Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
Chorus of Progressive Economists: Govt. Must Spur Demand to End Recession
Largely oblivious to the reality among working families grappling with unemployment, wage cuts, and trying to avoid foreclosures, conservative politicians (mostly GOP, but also a considerable number of Democrats) are building momentum for an assault on federal budget deficits by slashing government spending.
The Republican approach to deficit cutting is certain to extinguish any hope of economic recovery, bluntly declared Dean Baker. (photo by Flickr user bredgur) But more than 300 economists have countered with a strong statement calling calling instead for the opposite solution: a vigorous expansion of federal stimulus efforts—and the deficit—to lift the economy out of the persisting Great Recession.
"The deficit focus risks repeating the mistakes of1937, when FDR pulled back on public spending and plunged us back into the depths of a very deep recession," former Labor Secretary Robert Reich told reporters Thursday on a national conference call with several of the country's most prominent progressive economic experts. "We're in danger of deflation, continued recession, and not getting out of this recession."
The economic recovery is anything but vigorous, as shown by a weak 1.6% level of growth during the second quarter and a rise in poverty, which now afflicts 43 million people, the highest level in a half-century. Other fundamental problems remain, the economists point out:
"The basic problem is a lack of demand," argued economist Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research, and author most recently of Plunder and Blunder. "Yet it is striking that we've had a dominant narrative that's 180 degrees at odds with reality." As the economists wrote:
Today, the economy is growing only weakly. 7.8 million jobs have been lost in the recession. Consumers, having suffered losses in home values and retirement savings, are tightening their belts. The business sector, uncertain about consumer spending, is reluctant to invest in expansion or job creation, leaving the economy trapped on a path of slow growth or stagnation. Over 20 million American workers are now unemployed, underemployed or simply have given up looking for a job.
The increase in deficits and long-term federal debt is hardly due to anti-recessionary spending, explained Baker.
REAL ROOTS OF DEFICIT
The largest portion of the federal debt is due to unfunded tax cuts and two wars enacted during the George W. Bush administration, Baker noted. President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan and other initiatives comprise only a fraction of the red ink, but they weren't sufficient to generate enough consumer demand to escape the recession.
"Emergency stimulus policies here and around the world broke the fall, but brought us only part way to full recovery," the economists' statement declared.
The push for drastic deficit-cutting flies in the face of logic and the hard-learned lessons of the 1930's, the statement read:
History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity. In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937.
However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring. Only the much larger wartime spending of the early 1940s produced a full recovery.
"Austerity economics" will not provide the level of consumer demand needed to rekindle the economy and bring down unemployment, the economists argue.
"There are four sources of demand for business," explained Reich. "The first are consumers, who are buried in debt. Second, there is business, which is sitting on more than a trillion dollars in profits but not plowing it back into new machinery and not hiring because they don't see the customers." Exports, another demand source, offer limited hope, as other advanced nations are also in a slump...
ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN BOLSTER DEMAND
"Finally, there is government as a consumer, when all else fails," Reich said.
President Obama has taken some steps in the right direction recently to prevent layoffs and service cuts in the public sector and to aid small businesses, but needs to act much more boldly, said Robert Borosage, president of the Institute for America's Future. Borosage urged a vast expansion of stimulus and public sector job-creation programs, especially for young people coupled with tax cuts for all but the richest 3%.
Democratic "deficit hawks" should recognize that deferring the problems of prolonged high unemployment and weak consumer demand will play directly into the Republicans' hands. "The Democrats who are worried about the deficit need to remember that the Republicans are not averse to seeing a bad economy going into the next election, because it's not in their political self-interest," Reich stated.
Not only is a choice of trimming the deficit over stimulating the economy bad politics, but it is bad policy, argued Reich. "Democrats must understand that government has responsibility but opportunity, with low interest rates, to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. ... If we wait to rebuild the infrastructure, we will face much a higher bill to repair it later on."
Robert Kuttner, co-founder of The American Prospect and author of A Presidency in Peril, said that the nation faced a choice between "a high road to recovery or a low road to fiscal balance."
RECOVERY BEFORE TACKLING DEFICIT
"We need the proper sequencing: first, recovery via adequate stimulus and job creation programs. And then we can go to work on the deficit with much lower unemployment and much less need for the government to spend. The idea that we can belt-tighten our way to recovery defies every proven theory in economics," Kuttner stressed.
Even the most valuable forms of government spending are coming into the gun sights of conservatives, the expertss noted. Teresa Ghilarducci, author of When I'm 64: The Plot Against Pensions, outlined how Social Security—once under attack from the Right, as in Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) "Roadmap for America"—is preventing the current downturn from growing much worse.
"Social Security benefit increases are more necessary than ever because of the collapse of the private pension system," as the shrinkage of union strength has allowed employers to switch, with federal subsidies, to less-expensive 401K plans that provide a smaller and much more unreliable source of retirement income.
With the pension system weakened for workers, Social Security's role has been critical during the present crisis. The program's existence has held down unemployment by allowing older workers to retire rather than continue in the job market. It has also bolstered consumer demand, she said.
But because of the Right's longstanding ideological hostility to all forms of "social insurance," as Kuttner put it, Social Security is under attack again, including recent barbs by the former Sen. Alan Simpson, co-chair of the presidential commission on debt.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are eagerly yanking on the cords on their chainsaws, hoping that the Nov. 2 mid-term elections will allow them to start lopping off $100 billion in domestic spending, which Minority Leader John Boehner recently declared as the GOP's goal.
The Republican approach to deficit cutting is certain to extinguish any hope of economic recovery, bluntly declared Dean Baker.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


95 Comments so far
Show AllThese "progressive economists should have spoken up when Obama was deciding to give billions to our TBTF and Europe's TBTF banks and other dubious "financial institutions".
More stimulus is not going to work. This is 2012, not the times of FDR.
We are broke. We make little to sell. 13 trillion in the hole. Its DOA.
Cutting domestic program spending will free up more money for corporate welfare, especially for warmongers.
There is at least one untapped source of income: Taxation of the ultra-rich. There is at least one source of saving: cut the war spending, which yields an ridiculously high margin of profit per job created.
Joe
Supposedly you need an international agreement to tax the super rich simultaneously, otherwise they'll just hop skip right out of town riding into the sunset in their Learjets sipping champagne. Listen to Johan Galtung's interview yesterday on Democracynow... good stuff.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/johan_galtung_on_the_wars_in
Freeze the assets
Tax the rich, another view:
"The rich can do more for the economy with their money than government can
The debate in Washington now is centered on extending the Bush tax cuts and for whom. Everyone wants to extend them; the Democrats want to extend them only for the so-called middle class and the Republicans want to extend them for everyone. For tax purposes the rich are defined as families earning over $250,000 and yet Obama in his speeches calls them millionaires. Those who earn $250,000 are not rich, and most of them are certainly not millionaires. Identifying the rich, however, is a separate argument.
Obama says the government will get $750 billion if the tax cuts are not extended for the rich. My question is: Who do you think will do the most good for all of us by spending $750 billion, the government or the so-called rich?
Some of the things the rich will do with the money:
# Invest in the stock market -- market will go up.
# Expand their businesses -- will increase construction jobs, increase jobs in equipment manufacturing.
# Hire people -- reduce unemployment (not at taxpayers' expense).
# Buy cars, boats, houses, clothing, jewelry, etc. -- increases employment and improves the economy (not at taxpayer's expense).
# Take vacations -- improve resort business and employment.
# Donate to charities.
Some of the things the government will do with the money:
# Hire more government workers -- obligates taxpayers to more taxes in the future.
# Raise salaries for government workers who already make 25 to 30 percent more than private sector.
# Institute more regulatory agencies to control our businesses and our personal lives -- this inhibits growth of private businesses and obligates us to higher future taxes.
# Extend the unemployment benefits yet again. Many people will stop looking for a job.
# Fund union pension bailouts, pork projects and special interest programs (like ACORN) -- i.e. buying votes.
# Fund programs designed to enrich themselves and gain campaign contributions (buy votes). Have you noticed how many congressmen and government bureaucrats are rich?
Is that a hard choice to make -- $750 billion to the government or the taxpayers? I don't think so.
Loretta McBride"
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20100918/OPINION03/9180320
But, as so many are so very tired of having to observe, the very rich have been very rich for a long time now, and they have not done these things.
and because they have largely escaped paying any and all taxes, the choice is not, as McBride suggests, between the government and the taxpayers.
Thanks for the laugh. I don't get around to reading this kind of stupidity often. In fact why don't we end taxation of the rich all together. The economy would be so great that no one would ever again have an economic care in the world.
From Saturday Night Live are you? You surely can't believe that is what rich people do or that would be the effect? Surely not.
After 30 plus years where it amply demonstrated this NOT the case there are still people out there making this case?
WVK,
It is all about multipliers.
Many studies have shown that government policies that put money in someones pocket work best if they money is put in the pockets of the poor or a government jobs program. The multiplier can be as much as 3 dollars for every dollar invested. The reason is simple, give a dollar, or a job to a poor person, and it will immediately go to buying something - often a high-value added manufactured good like a long-put-off replacement of a worn out appliance.
In contrast, money given to, or kept in, the pockets of the rich yields a multiplier of less than one, because the rich person puts it into speculation or offshore banks where it creates no jobs or value added. The claim that it is poured into job-creating business expansions is jsut nonsense. First of all, the return is better through useless if not destructive stock and commodity speculation, and also, the cause of economic recession is overcapacity relative to demand, so why the hell would anyone expand their business right now? It is slack demand that needs a boost.
If there is a good way to waste money, it is to give it to the rich.
I know, this all goes against Ayn Randite orthodoxy, whose only claim to validity is repeated spouting of its nonsense.
Absolutey correct. If the government is going to spend any money stimulating the economy, then policies that put money in someones pocket work best if that money is put in the pockets of the poor, middle class or a direct government jobs program. The evidence is overwhealming.
"The claim that it is poured into job-creating business expansions is jsut nonsense."
The real rich, that upper 2% dosen't create jobs, they seldom are in any business that would create jobs. The next 3% do create some jobs. Most are created by the folks in the 40 to 75 % area, that is most of the small business folks. And the lower echelons of that group create the most jobs.
We have just seen an example of handing money to the rich under Obama's stimulus plans and policies. And Bush before him.
Sabo's right on the money here (no pun intended) give it to folks that will spend it or put it into real make work programs that give people a chance to earn a paycheck and spend or a job's program that really creates jobs.
This argument that the rich can do more good with their money than government can is an unadulterated lie, and the only amazing thing is that right-wingers keep saying it after the experience of the last 30 years proves how obviously wrong they are.
The rich will not "expand their businesses" and "hire people" because taxes are lower. They'll do those things if they are profitable, and THEY WON'T BE PROFITABLE when working people have too little / are unemployed. The rich WILL "invest in the stock market, and the market will go up." A higher stock market benefits most people not at all.
The rich won't even buy more luxury items and take more vacations if taxes are lower, because they already have enough money to do all that stuff. And lower taxes tend to lead to LOWER charitable contributions, since there is less tax benefit from giving.
The arguments about how little government would do with $750 billion are just generalized opinions with no facts to back them up. But I won't even argue them. The point is that TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE RICH is beneficial in and of itself, if the money gets put into circulation, whether by hiring government workers, extending unemployment, or the other "bad things" the writer cites.
At the very end, she repeats the central (lying) economic mantra of the right. "We can give money to government or to the taxpayers." But the money in these tax cuts does not go to "the taxpayers." It goes into the accounts of the few taxpayers who are super-rich, never to return to the economy.
"The rich won't even buy more luxury items and take more vacations if taxes are lower, because they already have enough money to do all that stuff."
Another good point. Some rich guy once said "lunch can only get so good".
One does not accumulate vast wealth because of the toys it buys - or they would be happy after accumulating a $few million. And, the animosity of the worker toward the rich isn't "envy" over those mansions, planes, yachts, the bohemian Grove parties, and high-dollar prostitutes. It is a righteous contempt for the stupendous and profoundly undemocratic power the wealthy over the vast majority of the earths peoples who must sell their sweat and servitude the the wealthy, or starve and freeze!
ARISE! EAT THE RICH! DEATH TO THE RICH!
Is that you Joe Plumber?
Yep I think it is Max...Joe the 250,000 dollar a year plumber....He just keeps showing up from time to time....LOL
"More stimulus is not going to work. This is 2012, not the times of FDR."
Here is my personal experience with one of the "stimulus" programs. Our heat pump was about 22 years old. It broke down and because of the various stimulus programs out there we decided to replace it instead of fix it. The fed offered a $300 rebate in the form of a debit card. The reason for the debit card was that you had to spend it, so in theory it would help "stimulate" the economy. Well we used the card when we were on vacation. We bought various things we could use for our trip. Beside groceries, everything we purchased was made in China.
So until we bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, any stimulus based on citizen spending will be of limited usefulness to the US economy, but will be quite useful to the Chinese's.
Why did you not take the opportunity to spend it on local businesses: local fresh produce, used bookstores, bakeries, locally roasted coffee at an independently owned cafe, local cheese maker, etc. It was you who chose to buy Chinese made goods. Though so much of what is sold in this country is made in China, we do have choices that do not always have to involve cheap labor and Walmart and Big Oil. The problems of the world can certainly be bigger than ourselves, but they also begin with each choice we make in our daily lives. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what you can do today to help rather than harm others and the planet. (BTW where was the heat pump made?)
We did spend money at local stores too. But there were several things we really could use on Vacation, and unfortunately you couldn't find them made in America.
Additionally, very few of those sorts of things exist in North Carolina cities. Growing up in northern Virginia, then places like Knoxville and Lexington, Ky. I didn't know such local, mom-and-pop stuff still existed until I moved to Pittsburgh. Go below the Mason-Dixon line and it's just Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, "The Red Lobster" or "The Olive Garden" all the way to Key West or the Gulf of Mexico (where, one finally finds local culture again in New Orleans).
But, even in suburban wastelands like the "Research Triangle" a HVAC serviceman, and the heat pump equipment would still be local or US made.
Economists seem unable to imagine anything but what has been modeled historically...but we are in a situation that has no precedent. Every economic downturn has eventually turned around and then growth has continued once again- since there was always more cheap energy to fuel that growth. Economists are having a hard time with imagining that growth is dead and no strategy is going to change that...but cheap energy is gone, the window of opportunity for alternatives (that could together, at best, only replace 1/4 of the energy we now use) has passed, and the economy is in its final throes.
Its called kicking a dead horse...
You have the wrong idea. While energy costs will rise, the only huge change will eventually come from global climate change.
What? Do you seriously think that resource depletion, particularly petroleum resource depletion and global warming are mutually exclusive? Peak Oil is a mathematical certainty.
Hey, oil is darn handy, but there are other energy sources. They're mostly all going to get used, no matter how stupid.
Spending and government job creation is a good start, but it's all going to depend on rebuilding the manufacturing secotr and making real stuff -- tangible wealth made here instead of getting everything from China and other foreign countries. We need to make products we can sell throughout the world to work on paying down the massive debts we have. Government jobs can go only part of the distance.
Obviously we need to stop the wars, and to dismantle the capitalist empire, and direct those funds to improving education and domestic productive capacity. It's all about the real economy, not the phony monopoly money.
Hello Bluepilgrim
You are right that "Spending and government job creation is a good start." "Rebuilding the manufacturing sector," is. of course, also vital. But most important of all is greater equality of income. Government created jobs should be paid for by taxing the rich, not by borrowing. And we need to double the minimum wage and empower unions.
If the government borrows more money from China it can hire new workers whose spending will stimulate demand for new products and new jobs. But, since borrowing can't go on forever, as soon as it stops, the government workers will be laid off and the stimulus will be gone. The economy will quickly return to recession. As, famously, in 1937.
But if you tax the rich to fund government jobs, and raise workers' income everywhere, the stimulus will be both permanent and much greater. The rich only spend a small percentage of their income. There is a limit to how many houses and yachts they want to buy. But if their incomes are taxed to create working class jobs, the workers will spend all of it, and the demand for new products will be vastly greater than if the rich kept their loot.
But since the present corporate bought government will never return to pre-Reagan tax levels of 70%, our great recession will soon deepen into a depression. And if that means that the US will no longer be able to afford invasions around the world, it may be a good thing.
You are correct, of course. It doesn't matter how well you run a farm and how productive it is if the crows and foxes eat everything you grow, or if you burn and blow all it up.
The aristocracy doesn't create wealth -- it's the workers who do that -- but the suck all the wealth and vitality from the economy, and waste virtually all of it.
The wealthy and the corporations don't create jobs; demand from the people create jobs, and while the wealthy might facilitate the logigistics to a small degree by handling some of the overhead they mostly just steal what is produced -- and often make money by destroying real wealth, production, and productive capacity, skimming off large portions of wealth at every transaction point while the people who produce get only a tiny fraction of the retail price.
While money is useful, probably even necessary, the problem with it is, an an abstraction, it can be easily manipulated (stolen), created and destroyed at whim, and hoarded in immense quantities -- and used as a mean to control both people and real wealth. That's the primary skill the artisticracy have, along with controlling information, propaganda, and violent forces to keep people in line.
We need to ask who benefits from:
a. Deficit Cutting
b. Stimulus Spending
Working people can't get a job from deficit cutting. They might from stimulus spending.
The richest of the rich are proposing to cut the deficit mostly social programs while leaving the biggest item military spending untouched.
Working people are proposing programs such as a stimulus from the federal government.
So what would a working person or a small (or even large) business benefit most from?
Not just spending, but rational spending. It's about time we got a trace of sanity and phased out most of NASA and the rest of the pork.
Maybe we also need to (but won't) phase out the military industrial congressional war complex.
Prosperity is inversely related to the price of oil and the size of the population.
Prosperity is going to be dwindling forever; but if we continue to allow the robber barons to do their thing, the whole house of cards could collapse in no time at all.
In spite of what a Republican may tell you, God did not forbid tariffs.
Funny how we lived at peak prosperity!!! Soylent Green next stop?!
bostongeorge said, "Maybe we also need to (but won't) phase out the military industrial congressional war complex."
Strange as it may sound, I'm starting to think that letting the republicans have the white house again just might be the best option.
"if we continue to allow the robber barons to do their thing, the whole house of cards could collapse in no time at all."
Exactly. Let them drive their damn military industrial zoo into the ground. A full on collapse might just be the best medicine to end our raging blood for oil crazed empire, and start again from scratch.
Ofcourse, I can't bring myself to actually vote for the idiots. But I certainly wont be voting for the Hope Dope club again either. Going Green Party like I always should've... damn the criticism that we're just throwing it to the repugs... so I say let it be thrown. What goes up must come crashing down. Hard.
If anyone can eventually put a stop to this war criminal economy that we call American free enterprise and exceptionalism... it's the repugs for sure.
P.S. I'm open to the possibility of being persuaded out of my nihilistic crash the economy to end the war mentality. I'd just like to hear something original... and it better not start with an O. or a G. aka the Original Gangstars... you know who I mean.
The poor will freeze and starve before significant money will be pulled from the military-industrial. Everything is going to get worse, but the rich will do just fine.
I plan to vote Republican this year for that very reason. The Dems have not earned my vote. Withholding my vote hurts them once, voting for a Republican hurts them twice. I encourage all of you to do the same. What lesson do we teach these people if we continue to enable their corrupt behavior?
"Exactly. Let them drive their damn military industrial zoo into the ground. A full on collapse might just be the best medicine to end our raging blood for oil crazed empire, and start again from scratch."
The same logic can be applied to the Democratic Party.
You're a fool. The "full on collapse" will strike the average joe long before the military industrial notices any change.
"Prosperity is going to be dwindling forever;" this equals win/lose, and guess who is winning and continuing to win..
"Record Number of Americans Below Poverty Line, Uninsured"-(headline from democracy now)-.it's zero sum and the losers die...there +is+ another paradigm, which has to do with working together with the regenerative activity of nature..
Economists were very comfortable giving banks 13 trillion dollars and working people little or nothing. Time after time economists have been dead wrong. Now after eliminating every other factor, the dummies have settled on demand as the problem. Participants here identified demand as the problem two years ago. What is needed is higher wages. Also, taxation of the wealthy that is 100% used to offset taxes for working people. Fair trade policies that are enforced are needed as well as a sharp reduction in military spending.
Stone, well said. I couldn't believe it when I read that "demand" sentence either.
$18 trillion for Wall St and not a peep about deficits.
$1 trillion for the war on terror, and the last $33 billion "supplemental" flew right through congress.
Less than $800 billion for relief of the misery caused by the other two, and asshole whiners like John Boner want to cut even more.
The only demand problem is the people's demand for jobs so they can just live, let alone save the economy by buying crap.
The system in the United States is so corrupt that "Stimulus spending" will NOT work.
Again the money tends to go into the pockets of Contracters who represent major firms and see that as REVENUE to fatten their bottom line. (this is the magic of "Privatization: which should be rightfully called "Piratization")
Just as example the City of Los Angeles received 111 million in Federal Monies for "Stimulus Spending".
That 111 million created 55 jobs. The bulk of the money went into the pockets of a small few. All those "firms" in between the issuance of funds and the person finally getting a job first take their cut.
In other words for about every 2 million dollars stimulus one job created.
If 20 million Americans out of work some 40 trillion will be needed following that model. The model of "Only private industry can create jobs" is HOKUM. The Corporations and the Owner class are robbing the USA blind.
Bluepilgrim and bostongeorge: hello: the tone of the "Progressive Economists" is just more of the same Capitalist spin that has entwined Obama. The military-industrial waste is based on overpaid jobs making destructive products that are wastefully exploded so they can be replaced, while advancing the elitist goals of bucaneers disguised as corporations (given our individual's rights by a stacked Supremes). We must halt preemptive warfare, treat terrorist as criminals instead of flaing at them as as nations or armies, and tax multi-nationals to protect American jobs. One reads these economists vainly looking for a glimmer of realization that the capitalist business model is incompatibale with social and moral development of human society and we are unable to develop alternatives.
Those calling for government spending want to ensure that the people remain helpless and dependent on the government. So they're not real progressives.
The classic progressive from a century ago oriented his politics around the fact that at the time the people were far more self-sufficient than the people are today.
In such a scenario the government had to play more the role of servant, while today the government intends to play the role of master.
So then a little help from the government wasn't such a bad thing. Today any help from the government is highly dangerous. Today the government is under siege by the greed-stricken gilded elite. We don't want the people any further entrenched in dependence on such a massively corrupt government.
You can imagine. The Demoks will propose spending, and the Repuks will propose it be spent on widening the freeways, so more 5 ton SUVs can crowd onto them. And the Demoks will go for it.
The other idiocy is the idea that the government should "spur demand". Yeah! Like we really need to consume more mountains of garbage dispensed by/for profit-stricken elites!
Instead of that kaka, we the people have a plan already. We're taking production into our own hands. We're making the decisions about what is built and what isn't. We actually need to STOP building about 3/4 of all the junk we build today, and switch to building things that truly serve our better interests, at 1/4 the volume. The value of the goods will go up and the value of the junk will go down. It's a change of values and priorities.
We don't need Washing-town, and we're not letting these pretend progressives trick us.
These same economists also brought up the increasing trade deficit from all the "free trade" agreements that Clinton, Bush and Obama have signed.
Check out:
http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/public-pulse/2010083215/our-worsening-technology-trade-deficit
The US deficit is mostly due to China's illegal currency manipulation.
Rubbish.
Back at ya. Why do you think half the stuff for sale in many stores comes from China? Their wages have been rising. Why don't most imports come from nations with the cheapest wages? The main answer is that China has the clout to control their money in relation to the dollar. They do what they need to in order to keep their factories humming. Japan and the US are both increasingly concerned by China's never ending purchases of Japanese and US debt. While this is not illegal, it does help support the value of the yen and dollar relative to the renminbi. This hurts Japanese and US exports. In other words we lose jobs. And, by the way, China has currency restrictions in place that gives their government a monopoly on their ability to control their manipulations. I doubt if their entire system is 'legal,' but they're big enough that most nations don't like to lean too heavily against them. And, you've got to admit, many US consumers love all that cheap stuff.
"Why do you think half the stuff for sale in many stores comes from China?"
China PNTR that Clinton/Gore and most of Congress signed into law. There was plenty coming from China before that too but the "free trade" agreement kept it that way.
"The main answer is that China has the clout to control their money in relation to the dollar."
If the US borrows more money from China to pay for wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, why not?
"And, you've got to admit, many US consumers love all that cheap stuff."
True but one of these days, too cheap to be true will catch on to them and then we'll get some balance worked out.
Greg R ( I posted this in the wrong place )
GW is Correct.
The US deficit is mostly due to...the U.S. Government and bad tax and trade policies. We are to blame, no one else.
And don't become too enamored with China, they appear to be about to run into their own brick wall.
The "deficit" makesmewantnader and I were referring to is the trade deficit with China. This has nothing to do with the US budget deficit or any personal or corporate debt in the US. If China did not manipulate their currency we would have a greatly reduced deficit with China. And I am not at all "enamored" with China. If the Chinese are smart they will attempt to reduce their purchases of US and Japanese currency. They will then find lower inflation and other benefits to the average Chinese citizen.
Germany , until last year, had the largest trade surplus in the entire world. China has about 15 times the population of Germany.
If it manipulation of Currency that leads to the US deficit it should affect Germany in the same manner.
I would point out that Japans trade exports to China increased nearly 18 percent last year while imports FROM China increased 9 percent. China is now Japans number one destination for exports, larger then the USA.
The reason the US runs a trade deficit with China is because China makes the things the US Consumer wants and makes it more cheaply. The things the US makes for export that China might want are made in Japan and in Germany who both do it "better".
In fact your Government acted in CONCERT with that of Japan to LOWER (read manipulate) the price of the YEN versus the US dollar. Why would they on one hand argue that the Chinese manipulate the Currency thus causing a trade deficit while on the other help the Japanese manipulate THEIR currency?
The reason they do this is because both China and Japan hold hundreds of billions in US debt and if the US Currency erodes in value too much against the Currency of those countries, they will DUMP It.
This will create hyperinflation and will lead to an even larger deficit as Oil prices will skyrocket for the US Consumer.
The Government proclaiming the trade deficit with China due to currency manipulation is so that they can deflect the blame to another from their own misguided and unworkable policies. "Its not our fault...blame China".
GW
I second that..Rubbish indeed...
The old save in good times and spend your way out of bad times does not seem to work anymore...At least under the current system...
Joe in his comment suggested taxing the rich.(They are the problem in general) I think that is a good idea..A good start......I also think it is time we re-think how we do business....American jobs will continue to dwindle as long as American's are forced to compete on a global wage scale....Long range planning is in order here....Perhaps a return to the days when we protected our economies?(Nothing expands indefinitely) Did I say that? Protectionism? I guess I did.
Thomas Gilbert