Boom and Bust
This is a Prologue to a series of four articles called The Cost of Empire. The articles flow daily on the blog from here. The Whole Piece can be found here.-JT
Paul Krugman wrote an interesting piece yesterday on a subject I have been doing a lot of thinking on–The boom and bust nature of recent American capitalism.
These prolonged recession-like episodes probably reflect the changing nature of the business cycle. Earlier recessions were more or less deliberately engineered by the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates to control inflation. Modern slumps, by contrast, have been hangovers from bouts of irrational exuberance — the savings and loan free-for-all of the 1980s, the technology bubble of the 1990s and now the housing bubble.
Ending those old-fashioned recessions was easy because all the Fed had to do was relent. Ending modern slumps is much more difficult because the economy needs to find something to replace the burst bubble.
The chart at the top of this post is the S & P 500 for the last ten years. As you can clearly see, if you had all 
of your money in an index fund you would be right back to where you started from ten years ago. So it appears that the only way America can grow wealth is by creating low interest-fueled financial bubbles. Because our consumer spending (chart at left for the last 20 years), which is 70% of our GDP flucuatates in the same boom and bust cycle.
The next 6 months will be the most severe test of our bubble-driven economy as the Fed’s ability to lower interest rates is constrained by the inflationary pressures of high gas prices and the falling dollar. Although some have asserted that the rush of fast money into commodities is creating yet another bubble, it is not one that can be enjoyed by the average citizen, the way Internet stocks or flipping condos did in the last ten years. This fact actually increases social tensions as can be seen in the numerous congressional hearing investigating commodity speculation.
In classic economic terms, an economy ought to create enough surplus wealth to grow without resorting to excess borrowing–we ought to be able to live on what we earn. But since 1983, we have been unable to do that. So what differentiates the American economy from the rest of the developed world since 1983? The only rational answer is in the chart below. This is such an important subject that I’m going to devote the next few days on a series called “The Cost of Empire.” Those are words that contemporary politicians refuse to utter, but the fact that the DOD’s own inventory of worldwide bases is more than 189 pages long cannot lead one to any other conclusion than the American taxpayer is supporting the infrastructure of empire.
Jon, see
“The Next Bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
Jon, see
“The Next Bubble: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash: Priming the markets for tomorrow’s big crash”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
This is interesting and a little scary. I mean, having an economy like you describe and having debt in the trillions of dollars probably doesn’t help us much, either.
This is a great blog. I will be back
This is interesting and a little scary. I mean, having an economy like you describe and having debt in the trillions of dollars probably doesn’t help us much, either.
This is a great blog. I will be back
BobbyG,
Very interesting article. Perhaps the point that Saint Al Gore stands to benefit greatly from the alternative energy bubble predicted by Janszen may explain his urgency in getting us to the renewable energy future he called for in his speech this week.
BobbyG,
Very interesting article. Perhaps the point that Saint Al Gore stands to benefit greatly from the alternative energy bubble predicted by Janszen may explain his urgency in getting us to the renewable energy future he called for in his speech this week.
Eyeballing the chart, the US seems to spend more than the rest of the world combined. No wonder our infrastructure is, literally, collapsing.
Eyeballing the chart, the US seems to spend more than the rest of the world combined. No wonder our infrastructure is, literally, collapsing.
Eyeballing the chart, the US seems to spend more than the rest of the world combined. No wonder our infrastructure is, literally, collapsing.
@Patrick -
LOL!!
Look, some things are in fact true despite Al Gore having asserted them, and some things are in fact worthy notwithstanding his financial interest in them.
But, yeah, the article is instructive.
@Patrick -
LOL!!
Look, some things are in fact true despite Al Gore having asserted them, and some things are in fact worthy notwithstanding his financial interest in them.
But, yeah, the article is instructive.
BobbyG and Patrick- The Harpers article is good, but he takes it as a given that we will continue to invent new bubbles to survive. My question, played out over the next few days will be to ask why?
My assumption is that by siphoning off so much of our wealth to support our empire, we cannot retain enough internally generated capital to pay for things like schools, roads or even solar plants. Thus the need to borrow.
BobbyG and Patrick- The Harpers article is good, but he takes it as a given that we will continue to invent new bubbles to survive. My question, played out over the next few days will be to ask why?
My assumption is that by siphoning off so much of our wealth to support our empire, we cannot retain enough internally generated capital to pay for things like schools, roads or even solar plants. Thus the need to borrow.
In studying imperialism back in the 70’s I learned that 80% or more of a jet engine’s parts were made from 3rd world resources. Even this machine I use today has little except for the design from our shores. Empire since 83? read a Legacy of Ashes about the CIA and you might want to expand your time frame a little. After WWII we were in it for all the marbles and still are.
In studying imperialism back in the 70’s I learned that 80% or more of a jet engine’s parts were made from 3rd world resources. Even this machine I use today has little except for the design from our shores. Empire since 83? read a Legacy of Ashes about the CIA and you might want to expand your time frame a little. After WWII we were in it for all the marbles and still are.
Jon and BobbyG,
I do not dispute your assumptions at all. My first post was just a reaction to the heretofore unrealized (by me) connection between Al Gore’s speech and his obvious financial interest. That in no way lessens the value of his efforts.
I agree that the costs of maintaining our empire will make it very much more difficult for us to realize any form of energy independence through the sort of “Manhattan Project” most of the near-term energy independence scenarios require. I believe we are in real danger of becoming a hollow empire, with little but military might to sustain us, paid for by our global neighbors to provide a counterweight to other wanna-be superpowers. In other words, we become another, much bigger Blackwater.
Jon and BobbyG,
I do not dispute your assumptions at all. My first post was just a reaction to the heretofore unrealized (by me) connection between Al Gore’s speech and his obvious financial interest. That in no way lessens the value of his efforts.
I agree that the costs of maintaining our empire will make it very much more difficult for us to realize any form of energy independence through the sort of “Manhattan Project” most of the near-term energy independence scenarios require. I believe we are in real danger of becoming a hollow empire, with little but military might to sustain us, paid for by our global neighbors to provide a counterweight to other wanna-be superpowers. In other words, we become another, much bigger Blackwater.
Jon-
“My assumption is that by siphoning off so much of our wealth to support our empire, we cannot retain enough internally generated capital to pay for things like schools, roads or even solar plants. Thus the need to borrow.”
____
Ding, ding, ding.
It’s all pretty crazy, is it not?
Patrick -
“Manhattan Project”? We seem to have morphed into the “CAN’T do” nation. Maybe the threat of annihilation as yet looms too abstractly distant for us to agree politically to pull together. We’d prefer to sit back and await deliverance by “market forces” totally.
Dunno, man…
Jon-
“My assumption is that by siphoning off so much of our wealth to support our empire, we cannot retain enough internally generated capital to pay for things like schools, roads or even solar plants. Thus the need to borrow.”
____
Ding, ding, ding.
It’s all pretty crazy, is it not?
Patrick -
“Manhattan Project”? We seem to have morphed into the “CAN’T do” nation. Maybe the threat of annihilation as yet looms too abstractly distant for us to agree politically to pull together. We’d prefer to sit back and await deliverance by “market forces” totally.
Dunno, man…
Guys, stop pretending there isn’t a more obvious answer. Skipping it is weird.
We, just like the European states have been doing, are going to cut our social services, to get inflation under control. Medicaid will get cut deeper and harder than military as a projected percentage of the budget no matter who is president. It has too. It is about to grow out of control, more old people, means less spent on each one. We have to do more with less. Think of it this way, when we determined previous benefits we did it based on HOW MANY people needed it. IF we had a bigger demand for services years ago (lots more old people), we’d have guaranteed everyone less.
BTW, we currently have low interest rates. The next president will see those rates raised drastically if the government doesn’t cut spending. It is that simple.
Finally, we have plenty of booms left in the quiver.
Guys, stop pretending there isn’t a more obvious answer. Skipping it is weird.
We, just like the European states have been doing, are going to cut our social services, to get inflation under control. Medicaid will get cut deeper and harder than military as a projected percentage of the budget no matter who is president. It has too. It is about to grow out of control, more old people, means less spent on each one. We have to do more with less. Think of it this way, when we determined previous benefits we did it based on HOW MANY people needed it. IF we had a bigger demand for services years ago (lots more old people), we’d have guaranteed everyone less.
BTW, we currently have low interest rates. The next president will see those rates raised drastically if the government doesn’t cut spending. It is that simple.
Finally, we have plenty of booms left in the quiver.
Guys, stop pretending there isn’t a more obvious answer. Skipping it is weird.
We, just like the European states have been doing, are going to cut our social services, to get inflation under control. Medicaid will get cut deeper and harder than military as a projected percentage of the budget no matter who is president. It has too. It is about to grow out of control, more old people, means less spent on each one. We have to do more with less. Think of it this way, when we determined previous benefits we did it based on HOW MANY people needed it. IF we had a bigger demand for services years ago (lots more old people), we’d have guaranteed everyone less.
BTW, we currently have low interest rates. The next president will see those rates raised drastically if the government doesn’t cut spending. It is that simple.
Finally, we have plenty of booms left in the quiver.
Isn’t the whole point of “Empire” supposed to be the pillage, rape, and plunder of the colonies and outposts? Come on now, folks; we need to start stripping the countrysides of every place we have soldiers. They should be living off the land, billeting with civilians, and taking whatever they need from the populace of the conquered nations. And if we’re not there as conquerors, but rather by invitation of host “allies”, then they should pay for the troops we have there protecting them.
Let’s have a return to the proper economic principles of imperialism…or not play the game at all…
Isn’t the whole point of “Empire” supposed to be the pillage, rape, and plunder of the colonies and outposts? Come on now, folks; we need to start stripping the countrysides of every place we have soldiers. They should be living off the land, billeting with civilians, and taking whatever they need from the populace of the conquered nations. And if we’re not there as conquerors, but rather by invitation of host “allies”, then they should pay for the troops we have there protecting them.
Let’s have a return to the proper economic principles of imperialism…or not play the game at all…
Y’know, you have to wonder just why we still have dozens of military bases in Europe. I mean, while I was a junior officer in the Air Force, stationed in England, there was a palpable threat of having the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact toadies stream through the Fulda Gap and press on to the Rhine River by lunch time. (The 1968 Soviet incursion into Czechoslovakia scared the bejeezus out of those of us stationed in Europe at the time). That, at least, was the theory. In practice, … I’m just glad it never came to practice. But now? The Russian Army fighting its way through their former Warsaw Pact allies just to get to the Fulda Gap? I don’t think so. So just what are we getting for our megabucks? I think Rick is right. Let’s pillage and plunder and billet our troops in the high-rise condos and alpine villas. I might even volunteer for another tour, if I get to plunder.
Y’know, you have to wonder just why we still have dozens of military bases in Europe. I mean, while I was a junior officer in the Air Force, stationed in England, there was a palpable threat of having the Soviet Union and their Warsaw Pact toadies stream through the Fulda Gap and press on to the Rhine River by lunch time. (The 1968 Soviet incursion into Czechoslovakia scared the bejeezus out of those of us stationed in Europe at the time). That, at least, was the theory. In practice, … I’m just glad it never came to practice. But now? The Russian Army fighting its way through their former Warsaw Pact allies just to get to the Fulda Gap? I don’t think so. So just what are we getting for our megabucks? I think Rick is right. Let’s pillage and plunder and billet our troops in the high-rise condos and alpine villas. I might even volunteer for another tour, if I get to plunder.
And how about a return to the issuing of Letters of Marque? Then you could have a basically self-funded naval presence in the Middle East and the Caribbean, and companies like Blackwater and Halliburton could take ship loads of oil as prizes from anyone we didn’t like. Wouldn’t matter what flag the tankers were under; if they fill the hold in Iran or Venezuela…well, too bad…that oil is rightfully ours. We need it more than anyone else because, as our president seems to have so proudly proclaimed, “We’re the biggest polluter!” And I’m still wondering if he really did say that…is he really that stupid or is it a piece of disinformation? I’m willing to accept his being the most arrogant sob we’ve ever almost elected, but I can hardly believe that he’s really so stupid as to make remarks like that.
And how about a return to the issuing of Letters of Marque? Then you could have a basically self-funded naval presence in the Middle East and the Caribbean, and companies like Blackwater and Halliburton could take ship loads of oil as prizes from anyone we didn’t like. Wouldn’t matter what flag the tankers were under; if they fill the hold in Iran or Venezuela…well, too bad…that oil is rightfully ours. We need it more than anyone else because, as our president seems to have so proudly proclaimed, “We’re the biggest polluter!” And I’m still wondering if he really did say that…is he really that stupid or is it a piece of disinformation? I’m willing to accept his being the most arrogant sob we’ve ever almost elected, but I can hardly believe that he’s really so stupid as to make remarks like that.
And how about a return to the issuing of Letters of Marque? Then you could have a basically self-funded naval presence in the Middle East and the Caribbean, and companies like Blackwater and Halliburton could take ship loads of oil as prizes from anyone we didn’t like. Wouldn’t matter what flag the tankers were under; if they fill the hold in Iran or Venezuela…well, too bad…that oil is rightfully ours. We need it more than anyone else because, as our president seems to have so proudly proclaimed, “We’re the biggest polluter!” And I’m still wondering if he really did say that…is he really that stupid or is it a piece of disinformation? I’m willing to accept his being the most arrogant sob we’ve ever almost elected, but I can hardly believe that he’s really so stupid as to make remarks like that.
I must agree with Morgan on this one. The Republicans I believe call this ’starving the beast’: run massive deficits, get the nation on the edge of bankruptcy, defend military spending tooth and nail, and cut all spending to help the poor, the sick, and the old. Eliminate all spending on education as well. Drop Amtrak, cut federal payments for the highway system and privatize all roads.
Encouraging the middle class to go deeply into debt also serves to drive down the cost of wages, which is one half of the 1970s ‘inflation spiral.’
What’s most interesting to me about the American Empire since 1946 is how much of it is NOT about direct rule and plundering of the natural resources and labor of the conquered and occupied nations. Instead the ‘goods’ and ‘loot’ all go to private corporations (like the International Oil Companies in Iraq) … none of it go into the US Treasury.
I’ve heard other say (months before Al Gore gave his latest speech) that the next most-likely stock market bubble would be renewable and alternate energy companies. Certainly a lot of VC ’spend it or give it back’ money is bankrolling the solar, wind, geothermal, etc., startups.
This money at least is an investment that might lead to greater wealth and prosperity for the American citizen, unlike the billions pissed into the desert sands thousands of miles away from the nearest US coastline…
I must agree with Morgan on this one. The Republicans I believe call this ’starving the beast’: run massive deficits, get the nation on the edge of bankruptcy, defend military spending tooth and nail, and cut all spending to help the poor, the sick, and the old. Eliminate all spending on education as well. Drop Amtrak, cut federal payments for the highway system and privatize all roads.
Encouraging the middle class to go deeply into debt also serves to drive down the cost of wages, which is one half of the 1970s ‘inflation spiral.’
What’s most interesting to me about the American Empire since 1946 is how much of it is NOT about direct rule and plundering of the natural resources and labor of the conquered and occupied nations. Instead the ‘goods’ and ‘loot’ all go to private corporations (like the International Oil Companies in Iraq) … none of it go into the US Treasury.
I’ve heard other say (months before Al Gore gave his latest speech) that the next most-likely stock market bubble would be renewable and alternate energy companies. Certainly a lot of VC ’spend it or give it back’ money is bankrolling the solar, wind, geothermal, etc., startups.
This money at least is an investment that might lead to greater wealth and prosperity for the American citizen, unlike the billions pissed into the desert sands thousands of miles away from the nearest US coastline…
I beleive that a new political vision will bring back the strenght of the economy, I am shure of it. We are the end of the rope . No more room for mistakes.
I beleive that a new political vision will bring back the strenght of the economy, I am shure of it. We are the end of the rope . No more room for mistakes.
Oh Bernard, Diamond’s book “Collapse” would seem to argue that by the time a nation becomes aware it is “at the end of the rope” the mistakes have already been made.
As for foreign bases, yep, the need to stem the armored invasion of Europe is long gone, and I have to wonder why those countries where we are allow it to continue. It would be nice if they wouldn’t as it would make the act of closing less dictated by a congressman’s power to protect his district’s income from it. But that could be the rationale for the foreign powers who put up with us.
Our military industrial complex opposes closing on the basis of forward bases of operation allowing for faster deployment to hot spots. I assure you, they are thinking of efficiency and the safety of the nation, not profits or the good of their corporations. Really. They tell me that, so I know it must be true.
Oh Bernard, Diamond’s book “Collapse” would seem to argue that by the time a nation becomes aware it is “at the end of the rope” the mistakes have already been made.
As for foreign bases, yep, the need to stem the armored invasion of Europe is long gone, and I have to wonder why those countries where we are allow it to continue. It would be nice if they wouldn’t as it would make the act of closing less dictated by a congressman’s power to protect his district’s income from it. But that could be the rationale for the foreign powers who put up with us.
Our military industrial complex opposes closing on the basis of forward bases of operation allowing for faster deployment to hot spots. I assure you, they are thinking of efficiency and the safety of the nation, not profits or the good of their corporations. Really. They tell me that, so I know it must be true.
[...] Comment Posting Standards ← Boom and Bust [...]
[...] Comment Posting Standards ← Boom and Bust [...]
[...] Comment Posting Standards ← Boom and Bust [...]
As a public service, allow me to summarize the discussion thus far:
Jon identifies a fundamental cause of America’s economic crisis as the cost of empire, particularly military spending.
Morgan says the inevitable answer will be to cut social spending.
Fear and loathing: What if they are both right??? The problem is empire and military spending, the attempted solution will be to cut spending on everything Americans need — education, social security, health care, infrastructure.
If we fail to see the consequences of empire and military spending, and if Morgan’s prediction about cutting social spending comes true, the result in America will be catastrophe and destruction.
Continued empire + reduced social spending = Collapse
Just my opinion — Bernie
As a public service, allow me to summarize the discussion thus far:
Jon identifies a fundamental cause of America’s economic crisis as the cost of empire, particularly military spending.
Morgan says the inevitable answer will be to cut social spending.
Fear and loathing: What if they are both right??? The problem is empire and military spending, the attempted solution will be to cut spending on everything Americans need — education, social security, health care, infrastructure.
If we fail to see the consequences of empire and military spending, and if Morgan’s prediction about cutting social spending comes true, the result in America will be catastrophe and destruction.
Continued empire + reduced social spending = Collapse
Just my opinion — Bernie
At least the folks see the real difference between true imperialism and what the U.S. has been engaged in since Wilson… they joke about it, but fundamentally we don’t pilfer the foreign lands, we don’t live off the spoils. What we do is something else.
The truth is we run, or atleast have run, a massively wildly successful market based economy that has afforded us the ability to CHOOSE to spend money on securing our defensive interests all over the globe. Even since the cold war ended, we have chosen to effectively make it very hard for any other power to rise up militarily… it doesn’t make sense for anyone to really arm up – instead China & Russia have focused on two different types of economic growth. Russia has harnessed its fossil fuel natural resources, and China has became a nicer type authoritarian capitalist state.
(It is conceivable that we could partner with either or both of these states in the future to really ratchet down on rogue states like Iran, N. Korea, even in Africa.)
Look, the US dollar cannot continue to go down. I think more than any other issue, we can all agree on that. Devaluing the dollar has eaten into the hides of US T-bill holders (read foreign governments). That means we are going to have to balance the budget.
Even if we go back to Clinton style military budgets, which seems unlikely because as the Iraq war ends, McCain or Obama intend to move it to Afghanistan – again a valid choice, not imperialism.
So I mean seriously, why can’t we have a serious legitimate 4 PART SERIES about how to most fairly make those social cuts, maybe even make them to our advantage. We’d do sooooo much more good here, if we spent our time thinking about finding cuts and efficiencies.
Lastly Jon, I think the competing ideas of Pickens and Gore show the difference between you and me. Pickens is getting it done and quick, Gore’s stuff will die a horrible government death. Why not try it our way first?
At least the folks see the real difference between true imperialism and what the U.S. has been engaged in since Wilson… they joke about it, but fundamentally we don’t pilfer the foreign lands, we don’t live off the spoils. What we do is something else.
The truth is we run, or atleast have run, a massively wildly successful market based economy that has afforded us the ability to CHOOSE to spend money on securing our defensive interests all over the globe. Even since the cold war ended, we have chosen to effectively make it very hard for any other power to rise up militarily… it doesn’t make sense for anyone to really arm up – instead China & Russia have focused on two different types of economic growth. Russia has harnessed its fossil fuel natural resources, and China has became a nicer type authoritarian capitalist state.
(It is conceivable that we could partner with either or both of these states in the future to really ratchet down on rogue states like Iran, N. Korea, even in Africa.)
Look, the US dollar cannot continue to go down. I think more than any other issue, we can all agree on that. Devaluing the dollar has eaten into the hides of US T-bill holders (read foreign governments). That means we are going to have to balance the budget.
Even if we go back to Clinton style military budgets, which seems unlikely because as the Iraq war ends, McCain or Obama intend to move it to Afghanistan – again a valid choice, not imperialism.
So I mean seriously, why can’t we have a serious legitimate 4 PART SERIES about how to most fairly make those social cuts, maybe even make them to our advantage. We’d do sooooo much more good here, if we spent our time thinking about finding cuts and efficiencies.
Lastly Jon, I think the competing ideas of Pickens and Gore show the difference between you and me. Pickens is getting it done and quick, Gore’s stuff will die a horrible government death. Why not try it our way first?
The way I see it is that the cost of oil is making the new tec. available at a good price, if the gov. would spend the 100 billions it spends on war on research and development. Then the economy would follow. The new armies will not have a uniform. Solutions have to be found.
Saludos from the Amazon.
The way I see it is that the cost of oil is making the new tec. available at a good price, if the gov. would spend the 100 billions it spends on war on research and development. Then the economy would follow. The new armies will not have a uniform. Solutions have to be found.
Saludos from the Amazon.
Morgan-This is a long term project to wean a country from a permanent military economy. But we need to start somewhere. Your “starve the beast” solution is mindless in a world where our commercial competitors areproviding universal health care and good education that their corporations can take advantage of.
I know it’s hard for you to wean yourself from your marshall instincts, but try pitching in with some helpful ideas instead of stonewalling the whole idea of demilitarization.
Morgan-This is a long term project to wean a country from a permanent military economy. But we need to start somewhere. Your “starve the beast” solution is mindless in a world where our commercial competitors areproviding universal health care and good education that their corporations can take advantage of.
I know it’s hard for you to wean yourself from your marshall instincts, but try pitching in with some helpful ideas instead of stonewalling the whole idea of demilitarization.
Morgan-This is a long term project to wean a country from a permanent military economy. But we need to start somewhere. Your “starve the beast” solution is mindless in a world where our commercial competitors areproviding universal health care and good education that their corporations can take advantage of.
I know it’s hard for you to wean yourself from your marshall instincts, but try pitching in with some helpful ideas instead of stonewalling the whole idea of demilitarization.
Jon, I’d LOVE to end corporate health insurance, but that still doesn’t mean all people taken care of equally. Do you get that equal care is an impossibility? but, if we could end corporate insurance based healthcare (so everyone’s salaries go up) and give the poor say $5K in health insurance credits, that’d be great.
But ultimately, the young will pay less because they are healthy (even Obama lets them out), and the old who cant support themselves have to share the limited resources we can make available to them – you never deal with the crux of what I’m saying.
BTW, did you read what I wrote? It’d be great if you responded to the points:
1. We choose to spend money on the military. Even Obama disagrees with you. I’m not stonewalling de-militarization, the majority of Americans don’t support it, so why are we supposed to waste time daydreaming.
2. Even if we cut the military past the levels of Clinton, it still leaves massive cuts neccessary in Medicare. We can leave Social Security alone, but ANY SERIOUS discussion about what’s coming next is two issues: ending dependecne of foriegn oil, and re-factoring medicare.
Jon, I’d LOVE to end corporate health insurance, but that still doesn’t mean all people taken care of equally. Do you get that equal care is an impossibility? but, if we could end corporate insurance based healthcare (so everyone’s salaries go up) and give the poor say $5K in health insurance credits, that’d be great.
But ultimately, the young will pay less because they are healthy (even Obama lets them out), and the old who cant support themselves have to share the limited resources we can make available to them – you never deal with the crux of what I’m saying.
BTW, did you read what I wrote? It’d be great if you responded to the points:
1. We choose to spend money on the military. Even Obama disagrees with you. I’m not stonewalling de-militarization, the majority of Americans don’t support it, so why are we supposed to waste time daydreaming.
2. Even if we cut the military past the levels of Clinton, it still leaves massive cuts neccessary in Medicare. We can leave Social Security alone, but ANY SERIOUS discussion about what’s coming next is two issues: ending dependecne of foriegn oil, and re-factoring medicare.
Morgan- The stats I see don’t reflect your thought that the majority of the people don’t want to lower the military budget. I’ll address that in a couple ofdays.
2. Of course we’re going to have to deal with entitlement reform as well,but I’m want to keep focused on this military issue for this week
Morgan- The stats I see don’t reflect your thought that the majority of the people don’t want to lower the military budget. I’ll address that in a couple ofdays.
2. Of course we’re going to have to deal with entitlement reform as well,but I’m want to keep focused on this military issue for this week
Jon, read this:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28329/pub_detail.asp
Jon, read this:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28329/pub_detail.asp
Jon, read this:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28329/pub_detail.asp
Then watch this:
http://www.pgpf.org/
Then watch this:
http://www.pgpf.org/
[...] thirty year buildup of defense spending since the Reagan Presidency. You might want to read the prologue and Part 1 [...]
[...] thirty year buildup of defense spending since the Reagan Presidency. You might want to read the prologue and Part 1 [...]
Hey Morgan, I read and I watched, but none of those “sources” answered Jon’s point. They all start from the point that social programs must be slashed. And I think Jon’s point, which you haven’t addressed, is that the military is much less productive than, say, health care, especially in a world in which major economies are competing for smart people to do clever stuff.
Yes, the US needs to cut spending. You’ve said, several times, that the best way to do this is to cut social spending. But you’ve provided no actual evidence for your claims.
Hey Morgan, I read and I watched, but none of those “sources” answered Jon’s point. They all start from the point that social programs must be slashed. And I think Jon’s point, which you haven’t addressed, is that the military is much less productive than, say, health care, especially in a world in which major economies are competing for smart people to do clever stuff.
Yes, the US needs to cut spending. You’ve said, several times, that the best way to do this is to cut social spending. But you’ve provided no actual evidence for your claims.
[...] back to my epic task to write what I’m thinking about, almost in real time on this subject that most of us believe [...]
[...] back to my epic task to write what I’m thinking about, almost in real time on this subject that most of us believe [...]
Morgan, health care has to be rationed whether it’s paid for by a single payer system…like most of the industrialized world has…or through our cockamamie system of private insurance. The technology for keeping people alive past their basic happy and useful lives costs too much money; it’s become just plain stupid. Death should not be the ultimate enemy to our health care system; there are worse fates than a decent death.
By any standards, our country’s performance in health care is far worse than you get in any number of other countries. Start with infant mortality. Why don’t we have the lowest rates? Because our system of medical care and payment for it is the best? How about general longevity? We should be #1, right? Not…
How is it that our fellow citizens don’t understand that we’re a 3rd world country in all of this? And why? Because we’re so free?
Why slash social programs at all? Unless you start with corporate welfare, the outsourcing of military spending (so as to avoid a draft…), the military in general, etc. Why are we taking care of all of those folks? What am I getting for it? Yeah, what’s in it for me? And you? Social programs are not where the problems are the deepest. Jon’s right in this…it’s this stupid imperialistic support for the military industrial complex that is sapping the vitality out of America.
Morgan, health care has to be rationed whether it’s paid for by a single payer system…like most of the industrialized world has…or through our cockamamie system of private insurance. The technology for keeping people alive past their basic happy and useful lives costs too much money; it’s become just plain stupid. Death should not be the ultimate enemy to our health care system; there are worse fates than a decent death.
By any standards, our country’s performance in health care is far worse than you get in any number of other countries. Start with infant mortality. Why don’t we have the lowest rates? Because our system of medical care and payment for it is the best? How about general longevity? We should be #1, right? Not…
How is it that our fellow citizens don’t understand that we’re a 3rd world country in all of this? And why? Because we’re so free?
Why slash social programs at all? Unless you start with corporate welfare, the outsourcing of military spending (so as to avoid a draft…), the military in general, etc. Why are we taking care of all of those folks? What am I getting for it? Yeah, what’s in it for me? And you? Social programs are not where the problems are the deepest. Jon’s right in this…it’s this stupid imperialistic support for the military industrial complex that is sapping the vitality out of America.
[...] thirty year buildup of defense spending since the Reagan Presidency. The earlier parts can be found here, here and [...]
[...] thirty year buildup of defense spending since the Reagan Presidency. The earlier parts can be found here, here and [...]
Rachel, social programs don’t have to be SLASHED. But in the future they cannot pay per-inidivual what they pay now.
There will be too many inidivuals.
I don’t think you get this. Even if we could just do this to balance the budget (we can’t): keep social spending levels where they are and cut military by 20%, I’d be ok with it and you would HATE IT.
Because the money that we have to spend on social programs would stay the same, but the number of peoople splitting it will increase, which means less for all of them individually. Your side calls that SLASHING spending. That’s the problem.
Do you get it now?
Rachel, social programs don’t have to be SLASHED. But in the future they cannot pay per-inidivual what they pay now.
There will be too many inidivuals.
I don’t think you get this. Even if we could just do this to balance the budget (we can’t): keep social spending levels where they are and cut military by 20%, I’d be ok with it and you would HATE IT.
Because the money that we have to spend on social programs would stay the same, but the number of peoople splitting it will increase, which means less for all of them individually. Your side calls that SLASHING spending. That’s the problem.
Do you get it now?
No, Morgan, I don’t get it. If the US has 400 million people by 2050 (which is the projection I heard on NPR a few days ago) it will – presumably – have a huge wave of productive, well educated, healthy individuals contributing to the economy, and be able to afford to have efficient health care etc.
All the arguments on this subject two years ago were like those mounted by climate change sceptics arguing that it’s too expensive to do anything about global warming – they focus on the costs without focusing on the benefits. If you can point me to a reputable study that looks at the economic growth coming from this larger, better educated population at the same time as counting the costs, I might pay attention.
Oddly, most of the studies I’ve seen reported on thus far focus entirely on the costs, as though all those extra people are entirely dead weight.
So no, I’m not buying your assertion. Please back it up with some reputable research.
By the way, PLEASE stop SHOUTING. Please.
No, Morgan, I don’t get it. If the US has 400 million people by 2050 (which is the projection I heard on NPR a few days ago) it will – presumably – have a huge wave of productive, well educated, healthy individuals contributing to the economy, and be able to afford to have efficient health care etc.
All the arguments on this subject two years ago were like those mounted by climate change sceptics arguing that it’s too expensive to do anything about global warming – they focus on the costs without focusing on the benefits. If you can point me to a reputable study that looks at the economic growth coming from this larger, better educated population at the same time as counting the costs, I might pay attention.
Oddly, most of the studies I’ve seen reported on thus far focus entirely on the costs, as though all those extra people are entirely dead weight.
So no, I’m not buying your assertion. Please back it up with some reputable research.
By the way, PLEASE stop SHOUTING. Please.
RACHEL,
“The aging U.S. population presents another major challenge to Medicare’s financial future. There are currently 37 million Americans aged 65 and over, but the baby-boomer generation will begin retiring in 2010. By 2050, the number is expected to reach 82 million.
Because Medicare funds rely on employee payroll taxes to pay for recipient services, the ratio of those employed to those drawing on Medicare benefits is crucial to maintaining future solvency. Currently, there are 3.7 workers for every person receiving Medicare benefits. HI Fund trustees calculate that there will be 2.4 workers for every retiree in 2030.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medicare/financing.html
See rach, that factors in your pop growth, and it means no more anything, but paying for OLD people.
I’m going to say it again, the true test for whether an older guy cares about this country or really just cares about himself… is does he start all financial discussions with cutting Medicare? No he doesn’t? Then don’t listen. If Jon was serious and wanted to discuss reducing military, he’d have taken time to do the heavy lifting first.
p.s. I like when you accent your words with caps.
RACHEL,
“The aging U.S. population presents another major challenge to Medicare’s financial future. There are currently 37 million Americans aged 65 and over, but the baby-boomer generation will begin retiring in 2010. By 2050, the number is expected to reach 82 million.
Because Medicare funds rely on employee payroll taxes to pay for recipient services, the ratio of those employed to those drawing on Medicare benefits is crucial to maintaining future solvency. Currently, there are 3.7 workers for every person receiving Medicare benefits. HI Fund trustees calculate that there will be 2.4 workers for every retiree in 2030.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medicare/financing.html
See rach, that factors in your pop growth, and it means no more anything, but paying for OLD people.
I’m going to say it again, the true test for whether an older guy cares about this country or really just cares about himself… is does he start all financial discussions with cutting Medicare? No he doesn’t? Then don’t listen. If Jon was serious and wanted to discuss reducing military, he’d have taken time to do the heavy lifting first.
p.s. I like when you accent your words with caps.
I think by making simple decisions to buy or not buy, consumers have changed entire industries — banking, travel, cell phones. A little pressure from consumers typically produces a lot of innovation that shifts products, competition, prices, quality, choices, and ultimately value. The problem with personal and corporate health insurance plans is that it has been built around providers, insurers, the government, employers — and not around consumers. We’ve ended up with spiralling costs and few consumer choices, primarily because many of the regulations and mindsets governing health care have inhibited the kind of broad-scale consumer innovation that’s happened in other industries.
I think by making simple decisions to buy or not buy, consumers have changed entire industries — banking, travel, cell phones. A little pressure from consumers typically produces a lot of innovation that shifts products, competition, prices, quality, choices, and ultimately value. The problem with personal and corporate health insurance plans is that it has been built around providers, insurers, the government, employers — and not around consumers. We’ve ended up with spiralling costs and few consumer choices, primarily because many of the regulations and mindsets governing health care have inhibited the kind of broad-scale consumer innovation that’s happened in other industries.