Posted on 07/19/2005 10:52:08 AM PDT by Willie Green
Washington -- DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.
Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .
For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
But I'm not. From the looks of it, he hasn't - as the left likes to say - "grown."
Willie, you can't refute what ain't there. If there were any substantive points in the article, there are plenty of intelligent folks on FR to refute them.
Here is my reply to the substance of the article......BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The sun is shining and some fool says that it's dark and you expect us to take him seriously? It's not like the NYT doesn't print that the sky is falling every single day.
Why would any right thinking individual give the time of day to a rag that simply exists to provide liberals a forum?
You probably want us to also ignore that our Trade Deficit and National Debt have grown much faster than that, too.
World trade isn't a zero sum game, where we lose if they win (this is the old mercantilist fallacy, committed by governments even today). When the US unemployment is 5%, income tax receipts are up $90 billion, and GNP growth approaching 4% the trade defect is clearly not a problem. All those dollars will have to come back some day (you can only really spend them here), and in the mean time our dollars help to add liquidity to the international market place. The people who complain about jobs going overseas, are complaining about nothing with 5% unemployment anyone who wants to work can find a job here now. So what if other nations do well, our success is enhanced by success elsewhere. Are we like the French, that we need others to do poorly so we can feel like we're doing better than them.
It must have been hard for the NYT these precent years. They clearly miss the guidance and direction of the old Pravda even thouh they constanly strive to take the position that Pravda would have ordered had it still been the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union.
I heard this same crap when Reagan was President. Nothing about the trade deficit while Billy Bob was President.
Muthas, mothas, muvas...You say "tomato", I say "tamito." ;)
Is that accurate? I don't have number in front of me, but debt as a % of GDP has been rising, but is still lower than what it was 10 years ago, and with the growth rates of this year, should flatten. Also, compared to other industrialized countries, I think the ratio is pretty much in line.
The latest on unemployment is actually 5.0% after July has added ~146,000 jobs to the economy. Also, the tax cut resulted in 14% increase in revenues and the deficit fell by $100 bln. That is on top of what you sais. We are definitely going down.
I believe the Campaign Finance Reform Act disallows the NYTimes from using the word "truth" on any of its pages. /sarcasm
Well, yeah. If debt as % of GDP is rising, then debt is increasing faster than GDP.
Year United States Govt gross debt in percent of GDP Ratio percent change 1980 43.600 1981 42.600 -2.3% 1982 47.600 11.7% 1983 50.800 6.7% 1984 52.500 3.3% 1985 56.800 8.2% 1986 60.400 6.3% 1987 62.100 2.8% 1988 62.900 1.3% 1989 62.800 -0.2% 1990 64.800 3.2% 1991 69.100 6.6% 1992 71.400 3.3% 1993 73.300 2.7% 1994 72.400 -1.2% 1995 72.600 0.3% 1996 72.300 -0.4% 1997 69.900 -3.3% 1998 66.200 -5.3% 1999 62.800 -5.1% 2000 57.100 -9.1% 2001 56.600 -0.9% 2002 58.600 3.5% 2003 60.500 3.2% 2004 61.000 0.8% 2005 61.900 1.5% 2006 62.000 0.2%
Year United States Current account balance in percent of GDP Ratio percent change 1980 0.1000 1981 0.2000 100.0% 1982 -0.2000 -200.0% 1983 -1.1000 450.0% 1984 -2.4000 118.2% 1985 -2.8000 16.7% 1986 -3.3000 17.9% 1987 -3.4000 3.0% 1988 -2.4000 -29.4% 1989 -1.8000 -25.0% 1990 -1.4000 -22.2% 1991 0.1000 1992 -0.8000 -900.0% 1993 -1.2000 50.0% 1994 -1.7000 41.7% 1995 -1.5000 -11.8% 1996 -1.5000 0.0% 1997 -1.6000 6.7% 1998 -2.4000 50.0% 1999 -3.2000 33.3% 2000 -4.2000 31.2% 2001 -3.8000 -9.5% 2002 -4.5000 18.4% 2003 -4.8000 6.7% 2004 -5.7000 18.7% 2005 -5.8000 1.8% 2006 -5.0000 -13.8%
Sure it is.
Your data shows it's risen every year, from 56.6% in 2001 to 61.9% this year.
It hasn't risen steadily, which is why the percentage change fluctuates a little. But the percent change figures are all +, which indicates a rise instead of a decline.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.