Thursday, May 15, 2003
I like Bob Graham, but Dennis Kucinich for President
In my fantasy world, in my idea of heaven on earth, Dennis Kucinich would be elected president. He is progressive, courageous, intelligent, quick on his feet and he has damn good ideas. Did I mention he was anti-war from the beginning? He wants to eliminate NAFTA and the WTO, and repeal the Patriot Act, and well, read for yourself this NPR transcript, or visit his website. Here is Kucinich on Crossfire, being interviewed by Robert Novak. Here is a taste of his ideas, from the NPR transcript:
BOB EDWARDS, host: Why are you running for president?
Rep. KUCINICH: I'm running for president to bring a new day to America, an administration which will focus on the social, the economic, the human needs of the people and use the resources of our country to make sure that all Americans have decent health care, to get rid of health care for profit, to make sure that when people are sick they can see a doctor, to make sure that no one in America is afraid to go to a doctor or to a hospital because they can't afford it. I want universal health care. I want to be president because I believe that it's important to have a full-employment economy, that we can get America back to work rebuilding our cities. We can get America back to work if we change our trade agreements and cancel NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization), which have really been responsible for America losing hundreds of thousands and even millions of jobs. I think that as the next president I can work to create a new manufacturing policy so we can get our steel, automotive and aerospace industries back to where they were as a mainstay of the American economy. As the next president, I believe that I can focus the resources of this country in education so that every young person from pre-kindergarten all the way through to a person who wants to complete college will have fully paid education. We have the resources in this country for health, for jobs, for education. We have the resources in this country to assure retirement security for all Americans. As president, I'd make sure that all plans for Social Security privatization were set aside, that the retirement age was taken back to 65, because people work all their lives. Often they're tired by the time they get into their 60s and some people want to retire. They should be able to retire at a full rate at age 65. So those are some of the areas where as president I would focus the economic resources of this country.
Furthermore, I think that this is a time that we need to talk about setting aside the Patriot Act. We've really sacrificed basic liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. And the ultimate terrorism in a democracy is the sacrifice of civil liberties.
BOB EDWARDS, host: Why are you running for president?
Rep. KUCINICH: I'm running for president to bring a new day to America, an administration which will focus on the social, the economic, the human needs of the people and use the resources of our country to make sure that all Americans have decent health care, to get rid of health care for profit, to make sure that when people are sick they can see a doctor, to make sure that no one in America is afraid to go to a doctor or to a hospital because they can't afford it. I want universal health care. I want to be president because I believe that it's important to have a full-employment economy, that we can get America back to work rebuilding our cities. We can get America back to work if we change our trade agreements and cancel NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the WTO (World Trade Organization), which have really been responsible for America losing hundreds of thousands and even millions of jobs. I think that as the next president I can work to create a new manufacturing policy so we can get our steel, automotive and aerospace industries back to where they were as a mainstay of the American economy. As the next president, I believe that I can focus the resources of this country in education so that every young person from pre-kindergarten all the way through to a person who wants to complete college will have fully paid education. We have the resources in this country for health, for jobs, for education. We have the resources in this country to assure retirement security for all Americans. As president, I'd make sure that all plans for Social Security privatization were set aside, that the retirement age was taken back to 65, because people work all their lives. Often they're tired by the time they get into their 60s and some people want to retire. They should be able to retire at a full rate at age 65. So those are some of the areas where as president I would focus the economic resources of this country.
Furthermore, I think that this is a time that we need to talk about setting aside the Patriot Act. We've really sacrificed basic liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. And the ultimate terrorism in a democracy is the sacrifice of civil liberties.
# posted by scorpiorising : 6:05 AM |
Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Vampire Nation
Oh boy, I guess I should have expected this, parents selling plasma to raise money for schools, but wow, no one could have provided a better metaphor for this time; those in power would have us bleed for their beliefs, wether in Eugene, Ore, in the selling of plasma for education, or the actual giving of our lives in Iraq. For these fanatics running our country, it will never be enough. They are vampires, intent on sucking the life blood of the people of this country for their own economic and political survival, intent on sucking the black blood of the land beneath the feet of the Iraqi people, for economic and political survival, and the red blood from their bodies if necessary. They will never have enough; they will never have enough. The metaphors are living. We are even giving our blood now. From ABCnews.com:
Concerned parents have always been ready to give a little of their time and energy to help their kids' schools, but it may be a sign of the times when people are offering to give up their summer — or even their blood.
The parents of children at a Eugene, Ore., school who tried to raise $30,000 to save a teacher's job by selling their blood plasma may be an extreme case, but parents, educators, school administrators and activists across the country say that it is indicative of what public schools, and the communities they serve, are facing.
"I don't want to say the house is on fire, but clearly states' budget problems and the proposed federal cuts pose an unprecedented problem," said Brenda Welburn of the National Association of State Boards of Education. "States have had problems before, but this is unprecedented because it is so pervasive across so many states."
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures study, states will have to close a $21.5 billion budget gap in the final two months of fiscal year 2003 to meet balanced budget requirements, and 41 states face a cumulative $78.4 billion budget gap in 2004.
That means cuts, and Welburn said schools will not be exempt. What she and others find most disturbing is that the ax is already falling on core programs, and that is a trend likely to continue. She said 21 states say they will cut or at least freeze some aspect of the pre-kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum.
Among the hardest-hit states next year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures study, could be Massachusetts, where schools could see cuts in state aid of up to 20 percent; Vermont, which is considering a $20 million reduction in general funds for schools; Connecticut, where the governor has recommended cuts totaling more than $200 million; and Georgia, where $156 million has been cut.
"This is a bigger budget crisis than we've faced in the past," said Howard Schaffer of the Public Education Network, a nonprofit organization that helps parents form groups to be more effective at fund raising and becoming involved in school affairs. "We've faced budget crises in the past that have affected schools' abilities to go from being good to being great, but this time it is affecting fundamental core instruction areas."
Concerned parents have always been ready to give a little of their time and energy to help their kids' schools, but it may be a sign of the times when people are offering to give up their summer — or even their blood.
The parents of children at a Eugene, Ore., school who tried to raise $30,000 to save a teacher's job by selling their blood plasma may be an extreme case, but parents, educators, school administrators and activists across the country say that it is indicative of what public schools, and the communities they serve, are facing.
"I don't want to say the house is on fire, but clearly states' budget problems and the proposed federal cuts pose an unprecedented problem," said Brenda Welburn of the National Association of State Boards of Education. "States have had problems before, but this is unprecedented because it is so pervasive across so many states."
According to a National Conference of State Legislatures study, states will have to close a $21.5 billion budget gap in the final two months of fiscal year 2003 to meet balanced budget requirements, and 41 states face a cumulative $78.4 billion budget gap in 2004.
That means cuts, and Welburn said schools will not be exempt. What she and others find most disturbing is that the ax is already falling on core programs, and that is a trend likely to continue. She said 21 states say they will cut or at least freeze some aspect of the pre-kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum.
Among the hardest-hit states next year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures study, could be Massachusetts, where schools could see cuts in state aid of up to 20 percent; Vermont, which is considering a $20 million reduction in general funds for schools; Connecticut, where the governor has recommended cuts totaling more than $200 million; and Georgia, where $156 million has been cut.
"This is a bigger budget crisis than we've faced in the past," said Howard Schaffer of the Public Education Network, a nonprofit organization that helps parents form groups to be more effective at fund raising and becoming involved in school affairs. "We've faced budget crises in the past that have affected schools' abilities to go from being good to being great, but this time it is affecting fundamental core instruction areas."
# posted by scorpiorising : 5:06 PM |
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
The Philosophy of Disaster
Richard Scheer, columnist for the LA Times, says we have reason to fear our own country more than any other at this time. In his latest column, he says:
"In its latest bid to frighten the planet into a constant state of shock and awe, our government is accelerating its own leading-edge weapons-of-mass-destruction program: President Bush's allies on the Senate Armed Services Committee have approved ending a decade-old ban on developing atomic battlefield weapons and endorsed moving ahead with creating a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. They also rubber-stamped the administration's request for funds to prepare for a quick resumption of nuclear weapons testing.
What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy — millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned...
Building a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons sets the stage for another round of the most dangerous arms race imaginable. What has been forgotten in all of the patriotic hoopla is that it is our country that pioneered the creation of weapons of mass destruction over the last half-century. And it was our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that sparked the arms race of the Cold War.
Then I found this article, from TomPaine.commonsense, by Jim Lobe, who also writes for the Foreign Policy in Focus , concerning the influence of a German, Jewish, political philosopher, Leo Strauss, whose writings are currently in vogue in the Executive branch and the with the military hawkes.
This is the philosophy of Strauss that seems to coorespond with the push to develop a winnable nuclear war:
"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive)," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy."
Strauss argued for the need for deception when carrying out state policy, because the leaders of the "democracy" know what is best for its citizens. (Is this why the fucking Patriot Acts?)
Strauss encouraged the encouragement of religion, and was not a great believer in the seperation of church and state. Religion served a purpose as a glue that can hold society together. Yet Strauss did not believe there was any moral good in the world, and did not believe in God. This man must have been the ultimate cynic, yet also very self contradictory. He believed that most people are wicked; that is why the need for a strong government. If he didn't believe in God, I wonder what force could be behind this wickedness, in his universe?
Here is what Lobe wrote:
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits which may encourage dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty," according to Drury.
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. "Because mankind is intrinscially wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united -- and they can only be united against other people."
"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the evil empire poses a threat to America's inner stability."
As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often told the story by Jonathan Swift of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
In many ways, this demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-à-vis the rest of the world.
Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for deception by elites, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," she said.
"In its latest bid to frighten the planet into a constant state of shock and awe, our government is accelerating its own leading-edge weapons-of-mass-destruction program: President Bush's allies on the Senate Armed Services Committee have approved ending a decade-old ban on developing atomic battlefield weapons and endorsed moving ahead with creating a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb. They also rubber-stamped the administration's request for funds to prepare for a quick resumption of nuclear weapons testing.
What's going on here? Having failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the U.S. is now using the "war on terror" to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a "winnable nuclear war," as the president's father memorably described it to me in a 1980 Times interview. In such a scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy — millions of dead civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned...
Building a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons sets the stage for another round of the most dangerous arms race imaginable. What has been forgotten in all of the patriotic hoopla is that it is our country that pioneered the creation of weapons of mass destruction over the last half-century. And it was our dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, that sparked the arms race of the Cold War.
Then I found this article, from TomPaine.commonsense, by Jim Lobe, who also writes for the Foreign Policy in Focus , concerning the influence of a German, Jewish, political philosopher, Leo Strauss, whose writings are currently in vogue in the Executive branch and the with the military hawkes.
This is the philosophy of Strauss that seems to coorespond with the push to develop a winnable nuclear war:
"In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive)," said Drury. "In that respect, it's very Spartan. Peace leads to decadence. Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in." Such views naturally lead to an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy."
Strauss argued for the need for deception when carrying out state policy, because the leaders of the "democracy" know what is best for its citizens. (Is this why the fucking Patriot Acts?)
Strauss encouraged the encouragement of religion, and was not a great believer in the seperation of church and state. Religion served a purpose as a glue that can hold society together. Yet Strauss did not believe there was any moral good in the world, and did not believe in God. This man must have been the ultimate cynic, yet also very self contradictory. He believed that most people are wicked; that is why the need for a strong government. If he didn't believe in God, I wonder what force could be behind this wickedness, in his universe?
Here is what Lobe wrote:
"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits which may encourage dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty," according to Drury.
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism. "Because mankind is intrinscially wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united -- and they can only be united against other people."
"Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured. Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the evil empire poses a threat to America's inner stability."
As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often told the story by Jonathan Swift of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."
In many ways, this demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-à-vis the rest of the world.
Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for deception by elites, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," she said.
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:32 PM |
Monday, May 12, 2003
Bob Graham on a Possible Cover-up
If Bob Graham, democrat from Florida and running for president, has the balls to take on the Bushies head to head, he might not make such a bad president, and he will certainly keep things stirred up and interesting.
Graham has excellent credentials to speak about any sort of cover-up regarding 9/11. He is a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. Folks, you can't get more qualified than this.
In this article by the Ledger.com, Graham states, "Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish."
Sadly and ironically enough, there was an attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia today, with casualties. Secretary of State Colin Powell is set to visit Saudi Arabia next. The attackers are linked to Bin Laden.
Here is his belief of a cover-up regarding the 9/11 investigation, from the Ledger.com :
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., on Sunday accused the Bush administration of engaging in a "cover-up" of intelligence failures before and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to shield it from embarrassment, and said the war with Iraq has allowed alQaida and other terrorist groups to become a greater threat to Americans than ever before.
Graham, a presidential candidate and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also accused the administration of jeopardizing the safety of Americans by blocking the release of a landmark congressional report on the government failures that preceded the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And he said the White House has withheld from the public important information about the continued existence of terrorist cells in the United States -- including some with ties to foreign governments that the United States has been afraid to go after.
"By continuing to classify that information . . . the American people have been denied important information for their own protection, for the protection of the communities," Graham said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"Local agencies have been denied information that would help them be more effective. First-responders and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable," Graham said, adding: "I call that a cover-up."
Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish.
But Sunday's remarks appeared to be the first time that Graham has publicly accused the White House of trying to cover up such ongoing threats -- and its own intelligence failures -- by refusing to declassify information about them.
Graham said he was basing his accusations on classified information he has received as a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks."
Graham has excellent credentials to speak about any sort of cover-up regarding 9/11. He is a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. Folks, you can't get more qualified than this.
In this article by the Ledger.com, Graham states, "Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish."
Sadly and ironically enough, there was an attack on Americans in Saudi Arabia today, with casualties. Secretary of State Colin Powell is set to visit Saudi Arabia next. The attackers are linked to Bin Laden.
Here is his belief of a cover-up regarding the 9/11 investigation, from the Ledger.com :
"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., on Sunday accused the Bush administration of engaging in a "cover-up" of intelligence failures before and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to shield it from embarrassment, and said the war with Iraq has allowed alQaida and other terrorist groups to become a greater threat to Americans than ever before.
Graham, a presidential candidate and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also accused the administration of jeopardizing the safety of Americans by blocking the release of a landmark congressional report on the government failures that preceded the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And he said the White House has withheld from the public important information about the continued existence of terrorist cells in the United States -- including some with ties to foreign governments that the United States has been afraid to go after.
"By continuing to classify that information . . . the American people have been denied important information for their own protection, for the protection of the communities," Graham said on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"Local agencies have been denied information that would help them be more effective. First-responders and the American people do not have the information upon which they can hold the administration and responsible agencies accountable," Graham said, adding: "I call that a cover-up."
Even before announcing his candidacy for president last week, Graham had been outspoken in criticizing the Bush administration's record on counterterrorism, saying its focus on war with Iraq has allowed alQaida to regroup and Hezbollah and other terrorist networks to flourish.
But Sunday's remarks appeared to be the first time that Graham has publicly accused the White House of trying to cover up such ongoing threats -- and its own intelligence failures -- by refusing to declassify information about them.
Graham said he was basing his accusations on classified information he has received as a ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and as a leader of last year's joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks."
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:23 PM |
Liquidity Trap
Paul Krugman explains, in short terms, the liquidity trap, which is the trap the Japanese economy has fallen into, and is very difficult to climb out of. Here Paul Krugman explains the liquidity trap in long terms, if you are so inclined to read it. (Click on "economic theory" to the left on his blog, and scroll down). Basically, if I would choose one word to describe the liquidity trap, it would be deflation. However, it must be deflation following years of economic downturn, deflation out of control. Funny that in our economy, what consumers ought to be celebrating, lowered prices, deflation occurs at a time when consumers don't have the money to, consume. Very ironic, this economy.
Here is another article by Daniel Altman for the New York Times, entitled Feds Starting to Fret Over Falling Prices. I'll include this article on my site, as the NYT is difficult to access. In my view though, liquidity trap means loss of jobs for the already suffering working poor, for whom finding adequate affordable housing and health care is always, liquidity or no liquidity, a difficult challenge:
"In deciding this week to keep short-term interest rates at 1.25 percent, the Federal Reserve Board warned of "an unwelcome substantial fall in inflation." The topic also came up at its March meeting, according to minutes released yesterday. Economists have been talking about the dangers of falling prices for several months, but why did the Fed take note now?
First of all, some experts believe that the risk of deflation has increased of late. Commodity prices have been dropping for years, but now energy prices, after a spike leading up to the war in Iraq, have also slipped.
Most important, however, is the absence of an engine to drive the economy forward. With weak demand, prices could begin to fall in widespread fashion.
Ethan S. Harris, the chief economist of Lehman Brothers, puts the chance of broad deflation in the near future at about 25 percent. "You need weak economic activity for one and a half or two years" for deflation to occur, he said. "You never get the boom that's going to heal the economy."
Another concern is that the Fed is running out of leverage against deflation.
Though it took no action on Tuesday, several Wall Street banks expect it to cut short-term interest rates to 0.75 percent before July. As short-term rates edge closer to zero, expanding the money supply — the method the Fed uses for lowering rates — might have little effect on the ease of obtaining credit. Interest rates could not fall below zero, after all. Economists call this state of affairs a liquidity trap.
"It's right for the Fed to be concerned about it and talking about it," said Laurence M. Ball, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. "The key thing to look at is not any particular price level, but the interest rate. When it hits zero, then you're in trouble."
Professor Ball did not predict that interest rates would fall to zero, but he warned that an unexpected shock to the economy could be more damaging with rates so low."When you're walking along the side of a cliff, the closer you are to it, the more dangerous it is," he said. "There's no particular chance you're going to fall off it, but there's always the chance you'll get jostled."
Falling prices might not sound like such a bad thing, at least from a consumer's point of view. Moreover, deflation can be a side effect of a healthy economic development, like the surges in efficiency that have steadily lowered the prices of personal computers.
But what the Fed is worried about now, the experts said, is deflation arising as a symptom of the economy's frailty. And falling prices could cause some real problems by themselves.
For example, rapid deflation can cause a huge redistribution of income and wealth from debtors to creditors, said Willem H. Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.
When prices are expected to fall, interest rates tend to fall, too. If prices are lower tomorrow than they are today, a dollar will be worth more tomorrow in terms of what it can buy. And the more borrowers think that prices will fall in the future, the less they will be willing to pay in interest on loans. Similarly, existing loans with fixed interest rates become more valuable to lenders — and more onerous to borrowers — as prices fall.
"That kind of redistribution is often very painful because it causes all sort of distress," Mr. Buiter said, like corporate insolvencies and defaults by banks.
Deflation can also cause problems for companies with fairly inflexible costs of doing business, Mr. Harris said. "The auto industry has a pretty rigid cost structure, and obviously they'd like to see some inflation in the economy," he said. "Instead, what they're getting is they have to keep cutting the prices of their vehicles."
Mr. Harris also said expectations for deflation — if not brought on by a "productivity revolution" that makes the economy much more efficient — could themselves perpetuate economic weakness. If people think prices will fall in the future, they will postpone purchases. After two years of weakness, he said, "we already have a little element of the deflation psychology in the economy."
Some economists have also argued that falling prices for goods and services could lead to falling wages — something workers might find intolerable. But Professor Ball said there was little evidence to support that idea. "There has actually been a number of studies in the past few years looking at wages, and finding that wages do fall in certain crcumstances and there doesn't seem to be such a taboo about it."
The consequences of deflation are on display, of course, in Japan which has experienced deflation for the last three years after a decade of economic weakness. Japan's troubles began in 1990 when a huge crash in prices of real estate and securities suddenly depressed the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend. In the midst of deflation, short-term interest rates eventually fell to zero, largely handcuffing the central bank.
Well aware of Japan's striking example, the Fed's governors have been barnstorming the country in recent months to assure the public that, even with low interest rates, they still have tools to fight deflation. In a speech in December, the Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, said the Fed could buy Treasury bonds with long maturities to drive down long-term interest rates. In January, a Fed governor, Edward M. Gramlich, said that with interest rates at zero, a rapid expansion in the money supply might still be enough to stop deflation.
But some economists have remained skeptical.
"It's probably a good thing for them to say, `Oh, don't worry, we have a lot of tools to deal with it,' " Professor Ball said. "That bolsters confidence, and is maybe good for the economy. Having said that, I'm not sure it's true that they have lots of tools. If there were any really obvious tools that the central banks could use to get you right out of a liquidity trap, Japan would have done it."
In fact, both Mr. Buiter and Professor Ball argued that in situations like Japan's, central banks should make way for the lawmakers who control taxes and spending.
"It is always both technically and politically dead easy to stop deflation and get rid of it, if you don't want it," Mr. Buiter said. "It is not necessary for these things to persist. The government should immediately prime the pump and send the checks to all deserving and undeserving Americans."
Professor Ball agreed. "The textbook solution to a liquidity trap is a fiscal expansion, and there's every reason to think that would work." In a situation of low demand and deflation, he said, "before too long, enough political pressure would build up for a big fiscal expansion."
Unfortunately for Japan, this escape plan was hard to carry out. Japan's overwhelming debt burden limited the government's ability to cut taxes or spend money. And its problems ran deeper than weak demand and deflation.
"Deflation is kind of the icing on the cake," Mr. Harris said. "The big problem in Japan is the big failure to deal with the problems in the banking system. No stimulative policy is going to work if your financial system isn't functioning — if the process of getting funds from savers to borrowers breaks down."
The United States, the experts said, is not mired in similar straits. The financial system is healthy, and, Mr. Buiter pointed out, the boom and bust in asset markets was far smaller in the United States than in Japan.
"Real estate and house prices never went on the kind of walkabout that they did in Japan," he said. "There is no parallel between what Japan has been going through for the last 10 years- plus now and what lies in store for the United States."
Professor Ball added that the government here had more latitude to fight deflation in the event of a liquidity trap. "Even though our long-term fiscal situation is not great, it's not as bad as Japan's," he said.
On that point, however, Mr. Harris was not equally sanguine. "When you get into a deflation environment and you're trying to get the economy going, there aren't any really easy solutions," he said. "Usually when you get to deflation, you already have a significant budget deficit. That's in fact true for the U.S."
Here is another article by Daniel Altman for the New York Times, entitled Feds Starting to Fret Over Falling Prices. I'll include this article on my site, as the NYT is difficult to access. In my view though, liquidity trap means loss of jobs for the already suffering working poor, for whom finding adequate affordable housing and health care is always, liquidity or no liquidity, a difficult challenge:
"In deciding this week to keep short-term interest rates at 1.25 percent, the Federal Reserve Board warned of "an unwelcome substantial fall in inflation." The topic also came up at its March meeting, according to minutes released yesterday. Economists have been talking about the dangers of falling prices for several months, but why did the Fed take note now?
First of all, some experts believe that the risk of deflation has increased of late. Commodity prices have been dropping for years, but now energy prices, after a spike leading up to the war in Iraq, have also slipped.
Most important, however, is the absence of an engine to drive the economy forward. With weak demand, prices could begin to fall in widespread fashion.
Ethan S. Harris, the chief economist of Lehman Brothers, puts the chance of broad deflation in the near future at about 25 percent. "You need weak economic activity for one and a half or two years" for deflation to occur, he said. "You never get the boom that's going to heal the economy."
Another concern is that the Fed is running out of leverage against deflation.
Though it took no action on Tuesday, several Wall Street banks expect it to cut short-term interest rates to 0.75 percent before July. As short-term rates edge closer to zero, expanding the money supply — the method the Fed uses for lowering rates — might have little effect on the ease of obtaining credit. Interest rates could not fall below zero, after all. Economists call this state of affairs a liquidity trap.
"It's right for the Fed to be concerned about it and talking about it," said Laurence M. Ball, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. "The key thing to look at is not any particular price level, but the interest rate. When it hits zero, then you're in trouble."
Professor Ball did not predict that interest rates would fall to zero, but he warned that an unexpected shock to the economy could be more damaging with rates so low."When you're walking along the side of a cliff, the closer you are to it, the more dangerous it is," he said. "There's no particular chance you're going to fall off it, but there's always the chance you'll get jostled."
Falling prices might not sound like such a bad thing, at least from a consumer's point of view. Moreover, deflation can be a side effect of a healthy economic development, like the surges in efficiency that have steadily lowered the prices of personal computers.
But what the Fed is worried about now, the experts said, is deflation arising as a symptom of the economy's frailty. And falling prices could cause some real problems by themselves.
For example, rapid deflation can cause a huge redistribution of income and wealth from debtors to creditors, said Willem H. Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.
When prices are expected to fall, interest rates tend to fall, too. If prices are lower tomorrow than they are today, a dollar will be worth more tomorrow in terms of what it can buy. And the more borrowers think that prices will fall in the future, the less they will be willing to pay in interest on loans. Similarly, existing loans with fixed interest rates become more valuable to lenders — and more onerous to borrowers — as prices fall.
"That kind of redistribution is often very painful because it causes all sort of distress," Mr. Buiter said, like corporate insolvencies and defaults by banks.
Deflation can also cause problems for companies with fairly inflexible costs of doing business, Mr. Harris said. "The auto industry has a pretty rigid cost structure, and obviously they'd like to see some inflation in the economy," he said. "Instead, what they're getting is they have to keep cutting the prices of their vehicles."
Mr. Harris also said expectations for deflation — if not brought on by a "productivity revolution" that makes the economy much more efficient — could themselves perpetuate economic weakness. If people think prices will fall in the future, they will postpone purchases. After two years of weakness, he said, "we already have a little element of the deflation psychology in the economy."
Some economists have also argued that falling prices for goods and services could lead to falling wages — something workers might find intolerable. But Professor Ball said there was little evidence to support that idea. "There has actually been a number of studies in the past few years looking at wages, and finding that wages do fall in certain crcumstances and there doesn't seem to be such a taboo about it."
The consequences of deflation are on display, of course, in Japan which has experienced deflation for the last three years after a decade of economic weakness. Japan's troubles began in 1990 when a huge crash in prices of real estate and securities suddenly depressed the willingness of consumers and businesses to spend. In the midst of deflation, short-term interest rates eventually fell to zero, largely handcuffing the central bank.
Well aware of Japan's striking example, the Fed's governors have been barnstorming the country in recent months to assure the public that, even with low interest rates, they still have tools to fight deflation. In a speech in December, the Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, said the Fed could buy Treasury bonds with long maturities to drive down long-term interest rates. In January, a Fed governor, Edward M. Gramlich, said that with interest rates at zero, a rapid expansion in the money supply might still be enough to stop deflation.
But some economists have remained skeptical.
"It's probably a good thing for them to say, `Oh, don't worry, we have a lot of tools to deal with it,' " Professor Ball said. "That bolsters confidence, and is maybe good for the economy. Having said that, I'm not sure it's true that they have lots of tools. If there were any really obvious tools that the central banks could use to get you right out of a liquidity trap, Japan would have done it."
In fact, both Mr. Buiter and Professor Ball argued that in situations like Japan's, central banks should make way for the lawmakers who control taxes and spending.
"It is always both technically and politically dead easy to stop deflation and get rid of it, if you don't want it," Mr. Buiter said. "It is not necessary for these things to persist. The government should immediately prime the pump and send the checks to all deserving and undeserving Americans."
Professor Ball agreed. "The textbook solution to a liquidity trap is a fiscal expansion, and there's every reason to think that would work." In a situation of low demand and deflation, he said, "before too long, enough political pressure would build up for a big fiscal expansion."
Unfortunately for Japan, this escape plan was hard to carry out. Japan's overwhelming debt burden limited the government's ability to cut taxes or spend money. And its problems ran deeper than weak demand and deflation.
"Deflation is kind of the icing on the cake," Mr. Harris said. "The big problem in Japan is the big failure to deal with the problems in the banking system. No stimulative policy is going to work if your financial system isn't functioning — if the process of getting funds from savers to borrowers breaks down."
The United States, the experts said, is not mired in similar straits. The financial system is healthy, and, Mr. Buiter pointed out, the boom and bust in asset markets was far smaller in the United States than in Japan.
"Real estate and house prices never went on the kind of walkabout that they did in Japan," he said. "There is no parallel between what Japan has been going through for the last 10 years- plus now and what lies in store for the United States."
Professor Ball added that the government here had more latitude to fight deflation in the event of a liquidity trap. "Even though our long-term fiscal situation is not great, it's not as bad as Japan's," he said.
On that point, however, Mr. Harris was not equally sanguine. "When you get into a deflation environment and you're trying to get the economy going, there aren't any really easy solutions," he said. "Usually when you get to deflation, you already have a significant budget deficit. That's in fact true for the U.S."
# posted by scorpiorising : 4:16 PM |
Sunday, May 11, 2003
James Woolsey, former CIA boss, busy
Whew, I was really worried about another of Bush's cronies making a living in this post-euphoric economic market, but I need worry no longer, because James Woolsey, in the words of the Guardian Unlimited, former CIA boss and influential adviser to President George Bush, is a director of a US firm aiming to make millions of dollars from the 'war on terror', The Observer can reveal.
I have to hand to 'em, these hawkes are good at hawking their need for security philosophy for lots 'a bucks.
"Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'."
And I mean, big bucks:
Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US government will spend $60 billion on anti-terrorism that woul not have been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack.
Dare we say, "conflict of interest", in Woolsey's attempt to pin the anthrax attacks on Saddam Hussein:
"In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe, where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator."
There was Woolsey, with official sanction from this administration, hawking their beliefs on the need for war with Iraq, making money from this professed need from increased security. Now I'm not arguing that we don't need heightened security after 9/11, but I don't want those private entities who are providing security to also be dictating our foreign or domestic policies. Seems reasonable to ask for the seperation of corporations and state. Oh, I forgot, Alice is is Wonderland.
I have to hand to 'em, these hawkes are good at hawking their need for security philosophy for lots 'a bucks.
"Woolsey, one of the most high-profile hawks in the war against Iraq and a key member of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, is a director of the Washington-based private equity firm Paladin Capital. The company was set up three months after the terrorist attacks on New York and sees the events and aftermath of September 11 as a business opportunity which 'offer[s] substantial promise for homeland security investment'."
And I mean, big bucks:
Paladin, which is expected to have raised $300 million from investors by the end of this year, calculates that in the next few years the US government will spend $60 billion on anti-terrorism that woul not have been spent before September 11, and that corporations will spend twice that amount to ensure their security and continuity in case of attack.
Dare we say, "conflict of interest", in Woolsey's attempt to pin the anthrax attacks on Saddam Hussein:
"In 2001 US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz sent Woolsey to Europe, where he argued the case for links existing between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. He was one of the main proponents of the theory that the anthrax letter attacks in America were supported by Iraq's former dictator."
There was Woolsey, with official sanction from this administration, hawking their beliefs on the need for war with Iraq, making money from this professed need from increased security. Now I'm not arguing that we don't need heightened security after 9/11, but I don't want those private entities who are providing security to also be dictating our foreign or domestic policies. Seems reasonable to ask for the seperation of corporations and state. Oh, I forgot, Alice is is Wonderland.
# posted by scorpiorising : 9:38 AM |
Links
- Google News
- HOME
- Contact Me
- WAR CASUALTIES(MY OTHER BLOG)
- BAGHDAD BURNING
- UNQUALIFIED OFFERINGS
- JUAN COLE*INFORMED COMMENT*
- BRAD DELONG
- TOMPAINE.COM
- THE DAILY HOWLER
- DISSENT MAGAZINE
- CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY
- BLAH3.COM
- BLACK SUNDAE
- WAMPUM
- ESCHATON
- ARMS AND THE MAN
- MILL ON LIBERTY
- GERMANY IN WORLD WAR 2
- VEILED 4 ALLAH
- BUSY, BUSY, BUSY
- UNENVIABLE SITUATION
- HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD
- MATTHEW GROSS
- WHISKEY BAR
- WAR AND PIECE
- DAILY KOS
- GREG PALAST
- BLACK COMMENTATOR
- SURPRISING PATTERN OF FLORIDA'S ELECTION RESULTS
- THE BRAD BLOG
- THE OPEN VOTING CONSORTIUM
- BLACK BOX VOTING
- THE FREE PRESS
- VOTERGATE.TV
- STOLEN ELECTION. AMERICA HIJACKED
- An examination of the Florida election
- blueflu.us
- U.S. Election Controversies and Irregularities
- MY DD
- SEEING THE FOREST
- THERE IS NO CRISIS
- VELVET REVOLUTION
- 02/02/2003 - 02/09/2003
- 02/09/2003 - 02/16/2003
- 02/16/2003 - 02/23/2003
- 02/23/2003 - 03/02/2003
- 03/02/2003 - 03/09/2003
- 03/09/2003 - 03/16/2003
- 03/16/2003 - 03/23/2003
- 03/23/2003 - 03/30/2003
- 03/30/2003 - 04/06/2003
- 04/06/2003 - 04/13/2003
- 04/13/2003 - 04/20/2003
- 04/20/2003 - 04/27/2003
- 04/27/2003 - 05/04/2003
- 05/04/2003 - 05/11/2003
- 05/11/2003 - 05/18/2003
- 05/18/2003 - 05/25/2003
- 05/25/2003 - 06/01/2003
- 06/01/2003 - 06/08/2003
- 06/08/2003 - 06/15/2003
- 06/15/2003 - 06/22/2003
- 06/22/2003 - 06/29/2003
- 06/29/2003 - 07/06/2003
- 07/06/2003 - 07/13/2003
- 07/13/2003 - 07/20/2003
- 07/20/2003 - 07/27/2003
- 07/27/2003 - 08/03/2003
- 08/03/2003 - 08/10/2003
- 08/10/2003 - 08/17/2003
- 08/17/2003 - 08/24/2003
- 09/07/2003 - 09/14/2003
- 09/14/2003 - 09/21/2003
- 09/21/2003 - 09/28/2003
- 09/28/2003 - 10/05/2003
- 10/05/2003 - 10/12/2003
- 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003
- 10/19/2003 - 10/26/2003
- 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003
- 11/02/2003 - 11/09/2003
- 11/09/2003 - 11/16/2003
- 11/16/2003 - 11/23/2003
- 11/23/2003 - 11/30/2003
- 11/30/2003 - 12/07/2003
- 12/14/2003 - 12/21/2003
- 01/11/2004 - 01/18/2004
- 01/18/2004 - 01/25/2004
- 01/25/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 02/08/2004
- 02/08/2004 - 02/15/2004
- 02/22/2004 - 02/29/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/30/2004
- 09/26/2004 - 10/03/2004
- 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004
- 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004
- 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004
- 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004
- 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004
- 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004
- 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004
- 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004
- 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004
- 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004
- 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004
- 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005
- 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005
- 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005
- 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005
- 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005
- 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005
- 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005
- 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005
- 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005
- 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005
- 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005
- 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005
- 03/27/2005 - 04/03/2005
- 04/03/2005 - 04/10/2005
- 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005
- 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005
- 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005
- 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005