10 June 2008
What is Really Spooking Wall Street - Policy Change is in the Wind
Although we certainly do not agree with all of his strawman proposals, its important to listen to the change that is in the wind as we stand on the cusp of the decline of Republican political power in the US.
There is little doubt, upon reflection, that Bush fiscal policy decisions have favored certain classes of Americans to the disadvantage of others, and fostered an imbalanced economy heavy on financial manipulation and anemic in real production.
We can expect a screaming hysteria as the new wave of politicians seek to overturn the status quo, with appeals to 'free markets' and 'less government' coming the loudest from those who have benefited the most in the corporatocracy which first the Clinton and then the Bush Administrations have cultivated.
Most Americans have only sound bytes of historical knowledge, if any: a slogan here, a memorized date there. If the next eight years are anything like we think they might be, like the changes that swept the nation in the administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln, then the next president may be both the most beloved and most reviled president in decades, depending on which side of the table that one sits.
For those with a certain detached frame of mind, we have ringside seats to history. And as for our practical instincts, times of change and crisis are times of volatility, fresh trends, and opportunity.
The world must rethink the sources of growth
Joseph Stiglitz
Tuesday, 10 June, 2008
NEW YORK: Around the world, protests against soaring food and fuel prices are mounting. The poor – and even the middle classes – are seeing their incomes squeezed as the global economy enters a slowdown. Politicians want to respond to their constituents’ legitimate concerns, but do not know what to do.
In the United States, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain took the easy way out, and supported a suspension of the gasoline tax, at least for the summer. Only Barack Obama stood his ground and rejected the proposal, which would have merely increased demand for gasoline – and thereby offset the effect of the tax cut.
But if Clinton and McCain were wrong, what should be done? One cannot simply ignore the pleas of those who are suffering. In the US, real middle-class incomes have not yet recovered to the levels attained before the last recession in 1991.
When George Bush was elected, he claimed that tax cuts for the rich would cure all the economy’s ailments. The benefits of tax-cut-fuelled growth would trickle down to all – policies that have become fashionable in Europe and elsewhere, but that have failed.
Tax cuts were supposed to stimulate savings, but household savings in the US have plummeted to zero. They were supposed to stimulate employment, but labour force participation is lower than in the 1990’s. What growth did occur benefited only the few at the top.
Productivity grew, for a while, but it wasn’t because of Wall Street financial innovations. The financial products being created didn’t manage risk; they enhanced risk. They were so non-transparent and complex that neither Wall Street nor the ratings agencies could properly assess them.
Meanwhile, the financial sector failed to create products that would help ordinary people manage the risks they faced, including the risks of home ownership. Millions of Americans will likely lose their homes and, with them, their life savings.
At the core of America’s success is technology, symbolised by Silicon Valley. The irony is that the scientists making the advances that enable technology-based growth, and the venture capital firms that finance it were not the ones reaping the biggest rewards in the heyday of the real estate bubble. These real investments are overshadowed by the games that have been absorbing most participants in financial markets.
The world needs to rethink the sources of growth. If the foundations of economic growth lie in advances in science and technology, not in speculation in real estate or financial markets, then tax systems must be realigned.
Why should those who make their income by gambling in Wall Street’s casinos be taxed at a lower rate than those who earn their money in other ways?
Capital gains should be taxed at least at as high a rate as ordinary income. (Such returns will, in any case, get a substantial benefit because the tax is not imposed until the gain is realised.) In addition, there should be a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies.
Given the huge increase in inequality in most countries, higher taxes for those who have done well – to help those who have lost ground from globalisation and technological change – are in order, and could also ameliorate the strains imposed by soaring food and energy prices.
Countries, like the US, with food stamp programmes clearly need to increase the value of these subsidies in order to ensure that nutrition standards do not deteriorate. Those countries without such programmes might think about instituting them.
Two factors set off today’s crisis: the Iraq war contributed to the run-up in oil prices, including through increased instability in the Middle East, the low cost provider of oil, while bio-fuels have meant that food and energy markets are increasingly integrated.
Although the focus on renewable energy sources is welcome, policies that distort food supply are not. America’s subsidies for corn-based ethanol contribute more to the coffers of ethanol producers than they do to curtailing global warming.
Huge agriculture subsidies in the US and the European Union have weakened agriculture in the developing world, where too little international assistance was directed at improving agriculture productivity.
Development aid for agriculture has fallen from a high of 17% of total aid to just 3% today, with some international donors demanding that fertiliser subsidies be eliminated, making it even more difficult for cash-strapped farmers to compete.
Rich countries must reduce, if not eliminate, distortional agriculture and energy policies, and help those in the poorest countries improve their capacity to produce food.
But this is just a start: we have treated our most precious resources – clean water and air – as if they were free. Only new patterns of consumption and production – a new economic model – can address that most fundamental resource problem. – Project Syndicate
Joseph E Stiglitz, Professor at Columbia University, received the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics. He is the co-author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict
US Trade Deficit Soars to Highest in a Year
Trade deficit jumps to highest level in 13 months
Tuesday June 10, 9:27 am ET
By Martin Crutsinger
AP Economics Writer
Trade deficit jumps to $60.9 billion in April, highest level in 13 months reflecting oil surge
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The trade deficit jumped to the highest level in 13 months in April as America's bill for foreign crude oil soared to an all-time high.
The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that the gap between what the nation imports and what it sells abroad rose by 7.8 percent to $60.9 billion, the largest imbalance since March 2007.
The growing deficit was driven by a $4.3 billion increase in crude oil imports, which jumped to a record $29.3 billion in April, as the average per barrel price rose to an all-time high.
The cost of oil imports are expected to climb further in coming months given that crude oil has continued its relentless rise.
U.S. export sales totaled $155.5 billion in April, up 3.3 percent to an all-time high, reflecting big gains in sales of commercial aircraft, farm machinery, medical equipment and computers. But this increase was swamped by a 4.5 percent rise in imports, which also set a record at $216.4 billion, reflecting the huge increase in oil as well as big gains in imports of autos and consumer goods.
The April deficit was $4.4 billion higher than the March imbalance of $56.5 billion.
The deficit through the first four months of this year is running at an annual rate of $707.5 billion, up slightly from last year's deficit of $700.3 billion, which was a 7 percent drop from 2006. The improvement last year came after the trade imbalance set records for five consecutive years.
Many economists are looking for the deficit to shrink again this year as a sharp economic slowdown in the United States cuts into consumer demand for imports and the weak dollar helps to boost U.S. exports.
The Bush administration has switched signals after tacitly accepting the decline in the dollar for years to help boost U.S. exports. Officials are now talking about the need for a stronger dollar, a reflection of the pain being inflicted on Americans by high gasoline prices. While a weak dollar makes U.S. exports more competitive on overseas markets, oil producers demand higher prices for crude oil, which is priced in dollars.
Heading to a weeklong visit to Europe on Monday, President Bush said the administration would like to see the dollar strengthen in value. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson pointedly said in a separate interview that the administration was taking no tools off the table that it might use to manage the dollar's value, including the use of government intervention to push the dollar's value higher. This administration has never intervened in currency markets in its seven years in office.
The politically sensitive deficit with China, which had fallen sharply in March, rose by 25.9 percent in April to $20.2 billion, reflecting higher imports of a wide range of Chinese products from cell phones to toys and games to televisions and other electrical appliances and clothing.
The United States and China will hold a fourth round of high-level talks on economic issues next week in Annapolis, Md., although there is little expectation of any breakthroughs on any of the various trade tensions that have been spawned by the surge in the deficit with China to all-time highs over the past several years.
The trade tensions with China have led to calls in Congress for adoption of punitive measures that would punish China for what critics see as unfair trade practices which have contributed to the loss of more than 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2001.
For April, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada, America's biggest trading partner, jumped by 18.6 percent to $7.6 billion, the highest level since January 2006.
The deficit with Mexico rose by 14.2 percent to $6.8 billion while the imbalance with the European Union increased 14 percent to $8.5 billion. The deficit with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries rose 10.5 percent to an all-time high of $15.6 billion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
