David Macaray Paul Craig Roberts Jonathan Cook Conn Hallinan Walter Brasch Mark Weisbrot Carl Finamore C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day September 4-6, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Carl Ginsburg Jonathan Cook George Wuerthner Marc Levy Ray McGovern Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Joe Paff Gareth Porter Devin Beaulieu Anthony Papa David Ker Thomson Don Fitz Lee Sustar / Jim Goodman Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Helen Redmond John V. Walsh Charles R. Larson Mark Scaramella David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 3, 2009 Marcus Rediker Ron Jacobs Mike Whitney Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Saul Landau Anat Matar Tanya Golash-Boza Dave Lindorff Andy Worthington Website of the Day September 2, 2009 John Ross Vijay Prashad Rev. Jim Rigby Joanne Mariner Missy Beattie Soren Ambrose Diane Farsetta Nadia Hijab Shamus Cooke Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 1, 2009 Jeffrey St. Clair Paul Craig Roberts Mark T. Harris Dean Baker Jeffrey Buchanan Robin Mittenthal Ellen Brown Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day August 31, 2009 Pam Martens Anthony DiMaggio Bouthaina Shaaban Ray McGovern Joseph Shansky Greg Moses Brian McKenna David Macaray Brenda Norrell Paul Craig Roberts Beth Sherouse Website of the Day August 28-30, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Joshua Frank / Steve Early Michael Hudson Carl Ginsburg Saul Landau Dave Marsh Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff José Pertierra Joe Bageant Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Lee Sustar David Ker Thomson David Rosen Alison Weir Ron Jacobs David Swanson Udi Aloni Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 27, 2009 Andrea Peacock Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Ray McGovern Gideon Levy Shamus Cook Norman Solomon Marshall Auerbach Benjamin Dangl Kathryn Gray David Macaray Website of the Day August 26, 2009 Gareth Porter Dave Lindorff Dean Baker Laura Carlsen Paul Craig Roberts Laura Raymond / Jordan Flaherty Jonathan Cook Robert Bryce Danny Weil Cindy Sheehan John V. Walsh Website of the Day August 25, 2009 Gabriel Kolko Danny Weil Martine Bulard Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Bélen Fernández August 24, 2009 Danny Weil Neve Gordon John Ross Open Letter to Kenneth Roth Dan Bacher August 21-23, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Ray McGovern Carl Ginsburg Dave Lindorff M. Shahid Alam Ron Jacobs Eric Walberg No War on the Moon! Gilad Atzmon Crawdad Nelson David Yearsley Justin Frew Website of the Day August 20, 2009 Eugenia Tsao Dave Lindorff Yonatan Preminger Wajahat Ali Website of the Day August 19, 2009 David Michael Green Paul Craig Roberts Marshall Auerback Franklin Lamb John Ross Marjorie Cohn August 18, 2009 Michael Hudson Mary Lynn Cramer Jonathan Cook Uri Avnery Ralph Nader Bill Quigley & Davida Finger August 17, 2009 Ray McGovern Andy Worthington Patrick Cockburn Don Fitz P. Sainath Helena Cobban August 14-16, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Peter Linebaugh Esam Al-Amin Marshall Auerback Mike Whitney Paul Krassner Saul Landau Nikolas Kozloff Henry A. Giroux John Ross Jonathan Cook Isabella Kenfield David Rosen Ron Jacobs Wajahat Ali David Macaray Greg Moses Charles R. Larson David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 13, 2009 Eduardo Galeano Joanne Mariner Michael Donnelly Norman Solomon Russell Mokhiber Tim Wise Brian M. Downing Dave Lindorff David Manning / Miriam Cotton: Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day August 12, 2009 Michael J. Watts Bouthaina Shaaban Ricardo Alarcón Binoy Kampmark Paul Craig Roberts Alan Farago James Ridgeway Dave Lindorff David Macaray Niranjan Ramakrishnan Website of the Day August 11, 2009 Ricardo Alarcón Marshall Auerback Reza Yavari Winslow T. Wheeler Tim Wise Uri Avnery Deepak Tripathi Greg Moses Benjamin Dangl Dave Lindorff Website of the Day August 10, 2009 David Price Mike Whitney Alan Farago Conn Hallinan Russell Mokhiber Paul Krassner Sousan Hammad Jonathan Cook Ira Glunts George Wuerthner Website of the Day August 7 - 9, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Mike Whitney Elaine C. Hagopian Carl Ginsburg Miguel Tinker Salas Saul Landau John Ross Anthony DiMaggio Obama and the Israel Lobby: Origins of Power John Stanton Christopher Brauchli Legal Absurdities: Outing Three Strikes Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Franklin Lamb Bruce E. Levine Michael Winship David Macaray Stephen Fleischman Robert Bryce Robert Dodge, MD: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Remembered Mark Seth Lender David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend August 6, 2009 Ishmael Reed Paul Craig Roberts William Blum Assassinations and Coups: Keeping Track of the Empire's Crimes Michael Donnelly Jonathan Cook Dave Lindorff Ellen Brown Website of the Day August 5, 2009 Dedrick Muhammad / Norman Solomon William Blum Gareth Porter Mary Lynn Cramer Jim Goodman Nadia Hijab Gretchen Kroth Steve Macek / Sarah Lazare Website of the Day August 4, 2009 Mike Whitney Dave Lindorff Patrick Cockburn Jonathan Cook Jeff Sher Dean Baker Andy Worthington Uri Avnery Mark Weisbrot Alvaro Huerta Website of the Day
|
September 15, 2009 All Debt is Not Created EquallyGovernment Spending is the Solution--Not the ProblemBy MARSHALL AUERBACK Tens of thousands of people marched to the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, carrying signs with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" as they protested the president's health care plan and our so-called “out-of-control spending”. The marchers were chanting "enough, enough" and "We the People." Others, channeling their inner Joe Wilson, screamed "You lie, you lie!" while waving U.S. flags and the now omnipresent images of Obama as Hitler, Obama as the Joker, along with the usual placards decrying the “march to socialism”. And the reaction against the expansion of the state is by no means restricted to America. According to the London Sunday Times, voters are overwhelmingly in favor of cutting public spending rather than tax rises to close the budget “black hole”. Sixty per cent want to shrink the size of the state to curb the £175 billion deficit amid mounting government disarray over the public finances. Naturally, there is also growing support for this line of thinking in the financial community, despite having successfully received tens of trillions of dollars, even for deeply insolvent financial institutions. The large banks and brokers lobbied for special treatment and got it. To the extent that government spending is being used to prop up these economic zombies, I sympathize with the prevailing orthodoxy about wastage of our money. However, the fasct remains that the principle opposition to increased government spending is predicated on the simplistic notions about fiscal activism. We need to get past the deficit myths and wrongheaded notions of “national solvency” so that we can move forward in other areas. In the words of economist Bill Mitchell of the University of Newcastle, Australia:
A seemingly growing populist drive toward a return to fiscal orthodoxy follows a stream of similar pronouncements from Wall Street, the Fed, the European Central Bank, the OECD, all of whom are legitimizing a campaign against further public spending and mobilizing support for “exit strategies” as they confidently pronounce the end of the recession. Implicit is the view that somewhere along the line ongoing government involvement in the “free market” reaches a tipping point where fiscal “intrusions” no longer act as a stabilizing force, but serve to impede the natural tendency of the market to equilibrate to recovery. The major hypothesis is that anytime the government is involved in the economy, eventually things go bad. But markets do not self-regulate in ways that avoid major financial upheavals and activist government is required as a counterbalancing force. President Obama himself has legitimized this line of thinking himself, committing himself to the goal of “fiscal sustainability” (whatever that means) as a medium term policy objective. He said as much last Wednesday again during his speech on health care. Having failed to understand what got us into the crisis, and equally having failed to appreciate the extent to which government spending actually prevented an economic catastrophe along the lines of the Great Depression, our policy makers who are championing this move toward neo-liberal fiscal orthodoxy are almost certain to drive us into the next recession if they take these demands to shrink government too aggressively. Deficit hawks fail to understand that not all debt is created equally. As James Galbraith, L. Randall Wray and Warren Mosler have argued, there is no legitimate analogy to be drawn about the budgets of the government, which issues the currency, and the budgets of the non-government sector (households, firms etc) which uses that currency. The former does not have a financial constraint and can spend freely whereas the latter has to “finance” all spending either through earning income, drawing down savings or liquidating assets. Although the global debt problem is very serious, the focus on growing government deficits and the need to rein in fiscal expenditures is profoundly misplaced, particularly in the U.S., where (relative to Europe and Japan), the government debt is low, relative to the size of the economy. Additionally, as a matter of national accounting, deleveraging in the private sector cannot happen without an increase in the government’s deficit (the government’s deficit equals by identity the non-government’s surplus. Consequently, if the US private sector is to rebuild its balance sheet by spending less than its income, the government will have to spend more than its tax revenue; the only other possibility is that the rest of the world begins to dis-save massively—letting the US run a current account surplus—but that is highly implausible). In addition, if the government deficit does not grow fast enough to meet the saving needs of the private domestic sector, national income will decline, and, given the size of the private sector’s debt problem, a full-blown debt-deflation process will emerge. Yet today we are still overwhelmed with a chorus of criticism against fiscal activism: we hear constantly that governments are an impediment to the operation of a genuinely “free market” which alone can generate sustained growth and prosperity. The reality is very different on a number of levels. Based on current account and fiscal balance results through Q2, it appears the private sector as a whole is running a net saving position rivaled only once before in the 1973-5 deep recession. At 8 per cent of GDP, the private sector net saving position is probably very near its peak given the rebound in equity prices, stabilizing home prices, and a labor market limping its way back from the abyss. What most commentators fail to acknowledge (Paul Krugman being a conspicuous exception), is that without the automatic stabilizers of fiscal policy, and the turn in the trade balance, the attempt by businesses and households to spend less than they earn would have otherwise been thwarted by a depression sized drop in private income. Even though private individual and firms face external constraints as they accumulate debt, “household budget” analogies do not hold true for government, as Galbraith, Wray and Mosler argue:
The reality is – and it is a tyranny of accounting, not a theoretical impediment, since the financial balances of the three sectors must sum to zero – the only way to return to a fiscal surplus, or even a fiscal balance, without taking the private sector back into a deficit spending position, is if the trade balance can be heroically improved. The failure to recognize this relationship is the major oversight of neo-liberal analysis. Beyond the benign neglect of the dollar depreciation, it is hard to see much in the way of policy measures to achieve either import replacement or export extension in the years ahead. If the fiscal balance is to return to surplus by 2013 – a more aggressive reversal than the CBO depicted in its August Outlook, but consistent with the political tone of returning to fiscal orthodoxy - one can trace out the implications for the private sector financial balance given various assumptions about the trajectory of the trade balance. To get both the fiscal and private sector financial balances to converge at a net saving position of 2 per cent of GDP, the trade balance will have to migrate to a 4 per cent of GDP surplus – something we have never seen before in the US during the post WWII period. That leaves the emergence of a foreign middle class, and the shift toward domestic demand -led growth abroad as the key elements that could support a better US trade trajectory, which are largely elements outside the control of US policy makers. All of this likely means the path of US fiscal deficit as a share of GDP is probably a better route to full employment and prosperity than the misguided sentiment to cut government expenditures precipitously in a return to financial orthodoxy. In aggregate, there can be no net savings of financial assets of the non-government sector without cumulative government deficit spending. The sovereign government via net spending (deficits) is the only entity that can provide the non-government sector with net financial assets (net savings) and thereby simultaneously accommodate any net desire to save and hence eliminate unemployment. By the same token, the US is no more a “free market” today than the Soviet Union was during the heyday of its empire. The United States is now a species of State Capitalism. The top federal government executives are a partnership of top political and corporate managers who operate a war economy to enlarge their power as their main continuing goal. Less Adam Smith, more Mussolini style corporatism. Today’s unemployment levels that are the hallmark of deep depression are now visible as additional millions "leave" the labor force and are not counted as unemployed by the Federal government even though they are actually jobless. Hence, an 9.7 per cent "unemployment" rate as counted by the Federal government actually refers to a number almost twice as high if we incorporate underemployed and those who classify themselves as independent consultants but who are loathe to describe themselves as genuinely unemployed. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of American society shows decay that can no longer be concealed despite the practiced showmanship of leading public officials. By the same token, the emphasis on "sound fiscal management”, which allegedly created the platform for vigorous, low inflationary growth, generating jobs and higher incomes is false. Similarly, it is clear that the current reliance on monetary policy (accompanied by the budget deficit phobia) will always fail to deliver full employment and relies on the impoverishment of the disadvantaged for its ability to achieve low inflation. The results have been clear. They indicate that this way of managing the economy cannot possibly be a sustainable long-term strategy. The emphasis we have placed on "financial responsibility" on the government side has actually introduced a deflationary bias that has slowed output and employment growth (keeping unemployment at unnecessarily high levels) and has forced the non-government sector into relying on increasing debt to sustain consumption. The complaints about “private sector debt fuelled” consumption miss the mark: the debt accumulation is a direct consequence of our failure to use fiscal policy in a manner which supports aggregate incomes and job growth. Targeting wages and the use of a buffer stock of unemployed labor have been the preferred methods of controlling inflation, but minimizing economic output below full potential. This was not, however, the model which gave the US its greatest period of prosperity. In fact, until the mid-1970s, the U.S. consistently paid the highest industrial wages in the world. According to the late Seymour Melman (a professor of industrial engineering at Columbia University), this fact actually helped the U.S. maintain its economic supremacy. Melman’s concept that explained this unconventional wisdom he called “alternative cost”. The basic idea is this: faced with high labor costs, firm managers will be more willing to mechanize, that is, use more machinery, and more sophisticated machinery, instead of using labor. By using more, better machinery, they increase labor productivity, which leads to higher wages, and they also stay at the cutting edge of technology. Melman compared factories in England and the U.S. after World War II, and found that the English, who paid lower wages, were using more primitive equipment than the Americans. More recently, his theory has been echoed in Suzanne Berger’s new book, How We Compete, in which she argues that employing cheap labor is not the most effective way of responding to global competition. The activities that succeed over time are those that involve conditions – such as long-term working relationships with customers and suppliers and specialized skills – which companies whose main asset is cheap labor cannot match. A company policy of forcing down wages is not a recipe for long-term economic success. Economic growth has never been strong enough to fully employ the willing workforce and inequalities are rising throughout the Western world not falling. Further, the disparities between wealthy and poor countries have widened. By curbing the role of government and fiscal policy, we risk reverting to an approach which not only established the pre-conditions for the current crisis including the massive build-up of non-government debt and persistently high labor underutilization, but will almost certainly ensure a return to intense recessionary pressures (at a time when we are still experiencing double digit unemployment). To be clear: I am not advocating unlimited government deficits or spending. Rather, the size of the deficit (surplus) should be market determined by the desired net saving of the non-government sector. This may not coincide with full employment and so it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that its taxation/spending are at the right level to ensure that this equality occurs at full employment. Accordingly, if the goals are full employment AND price stability then the task is to make sure that government spending is exactly at the level that is neither inflationary, nor deflationary but sufficient to create full employment. This is the true “Goldilocks” scenario, much beloved by Wall Street. It can be better achieved through fiscal policy, rather than the preferred approach of the majority, which suggests that the same outcome is engineered via a monetary manipulation of short term rates by the central bank. Fiscal policy is relatively direct – that is, the dollars go into aggregate demand – immediately they are spent. The standard view that government budget deficits lead to future tax burdens is problematic it assumes a financial constraint which in reality is non-existent. The idea that unless policies are adjusted now (that is, governments start running surpluses or that we experience a "deflationary recession") is a recipe for social turmoil and revolution. The sooner our policy makers understand that, the more likely we avoid repeating the mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place. Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator. He is a brainstruster for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Intitute. He can be reached at MAuer1959@aol.com |
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Yellowstone Drift: Spell Albuquerque: Waiting for
Lightning
|