Why It’s in Our Interest to Support a Global Stimulus
Get ready for the boomerang effect. The economic crisis that originated in this country has spread to the farthest corners of the planet. Global poverty is expected to jump by 53 million people and another 51 million workers will join the ranks of the jobless this year.
This is bad news for U.S. workers who must compete in a global labor pool. As workers in Mexico, Haiti, and Indonesia become more desperate, they will be more vulnerable to union-busting and wage cuts that will undermine good jobs here. And as more impoverished countries face massive budget shortfalls, they are more likely to slash spending to fight climate change.
This is why it's so important for President Barack Obama to offer concrete plans to help the world's poorest as he makes his big international debut this month at summits in England, France, and Trinidad. In this interconnected world, helping other nations cope with the crisis is not just an obligation. It's also in our interest.
How did developing countries get sucked into this mess in the first place? They didn't have a subprime mortgage problem. Their financial firms weren't key players in the high-risk derivatives markets. They got sucked in because the globalization policies that have been imposed on them made them extremely vulnerable to volatility in global markets.
For decades now, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have required borrowing countries to adopt an "export more, spend less" model of development. And the countries that have gone furthest to shift to export-oriented production and lift restrictions on investment are now the most vulnerable. Mexico, for example, which relies on the U.S. market for 80 percent of its exports, is expected to be the hardest hit of the larger developing countries.
What can be done? Thus far, the Obama administration has focused on dramatically increasing funding for the IMF, the very institution that helped lay the foundation for the crisis. Instead, the White House should push for the cancellation of impoverished countries' existing debts. Much of this burden was the result of predatory lending. In the 1960s and 1970s, reckless bankers lent gobs of money to corrupt governments that then left the people holding the bag.
Debt relief is a proven, effective, and fast way to reduce poverty. And if the IMF used its existing resources to pay for it, this approach would put a minimal burden on U.S. taxpayers.
In hard times like these, it's understandable to want to focus on problems in your own backyard. But ignoring the problems of the poorest countries will come back to haunt us in the long run.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
12 Comments so far
Show AllThe world should be united -- but not under US imperialist control.
Got it?
US. Going. Down.
peacekeepertwo We do need to help the Poor in the World.The World Capitalist Banking system, which includes the WTO, and the World Bank must disappear. We can do all these things Talked about the article above,at the UN. much of the reason why the UN doesn't work is a Result of Folks like John Bolton, who did everything he Could to make UN as ineffective as possible. Ask yourself how did we get along before the WTO, and The World Bank ?
It's not in our interest to support efforts to prop up the current international economic system. Author Sarah Anderson has it all wrong.
How is forgiving the debt that the IMF foisted on poor countries all wrong? It may not resolve the problems with the capitalist economic system, but it will give immediate relief to those who need it most.
Secondarily, it will probably also take some pressure off of flight from poor countries.
For years, it was clear to those who saw the writing on the wall that this was where things were going to end.
If you think about it, maintaining a massive budget deficit, while maintaining a massive trade deficit had to end in a BOOM. Neither of them are sustainable in the long run, to say nothing about having both simultaneously. Nations that grow well tend to be the ones with a high savings rate, not ones that gear everything for short term consumption (the US spent 70% of its GDP on consumption in 2007).
The US government is more or less a kleptocracy. It is clientelism at work. Lobbyists and corporations give politicians money which keeps them in power who in turn promote favorable regulations for them. That is also something that is utterly unsustainable in the long run.
The IMF and the World Bank are agencies not devoted to ending poverty, but rather to enriching corporations within the developed world. The article is correct ... like it or not, the world's problems are the problems of every nation. Americans are eager when this means deploying the military, but not when this means sending aid or food abroad, even if sending such things costs easily a fraction of armed force.
The entire world with its free market ideology needs a sanity bailout.
"Thus far, the Obama administration has focused on dramatically increasing funding for the IMF, the very institution that helped lay the foundation for the crisis."
The Obama administration has also focused taxpayers' money on behalf of powerful financial interests, a/k/a, Wall Street Bankers and the world's largest business conglomerates like AIG; allegedly, the same elitists who created "regulatory bodies" like the IMF, World Bank and WTO to act on their behalf and not in the interests of the poor or humanity in general.
"Instead, the White House should push for the cancellation of impoverished countries' existing debts. Much of this burden was the result of predatory lending. In the 1960s and 1970s, reckless bankers lent gobs of money to corrupt governments that then left the people holding the bag."
Bankers don't lend money unless they know they're going to benefit in one way or another. Lending money to "corrupt governments" that are willing to use their citizens as slaves in the globalization "cheap labor" scheme doesn't really fall under the category of "reckless". They know exactly what they are doing when they lend to these types of governments.
It's called the "criminal economy", of, by and for the interests of the super-wealthy who control Wall Street and governments around the globe.
Commondreamers,
What? No! The United States of America is the world's largest debtor nation.
The Federal Reserve's fractional banking scheme coupled to the Keynesian nonsense that Bush / Greenspan followed and Obama / Bernanke are following is what caused this economic crisis - by way of the real estate bubble - in the first place. More of the same will only stimulate a bigger bubble to burst next go-around.
The Fed's printing of money does not create capital ... it creates inflation. Capital is saved money created through production - agriculture, mining, manufacturing and labor - not printed money created from hope. Keynesian economics is like heroin addiction ... it feels good for a little while but the recovery is hellish, and perhaps this time, it will be fatal.
"...What can be done? Thus far, the Obama administration has focused on dramatically increasing funding for the IMF, the very institution that helped lay the foundation for the crisis. Instead, the White House should push for the cancellation of impoverished countries' existing debts..."
- What does the author mean by using the word "should" in this context? The use of this word assumes that the Obama administration is not consciously acting with the single-minded aim of further enriching Wall Street -- a patently false assumption.
It makes no sense to talk about what the White House "should" do, as if it were some benign & altruistic entity, interested only in bettering the lot of all mankind. All the White House is, is the hired hand of the American ruling elite. As such, it would happily enact policies that condemn a billion people to death or misery, if there's a nice profit in it for the Wall St oligarchs.
But, they would save the baby ducks.
global industry\business must shrink, not grow...debt relief of all kinds will be necessary to socially surmount the current financial strangulation on the natural world and the myriad creatures...industrial and commercial business, as the only accepted way of life, must fade...living, via the daily caretaking of one's own existence, must come 'round again...
what is mexico, for example, exporting to us, besides cocaine and marijuana? well, in 2006, by dollar amount, it was:
Crude oil …US$30.3 billion (15.3% of Mexico to U.S. exports, up 31.8% from 2005)
Car parts & accessories … $21.8 billion (11%, up 5.7%)
Video equipment (e.g. DVD players) … $14.6 billion (7.4%, up 38.3%)
Passenger cars … $14.2 billion (7.2%, up 31.2%)
Other complete & assembled vehicles … $9.6 billion (4.8%, up 20.2%)
Electrical apparatus & parts … $8.5 billion (4.3%, up 15.1%)
Telecommunications equipment … $7.0 billion (3.5%, up 41.2%)
Engines & parts … $5.0 billion (2.5%, up 5.6%)
Computers … $4.3 billion (2.2%, up 3.7%)
Miscellaneous household goods (e.g. clocks) … $4.2 billion (2.1%, down 6%)
Fastest-Growing Mexican Exports to U.S.
Below are American imports from Mexico in 2006 with the highest percentage sales increases from 2005.
Tin … US$11.0 million (up 3535% from 2005)
Gold … $983.4 million (up 234%)
Sugar … $379 million (up 191.3%)
Natural gas … $84.3 million (up 93.8%)
Zinc … $470.6 million (up 87.3%)
Mexican Imports from U.S.
Of the $134.2 billion in American exports to Mexico in 2006, the following product categories had the highest values.
Electrical apparatus & parts … US$10 billion (7.4% of Mexico from U.S. imports, up 13.2% from 2005)
Vehicle parts & accessories … $9.4 billion (7%, up 14.2%)
Plastics … $6.6 billion (4.9%, up 12.9%)
Computer accessories … $6.2 billion (4.6%, down 1%)
Semi-conductors … $5.6 billion (4.1%, up 0.4%)
Other petroleum products … $4.8 billion (3.6%, up 9%)
Finished metal shapes … $4.75 billion (3.5%, up 28.2%)
Telecommunications equipment … $4.4 billion (3.3%, up 45.7%)
Industrial supplies … $4.2 billion (3.1%, up 13.3%)
Industrial machines … $3.9 billion (2.7%, up 5.4%)
Fastest-Growing Mexican Imports from U.S.
Below are American exports to Mexico in 2006 with the highest percentage sales increases from 2005.
Tobacco … US$13 million (up 6822% from 2005)
Numismatic coins … $39.6 million (up 5329%)
Nuclear fuel materials … $24.8 million (up 317.2%)
Other commercial vessels … $10.3 million (up 162%)
Engines for military aircraft … $139.6 million (up 102.6%)
Read more: "Mexico’s Top Exports & Imports: Most Popular Products Traded Between Mexico & America" - http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/mexicos_top_exports_imports#ixzz0BLdFRNAl
what's on this list we can't live without?
on the list of Mexican exports to the US, you left off the bottom quartile of the Mexican population. Hey, it has monetary value to someone.
Obama hints at "government oversight of the financial industry", while the Europeans want regulation of the financial industry. We will be lucky if they come anywhere close to resolving that difference during the next week.
Unless Obama suddenly quits gunning for Wall Street, don't expect third world relief to be anywhere on his radar.