NYT: America's Truth Deficit

[mcscajun]

By WILLIAM GREIDER
Published: July 18, 2005

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

(snip)

But on the crucial question of how policy makers define "national interest," Washington stands alone. Western Europe, whatever its problems, manages economic policy to maintain modest trade surpluses. Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions (its export income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers). China strives to acquire a larger, more advanced industrial base at the expense of worker incomes and bank profits. Germany and Japan, despite vast differences, both manage to keep advanced manufacturing sectors anchored at home and to defend domestic wage levels and social guarantees. When they do disperse production and jobs overseas, as they must, they do so strategically.

(snip)

The United States is thus especially vulnerable to the downward pressures on working-class wages that exist on both ends of the global system. American producers are generally free - and even encouraged by Washington - to shift production to low-wage locations. Companies regularly use this cost-cutting technique as a competitive weapon without regard to the domestic consequences. The practice works for companies and investors, but not so well for a nation.

...

William Greider, the national affairs columnist of The Nation, is the author of "One World, Ready or Not."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?pagewanted=1

[90-percent]

1. nice article

articulates my fears about the mythical great America, and how fragile our very existance as a nation now stands, thanks to our leadership and corporatism.

-85%

[necso]

2. A better descriptor, perhaps, is pseudo-utopian.

Familiarity with the workings of human nature (and human society) and appreciation of what the rigid orthodoxy of both "Communists" and "free-traders" is an indicator of (of a cult in no small part -- and in part, typically, that "true believers" are looking out for their own interests, if only in the form of hoping to be recognized and rewarded for faithfully serving their masters), hints that both "belief systems" (scams) are likely (in practice) to lead to the (further) empowerment of an elite -- and the disempowerment (or lack of empowerment) of the many, including "believers".

Of course, both these belief systems are utopian in that they are both incapable of being realized in the real world -- that is, incapable of being realized in the forms that they (can be seen to) take as cover for their attainable (and, arguably, their actually intended) objectives.

And no criticism is intended of this fine piece.

[MissMarple]

3. When will we mature as a people and understand unregulated capitalism...

does us no favors. The libertarians and the coporatists are ruining the republic. but I guess as long as school kids say the Pledge and we all revere our flag as a holy relic, everything is just all hunky dory.

[gatorboy]

4. If they admit there's a problem, our government fears it shows we're weak.

The arrogance of our businesses and government will destroy this country...

[MissMarple]

11. I read something similar today in one of the newspapers.

The article referenced the old USSR and how the old guard couldn't address the reality that their society was crumbling from within, the concern is that we are doing the same fiscally, but the powers that be refuse to face the facts and correct course because they would have to admit failure of policies fed by bad philosophy.

oops, that was right here (head banging moment, it's been a long day :) ).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?pagewanted=1

[Extend a Hand]

6. unregulated capitalism

would be a great improvement over the current system of coporate welfare at the individual taxpayers expense. (But I don't want unregulated capitalism, either)

[idlisambar]

5. good article from Greider...

with one major point of contention...

Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions (its export income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers).

First, Japan maintains large trade surpluses whether both in recessions and periods of economic growth.

Second, the idea that Japan has "inefficient domestic employers" is an oft-repeated myth. By any reasonable measure Japanese domestic employers are typically more efficient. For example, the amount of manpower employed in such industries as financial services and advertising is much lower. The same can be said of the manpower needed to maintain law and order -- the number of police officers, prison employees, and legal professionals employed is many fewer on a proportional basis than the U.S. ; moreover Japan gets better results on this front. The most glaring example is healthcare where Japan by almost any metric is the healthiest society on Earth, and yet total health care expenditures are only about 7% of GDP as opposed to 14% in the U.S.

Grieder in fact has it backwards. As a matter of national policy certain consumer goods are pricier than they would be otherwise so that the difference can be directed as subsidies to Japan's export oriented industries.

[Rebellious Republican]

7. In other words...

Henry Ford "I need to pay my employees enough so they can buy the cars I make."

:banghead:

[mcscajun]

9. Damn straight!

Would that a few dozen CEO's could be roped into chairs and have that kind of mantra drilled into their little Pea Brains.

[bvar22]

8. YES, yes, and YES!!!!

Outsourcing our skilled jobs, relocating Heavy Industry overseas,"Offshoring Taxable Income", and removing "the barriers to trade" ARE a DIRECT THREAT to our National Security!!! The "Barriers to Trade" were put in place IN EVERY CASE to protect something valuable. What the "Free Traders really mean by removing the Barriers to Trade" is removing ALL regulation, public oversight, and accountability!

Only the RICH benefit!

[Peace Patriot]

10. When are we going to realize that these global corporations, who have

been chartered here by our own states, and many of whom remain chartered here, and who got their start here, often with enormous tax benefits and taxpayer subsidies, including outright subsidies and community infrastructure, and who were the beneficiaries of America's healthy, well-protected, hard working labor force and once great educational system, have no loyalty to the U.S. whatsoever, and, in many ways, are direct or indirect traitors to this country.

I believe that any corporation that is outsourcing jobs and moving production facilities to foreign soil, or contributing in any way to the destruction of our economy, or to the destruction of our planetary environment, should be severed at the roots here--de-chartered--and driven from our shores, and if they have already severed themselves, they should be forbidden to do business here. I also think that certain properties and resources that they hold should be seized and nationalized. I am so sick of these people! Enough is enough!

I am furthermore convinced that this is WHY they took away our right to vote--privatized the election system, with Bushite companies owning and controlling the SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code that tabulates all the votes. We have the most potential of any people in the world to bring these corporations to heel, and dismantle them, or put them back into the service of the "common good" that they were chartered for, in the first place. They cannot permit us to have democracy any more. Our vote is an extremely powerful item, by which we could rise up and begin acting in our own interests--and to further peace and justice in the world. They fear us greatly. Hence, the "Dieboldization" of our voting system.

We still have a chance to retrieve our right to vote, if we act quickly. It must be done at the state/local level, where power over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some say. Although the bipartisan corruption in our election systems (which have become big business deals) is an obstacle, the corruption in Washington DC is far more intractable than local corruption. (Congress is NEVER going to give us back our right to vote by reforming these election systems, and we should probably hope they stay out of it, because they could make it much worse.) Our local goals should be:

--paper ballots/hand counts (ideal)

or at the least

--a paper ballot backup to electronic systems, strict auditing and security, and open source code in all electronics.

Partisan activity (such as chairing Bush's campaign, and big donations to Bush/Cheney and to the Republican Party) by electronic voting machine companies should be forbidden. (I mean, really...it's absurd what they've done). Lavish lobbying and revolving door employment should also be forbidden.

Let's clean house! We must put our election system back into the public venue, and insure transparent, verifiable elections. We don't have that now--not even close.

(You know what the Carter Center said about our election system in 2004? They said that it did not meet MINIMUM international standards for transparency and verifiability, and they therefore COULD NOT monitor this election. "Land of the brave, home of the free"--can't even satisfy MINIMUM standards for fair elections! What a disgrace!)

[indepat]

12. All of W's chickens will come home to roost: you can trust me on this

one implicitly. Four more years, four more years clamor the throngs in idolatrous adulation.