EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Perils of 2012: When Austerity Bites Back
The year 2011 will be remembered as the time when many ever-optimistic Americans began to give up hope. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats. But now, in the receding tide, Americans are beginning to see not only that those with taller masts had been lifted far higher, but also that many of the smaller boats had been dashed to pieces in their wake.
In that brief moment when the rising tide was indeed rising, millions of people believed that they might have a fair chance of realizing the “American Dream.” Now those dreams, too, are receding. By 2011, the savings of those who had lost their jobs in 2008 or 2009 had been spent. Unemployment checks had run out. Headlines announcing new hiring – still not enough to keep pace with the number of those who would normally have entered the labor force – meant little to the 50 year olds with little hope of ever holding a job again.
Indeed, middle-aged people who thought that they would be unemployed for a few months have now realized that they were, in fact, forcibly retired. Young people who graduated from college with tens of thousands of dollars of education debt cannot find any jobs at all. People who moved in with friends and relatives have become homeless. Houses bought during the property boom are still on the market or have been sold at a loss. More than seven million American families have lost their homes.
The dark underbelly of the previous decade’s financial boom has been fully exposed in Europe as well. Dithering over Greece and key national governments’ devotion to austerity began to exact a heavy toll last year. Contagion spread to Italy. Spain’s unemployment, which had been near 20% since the beginning of the recession, crept even higher. The unthinkable – the end of the euro – began to seem like a real possibility.
This year is set to be even worse. It is possible, of course, that the United States will solve its political problems and finally adopt the stimulus measures that it needs to bring down unemployment to 6% or 7% (the pre-crisis level of 4% or 5% is too much to hope for). But this is as unlikely as it is that Europe will figure out that austerity alone will not solve its problems. On the contrary, austerity will only exacerbate the economic slowdown. Without growth, the debt crisis – and the euro crisis – will only worsen. And the long crisis that began with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 and the subsequent recession will continue.
Moreover, the major emerging-market countries, which steered successfully through the storms of 2008 and 2009, may not cope as well with the problems looming on the horizon. Brazil’s growth has already stalled, fueling anxiety among its neighbors in Latin America.
Meanwhile, long-term problems – including climate change and other environmental threats, and increasing inequality in most countries around the world – have not gone away. Some have grown more severe. For example, high unemployment has depressed wages and increased poverty.
The good news is that addressing these long-term problems would actually help to solve the short-term problems. Increased investment to retrofit the economy for global warming would help to stimulate economic activity, growth, and job creation. More progressive taxation, in effect redistributing income from the top to the middle and bottom, would simultaneously reduce inequality and increase employment by boosting total demand. Higher taxes at the top could generate revenues to finance needed public investment, and to provide some social protection for those at the bottom, including the unemployed.
Even without widening the fiscal deficit, such “balanced budget” increases in taxes and spending would lower unemployment and increase output. The worry, however, is that politics and ideology on both sides of the Atlantic, but especially in the US, will not allow any of this to occur. Fixation on the deficit will induce cutbacks in social spending, worsening inequality. Likewise, the enduring attraction of supply-side economics, despite all of the evidence against it (especially in a period in which there is high unemployment), will prevent raising taxes at the top.
Even before the crisis, there was a rebalancing of economic power – in fact, a correction of a 200-year historical anomaly, in which Asia’s share of global GDP fell from nearly 50% to, at one point, below 10%. The pragmatic commitment to growth that one sees in Asia and other emerging markets today stands in contrast to the West’s misguided policies, which, driven by a combination of ideology and vested interests, almost seem to reflect a commitment not to grow.
As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions. With all of the problems confronting the global economy, we will be lucky if these strains do not begin to manifest themselves within the next twelve months.
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...


60 Comments so far
Show All"As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions." (J. Stiglitz)
Politically correct language for the "Clash of Civilizations"
And I see "GROWTH" is still mandatory, and still the only measure of things in the economists world.
Only they aren't economists - are they?
They are, to use the words of Ronald Wright (out of context), "sitting at the best tables", and telling us, the people, about Aristotle's "chrematistics", i.e., the accumulation of money. (from Herman Daly's Preface to "What Matters?", by Wendell Berry)
An economy implies - requires - a long term perspective. Continued "business as usual" has no future, except war, famine, and death.
Go and find another job, Joseph Stiglitz.
---------------
I am originally from Montreal - home of the voyageurs of the fur trade, and my ancestors were, some of them, members of this profession. I have been known to paddle down the odd river myself.
In Montreal, in days of yore existed "The Beaver Club", where the owners of the fur trade, Englishmen and Scotchmen almost exclusively, would gather to drink heavily, and reminisce about their days in the field, when they were bodily transported across Canada by voyageurs, to the many fur-trading posts across this vast and beautiful land. Apparently the Beaver Club had a large canoe right inside, and after enough spirits had been quaffed, well-heeled "bourgeois" could be found sitting in said canoe, paddles in hand, and talking about the good old days.
Likewise today, one can hear innumerable stories from the modern "field" - the warscapes of the world.
I have heard it said that for every man against war, there is one for it - for it produces the only time in life when they felt truly alive.
I can understand this. Seeing my university buddies ensconced in their neat and warm offices when I was a wellsite field geologist always filled with me with an urgent need to get the h.. out of those offices, veritable traps and anchors, to my way of thinking.
But there are alternatives to war - many, and if not quite as enlivening, close.
Our job, as I am coming to see it, (Whither Environmentalism, by Jenifer Browdy de Hernandez), is to find a way to live which does not destroy either the ecosphere or the human spirit.
Manysummits
====
Excellent. Perhaps that is why the war of words never ends -- to feel more alive. The words usually change nothing because for every person moved another is retrenched.
Words offer false hope, a survival strategy, to counter the ugliness of reality. Words make the writer feel more alive and sometimes, incidentally, the reader. Thanks beaver club.
“I can understand this. Seeing my university buddies ensconced in their neat and warm offices when I was a wellsite field geologist always filled with me with an urgent need to get the h.. out of those offices, veritable traps and anchors, to my way of thinking.”
Economic “experts” and academic hacks are among the worst scumbags we have to face in our battle to survive this ecocidal civilization. “Neat and warm offices,” indeed. As well as guaranteed $70,000+ incomes annually for politically correct horseshit spread regularly in the classroom and in the corporate media, even on CD. (I happen to know from a 20-year personal experience, so don’t even try to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about.) Yes, there are a few exceptions, a few out of tens of thousands: Chomsky, Zinn … The rest are just verbal tricksters, hacks, with the civil and intellectual courage of quail, tenured fat farts good only for promoting dark sarcasm in the classroom. Terrified of losing their jobs, they—like the serfs in the corporate world of amerika—are continually sinking into a subhuman level of intellectual cowardice.
“But there are alternatives to war - many, and if not quite as enlivening, close. Our job, as I am coming to see it, (Whither Environmentalism, by Jenifer Browdy de Hernandez), is to find a way to live which does not destroy either the ecosphere or the human spirit.”
Indeed again. A nice letter by a free mind. Thanks.
""As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions." (J. Stiglitz)
Politically correct language for the "Clash of Civilizations"
"
No, a sane rational man, unlike you, pointing out competition for economic resources.
"And I see "GROWTH" is still mandatory, and still the only measure of things in the economists world."
Better that, than the "clash of civilisations" derangement that you spout endlessly.
"Only they aren't economists - are they?"
Only you aren't an environmentalist aren't you?
"Go and find another job, Joseph Stiglitz."
Pot, kettle.
Micheal,
love your post, especially the last lines. If only other people would thnk this way. But to most, this wold be too hard. We all have lived in the luxury of fossil fuels now for too long.
The Initiate:
Well thank you!
Fossil Fuels have affected every person on Earth - directly or indirectly - haven't they?
It seems this addiction, like all addictions, will be hard to overcome.
All the best,
Mike
=======
PS
It has occurred to me, in thinking over two previous articles:
"A Bill of Rights for Occupied Communities"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/04-7
&
"12 Reasons You'll Be Hearing More About the Commons in 2012"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/05-0
that what is being described in these two thoughtful pieces is a form of tribal organization, with modern overtones, such as access to the Internet.
A tribe has strong social and economic ties, of necessity - and, unlike a community - is not just a geographic area, with a few common interests.
Living close to the land and each other - destruction of the ecosphere or of the human spirit is seen as intolerable - and ways are found, in myth and legend and story, to see that both are preserved.
In the dictionary, tribes are described as "primitive" forms of group organization, but it looks like, with our modern destruction of both the ecosphere and the human spirit - we in the first and second worlds are the primitive ones.
==========
You need to go easy on Stieglitz, he is one one of the most honest and realistic economists out there. He is simply taking a cold view of the world recession in a blog commentary. There are too many factors that define the world recession that would need to be examined to elucidate it. It would and will take volumes.
When reading this article, I began to think of the title of StieglItz's book and of a work that influenced titles of many tomes that attempt to explain humans' discomfort with themselves and with the things they have created. Freud's original title Is "Das Unbehagen der Kultur", the unpleasantness of culture or society, and a reading of "Civilization and its Discontents" may be worth reading or retreading.
"Without growth, the debt crisis – and the euro crisis – will only worsen"
If the writer wants to argue in favor of growth, he/she should explain how growth, in an economic sense, can co-exist with a reduction of our carbon footprint and of other invasions into the planet's ecology.
In other words, it's high time that economists who aspire to be taken seriously start developing a "no growth" economic paradigm. Eventually, we will have to figure out how to promote more human well being without compromising the environment. The challenge may be mostly political, but economists also have to lay the groundwork for a post-growth world, just in case we humans manage to avert extinguishing ourselves.
Thank you, perhaps a new academic discipline will arise to replace the blind stupidity of economists who refuse to equate unending growth to malignant cancer.
It is called "Steady State Economics" and was championed by Brian Czech quite a while ago. Check out his original statement on this in his book at Amazon.com.
Well said. According to the author (".... the long crisis that began with the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007 ...." ), the problem was the recession. I like to think the problem was the bubble or "growth". If we can get to a steady state where we don't grow, that will help overall. The question is at what level do we want that steady state? Spending more money on stimulating the economy with infrastructure spending or other intermittent programs will only provide temporary relief. Erecting tariffs on imports including oil imports will help in raising revenue. Of course we should be raising the taxes on the 99%. At the same time if we cut the wasteful "defense" spending and use the money on long sustained programs to re-build our manufacturing industry, we may get to a level of unemployment that will help achieve a steady state of no growth.
How about driving "Responsible Growth". The biggest problem right now is that predatory growth is rewarded much more than responsible growth, and policy / law changes are to blame.
Well, first off, switching away from coal burning for electricity to carbon neutral or negative means would have a big impact on the carbon footprint and stimulate growth.
There are many cleaner technics that would/will have a similar win-win impact.
And remember that it is NET carbon output thay makes our footprint.
So sequestering work is needed to. And that could stimulate growth as well. Very simple things like woodland restoration or hedge and other edge plantings on farmland could knock net carbon output down a bit, and employ an awful lot of people, thus stimulating growth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the "steady state" economics.
But two things:
1. The equation Human Growth = Ecosphere Destruction is simplistic to the point of being false (which is not to say you are saying that).
2. We are not at the stable point for the "steady state" yet. Not globally by a LONG way, and not in the "first world" even, not quite.
I agree with you that we should be switching from fuels that result in net carbon output. Woodland restoration is an excellent idea. We're probably far away from the steady state economics and hopefully we'll make it a goal and strive to meet it.
"The equation Human Growth = Ecosphere Destruction is simplistic......."
While certainly true of cultures respecting Nature, and "treading lightly upon the land" , USA'ns tread with hobnailed boots, imagine infinite growth possible, incl. 20 billion pop.= Ecosphere Destruction =100+%; Massive die-off of all species.
Steady-State Systems are intellectually attractive; dynamic/chaotic systems the unfortunate reality. Small Indigenous populations like Amindians balanced their populations with available resources and probably came as close to Steady-State system as possible. I see that lifestyle returning if man survives the current die-off and re-learns respect for the planet. Big if.
You should check out William Denevan and others on the up-to-date evidence for just how NOT "lightly" advanced non-industrial and quasi- or even non-agricultural societies tread upon the land.
Compared to our system of "City and Industry here, Suburbia here, Agriculture here, Extraction here, everything else little if ever used." their overall impact on the land may well have been similar -much more so if Suburbia is removed from the equation.
It may not be a case of "more or less", but rather a case of "stupid or smart" impact on the land.
I doubt the Earth will see "20 billion pop." without the large-scale use of Fusion energy and geoengineering raised to the level of real Mastery over Nature.
I predict that the current projections of 10 billion will turn out to be near or above the true Peak Human Population.
"If the writer wants to argue in favor of growth, he/she should explain how growth, in an economic sense, can co-exist with a reduction of our carbon footprint and of other invasions into the planet's ecology."
He does explain. You just appear to have reading comprehension problems:
"The good news is that addressing these long-term problems would actually help to solve the short-term problems.
"
I was writing a response and had a power outage...lasted about 1 minute.....I'l try again...
Cicero.....like you said...we need to get everyone, ( almost everyone) on board in order to make a workable world that doesn't kill off our world....EEDUCATION..... even in our schools, kids are still taught from the same paridigm....my do get a run down about the differtn kinds of energies.... but the overall push to teach them the negative aspects of fossil fuels is not there......EDCATION OF ADULTS..... that's even harder.... a full out, non stop no holds barred effort to put the information out in any and all kinds of forms, to let people know down to the smallest microbial ecosystem that is endanger......AND HOW THAT EFFECTS US.. AND OUR SURVIVAL...... how we are total woven into the fabric of the earth......has to be done.... an education effort that has never been done before... ads on TV (paid for by whom?0 people teaching each other( I've been doing this) and many other ways.... to help people understand why and how fast we need to change....
As a teacher, totally agree.
Also, along similar paths, there must be Peace among all nations and a total global effort to save the planet. No amount of stupid verbalizing, see prez oblabla or the repub duplicates; and chair shuffling will do anything.
"...we will be lucky if strains do not begin to manifest themselves within the next twelve months." No just the opposite is true, we will be lucky if political strains do break wide open. The present economic crisis cannot and will not be solved by old-fashioned remedies like more stimulus spending. Capitalism has reached a certain limit - the limit of everybody and his brother and his government being in debt to a level they cannot pay off. Our hope should be that political tension boils over with a demand for a different economic arrangement - one in which "capital" is not the driving and controlling force in society.
Green technology requires rare earth minerals that are expensive and environmentally destructive to get. Cell phones and computer tablets require exotic conflict minerals from deepest darkest Africa, where several million people have been murdered since 1998. If that is not a genocidal holocaust, then what is? The rich, like Robert Kennedy hate the sight of windmills in their backyard. Solar panels are labor intensive and thus expensive to build, except in China. Carbon credit trading is corrupt and unproductive. To an economist the solution to all problems economic is answered by war. The first victim of all wars is truth. Maybe we should start a war on global warming. Maybe we can kick it off with a new Orwellian slogan like, Death is Life! But, no -- let's get back to selling our children into debt slavery to save those rich bankers in northern Europe. After all, bankers are people too, unlike the countless dead blacks from the Congo. We will be damned if we do and damned if we don't. Has anyone noticed how all human institutions are reduced to extortion of one sort or another? I'm very optimistic about how bad things will get.
Check out solar construction. From Tromb walls to a variety of totally simple solar collectors, surprisingly inexpensive solar stoves, water heaters that work in most areas...there are a LOT of smart ways to reduce our energy usage that would put those 30-40 year old construction guys back to work.
Back to work I agree, economic problem solved -- but if we have to use a dirty energy to move tons and tons of earth to the get the rare elements to create the solar panels and wind turbines, or run cars on dirty electricity, kill millions for exotic minerals as hundreds of Asians threaten suicide from making computer tablets -- then reality is left unchecked. CO2 = $$$ = :(
1. The "appropriate technology" stuff they mention does not involve solar panels or high-output wind turbines.
2. Automobiles could be 100% flex-fueled nationwide (or really, from a tech perspective, globally) in just a few years. Ethanol (which has a slew of negatives because it comes from potential food) and Methanol (much better because it comes from cellulose not starch or sugar, but lower energy per volume) both burn much, MUCH cleaner than gasoline (really totally clean, but I don't want to exaggerate).
3. Rare earths in high tech gear may be insurmountable. It is pretty necessary. But do we all really need all of these crazy super-cool gizmos? Hardly. ;)
Interesting comment, about the rare earths used in wind turbines. I had no idea. But there's also this-- Chinese and German manufacturers, moved by high prices of neodymium, are moving to "electrical excitation" to start their turbines.
http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article285956.ece
Science trudges on.
Now if we can only solve the bat mortality problem...
Folks, relax. I don't think we, the human race, are going to make it to 2099
Maybe Prince will write the song, "I'm gonna party like it's 2099"
The real bottom line: the well-being of people before profits. Do we have the political will to make it happen?
Or even one step down from that:
Do we have the political will to make the portion of our resources needed for general well-being distributed thusly BEFORE profit comes into play?
As in the capitalists can have their game, but first lets take care of everyone's needs.
Once again, and quite often, I am dismayed by many comments that rail against economic 'growth.' Economic growth can be as simple as people helping people. An understanding of economics is so important, yet so misunderstood and so twisted by ideological partisans, that I fear trouble will merely increase when knowledge is so close, but just beyond our reach.
understood and rejected.
Do you mean you reject ALL economic theories?
How do you deal with all of the "economic" activity then?
Thank you, SocJustice4all, for this thoughtful critique of Greg R. post.
Knows just enough to be dangerous. I think... therefore I know... I think.
Don't you worry your pretty little head.
You sound like at least as much of a know-it-all as I likely often do. Economics is one big, complicated subject. Neither of us know a small fraction of enough to really count as anything other than windbags with ideas.
Good one, Greg!
.....On the other hand, the wind from our bags is probably more reality-based than that of "so-called" economists; or at least most of them. If you missed it, the Huffington Post had a great article several years ago about how the "Federal Reserve Bought the Economics Profession". And you can still read it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html.
Maybe cut back on that second cup of coffee?
But look at it this way:
Wouldn't we rather the dialectic be Humanist Growth v Ecocentric Stability than Humanist Growth v Greedy Exploitationist Growth?
"Growth" beyond ecosystem capacity is the foundational Bubble--Overshoot it's called. The world created by the Bubble will recede to a sustainable level; only the rapidity at which it does is open to dispute. Perhaps in the quite distant future Civilization will finally be achieved and humans will equitibly live within their means. At present, that is just a Dream.
Right on! Please see my "letter to Obama" posted at 3:04AM 1/14/12
To revisit Joe Stiglitz's original metaphor, I believe it was Warren Buffet who once quipped that when the tide suddenly goes out, that's when you discover how many people have been wading and paddling around without any swimming trunks on.
What is true for individual investors may also apply to the economies of nation states.
Bill from Saginaw
The elitist pigs never had any clothes. It just took this long for many around the globe to realize that powerz have been bilking them all of their lives.
........."The burgeoning debts of the Eurozone countries are being blamed on their large welfare states, but these social systems were set up before the 1970s, when European governments had very little national debt. Their national debts shot up, not because they spent on social services, but because they switched bankers. Before the 1970s, European governments borrowed from their own central banks. The money was effectively interest-free, since they owned the banks and got the profits back as dividends. After the European Monetary Union was established, member countries had to borrow from private banks at interest—often substantial interest."
Unrestrained growth is the philosphy of the cancer cell.
Edward Abbey
There are essentially two options for the USA: 1, Continue Business as Usual and Drown amid a debt fueled spiral of inflation coupled with rapid defaltion of already inflated assets; 2, Tread Water by total rollback of the ENTIRE overseas empire and slashing the War Budget by 90%, heaping a 60% tax on the Money Power while making "Capital Flight" a capital crime, and using the increased revenues and massive savings in Imperial spending to put people back to work designing a highly resiliant carbon-use-decreasing infrastructure and constructing a preventive medicine people-centric healthcare delivery system that ignores nobody--all without borrowing further monies. In other words, pretty much the same economic plan I've advocated since 2004, when times were supposedly good.
Until the Native Peoples are made whole to their satisfaction, the USA will always be an Empire. And until the Money Power is dethroned and the 1787 constitution radically altered, the US federal government will continue to be an Aristocracy serving the 1%. However, it is possible to drastically change our current political-economic direction IF political protest and activism quadrupal (at minimum) the level of intensity seen during 1967-1969/70. Such activity would see tens of millions of people in the streets across the nation DAILY until our goals are reached. I didn't say it would be easy, just that it is possible.
1789 ;)
The constitutional coup (convention) was in 1787. 1789 was the first year the aristocratic governent it formed was initiated. The wiki article is very biased, but at least it gets the date correct, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution
I think that matti was referring to that other revolution, the French one, storming the Bastille and all that. At least that is what I think of when I hear the date 1789.
Thanks; I hadn't considered that. Unfortunately, there is a great mass of indoctrinated, brainwashed proles within the US Empire that enforce the tyranny being forced upon them--about 30-50 million, a rather substantial number, plus an equal number of kinsmen now sitting on the fence. And in 1789 the machine gun hadn't been invented yet.
Thanks to 4thefuture, but you were right, karlof, I was referring to the U.S.Revolution.
Just a matter of perspective I suppose, I see the Convention not truly taking power until their Constitution became the Law of the Land and a Government was formed underneath it.
Really of no importance, sorry to take away from your points. :)
Hi Matti,
Yes, I'd much rather discuss the merits of my economic proposals regardless of the odds they will become employed.