The Economic Costs of the Endless War
Attention turns back to Iraq tomorrow when General Petraeus reports on the endless war in Iraq. In recent months the bad news from there (Basra has been a bloodbath and the government-initiated truce may not hold) has been eclipsed by the bad news on the economy. The two are closely related -- but not in the way some contend.
Let’s be clear. The cost of the War in Iraq – so far estimated to total somewhere between 1 and 3 trillion dollars – is not directly responsible for the economic mess we’re in. Wars can cause inflation when a nation’s resources are already fully committed, as when Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam at the same time he was mounting a war on poverty. But when a nation’s resources are underutilized wars have been known to get economies back on track, as we learned when Franklin D. Roosevelt took the nation to war in 1941.
The US economic expansion that began in 2001 was anemic as expansions go, so the American economy has had enough capacity to support a war in Iraq without igniting inflation. Most inflation pressures now are coming from abroad – from higher oil and commodity prices. And while unrest in the Middle East has contributed to that inflation, defenders of the war say oil prices would be even higher, now and in the future, were we not in Iraq. They’re wrong, but this particular debate is a sideshow.
With the US economy falling into recession, we have even more unused capacity. That’s not in itself a reason for continuing to spend billions of dollars for the Iraqi War, of course. The war is a terribly inefficient stimulus to the US economy. A dollar spent on repairing a bridge in Iraq doesn’t have nearly the multiplier effect on our economy as a dollar spent repairing a bridge here in the United States.
More to the point – and here’s what Americans need to understand – a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar we do not have to spend here, not only repairing our own bridges, roads, and water and sewage systems, but also giving Americans access to health insurance and children access to good schools, fully funding Social Security and Medicare, investing adequately in non-carbon based energy sources and green technologies, and borrowing less from abroad.
In other words, the real economic cost of the Iraqi War doesn’t show up in the business cycle, and it's not responsible for the current recession. The real economic cost will show up years from now in a standard of living that for most Americans will be significantly lower than we might otherwise have enjoyed.
Let’s be clear. The cost of the War in Iraq – so far estimated to total somewhere between 1 and 3 trillion dollars – is not directly responsible for the economic mess we’re in. Wars can cause inflation when a nation’s resources are already fully committed, as when Lyndon Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam at the same time he was mounting a war on poverty. But when a nation’s resources are underutilized wars have been known to get economies back on track, as we learned when Franklin D. Roosevelt took the nation to war in 1941.
The US economic expansion that began in 2001 was anemic as expansions go, so the American economy has had enough capacity to support a war in Iraq without igniting inflation. Most inflation pressures now are coming from abroad – from higher oil and commodity prices. And while unrest in the Middle East has contributed to that inflation, defenders of the war say oil prices would be even higher, now and in the future, were we not in Iraq. They’re wrong, but this particular debate is a sideshow.
With the US economy falling into recession, we have even more unused capacity. That’s not in itself a reason for continuing to spend billions of dollars for the Iraqi War, of course. The war is a terribly inefficient stimulus to the US economy. A dollar spent on repairing a bridge in Iraq doesn’t have nearly the multiplier effect on our economy as a dollar spent repairing a bridge here in the United States.
More to the point – and here’s what Americans need to understand – a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar we do not have to spend here, not only repairing our own bridges, roads, and water and sewage systems, but also giving Americans access to health insurance and children access to good schools, fully funding Social Security and Medicare, investing adequately in non-carbon based energy sources and green technologies, and borrowing less from abroad.
In other words, the real economic cost of the Iraqi War doesn’t show up in the business cycle, and it's not responsible for the current recession. The real economic cost will show up years from now in a standard of living that for most Americans will be significantly lower than we might otherwise have enjoyed.

33 Comments:
Dr. Reich,
Your statement about the long-term added "Multiplier" effect of spending our Iraq military adventure dollars in the good old USA is something I've been saying for a long time and just recently in my comments to your previous writing about Hillary Clinton's
economic housing bailout ideas.
In 5-6 years time, such a course would certainly lead to marked economic benefits in more jobs and, of course, to more Tax Revenues for our US Treasury.
More importantly, I see a huge Strategic Benefit to our country of getting our Defense budget down over next 3-5 years to 3.5% of GNP (as I believe Pres. Clinton achieved),excluding anti-terrorist budget... without compromising our nation's security. At same time, part of the strategy would be to get Europe and India to take a bigger share of protecting and enforcing world order in close cooperation with the U.S.
What is that key Strategic Benefit exactly? I believe our country is technically bankrupt now not only in deluges of debt and deficits in all directions (destroying the Dollar's value) but in modernizing our infrastructure; in upgrading our pre-college educational system; in retraining those who are victims of outsourcing, downsizing, plants closings,etc.; in becoming truly independent of Arab oil supplies,etc. Money spent here will make our general economy far more productive which will also show up eventually in much greater Tax Revenues and in our Government's return to positive budgeted surpluses in the 3-5% of GNP level with a stable Dollar.
Now why do I feel this is so important? I think our country's Strategy for next 10 years should be to get defense spending down to 3.5% of GNP. This will release funds to bring our own financial and social-infrastructure/
educational house in much stronger order. I think we have a 10 year window to do this because I don't see China excalating its military expenditures drastically over this period (they are at 1% of GNP now and slowly rising). This is because they have got their hands completely full the next 10 years controlling the wealth distribution, environmental pollution, and tremendous growth of their domestic economy.
But, possibly after 10-12 years (2018-2020)China will be in a more stable, mature economic growth pattern that might encourage a more aggressive mood to increase their annual military expenditures substantially to the 3% range of GNP range (which is very high in absolute dollars given the size of their economy). But, if our financial house and economy
is considerably strengthened and on more stable grounds at that time, then we will also have the financial flexibility to increase our military defense expenditures more substantially in 2015-20 ...should that be necessary.
If we don't follow this course, and peddle along with a semi-decayed infrastructure and school system, we take the risk of still being relatively financially poor or economically weak 10-12 years from now (don't forget Japan's recent 12 year economic malaise) ... just at the time China might be feeling the urge to be more adventuresome in their military spending. This would be a bad chess play for us ... possibly mitigated somewhat if should be successful in getting our Europe and India to increase their defense spending from 2% to at least 3% of GNP over next 10-12years. But this is a risky bet.
There's ample historical evidence of nations going to the edge of bankruptcy with overspending on the military. When this happened (like to Great Britain after WWI), bankruptcy foreclosure was only avoided by making drastic military investment cutbacks and reinvesting in internal social-infrastructure and commercial developments to regenerate real wealth.
I'm convinced we are facing this same dilemma and must have the determination and foresight to take some 180 degree turns to getting our internal domestic economy stimulated and regenerated financially by the appropriate infrastructure investments.The
"Multiplier" effect will indeed be a substantial impulse picking up real speed by 2014-15 and on.
Just some food for thought ... real thought about some strategic options and their implications.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Dr. Reich,
While your I agree with your general argument that a war in Iraq is a gross mis-allocation of our resources, I disagree with your claim that it is not directly responsible for the current economic crisis.
The current economic crisis is largely due to soaring commodity prices, including land. It is my understanding that commodity prices are strongly related to confidence in stock and currency (a pessimistic view of stocks and $ will make alternatives more promising). Thus, the current crisis could largely be due to a lack of confidence. This pessimism could easily be attibuted to the poor investment you describe.
I've spent a lot of time in India over the past 7 years, and have watched huge economic changes taking place. I've wondered if some day America and India would change places on the scale of haves and have nots. My friend Rajiv is not a brilliant economist, he's an Indian businessman. We had a chat while the US was building up to invading Iraq, and I asked him how long he thought the US would remain the dominant world economy. His response: "Fifty years if you don't invade, ten years if you do." Well, we're into our sixth year, and I'm wondering about Rajiv's prescience, especially as India strengthens its infrastructure, and we ignore ours..
Thank you for explaining this.
Great job on Real Time last Sunday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_re_us/deteriorating_water_pipes;_ylt=Arl5hO.oOYkWyWrnlSRte4AXIr0F
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYrLnryRU7iM&refer=home
A couple of articles supporting the idea that money would be better spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and educating our children.
Looks like higher education has just been pushed out of reach for many with institutions reducing student loans and tuitions set to increase even more with state budget's tightening. What a sad state of affairs for our country. I hope real solutions can be found soon.
@Richard
Obviously you had quite a sheltered experience in India during your stay if you think four years is a window in which India can swing pre-eminence over the US. That's the dumbest crap I've ever read.
Professor
I attended university with the laid off aerospace engineers in the mid 1970s. It was a time where we sacrificed our lead in aviation/space and it is no wonder we paid the price with the shuttles years later. Today we are stopping NIH grants to pay for IRAQ and government bailouts for reckless investment banks and folks who thought they needed McMansions.
You are so right that our standard of living is heading downwards to pay for Iraq. We have lost our compass of what real wealth is in our finance and consumption orientation. We must save and produce and use our sweat and brains to claw ourselves back.
None of the presidential candidates and let alone most of congress seems to get this. We are plain, dead broke and better start using our brains and bring back a bit of the puritanical thrift we used to respect.
Dear Readers,
Absolutely, This war is sensless and unproductive. All we needed was to spend tiny part of the money spend in IRAQ and we could have figured out the best way to extract the OIL out of shale oil in COlorado and/or oil reserve stretching across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan... a reserve so massive it contains 10 times more barrels of oil than Alaska's North Slope ( BAKKEN FIELD, it is called)
And that is all without any immediate need for "ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES".
But guess what, this would not be "costly enough" and feed as many mouth. This would prevent SCAM of ethanol from taking place ( more energy input than output) and this would not make "designer inflation" for farmers come along.
As I always say follow the money trail and you will know who benefits and why. OIL companies do not want cheap oil, profit margin is smaller with cheaper oil and "reserves" are certanily vallued for much less. Also, there is not recycling of money, TO OPERC and BACK, and WELFARE STATE( Wall street ) does not benifit!?
Also, housing prices collapsing and revenues to local and federal coffers in trouble OIL iss the ALL purpose, TAX COLLECTOR, for our Dear Government. Yes, Just like his father, DUBIA raised taxes, but nobody read his lips. He gave RICH enourmouns tax breaks and raised the OIL prices ( taxes are 20% or so) to take away all benefits to poor from the same.
Ha... Economics 101 dear friends. When you got the facts, it is easy to figure what is going on.
Now the moral part of IRAQ war. I was for it and I did not care IRAQ or IRAN or YEMEN. Just a good punishment of any of the terrorist supporting countries would have thought them lesson and stop it. And we should be back from that sot of a mission long time ago.
Only idiots are falling for "we fight them there, or here". Ha...
Come on Dear Whilte house , get a grip on yourslves.
Education. Look I was educated in three different countries and Must have something to say about the systems all over and USA.
USA has excellent high degree education if you can afford it. Only foreigners( like I was) on the grants ( I was working on QUARK , Quantum Physics, for BUHL chair Professor Wolfenstain). 70% or so post/DOCOTRATES are from INDIA, CHINA etc.
Ok back to education at the basic levels. Even poorest countries are doing better than USA, cause it is the society and its values that determine the education levels, not the amount of money ( hello, I should know), I have spend ZERO to attend the best UNIVERSITIES of the world, cause I was worth it to those educating me and my mother made sure I was hard at study, while others did not.
Dr. Reich got that 100% correct that when boght parents are not having time to follow their kids education ( too little time or interest or constant fitht and divorse), it is not going to happen for the kids.
When too many people make money in undeserved ways ( deliberate devaluation) there is not much left for masses.
I am not giving you facts of what is. I am giving you , why it is. And until FOX/BLOOMBERG/CNN tell teenages "shop till drop" is cool ,nothing is going to change...
I hope this was not too long, but touched most of what needs to be touched.
If you like more of what you just read and the FREE market/financ adwise, please visit
Http://borisc.blogspot.com
Boris
With all the difficulties I have with DR. REICHs easy public money views, I love the fact that this very smart individual has an open forum like this.
Hallelujah
The head of the National Endowment for the Arts spoke on Zocolo Radio (KPCC-LA) on Sunday night and mentioned that this generation of Americans will be the first to be less-well educated than their parents.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/zocalo/
The declining education system will impact our quality of life for generations. And cutting education funding not only harms the long-term economy through a generation of less-productive citizens, but puts young teachers out of work, hurting today's economy as well.
Does this also make teaching jobs less stable/desirable, therefore attracting a "less-qualified" teacher? (and producing a less-educated citizen?)
This on top of our Trillions in debt. Who can Generations X,Y, and Z thank for this royal "screw you?"
(When) Will we reverse this trend and save our country? Billions of Chinese/Indians/Russians hope we don't.
Dear Lbcharles,
Sorry, to competely disagree, no amount of money will teach your kid anything good, when the AMERICAN reality teaches inverse. Please, Please, no subtle messages of OPM ( other peoples money).
Sorry, can not let you get away with it.
Good Trading
Dr. Reich,
President Harry Truman,who always maintained that starting a war was no way to make peace, was asked if he had any misgivings about using such terrible weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He replied:
"Hell yes! I've had a lot of misgivings ..., but it was a question of saving hundreds of thousands of American lives."
He later followed this up with some prescient remarks I offer in juxtaposition to the Bush Administration's philosophy of preemptive war and Nation Building by war vs. our current dilemmas about how fast to get out of Iraq and how to deal with Iran.
"I have always been opposed even to the thought of fighting a 'preventive war'. There's nothing more foolish than to think that war can be stopped by war. You don't 'prevent'anything by war except peace."
"Wars are different from baseball games where, at the end of the game, the teams get dressed and leave the park."
"If we do not abolish war on this earth, then surely one day, war will abolish us from the earth."
Dear Thomas,
I disagree completely.
Waht is the nation,individual and/or corporation to do when they are attacked. Roll over and call police? Which police? the one you like or the one you do not?
Let us be clear. War is hell, but letting somebody walk over you is wost than war. It is a matter of human dignity and invitation for anyhilliation.
There is always some consideration that justifies war. Whatever the mood of the nation is that time. Are you supposed to give the land and disappear if your neighrbouring country wants so?
I, as a nuclear engineer, and builder of some ANTI-NUKE fortifications in USSR had ( I was young and stupid then(:- ) asked my GENERAL.
What do you think the chance of NUKElear war are said I?
He replied. The only thing that prevents war is strength and common understanding that the other side will react. So detant will prevail. Said he...
If you are strong, which you must be by the above theory and you get humliated on the field. How do you prove to offender that , this better be last time...
Power Never used , is worthless. THis does not mean we should go to war everyday with everybody, but when the situation calls, you better be ready and ready to die. If you are afreid of that , you will die, that is just the way things work my friend and no amount of pacifism will change that.
My Grandpa came with two lags amputated from the STALINGRAD battles, do you think RUSSIA had choices?
Let us not make the undefendable statments.
There have always been wars and there will be, for we see the the only big guy that could prevent it ( USA) must go to to war to prevent it ( if you see dog grabbing its own tail here, be my guest)
You and I will not change the nature. It will require wars sometimes, VERY UNFORTUNAELY.
Good Trading
http://borisc.blogspot.com
Dear Good Trading,
Truman's remarks concerned Preemptive or Preventive War and war in general. He was a soldier of valor and honor when it came to going to war to combat attacking evil forces bent on subjugcating free men.
He was obviously right in his general condemnation of war and resort to war as an automatic
preemptive "quick fix" (rather than the last of the last resorts). Such delusions once santified by precedent will only inevitably bring civilizations back to the dark ages.
Future generations are going to be living at a lower standard of living? Uh, hello, we alreadya re living at a considerable lower standard of living. Yeah we have cell phones and computers and gizmos galore, but the average worker works longer hours and nets a lower standard of living. It takes two parents working full time to get even close to being able to afford quality schools and a home for their children. And with both parents working, who has the time to really give their children? We are already being screwed, and now we're supposed to go along with a plan to take even more from our children? I'd stand up and complain louder, but if I take a day off work, I'll lose my job and my kids will starve. Just like to send out a big thank ou to the powers that be for that, too....
With more than 30% of America still supporting the war in Iraq, it is clear that they do not understand the economics of a dollar spent in Iraq. How do you teach Americans such a simple concept? You definitely need to venture forth into the world and get the message out. The country needs you.
frank thomas:
Most of your proposals do not lend themselves to strong disagreement. There appears, at times, some incongruity.
First of all, most of our Iraq military adventure dollars being spent are off-budget and should they be included in the budget, as they would be for infrastructure improvements, our deficit would be astronomical - assuming it is something less than that now.
We do get some "Multiplier" effect from the Iraq War spending since equipment and private security, among others, are being done by US companies and the dollars spent find their way back to the US economy. Granted the effect would be much greater were all that spending being done within our own shores. The same could be said of the negative impacts of our "free trade" movement of the past decade or so.
It will be very difficult to slow military spending, even post Iraq, due to the serious depreciation and loss of a great deal of our military equipment, much of that to property of various state's National Guard organizations. Of course if we can expand the economy, with a controlled effort on military spending, in absolute terms, the relative percentage of military spending to GDP will decrease.
There is no doubt that we need to focus on rebuilding our infrastructure. The economic benefits aside, we are looking at serious safety issues in the current state of disrepair of bridges and roads and buildings. Before embarking on solutions we will need to prioritize the order in which that rebuilding will occur; an expensive and time-consuming exercise. A somewhat minor blip will be the impact on immigration, legal and illegal, since the rebuilding will be centered on the construction industry. An industry very reliant on immigrant labor. This impact will only exacerbate the current immigration dilemma.
Given that Europe is experiencing its own share of economic problems and coupled with a maturing society and declining birth rate, I don't see them jumping at the opportunity to increase military spending; especially when they know they can rely on Uncle Sam. As India grows economically they will become more concerned about Pakistan and China but I don't see a strong likelihood of concern for protecting and enforcing "world order". India, too, will rely on US efforts to be the world's policemen.
Fixing and rebuilding our infrastructure can have significant economic benefits to our economy, it will be,though, essentially, a short term boost, in that once you repair or rebuild a bridge it will last a number of years. There is enough need to last us awhile, however.
No doubt we have serious problems in our pre-college eucational system, hell even in our college system. We are currently, and have been, spending billions , at the state and federal level to improve those problems. Much of this spending has been done in a misdirected, very inefficient manner. Two major educational system issues that need to be fixed before even attempting the more insidious deficiencies. Physical plant, more or larger school facilities, and Teachers, more numbers and better quality. These two issues money can affect. Beyond those many of our other problems with education are social/familial in nature. We, as a society, do not hold education, lower, middle or higher, in any where close to the importance it should have. Material "stuff", outside activities and two worker families have trumped a dedication to learning. Many of our educational problems will not be solved by throwing more money at them.
Retraining! A particular bugaboo of mine. One can hardly argue that we need to do something for laid off and displaced workers, especially those impacted by globalization. As I see it if we retrain a 35 or 40 year old worker with a family, though it may provide potential entry to a higher, or at least more commensurate, level of pay to that which he lost, he comes out with no applicable experience in his new field and is thrust into a marketplace where he is vying with 22 year olds for the same entry level jobs. In many instances he will be at a significant disadvantage in that marketplace. My point is that it is no Valhalla but is probably the best we can do until a better idea comes along.
Independence from oil, no matter where it originates from, is certainly a must. It is something we should have been doing for the past 40 years, at least, but we are a culture of "now", not the future. Investments in alternative energy will create many jobs and business opportunities. Unfortunately, we will encounter misguided efforts, such as the ethanol from corn fiasco, which has created a huge food price problem, and we will do other dumb things in our search for answers. Has to be done but the mistakes will cost us dearly.
One can argue that we need budget surpluses to begin repaying our cumulative debt. One must also keep in mind that continual budget surpluses are a drag on economic growth.
One can speculate all over the charts about China's eventual military asperations. One thing Iraq should have taught us is that in the kinds of military ventures likely to occur in the 21st century, manpower, feet on the ground, is still the primary ingredient for success. If you wish to annihilate a country and render its lands useless for a number of years, airpower, bombs, even nuclear weapons should be your choice. As the world grows smaller, both physically and economically, the latter type of war is less and less likely. Limited airstrikes need to be followed by ground soldiers and in that regard China is already ahead of the curve. There is little doubt that we never want to entertain war with China. Besides at the current clip they are defeating us economically; cynically you could assert they are beating us at our own game.
Though your points are well taken, we are faced currently, with a huge and growing healthcare problem. A new administration must tackle this early on and it will take time and extreme political effort to do it right. Meanwhile paying for a new program will require more taxes which will also be time consuming and fraught with resistance, from all sides. I am a firm believer that our founders intended the Congress to be the driver of our country, not a Presidential administration, however, in recent years it sometimes seems our Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
Would that the solutions to the problems we are facing could be whittled down to a blog entry.
Mr Reich, I have been a dedicated follower of your ideas and economic insight. One thing that perplexes my position on your views is your audacious way of supporting Obama. With all the turmoil coming about with his foul-mouthed demagogue pastor, you still stand by this freshman-senator's side. Don't you think it would be better to have someone with more clout in their bag in the white house. We are in a time where we need structure to build a plan of remedy, as opposed to elusive dreams and hopes that an eloquent speech feeds our egos. I think Obama is a terrible choice that will not win. I support Al Gore, or the other more experienced candidate. Bush sucked us in with rhetoric, we now need someone who can deliver. I am sorry to say that Obama is the worst choice for that.
"More to the point – and here’s what Americans need to understand – a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar we do not have to spend here, not only repairing our own bridges, roads, and water and sewage"
Well its still borrowed money! Borrowed money to fix a bridge in NJ or Iraq has the same impact on our debt levels. Until we have a ecomony that is actually productive not just financial driven speculation then this debate means nothing. We cannot afford the Iraq war nor having 140 military installations throughout the world, nor can we afford another spending spree on roads and bridges of money that we don't have.
"a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar we do not have to spend here ... "
(editing suggestion):
In the future, you might want to go with "... is a dollar that we are unable to spend here ... "
As you wrote it, it sounds as though you're trying to suggest that we're saving money at home by spending it in Iraq. Obviously, it becomes clear by reading the context, but a change of language would make it easier to read (or quote).
To Art Layman and Anonymous # 18:
I hope eventually to respond at length concerning your thoughtful points ... but workload
is quite an obstacle now. I have written a paper entitled: 'Is Our Economic Model at its Limits'? So your extended views are quite relevant and interesting in this regard.
However, here´s a few related quick questions I am trying to clarify in my own solution thinking about the economic mess we are in: Can you explain how our country can become 'Productive First´ before we can afford to invest in our social-infrastructure (e.g., schools, roads, bridges, health care, alternative energy sources, etc.?) Which comes first? and how?
As to the debt level staying the same, are you discounting putting some of the savings from reduced military expenditures (+-$250 Billion annually) to deficit reduction as well as infrastructure investments? There are also efficiences possible in our current health care system (+-$150 Billion annually) that could be used for deficit reduction and expansion of health care coverage to 45 million poor Americans. Are you discounting reducing Government manpower levels and using savings therefrom for deficit reduction and infrastructure investments?
Much of military spending is passive ...leading to very little productive/technically innovative income generating activity (equipment, missiles, ammunition, etc.) particularly over the long term.
Are you discounting any form of tax increases (e.g., on tobacco, alcohol and/or luxury products) or any changes in the progressive tax rates to offset the huge income divide between the top 10% and the rest of the nation? Or, are we to become productive simply by broadly reducing taxes and/or the size of Government ... whatever the latter typical political jargon or dogma means?
Do you think social-infrastructure investments are mutually exclusive i.e., cannot occur simultaneously along with other intelligently balanced and creative actions/
policies that will also reduce the debt situation? ... over time of course.
I´ll come forward on these questions and other issues in due course. It´s not my intention to bother anyone further on this subject. I have to reassess my thoughts on the challenging points raised in your posts.
I have to agree that the Iraq War has lessened our standar of living significantly. The dollar doesn't have as much buying power compared to the Euro nowadays. But I'm also glad that you pointed out that a dollar spent in Iraq is not a dollar spent in the United States that could go towards education, after-school programs, healthcare, etc. The people who support the war really need to know thisand understand how this is such a detriment to our national well-being.
But I do believe that the recession is partly the product of the Iraq War, but it shouldn't be blamed solely. In the past few months there has been a mortgage crisis going on and that is definently a reason for the recession we find ourselves in.
The Iraq war is costly, but this recession is due largely to a culture of 'creative bookkeeping' and a mixture of de-regulation and non-regulation. I believe this economic crisis would have happened without the Iraq war, only with it it is much worse.
I must disagree with Dr. Reich in that Iraq isn't main cause for America's economic disaster. Cost for the standard of living has rised since 9/11. The government spends more money on the war then it does on the education system. Tuitions are rising, the cost of oil and gas is constantly rising, and someone is going to tell me that other spendings are not the cause of this? We wouln't have to spend so much money "rebuiling" Iraq, if we hadn't destroyed it. Because our government is constanly brainwashing us through the media that we should live our life in fear of terrorists, allows us unwillingly participate in this recession. Sure the cost of living always rises, but the profit of taxes needs to benefit all of the people that pay for them. You tell me what's more important, education the youth of our future? Or spending money on weapons of destruction in order to support an imperialistic goal?
"The Treasury Department reported Thursday that receipts from corporate income taxes fell 16% to $129 billion in the first half of fiscal 2008, which began Oct. 1. The federal deficit during the period hit an all-time high of $311 billion, and was up 20% from a year earlier."
Well if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know....
Let's add a few things up.
$311 billion thus far
$165 billion for "stimulus"
$29 billion for Bear Stearns (contingent)
That's $500 billion, and we're only halfway through the year.
If you start adding into this the proposals floating around Congress, it gets worse. A lot worse. Indeed, we could see our first $1 trillion add to The Federal Debt.
Dr. Reich,
I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but when you said
"But when a nation’s resources are underutilized wars have been known to get economies back on track, as we learned when Franklin D. Roosevelt took the nation to war in 1941."
it sure sounds like you are implying that Roosevelt took us to war by choice to improve the economy, not because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.
There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there that think that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, and let it happen so we could join the war. Or that he intentionally provoked the Japanese into attacking us. I hope that wasn't your meaning.
frank thomas:
If I had sound answers to all your questions, I'd be running for President; and likely winning. There are a plethora of conundrums facing us in the future.
Businesses, when facing multiple issues to resolve with limited resources, must come to terms with a prioritization of which issues are most important and commence to solve them in the order decided. This process, even in the business world, is difficult but in business the operating model is entirely different. The various options will be reviewed with many sides arguing their case but the final determination will rest with the CEO. Granted he will have to secure agreement from the Board of Directors but that is usually a given. Further, the objective of any proposed actions are common to all concerned and that is, net, improving profits. Businesses have only a minimal concern for the effects on the social strata of their organizations.
Government, by its nature, cannot function with that degree of efficiency. There is no final decider, GWB notwithstanding. In government the process is further encumbered by differing political philosophies and a variety of parliamentary maneuvers designed to protect the rights and disagreements of the minority party. During much of the last 7 years the federal government has functioned more like the business model when, with a Republican rubber stamp Congress, GWB was able to push through anything he decided was the highest priority or he decided was a necessary action. The problem with the model, in that scenario, is that we have a country full of people with varying needs and desires and, in theory, all those various should be considered. When final actions are made, based essentially, on the views of one titular head, we best make damn sure that titular head is competent, and truly compassionate.
In government, politics enters the equation due to ideologies. This can make problem definition complicated and creates a multiplicity of proposed solutions. Even when there seems to be significant agreement on problem definition, proposed solutions invite a potpourri of variations. In order to effect problem resolution it becomes imperative to focus on those problems that are the most politically expedient. The will of the people is often the prime determinate in that choice. There will still be difficult debate and a multitude of solution variants but if the politicians know that the people want resolution to a particular issue it moves to the fore. Since the will of the people can be much like the Santa Ana winds, problems, politically, must be prioritized to that which is roaring. Currently that would appear to be healthcare. No doubt ending the Iraq War is right up there but there is little the Congress can do, short of cutting off funding, and de-funding carries with it all kinds of political and reality pitfalls. Infrastructure and alternative fuels are also vying near the top. Electing a Democratic President will be a big plus for getting action moving on these various priorities but the makeup of Congress will be a much more significant factor.
Funding is critical for most of these options. The government has an advantage over the business world in that deficit spending is an option; not particularly popular, and not without a larger economic impact, but can be used in the short term. Even if the Dems don’t get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, it is highly likely the Bush tax cuts will expire. This will create additional revenues to fund solutions but there will have to be some patches to alleviate the impact on low and middle class folks. I am in total agreement with Dr. Reich and many others that we need to return to a much more progressive taxation structure, which will also increase revenues. Raising taxes significantly will be a major undertaking for the Congress; even with a strong Dem majority. Targeted taxes are not generally a good idea. They are unpopular for the most part and often have many unintended consequences. In net, Congress will have to prioritize the problems it will attack and that prioritization will greatly be based on political expediency; not necessarily on the order of social welfare impact.
I don’t see much hope for a reduction of military spending. As I stated we will come out of Iraq with a huge need for maintaining or increasing passive military spending just to restore capability. If we can achieve continued economic growth we might achieve your target for % of GDP but it will likely not come from cutting spending. One cannot forget that most of that spending will be domestic and that will provide jobs and economic growth.
Efficiencies in our current healthcare system? Sorry, but absurd! A move to universal coverage will in the long term create efficiencies but it will take awhile, especially with the hybrid solutions posed by the Dem candidates. Political expediency raises its ugly head again. In the short term costs will be little moved and could even increase. Single payer is the right answer but we ain’t gonna get there soon.
Government manpower reductions? Where is the massive savings from that? Is always interesting to me that government employees, federal, state or local, are viewed as commodities. Conventional wisdom seems to consider these folks as just grains of corn sitting in a silo; some being eaten by rats and others just taking up space. These are people. Hard working people in most respects and doing the same as you and I and that is providing for families; spending their incomes, adding to GDP; saving for their kid’s college. Given that job growth under Bush, even if you take his starting point of August, 2003, has done little more than keep up with new entrants into the workplace, where do you propose those encompassing your reduction find other jobs? In the short term, when laid off, they would add to government expenditures and reduce GDP and could have a depressing effect on wage growth, if in large numbers. How much do you calculate the savings would be? $1 billion, maybe, against a deficit of $300 billion? “Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.”
This leads us to your issue of whether our economic model needs to be changed. As I see it, the overall economic model is less a problem than the functions of the variables making up the model. Throughout most of our history we flourished by making things and selling them, pretty much on an internal, domestic basis. We went through a period, the Gilded Age, of unbridled wealth accumulation, detrimental to our culture. This was corrected after the Great Depression and we began a hugely growing economy with jobs and relative income equality for all. I understand that we had little industrial competition during that period; the 40s through the 70s, but the economic model seemed to work quite well for all. We began segueing to an emphasis on more business profitability and profitability defined not by shareholders but by Wall Street. CEOs who could deliver profits to Wall Street’s expectations became celebrities. They were praised by Wall Street and thus the media as Supermen, capable of leaping large buildings in a single bound. Globalization, both in financial movements and production capacity, continued this Valhallic aura and it followed that by tapping the world’s production capacity, with its cheaper labor and lesser regulation could produce even more profits; may the dream never die. As computer technology matured, efficiencies and increased productivity became the generators of even greater profits by reducing the labor input requirement. Little of the gains from this productivity increase ended up in the paychecks of workers. In fact, all these factors produced a decline in decent paying jobs, especially for those involved in making things.
During this time, with the decline in major manufacturing and all its attendant industries, our best and brightest found there way to the financial world in their quest for growth and riches. No longer did they seek junior executive positions in the corporate world pursuing an eventual move to the boardroom. The name of the game shifted to an emphasis on making money from money, rather than the toils of labor. Since this world requires constant innovation to continue the dream, we conjured up financial vehicles and processes to promote greater wealth achievement for a very small few. This has led us from one bubble to another. No matter for many who prospered from the selling of these financial vehicles and those investors who were in the right place at the right time.
In the meantime, CEOs, who were now on par with sports celebrities and movie stars, commenced to seek greater immediate wealth, likely predicated on the realization that there time at the top might be limited for a variety of reasons; many beyond their control. Sports and movie stars have a limited number of years in which to make their outlandish earnings. I do not suggest here that I believe that rationale justifies the inane earnings they receive but it is a viable argument. CEOs and executives do not face that time limitation. Certainly they face risks to their positions from the vagaries of the marketplace but I question if that is sufficient justification for annual earnings that are often 10 to 20 times the lifetime earnings of normal workers.
All these factors have been nurtured on the backs of working class folks, mainly in America. In no other major industrial societies do we see the income inequities between workers and executives that we see here. I am not that familiar with all the problems of the industrialized world, but in America, we see marginal job growth with much of it being at lower pay levels than many were accustomed to and we are sadly deficient in the social safety nets provided by our counterparts around the world.
I am not proposing a protectionist/isolationist solution but somehow parity must be attained if we are to remain competitive from a working class standpoint. The investors, the wealthy, the corporations, can make money from all parts of the world economy. Workers are geographically impaired.
As a people we have always considered ourselves self-reliant. This is a fallacy. When we were an agrarian nation, a hunter gatherer population we could depend on our individual efforts to provide. The Industrial Age, as it grew, made most all of us dependent on jobs to get by. This fact made a huge dent in our individual self-reliance. Somewhere along the line, corporations, businesses, executives, etc. must acquire a degree of social conscience. They must adopt a sense that more wealth and more profits will do little if our culture fades away.
Does our economic model need changing? I’ll leave that up to greater minds. Certainly some changes in the algorithms are called for. As you can see, my talents are better at problem definition than problem solution.
Dear Mr. Layman,
Thanks for your long, thoughtful post. Now, please relax a bit until I can get back to you. Is that a deal? The following is just a "preliminary" reply to you.
As mentioned in my last blog, I'll respond to you -- and Dr. Reich -- with some more specific thoughts and explorative ideas for moving towards pragmatic solutions (short and long term) to our current economic mess. Just brainstorming!
You must be exhausted with your last treatise which, as you admit, defines the problems and some of the background causes superbly, but falls quite short in coming up with some coherently integrated Overview of WHAT TO DO?
For many years, as a bilingual American, I was for some time a Interim Manager and Consultant to international Dutch firms, and I have taught and lived in one of the best managed and balanced social-capitalistic countries in the world -- The Netherlands. My work has involved an intensively analytical, realistic, and creative approach to problem solving ... qualities desperately needed in greater abundance in our Government's management processes
(and that I've seen operating effectively in Holland for many years).
So, despite my sitting unaffected directly at a distance, I have other perspectives to a lot of the issues you and are discussing that reflect a multicultural experience of some duration. I believe, like you Art, more of us Americans must enter the debate if we ever want to preserve and regenerate our heralded form of "participative" social-democracy.
So, thank you for engaging those interested to respond to Dr. Reich's provocative questioning in a blog conversation (however much not an ideal forum) that tries to go deeper into matters. I will come back to you and Dr. Reich soon with some further modest remarks and suggested proposals.
Your last post undoubtedly connects to the inner concerns of Americans who have a virtual-reality awareness of the problems... many of us, however, who too quickly dismiss others' ideas; too timidly apply our own common sense and creativity to constructive solutions; too prematurely critisize another idea rather than exploring/embelishing its possibilities. In this regard, you sound like the system has beaten you down... as if you've given up.
I remain a guarded optimist -- despite my somber writings on the seriousness of our financial crisis and the drastic steps that must be taken to meet the SCALE of the problems before us and, perhaps more importantly, to prevent their incredibly destructive recurrences.
Perhaps, my promised more solution-oriented post to you and Dr. Reich will offer a glimpse of HOPE to all who may be gliding into the quicksand of cynicism about our nation's social-economic failures.
I'm a great fan of "bottoms up democracy" that will revive and unify us more to become DOERS again in employing the best of our conservative and liberal ideals ... to insure a fair playing field for EVERYONE.
In this respect, see Comment #200 to Roger Cohen's writing entitled "When Hope Trumps Fear" of March 19; and see Comments #24 and #56 to his article entitled "Tribes are Everywhere" of March 9. R. Cohen´s blog site is: www.iht.com/passages.
In my comments to Roger Cohen, I don´t go deeply into macro/micro economic matters ... but sum up other impressions of an American who, like you, is shocked and saddened about our cultural and leadership propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot in so many ingenious ways!
Best, Frank Thomas
The Netherlands
To: Art Layman
Some corrections:
Paragraph 3, second sentence:
which, as I quite agree,
Paragraph 5, third sentence:
issues you and I are discussing
Dr Reich,
Appreciate your Blog, comments and experience.
I would like to add that I have been involved for several years with Telemedicine and eHealth development within the EU. Interest in this within the US has been zero due mostly to Healthcare Insurance Companies and Providers.
The advancements in the EU in Telemedicine and eHealth has been significant and substantial. Medical Tourism for US Patients is one of the fastest growing global industries.
My involvement started after software development in Silicon Valley vanished due to outsourcing.
Co-workers have vanished as well.
Outsourcing pre-dated the Iraq invasion and together they doomed the in-country IT Industry.
Given the education and training Humans can contribute to IT regardless of geographic location.
What I see as major detriments to the current and future economies here are: (1)outsourcing of defense contracts, (2)outsourcing of IT, (3)minimum investment in infrastructure, industries and people, (4)zero accountability, (5)political appointees in positions requiring competence, and (6)the rapid advances being made globally in competitive industries.
I understand basic economics and that to have an economy something of value must be produced, marketed , sold, shipped and supported.
Today what this is remains a mystery. What I see is totally irrelevant mud-slinging and posturing.
I would like to believe that this can magically be corrected and things can get 'productive' again.
I hope you are correct in your analysis and possibly can put forth solutions in the future.
I hope that I am wrong when I believe that the barn is ablaze and the livestock has fled.
Dr.Reich,
You are so right that our standard of living is heading downwards to pay for Iraq. We have lost our compass of what real wealth is in our finance and consumption orientation.
.................
Gunarathna
Wow, check out this site called http://www.fluc.com%3c/a>
Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic
Online Dating | Work Loan | Online Loan | Best Office Loan | Online Loan Resources | Auto Loan Resources | Bad Credit Loan Resources | Bank Loan Information | Business Loan Resources | Cash Loan Resources | Commercial Loan Resources | Home Loan Resource Information | Three Way Link Exchange | Online Poker Game Site | Online Games | Best Online Casino | Sports Betting | Online SEO Tips | Sportsbook Betting | Travel Inforamation Manual | Online Technical Support | Technical Support Resource | Windows Technical Support | My Blogs | Cheap London Hotels | Discount London Hotels | Kareena Kapoor | Diya Mirza | Aamir Khan | Soha Ali Khan | Aamisha Patel | Priyanka Chwopda | sexy Mallika Sherawat | Kajol | Katrina Kaif | Aishwarya Rai Bachhan | Juhi Chawla | Aids The Fact | Cheap Hotels | Free Dating Websites | Christian Dating Sites | Carbon 14 Dating | Meeting Women Online | Online Russian Dating | Indian Beauty | Indian Girls Dating | Love Marriage Tips | Women Dating Tips | Discount US Hotels | Cheap US Hotels | Paddington Hotels | Seo Friendly Urls | Effective Advertising Tips
Very use full website.
..................
Madavi
http://fasttrackitc.com/sp/
徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,
Post a Comment
<< Home