Donnerstag, 25. August 2011

What If US Collapses? Soviet Collapse Lessons Every American Needs To Know

http://madconomist.com/what-if-us-collapses-soviet-collapse-lessons-every-american-needs-to-know
The link to the following article was provided by a libertarian blogger here on Multiply.  I do not necessarily agree with everything it says, however it is a most interesting read.

What If US Collapses? Soviet Collapse Lessons Every American Needs To Know

Submitted by Dmitri Davydov on Sun, 2008-06-01 20:49.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am not an expert or a scholar or an activist. I am more of an eye-witness. I watched the Soviet Union collapse, and I have tried to put my observations into a concise message. I will leave it up to you to decide just how urgent a message it is.

My talk tonight is about the lack of collapse-preparedness here in the United States. I will compare it with the situation in the Soviet Union, prior to its collapse. The rhetorical device I am going to use is the "Collapse Gap" – to go along with the Nuclear Gap, and the Space Gap, and various other superpower gaps that were fashionable during the Cold War.



Slide [2] The subject of economic collapse is generally a sad one. But I am an optimistic, cheerful sort of person, and I believe that, with a bit of preparation, such events can be taken in stride. As you can probably surmise, I am actually rather keen on observing economic collapses. Perhaps when I am really old, all collapses will start looking the same to me, but I am not at that point yet.

And this next one certainly has me intrigued. From what I've seen and read, it seems that there is a fair chance that the U.S. economy will collapse sometime within the foreseeable future. It also would seem that we won't be particularly well-prepared for it. As things stand, the U.S. economy is poised to perform something like a disappearing act. And so I am eager to put my observations of the Soviet collapse to good use.



Slide [3] I anticipate that some people will react rather badly to having their country compared to the USSR. I would like to assure you that the Soviet people would have reacted similarly, had the United States collapsed first. Feelings aside, here are two 20th century superpowers, who wanted more or less the same things – things like technological progress, economic growth, full employment, and world domination – but they disagreed about the methods. And they obtained similar results – each had a good run, intimidated the whole planet, and kept the other scared. Each eventually went bankrupt.



Slide [4] The USA and the USSR were evenly matched in many categories, but let me just mention four.

The Soviet manned space program is alive and well under Russian management, and now offers first-ever space charters. The Americans have been hitching rides on the Soyuz while their remaining spaceships sit in the shop.

The arms race has not produced a clear winner, and that is excellent news, because Mutual Assured Destruction remains in effect. Russia still has more nuclear warheads than the US, and has supersonic cruise missile technology that can penetrate any missile shield, especially a nonexistent one.

The Jails Race once showed the Soviets with a decisive lead, thanks to their innovative GULAG program. But they gradually fell behind, and in the end the Jails Race has been won by the Americans, with the highest percentage of people in jail ever.

The Hated Evil Empire Race is also finally being won by the Americans. It's easy now that they don't have anyone to compete against.



Slide [5] Continuing with our list of superpower similarities, many of the problems that sunk the Soviet Union are now endangering the United States as well. Such as a huge, well-equipped, very expensive military, with no clear mission, bogged down in fighting Muslim insurgents. Such as energy shortfalls linked to peaking oil production. Such as a persistently unfavorable trade balance, resulting in runaway foreign debt. Add to that a delusional self-image, an inflexible ideology, and an unresponsive political system.



Slide [6] An economic collapse is amazing to observe, and very interesting if described accurately and in detail. A general description tends to fall short of the mark, but let me try. An economic arrangement can continue for quite some time after it becomes untenable, through sheer inertia. But at some point a tide of broken promises and invalidated assumptions sweeps it all out to sea. One such untenable arrangement rests on the notion that it is possible to perpetually borrow more and more money from abroad, to pay for more and more energy imports, while the price of these imports continues to double every few years. Free money with which to buy energy equals free energy, and free energy does not occur in nature. This must therefore be a transient condition. When the flow of energy snaps back toward equilibrium, much of the US economy will be forced to shut down.



Slide [7] I've described what happened to Russia in some detail in one of my articles, which is available on SurvivingPeakOil.com. I don't see why what happens to the United States should be entirely dissimilar, at least in general terms. The specifics will be different, and we will get to them in a moment. We should certainly expect shortages of fuel, food, medicine, and countless consumer items, outages of electricity, gas, and water, breakdowns in transportation systems and other infrastructure, hyperinflation, widespread shutdowns and mass layoffs, along with a lot of despair, confusion, violence, and lawlessness. We definitely should not expect any grand rescue plans, innovative technology programs, or miracles of social cohesion.



Slide [8] When faced with such developments, some people are quick to realize what it is they have to do to survive, and start doing these things, generally without anyone's permission. A sort of economy emerges, completely informal, and often semi-criminal. It revolves around liquidating, and recycling, the remains of the old economy. It is based on direct access to resources, and the threat of force, rather than ownership or legal authority. People who have a problem with this way of doing things, quickly find themselves out of the game.

These are the generalities. Now let's look at some specifics.



Slide [9] One important element of collapse-preparedness is making sure that you don't need a functioning economy to keep a roof over your head. In the Soviet Union, all housing belonged to the government, which made it available directly to the people. Since all housing was also built by the government, it was only built in places that the government could service using public transportation. After the collapse, almost everyone managed to keep their place.

In the United States, very few people own their place of residence free and clear, and even they need an income to pay real estate taxes. People without an income face homelessness. When the economy collapses, very few people will continue to have an income, so homelessness will become rampant. Add to that the car-dependent nature of most suburbs, and what you will get is mass migrations of homeless people toward city centers.



Slide [10] Soviet public transportation was more or less all there was, but there was plenty of it. There were also a few private cars, but so few that gasoline rationing and shortages were mostly inconsequential. All of this public infrastructure was designed to be almost infinitely maintainable, and continued to run even as the rest of the economy collapsed.

The population of the United States is almost entirely car-dependent, and relies on markets that control oil import, refining, and distribution. They also rely on continuous public investment in road construction and repair. The cars themselves require a steady stream of imported parts, and are not designed to last very long. When these intricately interconnected systems stop functioning, much of the population will find itself stranded.



Slide [11] Economic collapse affects public sector employment almost as much as private sector employment, eventually. Because government bureaucracies tend to be slow to act, they collapse more slowly. Also, because state-owned enterprises tend to be inefficient, and stockpile inventory, there is plenty of it left over, for the employees to take home, and use in barter. Most Soviet employment was in the public sector, and this gave people some time to think of what to do next.

Private enterprises tend to be much more efficient at many things. Such laying off their people, shutting their doors, and liquidating their assets. Since most employment in the United States is in the private sector, we should expect the transition to permanent unemployment to be quite abrupt for most people.



Slide [12] When confronting hardship, people usually fall back on their families for support. The Soviet Union experienced chronic housing shortages, which often resulted in three generations living together under one roof. This didn't make them happy, but at least they were used to each other. The usual expectation was that they would stick it out together, come what may.

In the United States, families tend to be atomized, spread out over several states. They sometimes have trouble tolerating each other when they come together for Thanksgiving, or Christmas, even during the best of times. They might find it difficult to get along, in bad times. There is already too much loneliness in this country, and I doubt that economic collapse will cure it.



Slide [13] To keep evil at bay, Americans require money. In an economic collapse, there is usually hyperinflation, which wipes out savings. There is also rampant unemployment, which wipes out incomes. The result is a population that is largely penniless.

In the Soviet Union, very little could be obtained for money. It was treated as tokens rather than as wealth, and was shared among friends. Many things – housing and transportation among them – were either free or almost free.



Slide [14] Soviet consumer products were always an object of derision – refrigerators that kept the house warm – and the food, and so on. You'd be lucky if you got one at all, and it would be up to you to make it work once you got it home. But once you got it to work, it would become a priceless family heirloom, handed down from generation to generation, sturdy, and almost infinitely maintainable.

In the United States, you often hear that something "is not worth fixing." This is enough to make a Russian see red. I once heard of an elderly Russian who became irate when a hardware store in Boston wouldn't sell him replacement bedsprings: "People are throwing away perfectly good mattresses, how am I supposed to fix them?"

Economic collapse tends to shut down both local production and imports, and so it is vitally important that anything you own wears out slowly, and that you can fix it yourself if it breaks. Soviet-made stuff generally wore incredibly hard. The Chinese-made stuff you can get around here – much less so.



Slide [15] The Soviet agricultural sector was notoriously inefficient. Many people grew and gathered their own food even in relatively prosperous times. There were food warehouses in every city, stocked according to a government allocation scheme. There were very few restaurants, and most families cooked and ate at home. Shopping was rather labor-intensive, and involved carrying heavy loads. Sometimes it resembled hunting – stalking that elusive piece of meat lurking behind some store counter. So the people were well-prepared for what came next.

In the United States, most people get their food from a supermarket, which is supplied from far away using refrigerated diesel trucks. Many people don't even bother to shop and just eat fast food. When people do cook, they rarely cook from scratch. This is all very unhealthy, and the effect on the nation's girth, is visible, clear across the parking lot. A lot of the people, who just waddle to and from their cars, seem unprepared for what comes next. If they suddenly had to start living like the Russians, they would blow out their knees.



Slide [16] The Soviet government threw resources at immunization programs, infectious disease control, and basic care. It directly operated a system of state-owned clinics, hospitals, and sanatoriums. People with fatal ailments or chronic conditions often had reason to complain, and had to pay for private care – if they had the money.

In the United States, medicine is for profit. People seems to think nothing of this fact. There are really very few fields of endeavor to which Americans would deny the profit motive. The problem is, once the economy is removed, so is the profit, along with the services it once helped to motivate.



Slide [17] The Soviet education system was generally quite excellent. It produced an overwhelmingly literate population and many great specialists. The education was free at all levels, but higher education sometimes paid a stipend, and often provided room and board. The educational system held together quite well after the economy collapsed. The problem was that the graduates had no jobs to look forward to upon graduation. Many of them lost their way.

The higher education system in the United States is good at many things – government and industrial research, team sports, vocational training... Primary and secondary education fails to achieve in 12 years what Soviet schools generally achieved in 8. The massive scale and expense of maintaining these institutions is likely to prove too much for the post-collapse environment. Illiteracy is already a problem in the United States, and we should expect it to get a lot worse.



Slide [18] The Soviet Union did not need to import energy. The production and distribution system faltered, but never collapsed. Price controls kept the lights on even as hyperinflation raged.

The term "market failure" seems to fit the energy situation in the United States. Free markets develop some pernicious characteristics when there are shortages of key commodities. During World War II, the United States government understood this, and successfully rationed many things, from gasoline to bicycle parts. But that was a long time ago. Since then, the inviolability of free markets has become an article of faith.



Slide [19] My conclusion is that the Soviet Union was much better-prepared for economic collapse than the United States is.

I have left out two important superpower asymmetries, because they don't have anything to do with collapse-preparedness. Some countries are simply luckier than others. But I will mention them, for the sake of completeness.

In terms of racial and ethnic composition, the United States resembles Yugoslavia more than it resembles Russia, so we shouldn't expect it to be as peaceful as Russia was, following the collapse. Ethnically mixed societies are fragile and have a tendency to explode.

In terms of religion, the Soviet Union was relatively free of apocalyptic doomsday cults. Very few people there wished for a planet-sized atomic fireball to herald the second coming of their savior. This was indeed a blessing.



Slide [20] One area in which I cannot discern any Collapse Gap is national politics. The ideologies may be different, but the blind adherence to them couldn't be more similar.

It is certainly more fun to watch two Capitalist parties go at each other than just having the one Communist party to vote for. The things they fight over in public are generally symbolic little tokens of social policy, chosen for ease of public posturing. The Communist party offered just one bitter pill. The two Capitalist parties offer a choice of two placebos. The latest innovation is the photo finish election, where each party buys 50% of the vote, and the result is pulled out of statistical noise, like a rabbit out of a hat.

The American way of dealing with dissent and with protest is certainly more advanced: why imprison dissidents when you can just let them shout into the wind to their heart's content?

The American approach to bookkeeping is more subtle and nuanced than the Soviet. Why make a state secret of some statistic, when you can just distort it, in obscure ways? Here's a simple example: inflation is "controlled" by substituting hamburger for steak, in order to minimize increases to Social Security payments.



Slide [21] Many people expend a lot of energy protesting against their irresponsible, unresponsive government. It seems like a terrible waste of time, considering how ineffectual their protests are. Is it enough of a consolation for them to be able to read about their efforts in the foreign press? I think that they would feel better if they tuned out the politicians, the way the politicians tune them out. It's as easy as turning off the television set. If they try it, they will probably observe that nothing about their lives has changed, nothing at all, except maybe their mood has improved. They might also find that they have more time and energy to devote to more important things.



Slide [22] I will now sketch out some approaches, realistic and otherwise, to closing the Collapse Gap. My little list of approaches might seem a bit glib, but keep in mind that this is a very difficult problem. In fact, it's important to keep in mind that not all problems have solutions. I can promise you that we will not solve this problem tonight. What I will try to do is to shed some light on it from several angles.



Slide [23] Many people rail against the unresponsiveness and irresponsibility of the government. They often say things like "What is needed is..." plus the name of some big, successful government project from the glorious past – the Marshall Plan, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo program. But there is nothing in the history books about a government preparing for collapse. Gorbachev's "Perestroika" is an example of a government trying to avert or delay collapse. It probably helped speed it along.



Slide [24] There are some things that I would like the government to take care of in preparation for collapse. I am particularly concerned about all the radioactive and toxic installations, stockpiles, and dumps. Future generations are unlikely to able to control them, especially if global warming puts them underwater. There is enough of this muck sitting around to kill off most of us. I am also worried about soldiers getting stranded overseas – abandoning one's soldiers is among the most shameful things a country can do. Overseas military bases should be dismantled, and the troops repatriated. I'd like to see the huge prison population whittled away in a controlled manner, ahead of time, instead of in a chaotic general amnesty. Lastly, I think that this farce with debts that will never be repaid, has gone on long enough. Wiping the slate clean will give society time to readjust. So, you see, I am not asking for any miracles. Although, if any of these things do get done, I would consider it a miracle.



Slide [25] A private sector solution is not impossible; just very, very unlikely. Certain Soviet state enterprises were basically states within states. They controlled what amounted to an entire economic system, and could go on even without the larger economy. They kept to this arrangement even after they were privatized. They drove Western management consultants mad, with their endless kindergartens, retirement homes, laundries, and free clinics. These weren't part of their core competency, you see. They needed to divest and to streamline their operations. The Western management gurus overlooked the most important thing: the core competency of these enterprises lay in their ability to survive economic collapse. Maybe the young geniuses at Google can wrap their heads around this one, but I doubt that their stockholders will.



Slide [26] It's important to understand that the Soviet Union achieved collapse-preparedness inadvertently, and not because of the success of some crash program. Economic collapse has a way of turning economic negatives into positives. The last thing we want is a perfectly functioning, growing, prosperous economy that suddenly collapses one day, and leaves everybody in the lurch. It is not necessary for us to embrace the tenets of command economy and central planning to match the Soviet lackluster performance in this area. We have our own methods, that are working almost as well. I call them "boondoggles." They are solutions to problems that cause more problems than they solve.

Just look around you, and you will see boondoggles sprouting up everywhere, in every field of endeavor: we have military boondoggles like Iraq, financial boondoggles like the doomed retirement system, medical boondoggles like private health insurance, legal boondoggles like the intellectual property system. The combined weight of all these boondoggles is slowly but surely pushing us all down. If it pushes us down far enough, then economic collapse, when it arrives, will be like falling out of a ground floor window. We just have to help this process along, or at least not interfere with it. So if somebody comes to you and says "I want to make a boondoggle that runs on hydrogen" – by all means encourage him! It's not as good as a boondoggle that burns money directly, but it's a step in the right direction.



Slide [27] Certain types of mainstream economic behavior are not prudent on a personal level, and are also counterproductive to bridging the Collapse Gap. Any behavior that might result in continued economic growth and prosperity is counterproductive: the higher you jump, the harder you land. It is traumatic to go from having a big retirement fund to having no retirement fund because of a market crash. It is also traumatic to go from a high income to little or no income. If, on top of that, you have kept yourself incredibly busy, and suddenly have nothing to do, then you will really be in rough shape.

Economic collapse is about the worst possible time for someone to suffer a nervous breakdown, yet this is what often happens. The people who are most at risk psychologically are successful middle-aged men. When their career is suddenly over, their savings are gone, and their property worthless, much of their sense of self-worth is gone as well. They tend to drink themselves to death and commit suicide in disproportionate numbers. Since they tend to be the most experienced and capable people, this is a staggering loss to society.

If the economy, and your place within it, is really important to you, you will be really hurt when it goes away. You can cultivate an attitude of studied indifference, but it has to be more than just a conceit. You have to develop the lifestyle and the habits and the physical stamina to back it up. It takes a lot of creativity and effort to put together a fulfilling existence on the margins of society. After the collapse, these margins may turn out to be some of the best places to live.



Slide [28] I hope that I didn't make it sound as if the Soviet collapse was a walk in the park, because it was really quite awful in many ways. The point that I do want to stress is that when this economy collapses, it is bound to be much worse. Another point I would like to stress is that collapse here is likely to be permanent. The factors that allowed Russia and the other former Soviet republics to recover are not present here.

In spite of all this, I believe that in every age and circumstance, people can sometimes find not just a means and a reason to survive, but enlightenment, fulfillment, and freedom. If we can find them even after the economy collapses, then why not start looking for them now?

Thank you.

If you want Dmitry's analysis in detail, get his lates book Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects

Dienstag, 23. August 2011

Good Arab Bad Arab ....


Michel Collon about the intervention in Libya and the "media-lies" of Occident

whats the difference between a " Good Arab " &  a " Bad Arab "






Some on the right believe NATO and the US are wrong to have supported Libyan rebels

Whoops, no one told the right that their Libya talking point doesn't work anymore

Montag, 22. August 2011

End Game in Libya? Rebels Take Control of Large Parts of Tripoli - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,781535,00.html
Finally?....

Rebels have swept into the Libyan capital Tripoli, taking control of most of the city and capturing two of Moammar Gadhafi's sons. Loyalist forces still control up to 20 percent of the city, however, and Gadhafi remains defiant.



The struggle for control of Libya has entered a decisive new phase. Rebels have taken control of much of the capital Tripoli, and the end of dictator Moammar Gadhafi's regime appears to be in sight after months of fighting.

On Monday morning, Tripoli appeared to be largely in the hands of the regime's opponents. There were reports that many loyalist soldiers had been captured. The rebels also said that Gadhafi's elite presidential guard had surrendered. A rebel spokesman told the television station Al-Jazeera that some of Gadhafi's troops were continuing to fight and still had 15 to 20 percent of the urban area under their control.


The rebels announced they had captured two of Gadhafi's sons, including Saif al-Islam Gadhafi. Moammar Gadhafi's whereabouts were unknown, however. A representative of the transitional council said he did not believe that Gadhafi was even in Tripoli.

Gadhafi's leadership compound, Bab al-Aziziya, was apparently still under loyalist control. There were reports of heavy fighting around the compound.

The rebels met with little resistance as they swept into the city on Sunday from various directions. They managed to take control of the symbolic Green Square in the heart of Tripoli. According to Al-Jazeera, the rebels announced they wanted to give the square its original name of Martyrs' Square back.

Al-Jazeera showed images of cheering people greeting the rebels on the streets of Tripoli, dancing and firing celebratory shots. Many chanted "Allah is great," and "Tripoli will be free." People fired shots at a giant poster showing a picture of Gadhafi and tore down the flags of the Libyan government.

In the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, a huge crowd gathered to celebrate. People set off fireworks and fired salutes in Benghazi and other cities.

'Long Live Free Libya'

Gadhafi showed defiance in a series of audio messages on Sunday evening. He called on his supporters to take to the streets to fight the "rats and traitors." He said that all tribes must "march on Tripoli" to protect the city, otherwise they would become "slaves of the imperialists." It was unclear where the message had been recorded.

According to the New York Times, the rebel's governing body, the National Transitional Council, issued a statement saying: "We congratulate the Libyan people for the fall of Moammar Gadhafi and call on the Libyan people to go into the street to protect the public property. Long live free Libya."

German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière said he would not rule out a German military operation in Libya to help stabilize the country after the possible end of the Gadhafi regime. "If there are requests to the Bundeswehr, we will examine them constructively," he told the regional German newspaper Rheinische Post. Any German operation would, however, be contingent on Libya being able to maintain a stable state by itself "in a post-Gadhafi period," de Maizière added.

Meanwhile on Monday Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle also offered German aid for reconstruction in Libya, calling on the rebels to facilitate democracy in the country. "We clearly insist on a democratic transition," he said. Westerwelle said Moammar Gadhafi must face trial for the crimes of his "brutal reign" and for waging war on his own people. "The dictator's time has passed," he said.

Germany was the subject of heavy criticism in March when it abstained from the UN Security Council vote authorizing the use of force against Gadhafi's regime. Germany is not directly involved in the NATO operation to protect Libya's civilian population. It was revealed last week, however, that German soldiers currently stationed at NATO facilities in Italy are performing duties involving target selection for NATO airstrikes.

'Tipping Point'

US President Barack Obama welcomed the rebels' advance. "Tonight, the momentum against the Gaddafi regime has reached a tipping point," Obama said in a statement. "Tripoli is slipping from the grasp of a tyrant."


The European Union also urged Gadhafi to give up power. "We seem to be witnessing the last moments of the Gadhafi regime and we call on Gadhafi to step down without further delay and avoid further bloodshed," Michael Mann, a spokesman for EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, told the news agency Reuters on Monday. Mann added that the EU was already planning for the post-Gadhafi era. "We do have a number of scenarios that we have worked (out) in terms of our assistance post-Gadhafi," he said.

In June, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued warrants for the arrest of Moammar Gadhafi, his son and anointed successor, Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, and Abdullah al-Sanoussi, the head of Libyan intelligence. In the early hours of Monday, the ICC confirmed that Saif al-Islam Gadhafi had been detained. The ICC's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, called on the rebels to extradite Saif al-Islam to The Hague. He told Reuters he would contact the Transitional National Council on Monday to discuss the next steps.

New research shows: Financial world dominated by a few deep pockets


Haven't we suspected this all the time?

When we wonder, why the world is, how it is... When politics support things nobody really wanted...

Could it be that a big part of the conspiracy theories are real, about the Bilderbergers, the Davos meetings and others, that they secretly pull the strings in the background? We can't be sure about this, but that the wealth of the world is allocated more inequitably than ever now is a fact. Scientists from the ETH Zurich in Switzerland found that ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated and increasingly transnational.


In an article in 'The Science News' Rachel Ehrenberg writes:

"Conventional wisdom says a few sticky, fat fingers control a disproportionate slice of the world economy’s pie. A new analysis suggests that the conventional wisdom is right on the money.

Diagramming the relationships between more than 43,000 corporations reveals a tightly connected core of top economic actors. In 2007, a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations, researchers report in a paper published online July 28 at arXiv.org.

“This is empirical evidence of what’s been understood anecdotally for years,” says information theorist Brandy Aven of the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh.

The analysis is a first effort to document the international web of relationships among companies and to examine who owns shares — and how many — in whom. Tapping into the financial information database Orbis, scientists from ETH Zurich in Switzerland examined transnational companies, which they defined as having at least 10 percent of their holdings in more than one country. Then the team looked at upstream and downstream connections, yielding a network of 600,508 economic actors connected through more than a million ownership ties.

This network takes on a bowtie shape, with a large number of diffuse actors in the wings and a few major players tangled up in the tie’s knot. So while it’s true that ownership of publicly held corporations is broadly distributed, says complex systems scientist James Glattfelder, a coauthor of the new work, “take a step back and it’s all flowing into the same few hands.”




A central core of extremely powerful actors (red dots) dominates international corporate finance, a new mathematical analysis finds.


While any man on the street may have predicted this outcome, the economic literature portrays markets as so dynamic that they lack hot spots of control, Glattfelder says."

It's the economy, stupid!

Please read the full article http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/333389/title/Financial_world_dominated_by_a_few_deep_pockets

Donnerstag, 18. August 2011

Why is China rising and America declining? What should we do?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/america-is-rotting-at-its-core-20110815-1iunv.html#ixzz1VI0pqEsF
The link to this article was posted by a conservative member of Multiply.  I repost it here for your thoughts and comments.

America is rotting at its core


Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson.

As China rapidly ascends in influence, its superpower rival seems unable to face up to its failings.

For years we have been told not to worry about China's growing strength, because America is even stronger. No matter how far China rises, our leaders have said, America will be the world's omnipotent power. ''You can do anything,'' the Prime Minister told the US Congress just six months ago.

This has always been naive. As long as China keeps growing fast - and our entire economic policy assumes it will - the laws of arithmetic guarantee that it will soon overtake the US to become the world's richest country. And wealth is strength, as America itself has shown for over a century.

But until now it has been easy to assume that America itself is not in decline: that the global power shift is driven by China's growing strength, not by American weakness. China might grow stronger, but America would remain a uniquely vibrant, resilient and innovative country, and a beacon to the world.

Now one has to wonder. It is possible that we are witnessing not one but two remarkable national transformations, as America stumbles while China ascends. If so, that will make the shifting power balance between them much faster, more destabilising and more risky than we thought.

We should not exaggerate the importance of Congress's debt fiasco and the S&P credit downgrade. But nor should we overlook their significance as evidence of deeper, long-term shifts in America's economic and political foundations. We have assumed that America will bounce back from its present troubles because it has always bounced back before. This time might be different.

Look at the economy first. The US economy has changed a lot over the past few decades. The first and most important of those changes has been the decline of manufacturing as a share of the economy and a source of well-paid jobs. Manufacturing has always been the bedrock of American economic might. Thirty years ago 20 million Americans worked in the sector. Today only 12 million do, and that number is falling by 50,000 a month. The biggest cause is competition from China.

As manufacturing has declined, its place has been taken by new ''knowledge'' industries such as finance and IT. But these industries do not create the vast numbers of well-paid jobs that once provided the bedrock of American society. Instead they provide very high paying jobs for relatively few people. This produces the second big long-term change in America's economy - the stagnation in average incomes.

While the relatively few people who work at the top end of America's growth industries have done very well, average incomes have hardly risen for the past 30 years. That's a very sharp contrast to what's happened in Australia, for example, where average incomes have been rising steadily.

So one problem with America's new knowledge economy is that it doesn't produce many well-paid jobs. The other problem is that it's not clear what it does produce. Value is an elusive concept, but to put it mildly it is hard to see how much value the bankers of Wall Street have added to the US economy over the past decade or two, compared with the contribution of Detroit in its heyday.

And while it is easy to see how Windows and Word make real differences to productivity throughout the economy, that's less clear for later generations of software. Facebook, for example.

This raises some rather unsettling questions. Can America's post-industrial knowledge economy support its global power? Can it create millions of well-paid jobs to replace those lost in manufacturing? Indeed, how can the US maintain a high-wage economy without rebuilding manufacturing?

And how could America rebuild manufacturing in the face of China's competition? America's genius for innovation will help, but only if it can stop China adopting the same innovations itself. Essentially, as long as markets for goods and ideas remain relatively open, the only way for America to rebuild manufacturing would be to drive American wages down to the point that they meet Chinese wages as they rise.

In fact, this may be what we are already seeing. But they'll have a lot further to fall before China stops taking American jobs. That's bad news for American workers, but it is also bad news for America's long-term economic and social trajectory.

Which brings us to politics. Clearly America's political system has always been untidy, but it has mostly produced good government. Governing America has, however, become harder over the past few decades. Politics everywhere is first and foremost about choosing how to distribute wealth. Until recently the choices have always been relatively easy in America, because there has been a lot of wealth to go around. Now there is, relatively speaking, less to go round, the choices become harder, and the struggles over them intensify.

Several things then happen. First, the debt grows, as both government and people try to avoid choices by borrowing money. Second, politics becomes polarised, as voters scrabble harder for the choices that suit them best. Third, people become susceptible to any politician who can convince them that somehow the hard choices do not have to be made.

Americans believed George W. Bush when he said they could invade Iraq and cut taxes. And they believed Barack Obama's beguiling mantra. ''Yes, we can'' was a promise to Americans that they did not have to make hard choices - a promise he could never keep. Now many Americans seem to believe the Tea Party that cutting taxes will fix everything. As if.

America is a remarkable and wonderful place, with immense resources of all kinds. It will remain the world's second-strongest power for decades to come, with a big capacity to shape world affairs and provide a great life for its people. But it faces choices today about how to grow its economy and use its power that are in many ways harder then any it has faced since the Civil War. Its political system today seems incapable of making those choices. We should be worried, because we need a strong and well-governed America.

By Hugh White
August 16, 2011

Hugh White is professor of strategic studies at ANU and a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/america-is-rotting-at-its-core-20110815-1iunv.html#ixzz1VI0pqEsF

Mittwoch, 10. August 2011

Stiglitz: “Considerable” Risk in Banks Today Because So Little’s Changed Since 2008 | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/stiglitz-considerable-risk-banks-today-because-little-changed-151748128.html?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=
H/T to ShadowWarrior for pointing out this article.


The recent decline in Citigoup stock is "difficult to watch and naturally reminds all of us of what happened several years ago [but] there is little similarity between now and then," Vikram Pandit said in a voicemail to Citi employees on Tuesday, The WSJ reports.

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan similarly sought to allay his employees' concerns, declaring in a company-wide memo: "The most important point to remember is that our company remains financially strong." (Moynihan, who was also on CNBC yesterday, is participating in a unique public conference call later today, hosted by one of its biggest shareholders Fairholme Capital Management.)

Translation: Remain calm, all is well. Nothing to see here folks. Keep moving.

But big bank CEOs, and their defenders, doth protest too much, according to Columbia Professor and two-time Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz.

There is "considerable" risk in the banking sector today, Stiglitz tells Jeff Macke and me in the accompanying video. In addition to a slowing economy, today's problems are largely the result of regulators' failures to tackle the problems that both caused and were revealed by the 2008 crisis: Excessive leverage, lack of transparency and distortions created by 'too big to fail' institutions.

The 'too big to fail' problem has only gotten worse since 2008 — the biggest banks control an even greater portion of U.S. deposits -- and Stiglitz is particularly concerned nothing has been done to make bank holdings more transparent.

"We don't know the kinds of exposures to say European [credit default swaps] American banks have," he says. There are rumors that as much as 50% of European sovereign bonds are insured thru CDS by American banks, he notes. "But we don't really know."

As was the case in 2008, the lack of knowledge of what's on bank balance sheets poses the risk of banks refusing to lend to other banks, Stiglitz says. "If one of these countries has a real difficulty [interbank lending] markets will freeze up."

Forget laughter. Does anyone remember "counterparty risk? This is what I was referring to Monday when I said the similarities between now and 2008 outweigh the differences. (See: 2008 Redo? History Doesn't Repeat, But It Often Rhymes )

Stiglitz addressed these and related issues in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last week: "It is precisely because the economy is fragile, banks have inadequate capital, and the banking sector in the aftermath of the crisis is more concentrated than before that the risk of a financial catastrophe of the kind that we experienced in 2008 is so great today," he said. "The downside risks of not doing something are especially grave now.

Notably, those comments were made on Aug. 3, prior to the most acute moments of the recent sell-off, which resumed in earnest Wednesday morning.

The latest decline comes amid concerns about Europe and the potential contagion emanating from its sovereign debt crisis which, in turn, is putting renewed pressure on shares of big European banks like Societe Generale, BNP and Deutsche Bank, as well as their U.S. counterparts including, but not limited to, Bank of America and Citigroup.

By Aaron Task | Daily Ticker

Dienstag, 9. August 2011

London paralyzed by fear, shock as businesses smolder - USATODAY.com

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-08-09-London-riots-businesses-burn_n.htm

LONDON — Despite promises from British Prime Minister David Cameron of an overwhelming police presence on the streets, many people here Tuesday remain fearful after three days of rioting has paralyzed this city.

In the north London neighborhood of Holloway, so far untouched by violence, shops were closing early and cellphone stores and banks were being barricaded with metal shutters in midafternoon.

Uniformed police officers, many in riot gear, were evident in many neighborhoods as police cars patrolled streets with sirens blaring.

In the east London neighborhood of Hackney, one of the hardest hit in Monday night's violence, many shops remained closed. Drugstores, department stores and electronics shops were dark. Plywood boards covered broken windows of a betting parlor that was attacked by bands of rioters.

Hackney Town Hall was closed and a half-dozen uniformed bobbies stood watch in front of it. A line of police vans from south Wales, more than 100 miles away, idled nearby.

A wave of violence and looting has raged across London since Saturday, as authorities struggled to contain the country's worst unrest since race riots set the capital ablaze in the 1980s.

The rioters appeared to have little unifying cause — though some claimed to oppose sharp government spending cuts, which will slash welfare payments and cut tens of thousands of public sector jobs through 2015.

Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess Tuesday and nearly tripled the number of police on the streets after the riots turned into a full-blown political crisis.

He described the scenes of burning buildings and smashed windows in London and several other British cities as "sickening," but refrained from more extreme measures such as calling in the military to help beleaguered police restore order.

Instead, he said 16,000 officers would be on the streets of the capital Tuesday night, almost tripling the number that were out Monday night.

"People should be in no doubt that we will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain's streets and to make them safe for the law-abiding," Cameron told reporters after rushing home from an Italian vacation to chair a crisis meeting at his Downing Street office.

About 525 arrests have been made in London alone and dozens were arrested in other cities. The riots also claimed their first death — a 26-year-old found shot dead in a car.

"Why was nothing done to stop them?" said teacher Julia Adegoke. "More force should have been used."

She said she had more confidence that police would be in control Tuesday night.

On Monday, groups of young people rampaged for a third straight night, setting buildings, vehicles and garbage dumps alight, looting stores and pelting police officers with bottles and fireworks into Tuesday's wee hours . The violence erupted in gritty suburbs along the capital's fringes to central London's posh Notting Hill neighborhood.

The spreading disorder was an unwelcome warning of the possibility of violence during London's 2012 Summer Olympics, less than a year away.

England's soccer match Wednesday against the Netherlands in London's Wembley stadium was canceled to free up police officers for riot duty.

Cameron said leaves have been canceled for police in London, and reinforcements have been called in from all over the country. Armored vehicles were deployed in some of the worst-hit districts, but authorities still struggled to keep pace with the chaos unfolding at flashpoints across London, in the central city of Birmingham, the western city of Bristol and the northwestern city of Liverpool.

Graham Reeves, 52, stood dumbstruck in front of the smoldering ruins of his family store, the House of Reeves on Croydon in south London. The store is a local landmark that had been run by his family for decades — he said his 80-year-old father was hysterical upon hearing the news.

"No one's stolen anything," Graham Reeves said. "They just burnt it down."

Pizza parlor worker Arun Selvam said he would not abandon his shift Tuesday afternoon but would stand close to his restaurant's fire exit.

"If anything happens, I'm out of here," he said.

Contributing: The Associated Press

Montag, 8. August 2011

Global Financial Instability and Government Paralysis

Our problems go far beyond a debate over debt within the United States and who is to blame.  We have to understand that our economy is interconnected within a global economy that is controlled and driven by global financial powers.  We must also understand that the entire global financial system is still threatened with tremendous depressionary dangers of collapse.  As a first step in attempting to understand how complex and tricky our overall situation is I am posting the following articles to begin to give you a better understanding of what we are dealing with.  Later as a second step towards a fuller understanding, I will post further information that illustrates how we as a people are being used by global financial powers.

The big danger is Europe


Europe may no longer be able to save itself. Too many countries have too much debt. Its economic growth — which helps countries service their debts — is too feeble. And nervous financial markets seem increasingly prone to dump the bonds of vulnerable countries. This is the real risk to the global and U.S. economic recoveries, far overshadowing Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt and
Monday’s sharp stock market decline.

Europe represents about one-fifth of the world economy and buys about a quarter of American exports. While Europe’s debt crisis was confined to a few small countries, they could be rescued; other European countries supplied loans to substitute for the credit denied by private lending markets. In 2010, Greek, Irish and Portuguese government debt totaled about 640 billion euros (about $910 billion), less than 7 percent of the 9.8 trillion euros of debt of all members of the European Union.

With Spain, Italy and possibly France now under financial assault, the situation changes dramatically. There are more debtor nations and more debt at risk. In 2010, Italy’s debt was 1.8 trillion euros; Spain’s 639 billion euros; and France’s 1.6 trillion euros. But there are fewer countries that can support a rescue; and some of them have heavy debts. Even Germany’s ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of debt in relation to its economy, was a hefty 83 percent last year, similar to France’s. (The big difference between France and Germany is that Germany’s economy is growing faster.)

Until now, Europe’s leaders have tried to muddle through: Rescue Greece, et al.; hope that modest economic recovery and limited austerity by debtor countries cure the crisis. But this formula is reaching its limits.

Austerity — spending cuts, tax increases — is standard economic medicine for overborrowed countries. It may work for individual countries or even a few countries at a time. But if most of Europe embraces austerity, the logic backfires. Economic growth slows; recession may reemerge. Lower tax revenue makes it harder for countries to service their debts. As this becomes obvious, the financial crisis feeds on itself. Investors sell the bonds of weak countries, sending up their interest rates and making the debt burden heavier.

This is the monster now stalking Europe. Last week, rates on 10-year Italian and Spanish bonds exceeded 6 percent, roughly four percentage points above rates on 10-year German bonds. Meanwhile, the outlook for economic growth is deteriorating without offsetting gains in the rest of the world that might boost Europe’s exports.

So Europe now faces a crisis that is at once financial, economic, diplomatic, political and social. The vaunted “European model” of generous welfare benefits is steadily reneging on its promises. Naturally, this is highly unpopular. Strains among countries are worsening as all seek to shift blame and costs to others.

Can Europe save itself? If not, will anyone? One suggestion is a common bond that would allow weak countries to share Germany’s credit rating; but this would have Germany guarantee other countries’ debts — a role Germans are likely to reject. There seem to be three other possibilities.

First, the European Central Bank — Europe’s Federal Reserve — tries to stabilize financial markets by buying the bonds of besieged debtor nations. It’s already bought Greek, Irish and Portuguese bonds; now it’s buying Italian and Spanish bonds. But where does this stop? The ECB is acting reluctantly, because it fears that excessive bond purchases (“monetizing” government debt) would unleash an inflationary flood of money. This approach is Muddling Through 2.0.

Second, the International Monetary Fund organizes a global rescue package worth trillions of euros. Europe’s debtor nations could borrow at low rates with long maturities. Once debt pressures were relieved, Europe could follow more pro-growth economic policies. But any package would have to be heavily financed by countries with huge foreign exchange reserves, meaning oil producers and — most importantly — China, with reserves of $3.2 trillion.

Third, some European nations could negotiate write-downs on their debts or default on them. Superficially, this seems a solution. But it would create other problems. Defaults would inflict huge losses on banks, insurance companies and pensions. Many European banks might collapse unless rescued. Who would rescue them? Confidence would plunge. A recession would seem unavoidable. Defaulting countries would also have trouble borrowing in the future.

All these possibilities involve momentous political, economic and technical uncertainties. What if the crisis spreads from Italy to Belgium or France? Would China contemplate bailing out Europe? If it did, there would be a stunning transfer of geopolitical power and prestige to China. Can the ECB (or the Fed) buy endless quantities of government bonds without someday fueling inflationary expectations? The questions swirling around Europe are terrible to contemplate. But they will not soon go away.

By , Monday, August 8

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-big-danger-is-europe/2011/08/08/gIQABzq02I_story.html


Stagnant and paralyzed

Editor's Note: Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His latest book is The Next Convergence – The Future of Economic Growth in a Multispeed World. Visit Project Syndicate for more and follow it on Facebook and Twitter.

By Michael Spence, Project Syndicate

The recent dramatic declines in equity markets worldwide are a response to the interaction of two factors: economic fundamentals and policy responses – or, rather, the lack of policy responses.

First, the fundamentals. Economic growth rates in the United States and Europe are low – and well below even recent expectations. Slow growth has hit equity valuations hard, and both economies are at risk of a major downturn.

A slowdown in one is bound to produce a slowdown in the other – and in the major emerging economies, which, until now, could sustain high growth in the face of sluggish performance in the advanced economies. Emerging countries’ resilience will not extend to double-dip recessions in America and Europe: they cannot offset sharp falls in advanced-country demand by themselves, notwithstanding their healthy public-sector balance sheets.

America’s domestic-demand shortfall reflects rising savings, balance-sheet damage in the household sector, unemployment, and fiscal distress. As a result, the large non-tradable sector and the domestic-demand portion of the tradable sector cannot serve as engines of growth and employment. That leaves exports – goods and services sold to the global economy’s growth regions (mostly the emerging economies) – to carry the load. And strengthening the U.S. export sector requires overcoming some significant structural and competitive barriers.

What the world is witnessing is a correlated growth slowdown across the advanced countries (with a few exceptions), and across all of the systemically important parts of the global economy, possibly including the emerging economies. And equity values’ decline toward a more realistic reflection of economic fundamentals will further weaken aggregate demand and growth. Hence the rising risk of a major downturn – and additional fiscal distress. Combined, these factors should produce a correction in asset prices that brings them into line with revised expectations of the global economy’s medium-term prospects.

But the situation is more foreboding than a major correction. Even as expectations adjust, there is a growing loss of confidence among investors in the adequacy of official policy responses in Europe and the U.S. (and to a lesser extent in emerging economies). It now seems clear that the structural and balance-sheet impediments to growth have been persistently underestimated, but it is far less clear whether officials have the capacity to identify the critical issues and the political will to address them.

In Europe, risks spreads are rising on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt. Yields are in the 6-7% range (generally viewed as a danger zone) for both countries. Combined with their low and declining GDP growth prospects, their debt burdens are becoming sufficiently onerous to raise questions about whether they can stabilize the situation and restore growth on their own.

Italy and Spain expose the full extent of Europe’s vulnerability. Like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, membership in the euro denies Italy and Spain devaluation and inflation as policy tools. But the declining value of their sovereign debt – and the size of that debt relative to that of Europe’s smaller distressed countries – implies much greater erosion of banks’ capital base, raising the additional risk of liquidity problems and further economic damage.

The domestic policy focus in Europe has been to cut deficits, with scant attention to reforms or investments aimed at boosting medium-term growth. At the EU level, there is not yet a complementary policy response designed to halt the vicious cycle of rising yields and growth impairment now faced by Italy and Spain.

Credible domestic and EU-wide policies are needed to stabilize the situation. Neither is forthcoming. Recent market volatility has been partly a response to the apparent rise in the downside risk of policy paralysis or denial.

In the U.S. side, the integrity of sovereign debt was kept in question for too long. During those months of political dithering, U.S. treasuries became a riskier asset. Then, with the immediate default risk removed, money stormed out of risky assets into Treasuries to wait out the economic bad news – mainly feeble and declining growth, employment stagnation, and falling equity prices.

Little in America’s domestic policy debates hints at a viable growth and employment-oriented strategy. In fairness, some believe that cutting the budget is a sufficient growth strategy. But that is neither the majority view, nor the view reflected by the markets.

Structural and competitive impediments to growth have been largely ignored. There is little recognition that domestic aggregate demand cannot be restored to its pre-crisis levels except through growth. In fact, the household savings rate continues to rise.

The details may elude voters and some investors, but the focus of policy is not on restoring medium- and long-term growth and employment. Indeed, there is profound uncertainty about whether and when these imperatives will move to the center of the agenda.

In the emerging economies, by contrast, inflation is a challenge, but the main risk to growth stems from the advanced countries’ problems. In addition, reforms and major structural changes are needed to sustain growth, and these could be postponed, or run into delays, in a decelerating global economy.

The resetting of asset values in line with realistic growth prospects is probably not a bad outcome, though it will add to the demand shortfall in the short run. But uncertainty, lack of confidence, and policy paralysis or gridlock could easily cause value destruction to overshoot, inflicting extensive damage on all parts of the global economy.

This somewhat bleak picture could change, though probably not in the short run. Stability can return, but not until domestic policy in the advanced countries, together with international policy coordination, credibly shifts to restoring a pattern of inclusive growth, with fiscal stabilization carried out in a way that supports growth and employment.

In short, we confront two interacting problems: a global economy losing the struggle to restore growth and the absence of any credible policy response. Too many countries seem to be focused more on political outcomes than on economic performance. Markets are simply holding up a mirror to these flaws and risks.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/08/stagnant-and-paralyzed/

Fears of more violence after worst London riots for years| Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/us-britain-riot-idUSTRE7760G820110807

Fears of More Violence after Worst London Riots for Years

LONDON (Reuters) - London braced on Sunday for more violence after some of the worst riots in the British capital for years which politicians and police blamed on criminal thugs but residents attributed to local tensions and anger over hardship.

Rioters throwing petrol bombs rampaged overnight through the deprived district of Tottenham in north London, setting police patrol cars, buildings and a double-decker bus on fire.

"There is Twitter conversations that people are being asked to meet again down in Tottenham, so we are all concerned but clearly we will be much better prepared this evening," Richard Barnes, London's Deputy Mayor, told BBC TV.

Click here to read more.