SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (10132)12/8/2002 12:11:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Bush, Iraq and Sister Souljah

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Columnist
The New York Times
December 8, 2002


I am worried. And you should be, too.

I am not against war in Iraq, if need be, but I am against going to war without preparing the ground in America, in the region and in the world at large to deal with the blowback any U.S. invasion will produce.

But I see few signs that President Bush is making those preparations. The Bush team's whole approach was best summed up by a friend of mine: "We're at war — let's party." We're at war — let's not ask the American people to do anything hard.

This can't go on. We are at war. We are at war with a cruel, militant Islam, led by Al Qaeda, we are at war with a rising tide of global anti-Americanism, and we will probably soon be at war to disarm Iraq. There is no way we are going to win such a multidimensional conflict without sacrifices and radically new thinking.

For me, the question is whether President Bush, having amassed all this political capital by effectively responding to 9/11, is going to spend any of it — is going to ask Americans to do things that are really hard to win these wars over the long haul. Does Mr. Bush have a Sister Souljah speech in him? If not, if he is just going to rely on the Pentagon to fight this war — and on Karl Rove to exploit it — then we will reap nothing but tears.

What would the president tell the American people if he were preparing them for this multidimensional war?

He would tell the American people that this war could cost over a trillion dollars, and no one should think that we're going to be able to use Iraqi oil to pay for it. It will be paid for by our Treasury — and that means not just changing the faces of the Bush economic team but also re-examining the surplus-squandering tax cuts at the center of the Bush fiscal policy.

He would tell the American people that he is embarking on a Manhattan project to increase fuel efficiency and slash the cost of alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yes, it will take time, but gradually it will make us more secure as a nation, it will shrink the price of oil — which is the best way to trigger political change in places like Saudi Arabia — and it will provide the alternative to Kyoto that Mr. Bush promised the world but never delivered.

He would tell the American people that we can no longer afford our selfish system of farm subsidies and textile protectionism. It is a system that tells developing nations they must open their borders to what we make, but we won't give them full access to our markets for what they make: farm goods and garments. If nations like Pakistan continue to live in poverty, if their people can only afford religious schools that teach only the Koran, then we will continue to live in fear. If our national security interests lie in their development, and their development requires access to our markets, we need to open our markets and live what we preach.

He would tell the Palestinians that the U.S. intends to cut off all assistance and diplomatic contacts until they get rid of their corrupt tyrant, Yasir Arafat, because no peace is possible with him. He would tell Ariel Sharon that unless he halts all settlement building — now — the U.S. will start cutting off Israel's economic aid. And he would tell both that he intends to put the Clinton peace plan back on the table as his plan.

He would also tell all Arabs that America has one purpose in Iraq, once it is disarmed of dangerous weapons: to help Iraqis implement the U.N. Arab Human Development Report, which states that the failing Arab world can only catch up if it embraces freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

Finally, he would tell Karl Rove to take a leave of absence until September 2004 so that nothing the president does in this war will be perceived as being done for political gain.

Friends, we are on the edge of a transforming moment for America in the world. If President Bush uses his enormous mandate to prepare for war — in a way that really deals with our political and economic vulnerabilities, increases our own staying power and convinces the world that we have a positive vision and are responsible global citizens — there is a decent chance we can win at a reasonable cost. But if Mr. Bush simply uses his mandate to drive a hard-right agenda and indulge in more feel-good politics, the world will become an increasingly dangerous place for every American — no matter what war we fight, no matter what war we win.

nytimes.com



To: lurqer who wrote (10132)12/8/2002 1:08:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Global: The Perils of Competitive Currency Devaluation

Stephen Roach (New York)

Guns are blazing on the anti-deflation front. Policy makers in Japan and the United States have elevated deflation to their number one concern. Even European authorities have finally joined the game, as evidenced by an aggressive 50 bp ECB easing, with the euro-zone inflation rate still above the so-called price-stability threshold. The full force of the global policy arsenal now seems aimed at arresting deflation. And that’s very good news.

The bad news is that there’s no guarantee the medicine will work. Policy traction is most difficult to achieve at low levels of inflation and nominal interest rates. Just ask Japan. In the case of the US economy, stabilization policies typically work their charm on three sectors – consumer durables, homebuilding, and business capital spending. With all three sectors having gone to excess in recent years, any response to policy stimulus could be surprisingly muted. In Europe, monetary stimulus is being offset by the combined headwinds of fiscal consolidation and lingering structural rigidities, especially in the labor market. History tells us that deflationary remedies must be administered early and aggressively. Only time will tell if it already isn’t too late.

But there’s another piece of bad news on the deflation watch – the risk that a policy clash gets played out in foreign exchange markets. That’s especially the case with respect to Japan and the United States, where senior officials in both countries have lately hinted at playing the currency-devaluation trump card in the battle against deflation. Haruhiko Kuroda, the Japanese MOF vice minister for international affairs, has become quite vocal in recent days attempting to manage the yen lower – first with an opinion piece in the Financial Times (see "Time for a Switch to Global Reflation" published on 1 December 2002) and now with a rhetorical salvo implying that the Japanese currency has only just begun to fall from a position of "excessive strength." At the same time, Fed Governor Ben Bernanke has introduced the possibility of dollar devaluation as an anti-deflation remedy as one option in a broad array of "non-traditional" actions that the US central bank could take against deflation (see his 21 November 2002 speech before the National Economists Club, "Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here"). While the coexistence of a weaker yen and a weaker dollar seems highly unlikely, just the mere suggestion by authorities in both countries to reflate through currency depreciation conjures up the perils of competitive currency devaluation – a highly disruptive outcome for the global economy and world financial markets.

It’s times like this that bring out the worst in xenophobic policies. When faced with the perils of deflation, it’s "every man for himself!" Yet since foreign exchange rates are relative prices, it is mathematically impossible for all of the major economies in the world to embrace currency devaluation as a tactic to stave off deflation. The case for a weaker dollar is especially compelling, in my view. As seen through the lens of the real effective exchange rate, the dollar is more than 30% above its 1995 level, whereas the yen is off about 15% over the same period. In that regard, and in the context of America's massive current-account deficit (an estimated -4.6% of GDP in 2002) and Japan's outsize external surplus (an estimated +3.3% of GDP in 2002), it’s hard to argue on the basis of economic fundamentals that the yen "deserves" to fall more than the dollar. Over the long sweep of economic history, current-account adjustments – from deficit to balance – are invariably accommodated by currency depreciation. On that basis, it’s only a matter of when – not if – the dollar falls.

Nor does the unbalanced state of the global economy suggest that yen depreciation would be appropriate. Since 1995, the United States has accounted for fully 64% of the cumulative increase in world GDP, double its share in the global economy (as measured at current exchange rates). This reflects an extraordinary dichotomy in domestic demand conditions around the world. For example, in the five years ending in mid-2000, domestic demand growth averaged 5% in the US and only about 2% in the rest of the world. As America’s gaping and ever-widening current account deficit suggests, such imbalances are not sustainable. Global rebalancing requires a realignment in relative prices. As the world’s most important relative price, I believe that a weaker dollar makes a good deal of sense under such circumstances.

The case for a weaker yen rests mainly on the state of desperation now gripping the Japanese economy. Having effectively exhausted its conventional monetary and fiscal ammunition, the currency becomes something of a last-gasp lever for the Japanese authorities. To the extent that the United States has more ammunition left in its traditional stabilization arsenal and that its macro condition is healthier, Japanese officials are arguing that Japan should be given the benefit of the doubt. But this would not be a panacea for all that ails the world’s second largest economy. It would merely buy some time, goes the argument, while Japan finally gets on with heavy lifting of structural reform.

Yet there’s always the risk that such a strategy will backfire. That’s especially the case in Japan. To the extent that the Japanese economy enjoys the temporary reflationary benefits of a weaker yen – stronger external demand and imported inflation – the incentives for structural reform might diminish. That’s, in fact, exactly what happened in the latter half the 1990s. The pressures for such reforms were extreme in early 1995 when the yen/dollar cross-rate briefly pierced the 80 threshold. The urgency to act, however, was tempered by three and a half years of sharp currency depreciation, which took the yen/dollar cross rate back to 147 by August 1998. Led partly by exports, Japanese GDP growth accelerated to a 2.4% average annual rate over the 1995-97 interval, and the imperatives of restructuring were quickly forgotten. Based on that experience, there is good reason to be suspicious of Japanese promises to deliver on structural reform while the yen is depreciating. A stronger yen, by contrast, would leave Japan with little choice other than to restructure.

The same argument could be used with respect to Europe: A stronger euro would leave Corporate Europe with no choice other than to restructure. It is in that context that the efficacy of currency policy should be considered. In my opinion, the currency can either be a "a carrot or a stick" in shaping structural change. The experience of the last 25 years – especially the restructuring of Smokestack America during the strong-dollar era of the early 1980s – tells me that the "stick approach" is far more effective. And so I reluctantly conclude that just as the world now needs a weaker dollar to temper global imbalances, the world also needs a stronger yen and a stronger euro to force long overdue restructuring in both regions.

Nor do I believe that a world in distress will sit back and tolerate a unilateral initiative by Japan to reflate via currency depreciation. If it becomes evident that traditional counter-cyclical stabilization measures are not gaining traction in the US or Europe, then the authorities in both countries might well consider shifts in their own currency policies. The result could be an increasingly vicious cycle of competitive currency devaluations that would achieve nothing but ill will. That would then up the ante for national policy makers to turn to trade protectionism as a true last-gasp option to shield their economies from imported deflation and the seemingly unrelenting pressure of import penetration into domestic markets. Sadly, that’s right out of the script of the early 1930s.

It doesn’t have to end that way. If US policy makers establish traction with their recent and prospective monetary and fiscal actions, then deflation can be avoided without an explicit shift in dollar policy. At the same time, if the rest of the world embraces pro-growth policies of its own, the currency lever need not be utilized to accomplish this objective. If, however, the authorities fail to achieve these results, then all bets would be off for the US and the broader global economy. Competitive currency devaluations almost always end in tears.

morganstanley.com