The Collapse of American Power
Paul Craig Roberts
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Under Ronald Reagan
March 19, 2008
In his famous book, The Collapse of British Power (1972),
Correlli Barnett reports that in the opening days of World War II Great
Britain only had enough gold and foreign exchange to finance war
expenditures for a few months. The British turned to the Americans to
finance their ability to wage war. Barnett writes that this dependency
signaled the end of British power.
From their inception, America's 21st century wars against Afghanistan
and Iraq have been red ink wars financed by foreigners, principally the
Chinese and Japanese, who purchase the US Treasury bonds that the US
government issues to finance its red ink budgets.
The Bush administration forecasts a $410 billion federal budget deficit
for this year, an indication that, as the US saving rate is
approximately zero, the US is not only dependent on foreigners to
finance its wars but also dependent on foreigners to finance part of the
US government's domestic expenditures.
Foreign borrowing is paying US government salaries--perhaps that of the
President himself--or funding the expenditures of the various cabinet
departments. Financially, the US is not an independent country.
The Bush administration's $410 billion deficit forecast is based on the
unrealistic assumption of 2.7% GDP growth in 2008, whereas in actual
fact the US economy has fallen into a recession that could be severe.
There will be no 2.7% growth, and the actual deficit will be
substantially larger than $410 billion.
Just as the government's budget is in disarray, so is the US dollar
which continues to decline in value in relation to other currencies. The
dollar is under pressure not only from budget deficits, but also from
very large trade deficits and from inflation expectations resulting from
the Federal Reserve's effort to stabilize the very troubled financial
system with large injections of liquidity.
A troubled currency and financial system and large budget and trade
deficits do not present an attractive face to creditors. Yet Washington
in its hubris seems to believe that the US can forever rely on the
Chinese, Japanese and Saudis to finance America's life beyond its means.
Imagine the shock when the day arrives that a US Treasury auction of new
debt instruments is not fully subscribed.
.
. . The fact of the
matter is that the US is bankrupt. David M. Walker, Comptroller General
of the US and head of the Government Accountability Office, in his
December 17, 2007, report to the US Congress on the financial statements
of the US government noted that "the federal government did not
maintain effective internal control over financial reporting (including
safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and
regulations as of September 30, 2007." In everyday language, the US
government cannot pass an audit.
Moreover, the GAO report pointed out that the accrued liabilities of the
federal government "totaled approximately $53 trillion as of
September 30, 2007." No funds have been set aside against this mind
boggling liability.
Just so the reader understands, $53 trillion is $53,000 billion.
Frustrated by speaking to deaf ears, Walker recently resigned as head of
the Government Accountability Office.
As of March 17, 2008, one Swiss franc is worth more than $1 dollar. In
1970, the exchange rate was 4.2 Swiss francs to the dollar. In 1970, $1
purchased 360 Japanese yen. Today $1 dollar purchases less than 100 yen.
If you were a creditor, would you want to hold debt in a currency that
has such a poor record against the currency of a small island country
that was nuked and defeated in WW II, or against a small landlocked
European country that clings to its independence and is not a member of
the EU?
Would you want to hold the debt of a country whose imports exceed its
industrial production? According to the latest US statistics as reported
in the February 28 issue of Manufacturing and Technology News, in 2007
imports were 14 percent of US GDP and US manufacturing comprised 12% of
US GDP. A country whose imports exceed its industrial production cannot
close its trade deficit by exporting more.
The dollar has even collapsed in value against the euro, the currency of
a make-believe country that does not exist: the European Union. France,
Germany, Italy, England and the other members of the EU still exist as
sovereign nations. England even retains its own currency. Yet the euro
hits new highs daily against the dollar.
.
. . But
the fact of the matter is that the US owes the world. The US
"superpower" cannot even finance its own domestic operations,
much less its gratuitous wars except via the kindness of foreigners to
lend it money that cannot be repaid.
The US will never repay the loans. The American economy has been
devastated by offshoring, by foreign competition, and by the importation
of foreigners on work visas, while it holds to a free trade ideology
that benefits corporate fat cats and shareholders at the expense of
American labor. The dollar is failing in its role as reserve currency
and will soon be abandoned.
When the dollar ceases to be the reserve currency, the US will no longer
be able to pay its bills by borrowing more from foreigners .
. .
Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, on the Federal Reserve's role
in kicking off the Great Depression:
I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the
occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic
scholars, Friedman has no peer. …
Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his
greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with
his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is
nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most
persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American
history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and
Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.
… As everyone here knows, in their "Monetary History"
Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of
1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong.
Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which
held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s,
Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a
tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."
… In
short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional
changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great
Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have
normally occurred during a downturn.
… Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official
representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and
Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're
very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again … (Remarks
made on November 8, 2002 <http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59405>).
|