US 'could be going bankrupt'

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Duh, ya think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/14/cnusa14.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2006/07/14/ixcity.html

By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor
(Filed: 14/07/2006)

The United States is heading for bankruptcy, according to an extraordinary paper published by one of the key members of the country's central bank.

A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.

Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked.

According to his central analysis, "the US government is, indeed, bankrupt, insofar as it will be unable to pay its creditors, who, in this context, are current and future generations to whom it has explicitly or implicitly promised future net payments of various kinds''.

The budget deficit in the US is not massive. The Bush administration this week cut its forecasts for the fiscal shortfall this year by almost a third, saying it will come in at 2.3pc of gross domestic product. This is smaller than most European countries - including the UK - which have deficits north of 3pc of GDP.

Prof Kotlikoff, who teaches at Boston University, says: "The proper way to consider a country's solvency is to examine the lifetime fiscal burdens facing current and future generations. If these burdens exceed the resources of those generations, get close to doing so, or simply get so high as to preclude their full collection, the country's policy will be unsustainable and can constitute or lead to national bankruptcy.

"Does the United States fit this bill? No one knows for sure, but there are strong reasons to believe the United States may be going broke."

Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters.

The figure is massive because President George W Bush has made major tax cuts in recent years, and because the bill for Medicare, which provides health insurance for the elderly, and Medicaid, which does likewise for the poor, will increase greatly due to demographics.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "This figure is more than five times US GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one's head around $65.9trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143pc."

The scenario has serious implications for the dollar. If investors lose confidence in the US's future, and suspect the country may at some point allow inflation to erode away its debts, they may reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds.

Prof Kotlikoff said: "The United States has experienced high rates of inflation in the past and appears to be running the same type of fiscal policies that engendered hyperinflations in 20 countries over the past century."

Paul Ashworth, of Capital Economics, was more sanguine about the coming retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. "For a start, the expected deterioration in the Federal budget owes more to rising per capita spending on health care than to changing demographics," he said.

"This can be contained if the political will is there. Similarly, the expected increase in social security spending can be controlled by reducing the growth rate of benefits. Expecting a fix now is probably asking too much of short-sighted politicians who have no incentives to do so. But a fix, or at least a succession of patches, will come when the problem becomes more pressing."
These last comments are typical of the way the MSM handles news: they publish the truth and then bring in the spellbinder to put everyone back to sleep. They do this under the pretense of "presenting both sides of the issue." But, as we know, when the country is being run by the Cult of the Plausible Lie, one side is lying and the other is telling the truth. There is no "gray area in the middle." As we write in the Second Edition of 911: The Ultimate Truth:

Lobaczewski said:
"Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the "political system" inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature. When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations. [...]

Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the "other" - the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt." [...]
Consider the ideology of "freedom and democracy" that is espoused by the American government in the "war on terror". Clearly, the U.S. government is using these noble ideals as tools to "deal with" and deceive the population into supporting their plans. Given all that has occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, the architects of the "war on terror" have obvious contempt for real freedom and democracy.

Lobaczewski said:
"The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule."
Those members of the ruling pathocracy in the U.S. certainly use "double talk" when they speak of "fighting terrorism" and "promoting freedom" and, among themselves, they are certainly aware of the real meaning, as they define them, of these phrases: "fighting terrorism" means using terrorism to achieve their goals, and "promoting freedom" means crushing those people who aspire to true freedom.

Lobaczewski said:
"Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms. Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically, in particular outside the immediate scope of such a system's rule. We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. The action of paralogisms and paramoralisms in this deformed ideology becomes comprehensible to us based on the information presented previously. Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral." [...]
For evidence of the twisted morality as promoted by the pathocrats we need only look to the morality of mainstream religion where to use contraception is to "sin". The U.S. and Israeli governments (among others) claim that the Iraqi insurgents are "immoral" in their tactics of resisting oppression and occupation and in their fight to safeguard the lives of their friends and families. Essentially, as Lobaczewski says, any resistance to the American government, be it by foreign insurgents or American 'disgruntled citizens', is immoral and must be crushed.

Lobaczewski said:
"This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people that can be shocking in
its depravity."
For evidence of the depths of depravity to which the ruling pathocrats have stooped to ensure their survival, we need only look at the events of 9/11 and all of the patriotic fervor, which amounted to psychological manipulation of the masses, that resulted. By the end of this book, you will have been presented with enough information to leave you in no doubt that the 9/11 event was just such an act of depravity carried out by the ruling pathocrats.

Lobaczewski said:
"Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity. Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it."
The above paragraph is perhaps one of the most important and chilling things that Lobaczewski writes. The pathocracy ensures its continued hold on power by periodically engaging in reduction of the population of normal people - culling the herd - chiefly by means of manufactured war. As Lobaczewski says, "an obstinate and well-armed foe" is used to throw legions of normal people (in the form of the military) at this foe and thereby debilitate and subdue the normal peoples of the world - the only threat to the ruling pathocracy.

Notice also the devilish manipulation whereby these soldiers, deliberately and needlessly sacrificed by the pathocrats, are then lauded as heroes to ensure future generations of cannon fodder. Notice the real life evidence of this where millions of American citizens cry "support our troops". What are they supporting but the futile sacrifice of their own sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and all to serve the agenda of the psychopaths in power?

Lobaczewski said:
Any war waged by a pathocratic nation has two fronts, the internal and the external. The internal front is more important for the leaders and the governing elite, and the internal threat is the deciding factor where unleashing war is concerned. In pondering whether to start a war against the pathocratic country, one must therefore give primary consideration to the fact that one can be used as an executioner of the common people whose increasing power represents incipient jeopardy for the pathocracy. After all, pathocrats give short shrift to blood and suffering of people they consider to be not quite conspecific. [...]

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that "other" world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into the non-pathological majority a certain sense of direction. The non-pathological majority of the country's population will never stop dreaming of the reinstatement of the normal man's system in any possible form. This majority will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be "educated" and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured. The latter factor - creating conditions of poverty and hardship - effectively limits the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people.

The ideology must, of course, furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality."
A clearer description of what is happening right now in modern day America is unlikely to be found. Expansionism has been made a virtue by the American pathocracy. Bush claims that the U.S. military is spreading "freedom and democracy" when in fact he is pursuing an imperialist agenda. Lobaczewski says:

"This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured."
Reference the fact that Americans are being told that they must sacrifice their liberties in order for the government to better wage the "war on terror" and the clampdown on anti-Bush demonstrations because they "harm the war on terror". As regards "creating conditions of poverty" in order to limit the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people: there is much evidence that the American economy is set for a major nose-dive. When it does, the effect on a large percentage of ordinary Americans (all those not part of the 'monied classes') will be a dramatic re-prioritization, leaving them concerned chiefly with their ability to feed themselves and their families.
 
Normal people infected by the pathocratic beliefs don't realize that the psychopaths want the US economy to fall apart. This can be contained if the political will is there???
The will is to make it fall fall fall.
I keep hearing the refrain from one of those popular hip hop songs
"what you gonna do, what you gonna do".
At least signs is working hard to disinfect and immunize the populace.
 
nktulloch said:
Normal people infected by the pathocratic beliefs don't realize that the psychopaths want the US economy to fall apart. ...
At least signs is working hard to disinfect and immunize the populace.
Well, based on the reaction machine exhibition in the Zidane - Materazzi discussion, either the message is not getting through or the psychopaths are coming out in force to counteract it.
 
Laura said:
By Edmund Conway, Economics Editor

Experts have calculated that the country's long-term "fiscal gap" between all future government spending and all future receipts will widen immensely as the Baby Boomer generation retires, and as the amount the state will have to spend on healthcare and pensions soars. The total fiscal gap could be an almost incomprehensible $65.9 trillion, according to a study by Professors Gokhale and Smetters.
"Experts" have been peddling this yarn for years now and it is false. Bably Boomers are mostly not going to retire.

Who got downsized for 30 years? Who lost their job to Bangalore? Who took out loans on a house they were losing anyway to pay the medical bills for the kids? "Boomers" did, and we are tapped out.

If by this nonsense the experts mean we'll join the rest of the country and have no health care, but on a technicality eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, it's unlikely. The government has been turning these programs into minefields (what they cover, what they don't) so effectively that the Old Age Black Market Drug Market is replacing them anyway. I know one group who pooled their resources and bought their drugs from Malaysia, but the Malays would not ship to the US because of America's barbaric Customs Department. The senoirs had to get a drop-box address in Mexico.

Speaking of which, Mexicans in America with anchor babies and low incomes are eligible for the servics Boomers are supposed to "strain" in a few years. Nobody cares about that; it's classic corporate welfare. It was low prioroty to keep Boomers employed to pay into the system and they demanded a living wage. But when illegals tap out the very same system it's OK because they work cheap.

To simplify for anyone who thinks I'm knocking Mexicans-in-America: That is not the issue. The issue is who employed them once they got here and how they used downsized Americans to foot the bills. Let's also stop being naive in thinking that wasn't the point in the first place. Meatpacking corporations in Iowa specifically targetted communities in Mexico where young workers could be brought up to Iowa and stick together, making the process of being an illegal a whole lot easier than being just an American out of a job. This is nation-destroying at its most basic.

Is America broke is no longer the question. Of course it is. Another thing that is past questioning is who is going to take the fall: Get ready for an orgy of Greedy Boomers tales. Never mind 80 percent of them were non-college workers, self-employed in shops destroyed by globalism, or just simply unlucky.

Fox News has us in their sites already. WE DID IT. The greatest economy on in the world, destroyed by pampered, lazy baby boomers.

Can anybody fix the little lady and me up with some cheap land in... I dunno, Bulgaria or Romania or somewhere in the civilized world?
 
Laura said:
Well, based on the reaction machine exhibition in the Zidane - Materazzi discussion, either the message is not getting through or the psychopaths are coming out in force to counteract it.
Yes, I agree. There are a lot of "twisters" working full time to counteract it. Amazing!
Still, this event was largely discuss during coffee breaks in french working places and there are some hopes :P
 
Yup. I'd go so far as to say the U.S. is bankrupt but the awareness hasn't percolated out to the public yet. And the boyz running the show don't want it percolate out. But it takes two to keep a lie going - one to tell the lie, and the other to believe it.
 
John Chang said:
Yup. I'd go so far as to say the U.S. is bankrupt but the awareness hasn't percolated out to the public yet. And the boyz running the show don't want it percolate out. But it takes two to keep a lie going - one to tell the lie, and the other to believe it.
They're just waiting until the moment is right, with the hyperdimensional influence they won't pull the plug until they're masters say so. Very exciting the time in which we live.
 
Imtermediate Technology! Permaculture! I don't know, those Ideas strike me as what needs to be done, but I realize at the same time that It's only 3Den. thinking, still, I can't help imagining what third density done right would look like!
 
nktulloch said:
Normal people infected by the pathocratic beliefs don't realize that the psychopaths want the US economy to fall apart. This can be contained if the political will is there???
The will is to make it fall fall fall.
I keep hearing the refrain from one of those popular hip hop songs
"what you gonna do, what you gonna do".
At least signs is working hard to disinfect and immunize the populace.
Should it happen, I am wondering if this fall would be the result of a voluntary strategy or the by-product of wishful thinking (though some objective factors shows US economy is going straight into the wall, let's accelerate). I would be happy to read your analysis about this question.

If a major crisis happened it would be a wonderful opportunity (to stimulate positive desintegration, to develop more sanity towards materiality, to reduce consumption to a more reasonable level, to differentiate real needs from artificial needs, to transcend a system that was sold as the ultimate happiness and peace generator,...) it would also be a major threat (starvings, conflicts, fears, uncertainty, precarity for the weaker,...)
 
It makes me wonder if countries have "karma" of some sort, when you look at how 'america' has acted in the past.
 
Edgar Cayce said that nations do have karma. About the U.S. he said:

If there is not the acceptance in America of the closer brotherhood of man, the love of the neighbor as self, civilization must wend its way westward - and again must Mongolism, must a hated people be raised.
I think he was talking about psychopaths - Pathocracy - and not a racial or ethnic group. See the thread under history on the origins of the Jews.
 
If the U.S. goes bankrupt, i.e. a legally recognized and accepted bankrupcy, it will take down together with it all those countries and banks that keep a large amount of us dollars or us treasury bonds etc. in their safes together with it. I know Turkiye will be hit by this tsunami and many more countries, it will be a worldwide rock and roll for sure. Remember the Southeast Asian crisis some years ago.
 
Heehee. . . The Southeast Asian crisis was a safety valve for the US economy at the time. Look at the Argentinian crisis as well. Same thing. It's other economies taking the fall for instabilities in the global (read: American) economic system.

I expect to see a lot of other economies failing dramatically in cascade before the US economy does, as the US offloads its financial problems and absorbs everyone else's capital. It'll go all right, but a lot of innocent countries are going to pay for it first. I mean, when the house of cards falls, who does it land on?
 
aurora said:
If the U.S. goes bankrupt, i.e. a legally recognized and accepted bankrupcy, it will take down together with it all those countries and banks that keep a large amount of us dollars or us treasury bonds etc. in their safes together with it. I know Turkiye will be hit by this tsunami and many more countries, it will be a worldwide rock and roll for sure. Remember the Southeast Asian crisis some years ago.
Nah, that would be way way way too honest.

The economic conditions that incubated Germany's hyperinflation are all present in the U.S. You've got the economy consisting of a few big companies and the government, and not much else. You've got massive foreign debt. You add those two together, and the temptation to print money becomes real strong.

The reason 1929 was deflationary, was because we owed the money to ourselves. Since the guy you owed the money to looked like you and spoke the same language, that was enough to try to unwind the debts the honorable way.

However, this time around, the money is owed to people who look and talk funny. Not much motivation to pay it off honestly. Just like Germany wasn't real motivated to pay off their debts to foreigners, who to them must've looked and talked funny.

It's the big guys who drove the hyperinflation in Germany, it'll be the same big guys (more or less) who are driving this one.

There were subtle warning signs that inflation was picking up before it busted out. If you positioned yourself properly, you could've hedged.
 
Posted on: July 17, 2006, 10:12:48 PM: John Chang
Nah, that would be way way way too honest.

The economic conditions that incubated Germany's hyperinflation are all present in the U.S. You've got the economy consisting of a few big companies and the government, and not much else. You've got massive foreign debt. You add those two together, and the temptation to print money becomes real strong.
Posted by: John Chang July 17, 2006, 10:12:48 PM
The reason 1929 was deflationary, was because we owed the money to ourselves. Since the guy you owed the money to looked like you and spoke the same language, that was enough to try to unwind the debts the honorable way.

However, this time around, the money is owed to people who look and talk funny. Not much motivation to pay it off honestly. Just like Germany wasn't real motivated to pay off their debts to foreigners, who to them must've looked and talked funny.

It's the big guys who drove the hyperinflation in Germany, it'll be the same big guys (more or less) who are driving this one.

There were subtle warning signs that inflation was picking up before it busted out. If you positioned yourself properly, you could've hedged

Unless something changes and soon, it appears that the obvious, engineered, and economic calamity, has been in the works for the U.S. Dollar to Collapse.
And As noted of where this condition is headed on the 7/22/10 session.

Double Dip Recession, Keynesianism Is Dying
Economics / Double Dip Recession
Aug 14, 2010 - 12:22 PM
By: Gary_North

Promoting a revamped Keynesian economic theory – one without any guarantee of job growth – is the equivalent of selling a lifetime subscription to a revamped Playboy: one without any photos. It's a tough sell. Yet this is what Keynesians are facing today. This will be fun to watch.

In the last few days, we have begun to see reports from mainstream Keynesian forecasters and economists who are talking about the possibility of a double-dip recession.

For a year, we have been assured by experts that double-dip recessions are rare. They surely are. The last one was in Carter's final year, 1980 – which is why it was his final year – and Reagan's first year, 1981. As far as the National Bureau of Economic Research has reported, that was the only double-dip recession. The NBER is the unofficial arbiter of each recession's chronology.

A few forecasters a year ago predicted the ever-popular V-shaped economic recovery. They are all hoping that no one remembers. There is no one left standing who predicts anything like this. The economy has barely grown over the last year, and the most recent report from the government is that growth was slower than initially reported for the second quarter of this year.

This remains the mainstream consensus: no double-dip recession, but weak economic growth and slow job growth. A few forecasters have said that unemployment will in fact increase. I have, but I am not in the mainstream.

The mainstream says that we are in a jobless recovery. But this assessment does not convey the uniqueness of the last 12 months. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has posted an interactive chart that lets us compare the job non-recovery of the recession that began in late 2007 with all of the post-World War II recessions. We can click a box and get a different colored line for each recession-recovery. Only the double-dip recession of 1980–81 was worse in terms of the duration of unemployment.

In another sense, we are in the mother of all jobless recoveries: median unemployment longer than 27 weeks. As of July 2010, the number of unemployed Americans was 14.6 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Of these, 45% had been unemployed for over 27 weeks: 6.6 million people. This figure is unprecedented. Remember also that "unemployed" refers to people without jobs who are still looking for jobs. Those who give up and stop looking are no longer counted as unemployed.

Until the most recent meeting of the Federal Reserve System's Federal Open Market Committee, the press releases began with an affirmation of the increasing strength of the economy – slow but visible. The press release for August 10 began with this uncharacteristic pessimism: "Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in June indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months."

In response to this intra-day press release, the Dow Jones Industrial Average recovered from a negative 120 to a negative 55, as the result of a meaningless statement that the FOMC will re-invest net payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in Treasury bonds. This meant, at best, no change in the monetary base. The media greeted this as a major change in FED policy. It wasn't. The next day, the Dow fell 265 points.

SEEDS OF DOUBT

The financial media are beginning to report statements from Establishment forecasters who are saying that a double-dip recession is looking more likely. One of the most prominent of them is Yale economist Robert Shiller. He is the co-creator of the Case-Shiller monthly report on the residential housing prices in 20 American cities. He also coined the phrase "irrational exuberance." He now thinks the odds favoring a double dip are above 50–50. He says that the job market is the problem.

He is a Keynesian. So, he calls on Congress to spend lots more money on another deficit-funded stimulus. He says that the Federal Reserve is "out of bullets." Economists rarely say this about the FED. When they do, it indicates near-panic. He assures us that "If we focus on creating jobs, it's not as expensive as you might think."

First, who are "we"? Congress? Second, did the 2009 stimulus of $787 billion focus on creating jobs? If so, where are they? Third, how does Federal spending create jobs? Hiring part-time census workers, yes. Creating a few thousand "shovel-ready" make-work jobs that cost small fortunes per job, yes. But sustained job recovery? It isn't happening.

David Stockman, who was briefly Reagan's budget director before he resigned, recently wrote an article on the gargantuan size of the Federal deficit. He made an important but neglected observation. Ever since the third quarter of 2008, the nation's nominal GDP has increased by a tiny $100 billion, but the Federal debt has increased by 25 times the GDP increase.

This means that the hoped-for stimulus has not worked. It has taken $25 of Federal deficits to produce $1 of GDP growth. This marks a major anomaly for Keynesian economic theory. The justification for government deficits in Keynesian theory is that government spending restores economic growth. Money spent by the private sector does not increase economic growth in a recession; government spending does. This has never made any economic sense, but now the non-response of the economy is exposing this original nonsense for what it always was: nonsense. The Federal deficit is skyrocketing, but the economy has barely increased, statistically speaking, and is now slowing.

Lest we forget, the NBER committee which retroactively determines when a recession began and ended met in early April. The committee postponed an announcement regarding the end of the recession which it said began in December 2007. Such an announcement, the committee said, would be "premature."

This indicated that the economic data were so mixed that no clear recovery is evident. The Federal Reserve and other organizations have adopted spring 2009 as the end of the recession. This appears on Federal Reserve charts. But the organization that is unofficially the arbiter of such matters is not equally confident.

At this point, the conventional forecast regarding a double-dip recession is that it is unlikely to happen. In contrast, the Austrian School view is that the recovery itself may turn out to have been a statistical anomaly. We are not facing a double-dip recession, only because we have not gotten out of the 2007 recession. We are now facing a more rapid decline of an economy already in decline.

The statistics so far do not point to a full-scale recovery. This was the NBER committee's view in April. The statistics point to something unique: a supposed economic recovery in which commercial banks are reducing their lending, the overnight bank loan rate is close to zero, and long-term unemployment is at an historically high level. To produce this minimal recovery, if it really is a recovery, the Federal government is running a 2010 deficit in the $1.5 trillion range. Meanwhile, Social Security payments now exceed FICA tax revenue, so the general fund must make up the difference, thus adding to the on-budget deficit. Social Security has ceased to be an accounting cash cow for the government. It has become an accounting liability.

Rex Nutting writes for MarketWatch. He is not a famous economist. He is a columnist who spends his life summarizing economic events and data that come in over the wires. But, on August 11, when the Dow opened down by over 200 points and was not rebounding, he wrote an editorial. It reveals the despair of a Keynesian whose confidence in the restoration of economic growth has faded.

The Federal Reserve is pushing on a string, he said. It has gone about as far as it can go. It is therefore time for Congress to reassert leadership. Nutting has had great hope in the creativity of government spending. The government can borrow trillions of dollars, which can be spent by Civil Service-protected government bureaucrats who cannot be fired. His faith is fading. An overly conservative Congress is just too cautious and reluctant to spend more money, he thinks.

It doesn't take a poet to know what happens to a dream deferred. Sometimes, it explodes. If the Fed's hands are tied, are we doomed to a lost decade of deferred dreams?

Happily, no. There is one group that's still able to borrow: the federal government, which could fill the gap temporarily by directly employing idle people to fulfill some of those deferred dreams. They could teach the children, heal the sick, build the infrastructure, discover new drugs, and invent new technologies.

Unhappily, it's not going to happen.

The projected Federal deficits are in the range of a trillion dollars a year for the next decade. Not enough! Too cautious! Woe, woe, woe!

The optimists are saying that the double-dip recession will not happen, but job growth will be minimal. A jobless recovery is the new normal. This is the abandonment of Keynesianism. This is loss of faith on a paradigm-changing scope. The old Keynesian formula is no longer working. Huge deficits have not led to a V-shaped recovery, or maybe any recovery. The Keynesian multiplier is barely even adding. The Federal Reserve is pushing on a string. But so is Congress. The deficits are not working.

What's a Keynesian to do?

Call for more spending, of course. Call for even larger Federal deficits. Call for bailouts of deficit-plagued state governments, which cannot get loans from Asian central banks.

THE KEYNESIANS' FAITH

The Keynesians have only one solution: deficit spending. That is all they have had since 1936. Keynes baptized deficit-spending policies that all governments had begun several years before. He was John the Baptist for his generation. He called on old school economists to repent and be baptized in the logic of deficits. He converted most of the young economists. The old ones slowly died off, although some of them saw the error of their youth and converted.

But today the old Keynesian deficit-spending policy is no longer delivering the promised goods. The old formulas are not providing the old magic. The level of Federal debt is so great today that the percentage of each new annual deficit in relation to the total debt that has to be rolled over every five years is declining. Deficits no longer have the same "punch."

In fact, the old punch had to do with transferring resources from the private sector to the government sector. This transfer made the government sector grow and the private sector contract, compared to what would otherwise have prevailed. Government spending is counted as being the same as private spending. Government spending is considered part of the GDP. Keynesians assume that money collected by means of badges and guns is far more efficient in producing economic growth than money invested in terms of a hoped-for prospect of a positive rate of return. Keynesianism rests on faith in the following:

1. Badges and guns
2. Government IOUs
3. The wisdom of government
It is based on a lack of faith in the following:

1. Voluntary exchange
2. Private investment
3. The wisdom of entrepreneurship

We are now seeing the fruits of this view of economics. The deficits, while unprecedented, represent a declining percentage of the IOUs outstanding, both to investors and the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal pension "trust funds": accounting devices that count government IOUs as legal claims against future taxpayers. Each new deficit adds to this pile of IOUs. No one in the Establishment expects these to be paid off. Everyone expects these debts to be rolled over at low interest rates forever. There is no sense of alarm.

The Tea Party voters are beginning to sense that this is an impossible dream. Yet voters who are approaching age 65 also believe that they have a legal claim on lifetime support. They believe that these claims will be met. They believe that, since they are special, the Federal government can and will deliver on its promises to them. In short, they know they are being conned, yet they insist that the retirement Ponzi schemes will go on forever. In short, tens of millions of voters are schizophrenic.

Two groups of voters are not schizophrenic: the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists think that the promises will be kept, the Federal government can be relied on, and the system will hold. The pessimists believe that the promises will be broken, they will be stiffed in their old age, and the government is headed for a huge default.

Presumably, you are in the second group. Therefore, you are not a Keynesian. You do not believe that endless Federal deficits can continue. You do not believe that deficits will save the economy.

This raises a question: What are you doing to hedge your future against the optimists and the schizophrenics, who will resist any major spending cuts?

RUNNING OUT OF TIME

The Democrats are likely to lose control in the House next year. Their ten-vote edge in the Senate will disappear. Republicans will be able to filibuster any spending bill. This will end House Democrats' hope that voting in favor of a new spending program will get through the Senate. They will ask: "Why risk my slender base back home on a suicide vote to increase spending? If it passes, it will be killed in the Senate."

The Republicans will play the spoiler. Obama will get no new big spending programs passed by Congress. He will be able to blame Congress, just as he has blamed Bush. But if the economy does not visibly recover, and if the unemployment rate does not fall below 6%, he will take the heat. That is what the Presidency is for: taking credit or taking blame.

The government will move to gridlock next year. It will remain there for two years. The deficits will remain high. The economy will stagnate at best, or fall into a decline. There will be no major recovery that persuades voters that they are safe, that the economic future is bright.

We are seeing a loss of faith. It is all-pervasive. The voters see that Congress is impotent. The Keynesians see that the FED is impotent. The economists as a profession have rushed to the Keynesian pump to keep the ship from sinking, but the ship appears to be taking on water despite their best efforts.

Gridlock will end the prospects for a new round of spending. The Republicans will be busy campaigning for 2012. They will hold the line against major new spending projects. The deficits will continue, but the Republicans will blame Obama, the way that Obama blames Bush. "Obama saddled us with these deficits. We did not have the votes to stop him. Now we do. You can't hold us responsible for what Pelosi and Obama did." The voters, always disappointed, will respond in hope.

You can see why I have registered this domain:

www.ChangeBack2012.com
CONCLUSION

"Double dips sink ships." The prospect of a double-dip recession threatens the Keynesians, just as it threatens Obama's hopes for re-election.

The Keynesians have far more at stake. Obama is limited to two terms by law. The Keynesians must keep the faith in deficits alive permanently. If their policy prescription fails, and the deficits accelerate without job growth and income growth, then they have no fall-back position. They can tell us that in the long run, the deficits will finally turn the economy back up, and things will go back to the pre-2007 normal. But if things do not return to the pre-2007 normal, then non-Keynesians will cite Keynes in their defense: "In the long run, we are all dead."

So is Federal solvency.

Gary North [send him mail ] is the author of Mises on Money . Visit http://www.garynorth.com . He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible .

http://www.lewrockwell.com

And this article, another sample of the continuing theft going on by wall streets unchecked, psychotic behavior, as the rest of the general population continue's to flounder.

Why Growth May Still Leave 95% of Americans Behind

By CHARLES HUGH SMITH Posted 7:00 AM 08/14/10 Economy

Two generations ago, "two Americas" referred to the sharp divide between prospering Americans and those mired in poverty, stagnation and prejudice, a gulf addressed by Michael Harrington in his influential book, The Other America: Poverty in the United States.

With the advent of social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies, much of the grinding rural and urban poverty described in the book has been alleviated.

But the gap between the super-rich, the wealthy and "the rest of us" has widened, forming what is in essence two Americas -- the top 5% and the bottom 95%. And this is creating a situation where economic growth, as measured by GDP, may increasingly mean that 95% of Americans are still not doing better financially. Read on to find out why.

Concentration of Wealth -- and Benefits -- at the Top

The income gap is widening. David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, recently noted in an editorial that the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income from 2002 to 2006.

Economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty have reported that the top 10% of earners took home about half of all income as of 2007.

As total household income declines, the wealthiest Americans take home a larger piece of the national income pie. In 2008, Americans reported $8.4 trillion in total income, down 4.6% from 2007. Adjusted for inflation, that is down 8.4%, the sharpest decline in total income since the brief recession that began in 1990.

The number of people in the highest reaches of income also fell. Tax returns reporting income of $1 million or more fell by 22% to 321,294, and the number of returns that reported income of more than $10 million fell 36% to 13,480.

A Growing Plutonomy

Put the data together, and this reveals an increasing concentration of income and wealth at the top -- and this small group increasingly dominates the U.S. economy. According to Moody's Analytics research, the top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending -- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5% of consumer outlays).

This trend has led to the coining of a new word, plutonomy -- an economy that's dependent on the spending and investing of the wealthiest slice of citizenry for growth.

As a result, when the top 5% in income -- those households earning $210,000 or more annually -- rein in their discretionary spending, the U.S. economy suffers disproportionately. Indeed, the economy's slump this summer can be tracked directly to a decline in the discretionary spending of the wealthiest Americans.

Top 1%'s Wealth Takes Off

Furthermore, the very rich are pulling away from the merely wealthy. Those earning $10 million or more per year are increasingly wealthier than the 321,000 earning $1 million or more, and those top earners are pulling away from the rest of the top 5% of households by income.

In the housing and stock market boom years of 2002 and 2007, the incomes of the bottom 99% of households by earnings grew by a meager 1.3% a year in inflation-adjusted terms, while the pockets of the top 1% grew 10% a year.

Over the past 25 years since 1985, the top 1%'s share of national income has doubled -- in 2007, it netted 23% of the nation's total income. The income of the wealthiest Americans -- the top 0.1% -- has tripled in that 25 year period. This wafer-thin slice of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million wage earners.

"Distorted Economy"

The extremely wealthy are pulling away because their earnings come from capital, not labor. While wages have stagnated, returns on capital investments and speculations have soared. None other than former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently described this yawning divide between those in the top slice of the economy who are doing very well and the 95% below them who are struggling.

"Our problem," Greenspan said, "is that we have a very distorted economy in the sense that there has been a significant recovery in a limited area of the economy amongst high-income individuals who have just had $800 billion added to their 401(k)s and are spending it. Large banks and large corporations, as everyone's pointing out, are in excellent shape."

"The rest of the economy, small business, small banks, and a very significant amount of the labor force, which is in tragic long-term unemployment, that is pulling the economy apart," noted Greenspan. "The average of those two is what we are looking at, but they are fundamentally two separate types of economy."

This great divide between the spending and income of the wealthiest 5% and the rest of us (95%) calls into question the value of GDP (gross domestic product) as a meaningful statistic. If the wealthiest Americans are buying luxury cars and apparel again, that may pump up the nation's GDP, but it doesn't mean 95% of the populace are doing better financially.
Tagged: Alan Greenspan, David Stockman, GDP, income disparity, Income Gap, income inequality, national income, Plutonomy, The Other America, top 1 percent, wealthiest americans
 
Back
Top Bottom