U.S. ORGY OF DEBT
New York September 22, 2008
The financial panic sweeping the globe is maddeningly complex, but the cause of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s Great Depression is clear.
America has reveled for two decades in an orgy of debt. The US national debt is now twice its net worth. From Wall Street’s `masters of the universe’ financial powerhouses, like Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, Lehman, and Morgan Stanley, to the humblest homeowners, America’s national motto became `borrow to the hilt and bet.’

The traditional regulated banking system was pushed aside by Wall Streets financial titans who created their own money in the form of complex securities, and furiously traded these exotic instruments and borrowed recklessly against them with little government regulation or oversight.

As Kevin Phillips points out in his prophetic book, `Bad Money,’ America’s primary business became non-productive finance. Manufacturing fell to only 12% of GDP. Wall Street titans grew obscenely rich by simply passing around paper. Inflated or semi-worthless securities increased in bogus value at each stage of the trading process.

Wall Street was allowed to virtually print money and peddle toxic securities around the globe because the big financial houses and heads of hedge funds bought the politicians of both parties. Equally important, the mammoth financial and housing bubble thus created was hailed by the Bush administration as proof positive of Republican free market philosophy and the true road to prosperity. More cautious European and Canadian bankers were dismissed by Republican chest-thumpers as financial sissies.

This Ponzi scheme worked as long as markets kept rising. When the music stopped, disaster.

It’s uncertain how far damage from America’s financial equivalent of hurricane Katrina will spread. Hedge funds, money market funds, and auto makers could be next. Real estate losses may reach $636 billion by 2012.

All stock market gains of the past 10 years have been wiped out in the most dangerous crash since the 1930s.

The `free market’ Republican administration has ended up nationalizing nearly $1 trillion worth of businesses, including the federal mortgage agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, and global insurer AIG. Welcome to Wall Street socialism.

One thing is now clear. When great empires run onto the financial rocks, their power quickly ebbs. France’s Sun King, Louis XIV, ended his once glorious reign in near bankruptcy caused by his long, ruinous wars with the British and Dutch. Louis XVI’s runaway borrowing to finance the American Revolution helped ignite the French Revolution. The Soviet Union’s collapse was caused by spending half its national income on arms, and failure to modernize industry.

Over the past decade, the US foreign debt doubled. Japan and China now hold 47% of the US foreign debt and finance Washington’s wars. The addition in recent days of at least $1 trillion in new debt will cause interests to rise and the dollar to weaken. Even the US government’s AAA credit rating is now in question.

Washington may no longer be able to spend half the globe’s defense budgets. The $12-13 billion a month wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing $750 billion by December, 2008. There will be less cash in Washington’s kitty to buy foreign dictators and prop up their regimes, as in the Mideast and Central Asia. Less cash to pay for little wars in Africa. Less for exotic anti-missile systems and death rays.

America’s enormous global power is based as much on its financial might as military muscle. Wall Street has been the vehicle and policeman of America’s hegemony. It shaped the destiny of the globe, and made many nations subservient to the demands of New York’s titan-bankers. Wall Street is essential to raising capitol for business expansion, but it often recalled New York’s ruthless loan sharks: once you borrowed from them, you never got off the hook.

Americans will have to relearn the hard truth that you can’t borrow your way to prosperity.

oldfan1
Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:27 PM
Very nice that EM has decided to re-open the comment section. I Echo chatman's sentiments.
Rampart , please send me an email if you still have my address.
I believe the present financial crises is yet another confirmation of America's slippery slide as the top dog.
I seem to have flagged my own comment in advertently
Stormcrow
Sunday, September 28, 2008 1:50 PM
What's most disconcerting is that, in all of the talk about this crisis in the U.S. media, there's not one single, solitary word about slashing defence spending. No mothballing a carrier, no cancelling of the lethal (to the crews flying it) Osprey V/Stol programme, no slowing of the development of the F-22 advanced strike fighter, no cutback in the number of nuclear missiles or elimination of the missile defence boondoggle. An empire built on sand, moistened by the blood and tears of the innocent, turned into a quagmire from which there's no escape.
oldfan1
Monday, September 29, 2008 12:44 AM
Stormcrow, one couldn't have said it any better than you. This nation has by and large lost its way, its soul, deep within its core it has become infested with maggots and parasites that not only feeds rapaciously, as you say it on " the blood and tears of the innocent" of others but also of its own.
The upcoming leadership offers little hope for the future, hearing Obama chastise Ahmadinejad the President of Iran at the UN and declaring that he shouldn't even be allowed a forum to speak freely. This is tantamount to the highest form of hypocrisy.
Whilst they preach their version incessantly and beat the drums of democracy and free speech in the world's ear they deprive others of the same.

Rampart, it looks more and more that you may have to fulfill the promise you made earlier of changing your name to .......????, I can't quite remember to what exactly.
The wager you made was that Americans would not elect Obama. In my estimation his chances have dramatically improved since he started drinking the zionist koolaide.
chatman
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:57 AM
Oldfan1:

It's interesting that you take political rhetoric so seriously. At bottom, the United States is an empire, and until recently, it was the biggest and richest one. Wealth distribution and fundamental fairness aside, it is very hard to get elected to high office in a country like that unless you play into public perceptions of the strength of America's empire. I know it's on the wane, but that's an idea most Americans refuse to accept.

Israel is an important part of that perceived empire, and you can't get into the White House without singing at least one paean to its secure existence. It's realpolitik; that said, the changes that people like you seek will only come to this government incrementally, and through tragedy. When an empire realizes that it can't act arbitrarily without consequences, its conduct can either become moderate by necessity, or destructively irrational.

I think Obama is a harbringer of the former; he says what he needs to say to get into office, but at bottom he's a thinker and a pragmatist. McCain, by contrast, is an impatient warmonger who thinks that the transformative power of our military is boundless. It's important, I think, to read through the boilerplate and try to see these guys for who they are; Obama was a poor kid who ended up with Harvard Law degree, and chief editorship of law review... as a student of an ivy-league law school myself, I know what level of ambition, intellect, and receptiveness to opposing views might be required to attain that level of academic excellence. I think that makes him credible, in spite of his insipid statements directed to the illiterate masses.

McCain, by contrast, graduated 894/899 in his Naval Academy class; his sole claim to fame is being tortured by the Viet Cong for aggression perpetrated by the United States. You can't seriously argue that these two guys are the same, given their backgrounds.

Presidents, in the end, don't have a lot of power, but they do have power to change things in limited areas that concern most readers here. One of those is the attitude and temperament within the military. Another is the management of agencies regulating everything from capital markets to the environment. And finally, the eloquence and quick-wit of a President can impress or disgust potential partners (and adversaries) in the international arena. On all of those counts, I think your reduction of Obama and McCain to "the same guy" is a bit simplistic; either man would bring a very different temperament, and very different policy agendas, to the table. Even if you accuse both of being corporate tools, it is widely acknowledged that the corporations hoping for an Obama victory are very different from the corporations rooting for McCain.

I've often argued that Ahmadinejad's rather silly remarks about Israel are more populist (for Iran) bluster than real threat. Similarly, I would argue that, at least in Obama's case, his comments about Ahmadinejad in the most recent debate were measured in tone, and far more reasonable than his opponent's. As Rampart has noted, Obama did indicate that he would talk to Iran without setting conditions, a position embraced by certain members of the Bush administration. Those statements, and Obama's background, speak a lot more to me than the boilerplate he might spout in his rush to the electoral center.
oldfan1
Monday, September 29, 2008 3:12 AM
Chatman:

Thankyou Arka for the lesson on political rhetoric and realpolitik, my I really like your writing style its eloquence in motion.
The fact of the matter is as you yourself state "Presidents, in the end, don't have a lot of power" so why the charade except for self-aggrandizment, you may call me a cynic but the proof is in the pudding and time will bear me out.
I may interpret Rampart's retort about Obama in another manner, that is Obama likes to speak from both sides of his mouth depending on the audience's proclivities.
One day he is willimg to speak to Iran and another day he is advocating the disbarrment of that country's president to speak to the nations of the world.
A person of honesty, integrity would mean what they say and said what they meant and cease talking mumbo jumbo and the art of doublespeak, but alas that would not be realpolitik.
My friend let me leave you with an old saying you may have heard before; " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Such is the state of affairs that every politician has to debase him/herself to the maggots and parasites to reach that final stage that by the time they reach there they have compromised every ounce of integrity in their being that their victory is hollow.
chatman
Monday, September 29, 2008 2:09 PM
Oldfan1:

The fact of the matter is that we have to pick a President, and that choice does have an impact. The President is the leading force for combating the inertia of America's giant administrative state, and in its military. Will he make the changes sought after by you and others on this board? Probably not... certainly not right away. But I think he can go a long way toward making important structural changes to the agencies he controls, modify the scale and scope of military deployments, and restrain the use of "enhanced interrogation" (a.k.a torture) upon detainees. He may also have control over the amount of military work we outsource to unaccountable entities like Blackwater and KBR. I don't think the military-contractor state would be where it is today were it not for the current choices and past affiliations of the President and VP. Again, 8 years of Bush administration rule have left a legacy that few would have predicted from a comparable Gore or Kerry administration. This alone seems to indicate that the President has more power to implement policy changes than you give it credit for.

Is the White House constrained by structural limitations and external corporate interests? Sure! But Presidents matter, perceptually and actually. Many institutional investors, for example, are awaiting the outcome of the election before moving their money into companies developing military systems, or companies providing health insurance... that the market may perceive differences in administrative style among the candidates is powerful evidence that there's some substance to the style, and that there are real differences between the two candidates we have to choose from.

As for integrity and good intentions... well... the road to the White House is paved with unbridled ambition, and a readiness to say what one needs to say. Obama's stance on talking to Iran largely predates any expressed unwillingness to do so, and he did not indicate even in his most recent debate that he would not pursue dialogue with Iran. So on that point I think, you are unfairly accusing him of doublespeak. What was clear from the debate, however, is that neither candidate fully understands what is going on in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and that neither candidate appreciates what is causing the latest round of financial turmoil in this country.

Finally, your comment about self abasement to reach a position of power is not something unique to the United States... it is the feature of any government that achieves greatness or prominence. That our own culture believes that politicians should have integrity and nobility is a continuation of a very old fantasy. I have to give people like Rampart, and other South Asians, credit for recognizing the real character of most political discourse. To paraphrase Shashi Tharoor... Americans hold their leaders to a higher standard than everyone else, while Indians expect their leaders to behave far worse than their vilest neighbors. I think there's a lot of wisdom to the Indian (and apparently Pakistani) view; it encourages people to tear away the facade of a candidates' public statements, and examine their real accomplishments and life history. Both are a more telling measure of how a person would lead.
chatman
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:40 AM
Stormcrow:

Your contentions are not quite accurate. McCain talked about defense spending in the last debate. He mentioned that he would more closely examine the nature and specificity of military equipment contracts, and that he would cut everything in the executive branch except for military and veteran's affairs spending. I wouldn't call them "smart" words, but they were words just the same. I think it's kind of a given that, depending on who is elected, military spending will either rise or fall, though it's pretty clear that it won't fall below $500Bn or so....







Stormcrow
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:03 AM
To Chatman:
"He (McCain) mentioned that he would more closely examine the nature and specificity of military equipment contracts..."

If only I had a nickel for every time I've heard that in a US election year...I could probably underwrite the Pentagon's budget for them.
Chalmers Johnson's latest Book "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" is a comprehensive denouncement of the full scope of military spending and the projection of american hegemony via some 900+ bases, various installations and outposts around the world. It is 'overreach' on a truly imperial scale. Furthermore, by its own accounting (much suppressed) the Pentagon cannot adequately account for nearly 25% of its military budget, not including 'black budget' allocations that are kept well beyond the usual meek congressional oversight.
As for individual cases such as Israel, the less said the better. It is virtually impossible to have an open, cogent discussion without beinjg assailed on all sides by tired old racial rhetoric that contributes nothing to informed debate, especially when the crux of the matter hinges upon much larger issues, such as overall defence spending and the propping up of regimes worldwide.
For Canadians, Afghanistan is key. Just before World War One, my grandfather's (British)lancer regiment was put ashore at Acre and rode through 'Mesopotamia (Iraq...we have a picture of their camp) through Iran and Afghanistan all the way to the Hindu Kush. It was largely pointless...more a symbol of imperial projection than anything else. As Mr. Margolies aptly points out, so very little has changed. You can throw money at a problem til you're blue in the face, but it's only money, which rarely buys sound policy, hence the dire financial straights the US now faces. It would be refreshing to think that the next US administration would learn from its own recent history...refreshing though sadly naiive as well.
Thank you for your comments, and best wishes to both you and oldman1.
chatman
Monday, September 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Stormcrow: I never indicated that what McCain said was intelligent or novel... I just pointed out that military spending has received some attention this campaign season. I personally would like to see a phaseout of many arms programs, including the F-22 (which is a cool looking plane, btw). I would also like to see withdrawal of American troops from abroad.... entirely, and reductions in fleet sizes. Instead of mothballing carriers, it looks like we are resurrecting the Fourth Fleet to meet the threat posed by Chavez and his latest detente with the resurgent Russian Navy. If the conduct of Russia is any guide, our government, with its persistent reliance on the military, is definitely leading the world by example.
Bavanek
Monday, September 29, 2008 10:02 AM
It's good to be able to comment again, let's keep it at a civil level.
Big Perk
Monday, September 29, 2008 1:41 PM
I once asked the question in a finance class, "would finance have to be reformulated if the US dollar was no longer the 'universal' currency?" People though I was crazy. Now, I don't believe they think I'm nuts anymore.

I like the new sight too. The registration page needs a bit of work though. Once you register, it doesn't tell you if you were successfully registered or not.
Market Socialist
Monday, September 29, 2008 6:12 PM
It is truly wonderful to have a comments section once again.

Let me see if I fully comprehend the current financial situation. A group of highly educated individuals in the field of finance and accounting designed investments vehicles based on loans to people that in a different time would not have qualified. Said people defaulted on their loans thereby causing a market melt down.

Possible remedy, inject an obscene amount of cash, that does not exist, into the very same system that caused this debacle to begin with.

Am I the one that is missing something here?
chatman
Monday, September 29, 2008 9:30 PM
I don't know that I understand it either, but I think the proposed "money" exists... it's just that it's 'existence' as printed money threatens to reduce the perceived value of the currency as a whole. If we think the total value of all issued U.S. currency as static, then printing another run of it to pay off debts reduces the value per dollar... after a while, if the government continues to meet its debt obligations in this way, the 'value' of each discrete unit of currency (dollar) declines, and it takes more the dollars to pay debts for buying real commodities.

With a proposed $11.3 debt ceiling, and a yawning deficit about to be stressed by a mounting financial nightmare, it surprises me that our government still has a AAA credit rating. The power of being able to print money, I guess.
Stormcrow
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:11 AM
Market Socialist...I believe you have summarized the situation extremely well. Essentially the US financial house was rented to a family of arsonists who now need help putting out the fire. There is no insurance, so it's 'everyone to the buckets' or you lose the whole thing.
anjinsan
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:34 AM
Congratulations on the great new website look!
S. Steel
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:08 AM
Great site. As for the "Financial Crisis" in the U.S., I suggest all the bonus-taking, stock-option redeeming criminals masquerading as "CEO's", as well as their robotic underlings be hauled off in steel handcuffs as opposed to landing gently on the backs of world taxpayers after their "golden parachutes" deploy!

What sort of "moral compass" do these people have that allows them to take such exorbitant compensation packages as the firms they, and I use this word loosely, "helm", go down like the Titanic? Apparently one that spins around endlessly!
MikeD
Friday, November 14, 2008 11:10 PM
How refreshing to get your perspective.
Eric, I am greatful for your contributions. You are the kind of person that I put everything down to listen to when you appear on TV. Please keep it up!

A Canadian friend
396
Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:32 AM
This is a heyday for media and commentators. I haven't read anything about the role that media is currently playing. I'm most interested in how they are contributing to the climate of fear and what their responsibilities might be at this time. Let's turn the light on everything.
lingvoj
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:14 AM
Poor US, I hope China doesn´t take over the world. And the americans should be so complacant about their prowess.
Regards
http://galileamontijofotosvideos.blogspot.com/
There are currently 19 comments
Comments Commentaries
Currently Ordered By:
Commentaries by Category