Message to the U.S. – Blame the Wars, not China

DECEMBER 2, 2010 – There is a growing chorus of voices in the media and the academy singling out the actions of the Chinese state as central to the dilemmas of the world economy. This focus finds its most articulate presentations, not in the xenophobia of the right, but in the polite analysis of many left-liberals. Paul Krugman, for instance, writing in the run-up to November’s G20 summit in South Korea, praised the United States’ approach of creating money out of nothing (“Quantitative Easing”) as being helpful to the world economy, and criticized the Chinese state’s attempts to keep its currency weak as being harmful. “The policies of these two nations are not at all equivalent,” he argues, adding his influential voice to the chorus which is increasingly targeting China for the world’s woes.[1] Krugman’s, however, is a simplistic analysis which overlooks the role of the U.S. over decades in creating huge imbalances in the world economy, and has the dangerous effect of scapegoating one of the poorest nations of the world (China) for the problems created by the world’s richest.

Krugman’s argument proceeds through a sleight of hand. He objects to the attempts by the Chinese state to keep down the value of its currency – the yuan – as a series of policies whose “overall effect … on foreign economies is clearly negative.” This is a common theme – China’s “weak-yuan” currency being good for China (making its exports cheaper in world markets) and bad for the rest of the world.

But there is a problem. By his own admission, the U.S. policy of creating money out of nothing will result in a “weaker American dollar.” What he doesn’t say, but what is implicit in his analysis, is that this U.S. policy is identical to China’s – a “weak-yuan” policy in the latter, matched by a weak-dollar policy in the former. Krugman nonetheless lets the U.S. off the hook because, he argues, even though the U.S. dollar is certain to fall in value as a result of the new trillions being created, “that is not the ultimate goal.”

Judging a policy on its intent rather than its effect is disingenuous. Brian Burke’s intent as General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs has been to deliver a Stanley Cup to Toronto. Hockey fans are unlikely to forgive him, though, for the fact that his policies see the Leafs sitting, again, near the basement of their conference. However, let’s take Krugman at face value. Why does he see the U.S. policy as good for the world? Because, he argues, “basically, the United States is pursuing a policy that increases overall world demand” and China “is pursuing a contractionary domestic monetary policy, reducing overall world demand.”

Let’s begin with some of the key facts. At the peak of the economic crisis, the United States, Canada, and the European Union had to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the rest of the world to finance stimulus programs to stabilize their economies. China also engaged in serious fiscal stimulus (relative to GDP virtually on the same scale as the United States)[2], but unlike the North American and European powers, it was able to do so without borrowing a penny from the rest of the world.[3]

One of the reasons the U.S. had to resort to large-scale foreign borrowing, was because of years of high levels of central government deficit spending. Charts accompanying this analysis can be found at the end of the article. The first one shows the last twenty years of central government spending, a story of only momentary surpluses and a “norm” of deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars – in 2009 and 2010 in the wake of the financial crisis, passing the one trillion dollar mark.[4]

Because the United States central government had been running very large deficits for years, borrowing on a large scale was inevitable to do the very necessary work of trying to “stimulate” the economy at the peak of the crisis in 2009. But with these deficits pushing debt levels very high very quickly, there has been increasing nervousness about both deficits and debts getting out of hand. Enter, “Quantiative Easing.” As an alternative to creating more government debt, the world’s most powerful economy can, for the moment, simply “create more money,” push it into the economy, and hope that this has the desired stimulus effect.

Krugman assesses the merits of these actions solely on their effect on world demand. But is this a sufficient criteria? There are all sorts of policies pursued by the U.S. over generations which have increased overall world demand. One in particular comes to mind. The U.S. central government has for a long time been the centre of military expenditure in the world, and its role as such is accelerating. In 1990 its military expenditures represented 36.19% of the military expenditures in the entire world. By 2009, its military expenditures had grown to fully 44.13% of world military expenditures. In other words, almost half of the money spent on war in the world is spent by the U.S. state.

This huge infrastructure of planes, missiles, bases, tanks, guns, ammunition and personnel has a powerful effect on demand in the world economy. For instance, “the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world.”[5] This might be bad in terms of global warming. Nonetheless gobbling up millions of barrels of oil certainly helps stimulate world demand for petroleum. The trillions spent on war and militarism do meet Krugman’s criterion in that they “stimulate world demand.” But they do so in perverse ways. In particular, they are the principal reason for the desperate fiscal weakness of the U.S. central government, documented above, fiscal weakness which is driving the move to Quantitative Easing.

Let’s try on three different scenarios to examine the relationship between military expenditures and U.S. deficits. Begin with one aspect of arms spending, the “War on Terror.” Launched in 2001 it has had three components – Operation Enduring Freedom (the war in Afghanistan), Operation Iraqi Freedom (the war in Iraq) and Operation Noble Eagle (beefing up U.S. military bases and homeland security). The official bill to-date for this “War on Terror” is almost identical to the amount of money created in the first round of Quantitative Easing – $1.1 trillion dollars.[6] This is probably an understatement, perhaps a gross understatement. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes estimate that the true cost of the war in Iraq alone will be in excess of $3 trillion.[7] However, for arguments sake we will take the official figures. If those official figures are removed from the books (scenario 1) – that is, if we see what the picture would be like had the War on Terror not been launched – then a change begins to take place in the picture of U.S. deficit spending. It doesn’t eliminate the deficit problem. But it does lessen it, to the extent that as late as 2007 – the year the financial crisis first revealed itself – the U.S. central government would have actually have run a modest surplus.

But the War on Terror is just the tip of the iceberg. The United States, as documented above, spends money on the military at a rate far greater than any country in the world. In 2010 for instance, the War on Terror costs of $130 billion were dwarfed by the $534 billion spent on other aspects of the military. Since 2006, the total “defence” budget of the U.S. has been over half a trillion dollars. By 2011 it is projected to be closing in on three quarters of a trillion dollars. Now imagine a pacific instead of a militaristic United States. In other words, see what the picture would be like without sustaining this massive war machine. When this military spending is removed (scenario 2), the picture of the U.S. central government budget is completely different.

In 2009 and 2010 there are of course quite large deficits. This is the normal “Keynesian” turn to deficit spending that occurs in any economic downturn. What is remarkable however, is the fact that in terms of non-military spending, before 2009 and 2010, there would have been no deficit whatsoever. In fact in many years there would have been surpluses, twice (in 2000 and 2007) touching half a trillion dollars. With a budget history for the last 20 years resembling this graph, a pacific U.S. government could have spent billions on its stimulus package, without borrowing a dime. Stimulus could have been completely financed out of accumulated surpluses from the last 20 years.

And in fact, this understates the situation. Many of the costs of the U.S. bloated war budget are hidden. It would take a team of forensic accountants with unlimited time and unlimited funds to sort through government finances and corporate balance sheets to tease out the actual costs of sustaining the world’s biggest military, and the world’s only truly global empire. But there are two “non-defence” line items that we can say with certainty are directly related to the U.S. military. Veterans Affairs spending is extremely high in the U.S. precisely because so many young people have come back maimed and broken through U.S. military adventures abroad. And the space program is a barely disguised excuse to develop and test the rocket technology that is the backbone of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. When these two are factored in (scenario three), the picture is breathtakingly clear.

The U.S. central government deficit problem has one source – addiction to war and empire. That addiction has led to borrowing on an unprecedented scale, making it impossible for the U.S. to stimulate its economy through accumulated savings and making it increasingly nervous about the accelerating practice of borrowing on a mass scale. The Quantitative Easing approach – creating money out of nothing – has been made inevitable by the massive deficits used to sustain empire abroad.

Return, then, to Krugman’s argument. If we only have one criterion by which to assess this – the creation of demand in the world economy – then there is no problem here. Massive levels of arms spending create demand. Years and years of arms-related U.S. budget deficits do “stimulate” the world economy. But downing two or three pots of coffee in one setting will similarly “stimulate” a person’s metabolism. That doesn’t mean it is a recommended method by which to obtain our nutrition.

Obviously “the creation of demand” is not the only criteria we should use. When trillions are spent, it is useful to us ordinary folk when these trillions are spent in productive ways – on homes for the homeless, on childcare, on healthcare, on education, on infrastructure, on subways, on clean energy, on water purification in the Global South – the list is endless. But when the trillions are wasted on grenades, nuclear weapons, M-16 rifles, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers and all the other paraphernalia of the U.S. killing machine – this is ultimately the equivalent of taking those trillions and flushing them down the toilet. It is “investment” which leaves nothing behind – except nuclear waste that future generations will have to dispose of, deadly munitions that will exist for generations to maim and kill peasants in the field, and broken bodies and minds chewed up in endless wars. The creation of “demand” is not the only criteria. It matters – and it matters desperately – exactly what kind of “demand” we are feeding.

And think this through. This creation of money from nothing will systematically drive the U.S. dollar lower relative to other currencies. For those holding billions (and in some cases trillions) of U.S. dollar denominated debt, the devaluation of the U.S. dollar means a devaluation of the worth of their holdings. In effect, the United States through Quantitative Easing is forcing the rest of the world to pay for its empire, to pay for the costs it has incurred through sustaining a bloated Permanent Arms Economy.

It is irresponsible to assess the value of the policies of the U.S. and Chinese governments by narrowly focussing in on momentary decisions related to their currencies, and by pretending that these policies happen in a vacuum. There is a history to the current predicament of the United States, a predicament of its own making. When put in this bigger context, the message that must be sent to Krugman and others making similar arguments is quite clear: blame the wars, not China.

Previous:
Currency Wars and the Privilege of Empire
Another G20 Summit: The new club of ‘hostile brothers’

Charts referenced in the article


(c) 2010 Paul Kellogg

Publishing History

This article has been published as “War and the Global Economic Crisis: Blame America’s War Economy rather than China,” Global Research, 23 December 2010. Also published as “War and the Global Economic Crisis,” Нова српска политичка мисао, 25 December 2010; “Message to the US – Blame the wars, not China,” Links, 2 December; “Message to the U.S. – Blame the Wars, not China,” The Bullet No. 444, 23 December.

References
[1] Paul Krugman, “When China Exports, Everyone Pays,” Truthout, 4 November, 2010.
[2] Eswar Prasad, “Assessing the G-20 Stimulus Plans: A Deeper Look,” Brookings, 2 December, 2010.
[3] Joseph Trevisani, “While Many Countries Must Borrow, China and Japan Can Fund Their Own Stimulus,” Seeking Alpha, 28 January, 2009.
[4] Figures for this and the next three charts (Scenarios 1-3) are primarily derived from “Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2011: Table 4.1 – Outlays by Agency, 1962-2015.” For the years 2001 to 2010, the charts are based on figures in Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) / CFO, United States Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request: Overview, February 2010: 1-1. The latter differ slightly from the former, but have the advantage of explicitly incorporating the military portion of the War on Terror, euphemistically referred to as “Overseas Contingency Operations.”
[5] Sohbet Karbuz, “US Military Energy Consumption – Facts and Figures,” Sohbet Karbuz, 20 May 2007.
[6] Amy Belasco, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,” Congressional Research Service, 2 September 2010: 1 and 3.
[7] Joseph E. Stiglitz & Linda J. Bilmes, “The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond,” The Washington Post, 5 September 2010.

Currency Wars and the Privilege of Empire

OCTOBER 23, 2010 – In uncertain times, the headline was soothing – “Secretary Geithner vows not to devalue dollar.”[1] United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner was saying, in other words, that if there were to be “currency wars” – competitive devaluations by major economies in attempts to gain trade advantage with their rivals – the United States would not be to blame. Who, then, would be the villain? China, of course. Earlier this year, Democratic Party congressman Tim Murphy sponsored a bill authorizing the United States to impose duties on Chinese imports, made too inexpensive (according to Murphy and most other commentators) by an artificially devalued Chinese currency. “It’s time to deliver a strong message to Beijing on behalf of American manufacturing: Congress will do whatever it takes to protect American jobs.”[2] But the Geithner balm and the Murphy hyperbole are simply matching sides of a deep hypocrisy. For three generations, the United States has leveraged its position as the centre of empire to print dollars with abandon, devalue at will, and “debase” its currency at a rate impossible for any other economy. But the privileges of empire are starting to unravel, and the U.S. economy is wallowing in the consequences of 60 years of irresponsible monetary policy. Emotional attacks on China are simply a cover for problems deeply rooted in the U.S. itself. One part of that is a long history of currency wars, where the U.S. dollar has been used as a weapon in a manner without parallel in the modern world economy. That story has four aspects – Bretton Woods; the Nixon Shock of 1971; Petrodollars; and Quantitative Easing. This article will look at each in turn.

1. “Good as Gold” at Bretton Woods

To get to the first aspect of this story, you have to dial the film back to the restructuring of the world economy out of the ruins of the Second World War. In 1944, as that catastrophe was winding to a close, representatives of 44 allied nations met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to try to develop policies to prevent history repeating itself. Prior to 1914, capitalism had by and large been able to develop through exporting its horrors to the Global South – bringing genocide, slavery and the destruction of ancient civilizations to the Americas, Africa and Asia. But from 1914 on, some of those horrors had come home to the heart of the system itself. World wars engulfed the most “civilized” and capitalist powers themselves, first from 1914 to 1918, and then again from 1939 to 1945. Between these two moments of industrialized slaughter was the interlude of the Great Depression – the unprecedented collapse of trade, finance, employment and income, which shattered lives for a decade. It was clear to everyone that these two elements – war and economic collapse – were intimately related, and that to forestall another military catastrophe, deep economic restructuring would be required.

In this context, a once obscure economist emerged into prominence. In 1919, the then 30-something John Maynard Keynes was horrified when the peace treaty imposed by the victorious allies – the Treaty of Versailles – put in place punitive reparations on Germany. Keynes argued that the billions of dollars that were to be stripped out of German society would impoverish and embitter the country, lay the ground for economic difficulties, and for new wars. He captured this in his first major book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace.[3]

By 1944, Keynes was no longer an outsider and critic. This time he was at the table – one of the chief architects of the Bretton Woods’ institutions which were to emerge from this gathering. His ideas were listened to, in part because his warnings in 1919 had been so appallingly confirmed. His argument that economic competition needed to be regulated, that there had to be a central role for the state to mitigate the effects of the boom-bust cycle, and that there had to be institutions which could manage competition at an international level – these ideas were to be taken very seriously, as policy makers everywhere stared back at the horrors which were the alternative.

The Bretton Woods discussions would create the International Monetary Fund (IMF – designed to “administer the international monetary system”) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or World Bank (“initially designed to provide loans for Europe’s post-war reconstruction”).[4]

But two other key goals were not achieved. One has been well-documented. Keynes had wanted an “International Trade Organization” to forestall the vicious trade wars which had broken out in the 1930s. He was not successful on that front. All that could be arrived at was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which took until 1995 to evolve from an agreement into an institution in the shape of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The second unrealized objective has received much less attention. It was to establish an “International Clearing Union” (ICU) for use in transactions between countries.[5] The U.S. – enthusiastic backer of much of the Bretton Woods’ discussions – was completely opposed to this. The establishment of an ICU would have sidelined the role of the U.S. dollar in international transactions. Emerging from the war controlling something like half of the world economy, the United States looked forward to the advantages that would accrue to its corporations and government from its new place as the centre of empire. Without an ICU, the U.S. dollar – like the British empire’s pound before it – would almost inevitably become the chief currency for international transactions.

Money is a peculiar thing. It is the necessary link between producers and consumers, employers and workers. It is also something that can be a “store of value.” Accumulate a lot of money, and you can have access to a lot of commodities, or a lot of that most special of commodities, labour power. In the early years of the world economy, precious metals, such as gold and silver, evolved into the material of choice to represent value – scarce enough to be “valuable” in themselves, but abundant enough so they could circulate in sufficient quantities to keep the economy functioning. In states that were sufficiently large and stable, a modification of this system developed. Paper money (probably first used in China more than 1,000 years ago) is essentially a promise that, should the holder so choose, the paper can be exchanged for a certain amount of gold or silver. So precious metals had not disappeared from the equation. They had simply been pushed into the background.

At Bretton Woods, the U.S. argued for and won a particular framework by which money could circulate in the world economy as a whole. It argued that it could guarantee currency stability by a double linkage – world currencies to the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar to gold. Other currencies could price themselves in U.S. dollars, and that would be “good as gold” as the U.S. committed that anyone who wished, could turn in their U.S. dollars in exchange for the real thing – for gold, held at a fixed rate of $35 an ounce.

The establishment of the U.S. dollar as the world’s chief currency for international transactions had some risks. Should everyone with U.S. dollars demand they be exchanged for gold at the same time, the system would be in crisis. But it also held out enormous benefits. A key component of the world economy consists of the international reserves held by each country’s central bank to facilitate economic exchanges between nations. Traditionally, the key component of these reserves was gold. But with the U.S. dollar “good as gold” it became increasingly the practice for central banks to hold U.S. dollars as their international reserve, along with and increasingly in place of gold. The U.S. dollar was not the only such currency. Most central banks hold reserves in several of the different major currencies. But since Bretton Woods, by far the dominant currency held in central banks has been the U.S. dollar. Charts mentioned in this analysis are available at the end of the article. The first chart[6] shows that this remains true into the 21st century. At any one time between 1995 and the present, U.S. dollars represent some 60 to 70 per cent of allocated international reserve holdings throughout the world.[7]

There are some important qualifications to be given to these percentages. First, these figures are provided “on a voluntary basis” from the 140 countries participating in the IMF process which compiles them. Second, not all international reserves are identified. The percentages here are for “allocated” reserves alone. There is a quite large, and growing, portion of international reserves held by central banks which are “unallocated” because the IMF simply does not know what they are. In 1995, 26 per cent of foreign exchange reserves went into this mystical “unallocated” category. By 2010, that had risen to 44 per cent. These qualifications aside, it remains the case that fulfilling the role of internationally recognized “store of value” for international transactions, requires a huge quantity of U.S. dollars, measured in the trillions. The next chart[8] demonstrates this, showing total foreign exchange reserves, total allocated reserves, and total reserves held in U.S. dollars. The amounts are vast (by 2010 more than $8 trillion in total foreign exchange reserves, of which more than $3 trillion in U.S. dollars) and growing.

This was the first, and centrally important, privilege of empire. The United States, alone in the world economy, had partially broken the link between trade deficits and currency decline. Most countries which run large trade deficits, see their currency decline in value. Less relative demand for an economy’s goods means, normally, less relative demand for that country’s currency. But the United States could partially defy that law. Regardless of demand for U.S. goods, there is always a demand for U.S. dollars, as the principle “store of value” for central banks around the world. As long as the U.S. dollar was “good as gold” it could run – and has run – very large trade deficits, without seeing its currency collapse. The annual trade deficits which the U.S. has been running since 1975 are a downward pull on the value of the U.S. dollar. But that has been significantly lessened by the constant demand for the U.S. dollar as a store of value on an international scale.

It is, then, of some interest, what exactly is represented by the large and growing “unallocated” portion of foreign reserves, pictured above. If that represents a hidden move away from the U.S. dollar towards other currencies, then this long love affair between the world’s central banks and the U.S. dollar might be in jeopardy. If and when that love affair ends, and the U.S. dollar starts behaving like a “normal” currency, the consequences will be profound.

2. The Nixon Shock and the Era of Devaluation

So the first, and still important, privilege of empire was to establish the U.S. dollar as “world money.”[9] But empires do not last forever. The second aspect of United States’ currency wars developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the first signs of the relative weakening of the U.S. empire began to reveal themselves.

Part of the background were the U.S. wars in Indochina. From small beginnings under John F. Kennedy, these wars under first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon, grew into murderous, destructive and hugely expensive affairs. The U.S. had won the right, through Bretton Woods, to print money almost without impunity. But emphasis here has to be put on the word “almost.” The enormous expenses involved in keeping an army of half a million overseas began to put severe strains on the U.S. economy.

The other part of the background had to do with the defeated powers from World War II. Japan and Germany (and with Germany the rest of Europe) had considerably recovered from the destruction of war. Their economies were growing, and they were not burdened with the cost of empire and war as in the United States. Crucially, the recovering European and Japanese economies were running big trade surpluses, and accumulating growing piles of U.S. dollars. Gold on the open market was trading above $35, but the Bretton Woods’ exchange rate system pegged the U.S. dollar to gold at $35 an ounce. Increasingly, central banks, in Europe in particular, were exercising their Bretton Woods right to convert their U.S. dollars for gold – in effect, gaining access to gold below market value. The dangers to the U.S. economy were very clear, as gold fled the country both to pay for imperialist wars and to meet Bretton Woods obligations.

Secretary of the Treasury John Connally, a life-long militarist and hawk, would not, of course blame U.S. foreign policy adventures for the crisis of his country’s economy. But the other half of the equation he saw absolutely clearly. He argued that action was needed “to head off what the Administration believe[d] to be the most important non-military threat to U.S. national security: economic competition from Japan and Western Europe.”[10]

August 15, 1971, Richard Nixon announced a New Economic Policy. In Japan, it became known as the Nixon Shock. That day, the Bretton Woods system broke down. More accurately, the United States walked away from Bretton Woods. Nixon announced that the U.S. would no longer automatically exchange U.S. dollars for gold at $35 an ounce. In effect, he was removing gold as the standard by which currencies were measured, leading to the current system of “floating” exchange rates. The immediate effect was a steep and stunning decline in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. This was precisely the intention of the Nixon Shock. As Time magazine reported in 1971: “American officials who once proclaimed the majesty of the dollar now cheer declines in its price on newly freed money markets, because they hold the potential for helping the U.S. balance of payments.”[11] This was devaluation on a scale about which China can only dream. And it is a devaluation which has continued in the almost forty years since.

A previous article examined some of the statistical challenges in measuring the relative strength of the U.S. dollar.[12] The most common database by which to compare the relative strength of currencies begins in 1973. In other words, it excludes the impact of the Nixon Shock, and in doing so “flattens” the picture, showing only a modest downward trend for the U.S. dollar. But a database with a more complete set of statistics, stretching from just before the Nixon Shock to the present, can be put together from other sources – with figures for the U.S. dollar, the historically most important currency in Asia (the Japanese yen) and the “euromark” (a composite notional currency comprised of the German mark until 1998 and the euro from 1999 on). The result, visible in the third chart[13], is very clear. The U.S. dollar is approximately 1/3 of what it was in 1971, compared to the yen and the “euromark,” and its trajectory is without question down. The reasons for this long-term slide relative to other major currencies are for another paper. But the fact of the weakening of the U.S. dollar is incontrovertible.

It is worthwhile at this point in the analysis to marvel at the arrogance of U.S. policy makers. In 1944, a system to stabilize the world economy was put in place, which had the side benefit for the United States, of privileging its currency as the store of value for central banks around the world, allowing United States’ policy makers to print money almost at will. When this capacity to print money out of proportion to the needs of the economy, in particular to finance murderous wars in Indochina, started to put strains on the system, the United States simply walked away from its obligations. It left the Bretton Woods’ monetary system in ruins, and imposed on the rest of the world a remarkably steep devaluation of its currency, making U.S. produced goods more competitive, and those produced in Japan and Europe less so. We could end the story at this point. The evidence of U.S. manipulation of the world currency system to its advantage is overwhelming, and has a very impressive pedigree. But the story is only half done. There are two other key aspects to the “privilege of empire” still to be examined.

3. Petrodollars: the fuel of empire

The collapse of Bretton Woods led to a short-term devaluation of the US dollar. Other things being equal, it is conceivable that this devaluation could have accelerated into a collapse. However, the death of Bretton Woods was followed by another era in the history of the dollar – that of the Petrodollar. In the early 1970s, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) made the historic decision to invoice the trade of oil in dollars. In part under the direction of then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the United States and Saudi Arabia in 1974 launched the “United States – Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation.” The key decision arising from this commission was for Saudi Arabia to sell its oil in U.S. dollars. “As the largest OPEC producer, the Saudis used their strong influence in OPEC to persuade other members to follow suit; and they did. In 1975, OPEC announced its decision to invoice oil sales in dollars.”[14]

This meant that there was another reason for every nation to hoard U.S. dollars, whether buying goods from the U.S. or not. To buy oil, you needed U.S. dollars, something which set both oil and the U.S. dollar apart from their equivalents in the world economy. To buy apples produced in Canada, someone outside of Canada in effect has to buy Canadian dollars at the same time. The apples are priced and traded in local (Canadian) currency, so a demand for apples implies a demand for the Canadian currency. But not with oil. To buy oil from Saudi Arabia – or Iran, or Venezuela – you didn’t need access to the currencies of those nations, but rather to U.S. dollars. Increasing demand for oil from these producers, then, meant perversely increasing demand for U.S. dollars. Bessma Momani summed it up as follows.

Since the mid-1970s, the value of the United States’ dollar has been upheld by a number of domestic and international factors. An often underestimated factor is that oil is sold and traded in US dollars. Arguably, having the dollar used as the ‘main invoice currency’ for oil makes the trade of this vital resource the new post-Bretton Woods’ Fort Knox guarantee of the dollar.[15]

Nixon broke the link with gold in 1971, and at first glance that should have led to a very steep and long term decline in demand for the U.S. dollar. But because of the pivotal role of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market – the market for the one indispensable commodity for world capitalism – the decline was mitigated. There remained constant demand for the U.S. dollar because of permanent and rising demand for oil.

The United States again benefited from the “privilege of empire.” They could slow the decline of the dollar because of their still dominant position in the world economy. With a resulting capacity to print dollars far in excess of that of other nations, the United States has been able to continue financing enormously expensive wars abroad, while at the same time running large and growing trade deficits at home. No other country in the world has this kind of capacity.

There were other perverse effects from the creation of a world awash in petrodollars. The oil exporting countries amassed huge quantities of these dollars, far in excess of anything they could spend internally. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, much of these excess funds “were saved and deposited with banks in industrial countries,” in particular in banks in the United States. “The banks, in turn, lent on a large part of these funds to emerging economies, especially in Latin America. When the oil boom subsided in the early 1980s, bank flows to emerging markets reversed sharply, triggering the Latin American debt crisis.”[16]

That is how the antiseptic language of an IMF working paper outlines the issue. It could be restated as follows. Billions of dollars left the United States, Europe and Japan to pay for oil imports in the 1970s and 1980s. The billions of dollars received by OPEC countries were far in excess of any local consumption and development possibilities (in large part because these countries had distorted development patterns after decades of oppression by the rich countries of the Global North.) So in turn, these billions flowed back to the Global North in the form of massive deposits in particular into U.S., banks. “Nearly 500 billion petrodollars were recycled from oil producers with a capital surplus to countries with trade deficits.”[17]

It didn’t end there. The same processes driving this flow of money – the spike in the price of oil in the 1970s – made it very difficult for developing countries in Latin America to finance their industrialization. They had “balance of payments” problems. Under pressure from the IMF, these countries were encouraged to borrow the petrodollars sitting in the vaults of the Global North banks. These petrodollars were in effect ” ‘recycled’ through the IMF”[18] in the form of loans to countries in the Global South from the excess money sitting in the banks of the Global North. This was aggressively marketed as an alternative to the nationalism and state-led development strategies of the 1960s and early 1970s. When interest rates spiked in the 1980s, the loans incurred became unsustainable, and the economies of Latin America spiraled into a deep crisis.

Billions of dollars slosh through the world economy, enriching states and financial institutions in the Global North, creating short-term frenzies for debt-financed development, and laying the basis for long-term crisis in the developing world. The petrodollar aspect of U.S.-based currency wars is an issue for the poorest countries of the world, not just its richest.

The benefits of the Petrodollar era might be beginning to unravel for the United States. Bessma Momani concludes that it is unlikely that in the short term, the OPEC countries will end their use of the U.S. dollar. But, should the U.S. dollar continue the long decline outlined earlier in this article, there will be increasing incentives to diversify away and into other “stores of value” such as the euro. The consequences for the U.S. would be very serious.

4. Quantitative Easing – Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap[19]

The long decline of the U.S. dollar documented earlier – a decline that is ongoing – is one reflection of the growing relative weakness of the U.S. in the context of the world economy as a whole. This growing weakness was revealed by the harsh impact of the most recent recession on the U.S. economy, one felt much more strongly there than in the other major economies. In the face of this deepest recession in a generation, the fourth and final aspect of U.S.-based currency wars came to the fore. It is without doubt the strangest of any that we have looked at, not the least because of its mysterious name, “Quantitative Easing.”

There are several ways of defining Quantitative Easing. According to the Central Bank of the United Kingdom, it is a way of injecting money into the economy “by purchasing financial assets from the private sector.” How are these assets paid for? Why “with new central bank money.” But where does that money come from? Well, “the Bank can create new money electronically by increasing the balance on a reserve account.”[20] And that’s it. New money is just simply, created. If your balance is $1,000, add a “zero” and it’s $10,000, new money created “electronically by increasing the balance on a reserve account.” Quantitative easing’s “effect is the same as printing money in vast quantities, but without ever turning on the printing presses.”[21] A skeptic would argue that the obscure term “Quantitative Easing” was chosen as less likely to arouse suspicion than a more transparent name such as “Harry Potter money creation.”

When this was policy in Japan in the wake of the deep recession of the early 1990s, it was derided in the U.S. press as something “which essentially stuffed Japanese banks with cash to help them write off huge bad loans accumulated during the 1990’s.”[22] But since 2008, this policy of creating money from nothing has been embraced with passion in the United States. In 2008, the U.S. central bank (the Federal Reserve) “bought $1.7 trillion -worth of Treasury and mortgage bonds with newly created money.”[23] That $1.7 trillion did not exist. It was brought into existence electronically, transferred to the books of financial institutions, in the hopes of pushing that newly minted money into the economy and stimulating growth. That program is now over. There is, however, every prospect that another round of Quantitative Easing will be announced in the coming weeks, with anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion being created electronically to “stuff U.S. banks with cash to help them write off huge bad loans” accumulated in the last 10 years, to paraphrase the sarcastic analysis of Japan’s similar policies.

Whether or not this will stimulate growth is a matter for debate. There are, however, two things we know it will accomplish. First, it will in the long term, accelerate the decline of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. Second, as this flood of money depresses interest rates in the U.S., it will put upward pressure on other currencies “as investors rush elsewhere, especially into emerging economies, in search of higher yields.”[24]

Several conclusions need to be drawn here. First and most importantly, there are absolutely no grounds for Timothy Geithner or any other U.S. official to point the finger elsewhere – at China for instance – and try to fix blame for the initiation of currency wars. From blocking the creation of ICUs at Bretton Woods in 1944, to the Nixon Shock of 1971, to the Petrodollar era from 1974 to the present, the United States has demonstrated an unprecedented willingness to intervene in and artificially skew the world’s money markets. With its adoption of Quantitative Easing, it has taken this to a new level, a “shock and awe” approach to the currency wars that makes any actions by China pale in comparison.

Second, the issue of monetary policy cannot be looked at from a strictly economic point of view, but has to be examined with one eye on the economy and the other on politics. The entire economic history of the U.S. dollar is incomprehensible without the political history of U.S. imperialism. The deep distortions in the international monetary system are a reflection of the “privileges of empire” abused by the United States. The decline of that empire and the slow ending of those privileges promise to make the United States pay dearly for these distortions, but only after having wreaked havoc on much of the rest of the world.

But there is another conclusion that needs to be taken seriously, and it is something that can only be broached in this article. Conservative analysts see the history outlined above, and long nostalgically for a return to the gold standard. This is a reactionary and impossible utopia. There are just over 30,000 tonnes of gold held in official reserves around the world.[25] But even at the current high rate of $1250 an ounce, the total value of these reserves would be just over $1 trillion. The world economy is measured in tens of trillions of dollars. Any attempt to anchor the transactions of the world economy to the inflexible and slow-growing physical accumulation of gold that exists in the world would be impossible. A gold standard can simply not allow for the reflection of value in the money supply that is necessary for a modern economy to function.

However, there is an important problem, suggested by the picture sketched out here, that needs to be addressed. The break from the gold standard towards the U.S. dollar, the musing in the 1940s about an ICU, the Harry Potter economics behind quantitative easing – all are the chaotic expressions of attempts to address a very real issue. The value of the goods and services produced in the world need to be measured, reflected abstractly in some unit of measurement, and then that information used to determine investment, production and consumption decisions. The problem is not the attempt at addressing this issue. The problem is, that in a world capitalist system, this attempt is corrupted by private greed, imperialist domination of the Global South, and the militarized designs of the hegemonic state, which means that instead of a reasoned and thought-out approach, we get the dangerous chaos and instability outlined here.

Analytically, this demands taking the issue of money very seriously in anti-capitalist analysis. Marx’s brief comments on it 150 years ago are interesting. Earlier, this article used his term “world money” – money set aside for transactions between national economies in the context of the world economy. Marx argued that it is only here, “in the markets of the world that money acquires to the full extent the character of the commodity whose bodily form is also the immediate social incarnation of human labour in the abstract. Its real mode of existence in this sphere adequately corresponds to its ideal concept.”[26] The emergence of world money under capitalism takes a distorted, fetishized form. But it nonetheless represents something real – a reaching towards an adequate mechanism by which to measure the products of our labour, and redistribute them.

This process is controlled by bankers, industrialists, generals and politicians. Until it is brought under the democratic control of the vast majority – the workers in workplaces, fields and homes who produce all the wealth of the system – this money-form of capital will control us, and throw us into periodic crises which wreck economies and lives.

Next
Another G20 Summit: The New Club of Hostile Brothers
Message to the U.S. – Blame the wars, not China

Charts referenced in the article

(c) 2010 Paul Kellogg

Publishing History

This article was published as Currency wars and the privilege of empire,Links, 23 October.

References

[1] Gennady Sheyner. “Secretary Geithner vows not to devalue dollar.” Palo Alto Online News. 18 October, 2010.
[2] Andrew Clark. “US politicians threaten trade war with China.” guardian.co.uk. 29 September, 2010.
[3] John Maynard Keynes. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, 1995 (first published 1919). Also available online.
[4] Manfred B. Steger. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009: 39.
[5] George Monbiot. “Clearing Up This Mess.” Monbiot.com. 18 November, 2008.
[6] IMF. “Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER).” www.imf.org. 30 September, 2010. Accessed 19 October, 2010.
[7] Prior to 1999, the euro did not exist, so figures here for 1995 through to 1998 are for a “euro equivalent” – the sum of the old Deutsche mark, the French franc, the Netherlands guilder and the European Currency Unit (ECU), all of which have ceased to exist with the launch of the euro.
[8] IMF. “Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER).” www.imf.org. 30 September, 2010. Accessed 19 October, 2010.
[9] The concept of “World Money” (sometimes translated as “Universal Money” or “Money of the world”) was developed by Karl Marx in the first volume of Capital (Karl Marx. Capital, Volume I. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Collected Works, Volume 35. New York: International Publishers, 1996: 153-156. Available online). The importance of this concept has been underlined in the contemporary period by David McNally in “From Financial Crisis to World Slump: Accumulation, Financialization, and the Global Slowdown.” 2008.
[10] Cited in Bruce Muirhead. “From Special Relationship to Third Option: Canada, the U.S., and the Nixon Shock.” American Review of Canadian Studies, 34:3, Autumn 2004: 439.
[11] “The Economy: Changing the World’s Money.” Time. 4 October, 1971.
[12] See Paul Kellogg. “The Septembers of Neoliberalism.” PolEcon.net, 29 September, 2008.
[13] Derived from Oanda.com. Accessed 19 October, 2010.
[14] Bessma Momani. “Gulf Cooperation Council Oil Exporters and the Future of the Dollar.” New Political Economy, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 2008: 297.
[15] Momani: 293.
[16] Johannes Wiegand, “Bank Recycling of Petro Dollars to Emerging Market Economies During the Current Oil Price Boom.” IMF Working Paper WP/08/180. July 2008: 4.
[17] David E. Spiro. The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets. New York: Cornell University Press, 1999: 1.
[18] Saleh M. Nsouli. “Petrodollar Recycling And Global Imbalances.” www.imf.org. 23-24 March, 2006.
[19] Apologies to AC/DC. “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.” 1976.
[20] James Benford et. al. “Quantitative easing.” Quarterly Bulletin, Bank of England, 2009 Q2: 91.
[21] “Quantitative Easing.” The New York Times. 21 October, 2010.
[22] Martin Fackler. “Economists Are Watchful as Tokyo Ends Loose-Money Policy.” The New York Times. 9 March, 2006.
[23] “It’s all up to the Fed.” The Economist. 14 October, 2010.
[24] “How to stop a currency war.” The Economist. 14 October, 2010.
[25] World Gold Council. “World Official Gold Holdings.” September 2010.
[26] Marx: 153.

Addicted to war: A tale of three corporations

In the unfolding of the current economic crisis, many are looking to the state for help. There has been a sudden revival of state intervention or Keynesianism. But what kind of state intervention? There is a dangerous pattern, established over years, of corporations in trouble turning to “Military Keynesianism” – producing for sale to the armed wing of the state – as a “quick fix” for deep structural problems. Corporations addicted to war are the worst way to fix economic problems – a “solution” which only accelerates pressures to engage in overseas military adventures.

Some corporations are well-known as being embedded in the Military-Industrial Complex. In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore identified Lockheed-Martin as the world’s biggest weapons maker, and in spite of the outrage this created from supporters of U.S. imperialism, his statement is probably true.[1] But there are other corporations which are less well-known as arms-manufacturers. Boeing, for instance, while for a long time a supplier to the Pentagon, is usually seen as a largely civilian corporation – the company of the Jumbo Jet. However, in a dramatic evolution since the early 1990s, Boeing has transformed itself from civilian to military production.

Boeing revealed itself as a major military player in the context of the development of the National Missile Defence (NMD) program – better known as Star Wars. Boeing is the “Lead System Integrator” for NMD “responsible for ensuring that all component NMD parts and systems are developed and integrated successfully.”[2] Pushed to the background by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the time-bomb of NMD is still ticking away in the background. Col-Gen Varfolomey Korubushin, first vice-president of the Military Science Academy in Russia, has said, “If the U.S.A. deploys a national missile defence [system], other nuclear powers may opt for increasing their nuclear missile potential, which will worsen the situation in the world.”[3] He should know. After all, his government is a full participant in this burgeoning arms race, in 2005 successfully testing a “missile with a highly manoeuvrable warhead capable of annihilating the national missile defence (NMD) currently being developed by the Americans.”[4]

Boeing’s NMD role was symptomatic of a deep change in the physiognomy of the company. In the early 1990s, fully 80 per cent of Boeing’s revenue came from its sales of commercial planes – the jumbo jets and other passenger planes that are everywhere in the skies of the world. But in the next two years Boeing suffered a serious decline in revenues. In its annual report for 1995 it explained this decline as “due to fewer commercial jet transport deliveries as a result of economic conditions and airline industry overcapacity in most major market areas of the world,” [5] what Karl Marx called “a crisis of overproduction.”

The company’s solution to this problem was revealed in 1997, with its merger with McDonnell Douglas. The merger was driven by one consideration – while Boeing was in its majority a “civilian” corporation, McDonnell Douglas was one of the Pentagon’s prime contractors. Its 1996 Annual Report “At A Glance” section, proudly proclaimed that it was “#1 military aircraft maker, #2 prime contractor and research-and-development contractor to the U.S. Department of Defense, and #4 NASA contractor.”[6]


The chart here shows its evolution through the 1990s, the percentage of its revenues derived from building military aircraft, missiles and other paraphernalia of the U.S. war machine rising from two-thirds to nearly 80 per cent.[7] Now there are some who would challenge the interpretation of these statistics. McDonnell Douglas, for instance, has three categories and not two: “military aircraft,” “commercial aircraft,” and “missiles, space and electronic systems.” But unless you are a “fly me to the moon” romantic, it is pretty obvious that “missiles and space” production is driven by the needs of a war economy, not by visions of Star Trek exploration. If anything, the emergence of Star Wars should make this abundantly clear.


The second chart reveals the resulting transformation of Boeing. From deriving just 20 per cent of its revenues from arms sales in the early 1990s, by 2004 and 2005, arms sales accounted for 60 per cent of its revenues.[8] From 2005 to 2008 that drifted down again to the 50 per cent mark. But that was before the outbreak of the current crisis. The picture is clear – Boeing has attempted to “solve” the crisis of overproduction that was plaguing it in the early 1990s, by turning to a customer with an eternal appetite for commodities – the Pentagon.

The transition to the war economy has succeeded in slowing Boeing’s decline. (But only partially – In 2003, Boeing had to cede to AirBus its position as the world’s largest airplane manufacturer.[9])

AirBus has unveiled its new, massive A380 airliner – the largest passenger jet ever built – capable, in some configurations, of seating more than 800 people. The plane is designed as a “jumbo-jet killer” to displace Boeing’s big 747 at the top of the commercial airline market. Perhaps then we can look to Europe as a place where business is not driven by militarism. This is in fact how spokespeople for the European Union often market their institutions.

Look more closely. AirBus pushed hard to finish work on the A380 to allow its engineers to turn to building a new military transport plane, the A400M. This massive plane is described by Airbus Military as “the most ambitious European military procurement programme ever undertaken.”[10] One commentator said that this, “the biggest joint venture ever in the European defence industry” was “crucial for the credibility of the European Union’s commitment to strengthen its military capability and coordination.”[11]

“Total firm orders for the A400M stand at 192 aircraft,” according to a leading airforce technology web site. Outside of Europe, South Africa has ordered 14. Malaysia has ordered four which could open the door to sales in other Asian countries.[12] European industry, in other words, is just as capable of playing the war production game as is American.

Perhaps this new militarism is particular to the troubled aerospace industry, desperate for sales in a world saturated with expensive to build and maintain airplanes? Turn your attention to the world’s biggest manufacturing corporation, General Motors. GM, as everyone knows, is in trouble. Its current lurch towards bankruptcy has roots that go back years. By the end of 2004, its debt burden had skyrocketed to a mind-numbing $291 billion.[13] In 2005, it recorded losses totaling $10.6 billion.[14] The vast majority of GM’s earnings came from its finance arm, General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC), but to cover its mounting losses, it reached an agreement to sell 51 per cent of GMAC by the fourth quarter of 2006[15]. This staved off problems for a few months, but they came back with a vengeance in 2007 and 2008. February 2008, GM announced 2007 losses of $38.7 billion “the largest annual loss in the history of the auto industry.”[16]

Business analyst Robert Walberg has a solution. GM must, he says, find a “higher margin business with more promising and stable growth prospects.” That business, of course, is the death business. He doesn’t call it that. The nice word for the death business is “defence contracting”. Such a move into war production “could be a good one for the automaker, just as it was for the jet maker Boeing nearly a decade ago.” Walberg is nostalgic for “the 1940s, when GM delivered more than $12 billion worth of war material.”[17] Walberg doesn’t mention that the 1940s was the decade of the most destructive war in human history.

In this tale of three corporations, we have in outline form some of the key elements in the contemporary U.S. and world economy. Industry cannot survive in its traditional markets. Recurring crises of overproduction are driving debt levels higher and higher. In the search for a reliable consumer of last resort, again and again corporations are driven towards arms production. War requires that states purchase massive quantities of expensive to produce weapons and materiel – and if overproduction is the problem, then war with its infinite destructive potential is “the answer”.

It is an economic solution that clearly carries with it huge political and social risks, and very starkly poses the necessity of finding a political solution. The turn to state intervention into the economy is a welcome reprieve from the decades of neoliberalism. But if that state intervention is the intervention of the warfare state and not the welfare state, the dangers for working people around the world are obvious.

© 2008 Paul Kellogg

References

[1] See for instance Andrea Rothman, “U.S. chief executives, Pentagon brass fail to make Paris show,” Chicago Sun-Times, June 17, 2003, p. 54. Rothman without comment and quite uncontroversially, refers to L-M as “the world’s biggest weapons maker.” But this is for the consumption of the readers of the business press. It is one thing for investors to know the truth about who builds what. It’s a little more awkward when that is made available to the public at large.
[2] Kevin Martin, Rachel Glick, Rachel Ries, Tim Nafziger and Mark Swier, “The Real Rogues: Behind the Star Wars missile defense system,” Z magazine, September 2000.
[3] Cited in “Deploying U.S. national missile defence may trigger arms race – Russian expert,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, February 27, 2006, ProQuest document ID: 994482301
[4] “Russia has successfully tested a warhead,” The Press Trust of India Limited, November 2, 2005, Gale Document Number: A138245614
[5] Boeing, 1995 Annual Report, www.boeing.com
[6] McDonnell Douglas, 1996 Annual Report, www.boeing.com
[7] Based on McDonnell Douglas, Annual Reports, 1994-1996, 2nd Quarter 1997, www.boeing.com. The figures for 1997 represent revenue for the first half of the year only
[8] Boeing, Annual Reports, 1995-2007, www. Boeing.com . Figures for 2003-2007 updated from “Five-Year Summary (Unaudited),” The Boeing Company 2007 Annual Report, p. 21 . 2008 Figures are annualized approximations based on three quarters of results available at “Boeing Posts Lower Third-Quarter Results on Reduced Commercial Deliveries,” News Release, October 22, 2008
[9] Robert J. Samuelson, “The Airbus Showdown,” Washington Post, December 8, 2004, p. A31
[10] Airbus Military, “Final go-ahead for A400M military airlifter,” Press Release, May 27, 2003, www.airbusmilitary.com
[11] Yacine Le Forestier, “Europe’s military aircraft dream takes wing at last,” AFP, May 27, 2003
[12] “A400M (Future Large Aircraft) Tactical Transport Aircraft, Europe,” www.airforce-technology.com
[13] Daniel Gross, “GM’s Debt Crisis,” Slate, Dec. 21, 2004, www.slate.com
[14] “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations / General Motors,” www.gm.com
[15] David Streitfeld, “GM Agrees to Sell 51% of Finance Unit,“ Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2006, ww.latimes.com
[16] Associated Press, “GM reports biggest-ever automotive loss,” www.msnbc.msn.com, Feb. 12, 2008
[17] Robert Walberg, “GM’s best offense could be defense,” MSN.com, February 3, 2005, www.moneycentral.msn.com

The Septembers of Neoliberalism

It was September 11, 1973, that the neo-liberal experiment began. The brutal U.S.-backed coup against Salvador Allende’s government opened the door for the “Chicago Boys” – a group of Chilean economists who had studied under Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago[1] – to “reconstruct the Chilean economy … along free-market lines, privatizing public assets, opening up natural resources to private exploitation and facilitating foreign direct investment and free trade.”[2] September 7, 2008 – thirty-five years later – that experiment came to an end, not with a whimper, but a bang. The neo-liberal regime of George Bush – more closely identified than any other world figure with the politics of keeping government out of the market – is now presiding over a state intervention into the so-called “free” market that is without parallel. When the dust settles: a) hundreds of billions of dollars will have been spent to try and fix a broken financial system; b) a generation of free-market arrogance and ideology will lie in ruins, its ideological clarion call “neo-liberalism” completely discredited; and c) the U.S. empire will be exposed as a declining (if vicious) beast. The events of September 2008 mark a watershed in the history of capitalism.

Fannie and Freddie

The first act in this story is in many ways still the most significant if not the most dramatic. September 7, 2008, the United States Treasury announced it would seize control of two institutions called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At the time, this represented “the world’s biggest financial bailout” (a record it would only claim for a few dozen hours). The U.S. government pledged to guarantee literally trillions in the two companies’ investments, something that estimates said would end up costing U.S. taxpayers in the order of $25 billion.

What are these peculiarly named institutions? Fannie Mae stands for “Federal National Mortgage Association” and Freddie Mac stands for “Federal Loan Mortgage Corporation.” Both are GSEs – “government-sponsored enterprises,” creations of the U.S. government, but which operate as shareholder run companies. Fannie Mae’s roots go back to the depression-era. It was created in 1938 to “provide funding to the housing market … Freddie Mac was created in 1970 to provide competition to Fannie Mae.”[3]

Their role in the housing market is indirect. Homeowners in the United States borrow money from lenders (banks and other financial institutions) just as in other countries. What Fannie and Freddy do is to buy these mortgages from the lenders. This gives the “mortgage initiators” instant cash, and a little bit of profit, allowing them to go back and quickly offer new mortgages. Fannie and Freddy then turn around and repackage the various mortgages they have purchased as “mortgage-backed securities.” They sell these securities on the secondary mortgage market – in effect borrowing money, but using these “securities” as collateral – counting on the income from the payment of mortgage principle and interest to give them cash to repay these loans.[4]

This “provides liquidity” to the housing market. It also has the effect of creating a huge incentive to get more and more people to buy houses, as at every level of this structure, incomes and profits are dependent on a constantly expanding base of home ownership. In the scheme above, there are massive fortunes to be made – by the banks and other mortgage issuers, by Fannie and Freddy and their hangers-on, and by the investors who buy up the Fannie and Freddy debt. Former Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd was in line to receive up to $8.4 million in compensation. Freddie Mac’s former CEO was in line for $15.5 million.[5] And John McCain’s campaign for the U.S. presidency, suffered a setback when it was revealed that Freddy Mac had been paying $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 until September 2008 to a firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager.[6] All had an incentive in “priming the pump” – creating incentives for working people to pony-up and enter the world of home ownership. The whole scheme works fine as long as homeowners can pay their mortgages. But if they can’t …

So base greed is an element that fed this bonfire. But that wasn’t the only, or even the biggest issue – the problems were structural. In the stock market crash at the turn of the century, huge fortunes were lost when the dot-com bubble burst. With investors burned from their experience in the stock market, U.S. interest rates were reduced to unprecedentedly low levels, as the U.S. federal reserve essentially “printed money” to stave off a deeper crisis. One key measure of interest rates, the U.S. federal funds rate, dropped below two percent in November 2001, and stayed below two percent for three years, bottoming out at just below one percent in December 2003.[7] Mortgage rates don’t track Federal Funds Rates exactly, but mortgage rates did come down, so that at their lowest point in 2003 and 2004, it was possible to get Adjustable Rate Mortgages (mortgages which increase or decrease with the rise and fall of interest rates) for between 3 and 4 percent.[8] In fact, people often were able to get mortgages below that rate – with incentives of very low interest rates in the first few years of the mortgage to encourage the plunge into home ownership. With millions moving into home ownership, the mortgage-backed securities market prospered. The effect was to create an environment where billions of dollars could flee an insecure stock market, and find a “safe haven” in the housing market, by investors moving from speculating in stocks to speculating in “mortgage-backed securities.”

This structure was riven with problems. The rush into home buying which this created, pushed house prices very high very fast. This has been a visible problem for some time. In 2006, one analyst wrote: “Cheap money turned the real estate boom into a frenzy … prices in most hot markets … soared by 55 per cent to 100 per cent (on top of inflation). Trying to keep pace, buyers increasingly resorted to riskier loans to lower monthly payments. Two types became the rage: adjustable rate mortgages and exotics.” We have already looked at the ARMs. The Exotics bear a little examination, the most extreme of which was “the negative-amortization loan, which allows borrowers to pay less than the interest due. The unpaid interest is tacked onto the principal, so the size of the loan grows every month. In 2004 and 2005, no less than 75 per cent of all mortgages were either ARMs or exotic loans, compared to 20 per cent in the late 1990s.”[9]


This outline is important. Some are blaming poor home buying decisions by ordinary working people for the way in which this crisis has unfolded. But it was not “reckless spending” by the poor. It was a structure, driven by greed, which created enormous pressures and incentives to abandon renting and jump into the home-buying game – simply because massive fortunes were being made. Suddenly, working people were being pressured to take on debt far in excess of their capacity to pay. The best way of measuring this is looking at the ratio of house prices to household income. The graph here shows a steady upward climb in that ratio for the United States as a whole, from the late 1990s to the mid-point of this decade – in some cities, an extremely steep rise.[10]

But interest rates don’t stay low forever. Here the story has another layer of complications. There is a close relationship in most countries between the health of the currency and the trend in interest rates. Roughly, if the country is increasing its international indebtedness, there will be downward pressure on its currency relative to other currencies. This can be countered by increasing interest rates to attract investors in spite of the increasing debt burden. At times these rates have to go up considerably to prevent a precipitous fall in the currency.


There are some who say this pressure has yet to make itself felt in the United States. The entire post-war period has been defined by the domination of the international economy by the U.S. dollar. Its “unique” place in the world economy is often seen as making it relatively immune to the downward pressure that other currencies experience when their economies become increasingly indebted. A commonly used measure of this is a comparison of the U.S. dollar to major currencies. The resulting graph does not show overwhelming U.S. dollar weakness, but rather a generations-long fluctuation with no clear trend either up or down.[11]

But there is a problem with this way of representing the health of the U.S. Dollar. The figures in this comparison go back only until 1973. This leaves out of the picture the biggest story in the history of the U.S. dollar, the effect of it “freeing itself” from the gold standard. This was the decision Richard Nixon took in 1971, allowing the U.S. to “print dollars” unencumbered by maintaining an equivalent stock in gold. The most readily accessible international comparative figures, because they begin in 1973, do not factor this epochal event into their picture. But it is possible to improvise a comparison.


The chart “Decline of the U.S. Dollar” shows the U.S. Dollar measured against the Yen (currency of Japan) and something that is being called the “EuroMark” – a statistical composite of the Mark, formerly the currency of Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, and the Euro which has now replaced the Mark and most other major European currencies. The result is very clear. The U.S. dollar is approximately 1/3 of what it was in 1971, compared to the Yen and the “EuroMark”.[12]

The U.S. Dollar has been steadily declining against its major competitors for years. The devaluation that happened after the abandonment of the gold standard was immediate and quick, becoming precipitous in the late 1970s. This was reversed in the early 1980s by a policy of very high interest rates, then fell steadily until the 1990s, recovering somewhat in the Clinton years, but returning to decline under Bush. As the dollar declines, it inevitably leads to a day when interest rates have to go up, or the dollar’s fall could accelerate dangerously. So in Bush’s second term, interest rates have inched upwards, and this in turn became part of an environment pushing higher and higher the interest rates on millions of peoples’ mortgages.

Finally, none of this works if homeowners start to lose their jobs. When this cycle began, unemployment was at historically low levels – just 3.9 per cent, in the last four months of 2000. That increased to 6.3 percent by September 2003, dropped below five percent through the last half of 2005 and the first two months of 2008, but has since climbed steadily to 6.1 percent by August of 2008.[13]

The effects of these problems became visible in the summer of 2007. With interest rates rising, some homebuyers could not make the payments, and the number of defaults began to rise. Rising interest rates and rising unemployment, started to decrease demand for houses, so prices began to fall. And with house prices falling, many saw the value of their house fall far below the principal remaining on their mortgage – creating an incentive to simply walk away from the debt – default on the mortgage, and go back to renting. The result has been the highest rates of foreclosures in the modern era. A report from the Mortgage Bankers’ Association indicated that: ”about 2.75 percent of all home loans, or about 1.75 million mortgages, were in foreclosure at the end of June [2008], up from 2.47 percent in March. That was the highest foreclosure rate since 1979, when the Mortgage Bankers first collected the data.”[14]

As these millions of foreclosures rippled through the system, the whole flimsy structure started to shake. Between them, Fannie and Freddy had issued $3.7 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities.[15] But suddenly, as mortgage payments started to fall because of defaults, as the assets backing these mortgages started to lose value with the falling prices of houses in the United States, these securities looked a whole lot less secure.

Bankers’ Strike

Neo-liberalism is a modern restatement of an old “free-market” orthodoxy. Markets know best. Let the “hidden hand” of the market do its magic, and a million individual decisions based on individual self-interest, will end up with a virtuous direction for the economy and society as a whole. Sometimes there are barriers to the operation of this hidden hand – too much government intervention, too much regulation being two of the most often cited. Get rid of them. The state’s role is to do away with regulation, to unfetter the markets from the hands of government, to let the markets do their work.

So – from the standpoint of neo-liberal orthodoxy, it is a matter of some indifference that Fannie and Freddy were under stress. Joseph Schumpeter argued last century that capitalism worked through processes of “creative destruction” where periodically whole sections of capital are destroyed in economic slump. This process, while painful, was central to the working of capitalism, clearing the ground for a new round of investment, the way in which a forest fire burns away the underbrush, allowing new saplings to reach for the sky. In Schumpeter’s words the “creative destruction” of competition, bankruptcy and consolidation “revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist has got to live with.”[16]

But the capitalists who made the decisions leading to the impasse of the U.S. financial system are not going to live with the consequence of their actions. Something pushed the neo-liberals into acting against neo-liberal orthodoxy and save those capitalists from the consequences of their actions. What the neo-liberals discovered was that the U.S. economy was not all-powerful, that had they let the process go too far, and the consequences of a full-blown cycle of “creative destruction” would have been disastrous. The issue was not simply one of mortgages – it was about the structural problems of the international, not just the U.S., capitalist system.

So far only one part of the story has been told, the story of mortgages, Fannie and Freddy, and their selling of “mortgage-backed securities”. The next question that has to be asked is, who buys these securities? The economists’ answer is that they are bought by “risk-averse investors such as banks, pension funds and central banks around the world,”[17] investors in other words who want a guaranteed return on their investments, and little or no risk of these investments turning into worthless paper. Fannie and Freddy’s total liabilities is mostly debt, most of it from the sale of mortgage-backed securities, and it totals in excess of $1.7 trillion dollars.[18] Significantly, increasing portions of that debt have been sold to non-U.S. banks and investors. The top five in reverse order, as of June 2007 were Taiwan ($55 billion), South Korea ($63 billion), Russia ($75 billion), Japan ($228 billion) and China ($376 billion).[19] The entire structure then was increasingly dependent on the willingness of banks and other institutions in these countries, to continue giving Fanny and Freddy billions of dollars.

This summer, it came to an end. Under pressure from their eroding mortgage business, Fannie stocks fell from $67.30 a share October 5 2007, to just $7 a share, September 4, 2008.[20] Freddy stocks followed the same downward slide, from $63.43 to $4.95.[21] Suddenly, non-U.S. investors, particularly in Asia, began to worry. The slide in share value of Fannie and Freddy raised the possibility that the two companies could go bankrupt. That would leave banks and investors in Asia and elsewhere holding pieces of paper worth billions of dollars less than their face value. “Chinese banks ‘were probably facing significant losses,’ says Logan Wright, an analyst with Stone & McCarthy Research.”[22]

Bankers from outside the United States began to apply leverage. In the first half of 2007, central bank holdings of Fannie and Freddie securities increased on average by $22 billion a month. But in 2008, those holdings fell by $27 billion from mid-July through early September.[23] And the Financial Times reported in August under the headline “Bank of China flees Fannie-Freddie,” that “Bank of China has cut its portfolio of securities issued or guaranteed by troubled US mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by a quarter since the end of June. The sale by China’s fourth largest commercial bank, which reduced its holdings of so-called agency debt by $4.6bn, is a sign of nervousness among foreign buyers of Fannie and Freddie’s bonds and guaranteed securities.”[24] “The threat of a central bank buyers’ strike was real,” accord to Brad Setser, a former Treasury Dept. official and now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.[25]

Neo-liberal orthodoxy dictated “let the market rule,” let the processes of creative destruction work themselves out. But bankers outside the U.S. who stood to lose billions from this market failure said; “Creative Destruction be damned. If you don’t act, we will start withdrawing our money. We are already doing it. We will not let you ‘cleanse’ your economy by leaving us holding worthless pieces of paper.” So facing an enormous catastrophe, Bush and the U.S. administration suddenly switched from the world’s biggest neo-liberals, to the world’s biggest state-capitalists, when they intervened to guarantee the debt held by Fannie and Freddy. Many of their neo-liberal ideologues were left wondering what had hit them. This whole thing might, said one commentator become a “nightmare scenario, the descent into quasi-socialism” which “balloons the national debt and wrecks foreign investors’ faith in the economy.”[26]

The state and capital

But of course this has nothing to do with “socialism” – unless it is a kind of Frankenstein’s Monster socialism, where the state robs from the poor to give to the rich – because that is exactly what is happening: tax dollars from U.S. workers to be used to pour into the balance sheet of two failed corporations. It is a myth of the neo-liberals that the state is separate from the market. There is of course the central role of state militarism. The British Navy ruled the waves so that British business could penetrate every corner of the globe in the 19th century. The U.S. military has time and again overthrown governments in Latin America to keep the hemisphere open for business. But there are also the directly economic ways in which the state is intimately tied to the development of capitalism. British imperialism jealously protected its industries behind the walls of empire. India did not build its rail network with British steel and rolling stock because of the market, but because of imperialism.[27] Japanese capitalism burst into the 20th century after the Meiji Restoration used the Japanese state to mobilize resources in order to industrialize.[28] Canadian capitalism had at its core the construction of a continental rail network, which bankrupted the private capitalists, and was only finished because of the state-capitalist “National Policy.”[29] In South Korea, the industrial revolution in the post-war era was inconceivable without the “chaebols”, very much creatures of the South Korean state.

The myth that capitalism is about the retreat of the state, and that socialism is about its reverse – state intervention – is a myth made easier by the long nightmare of Stalinism, where there were states which called themselves “socialist” and which said the same thing as the neo-liberals only in reverse: “We are socialist because the state owns everything: never mind the absence of civil rights and the absence of democracy.” But the Stalinist states are long gone, and a new generation is returning to the roots of the socialist movement, understanding that socialism is about popular control, workers’ control of the economy and the state, or it is about nothing. It can be important to have the state intervene to fix problems in the economy. But the key question becomes – who controls that state? In the United States, we can be pretty sure that the state is controlled by the corporate elite.

That capitalist state, having got the taste of government intervention to save capitalism from itself, has now become ravenous for more. Fannie and Freddy were only two of the institutions under stress because of economic problems in the United States. September 16, the U.S. Federal Reserve took over American Insurance Group for $85 billion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the rescue, calling the $85 billion a “staggering sum.” Ms. Pelosi said the bailout was “just too enormous for the American people to guarantee.”[30] But that staggering sum has now been dwarfed by another even larger sum. United States’ Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is asking Congress to come up with $700-billion to clean “toxic assets” out of the U.S. financial system. What he wants is to have enough money on hand so that any bank or financial institution which has a piece of paper that is looking pretty worthless, Paulson will have the money to say “no problem, we’ll take it off your hands.”

How do you come up with this “worst-case scenario” figure? Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in testimony that “ ‘various metrics’ could be used to arrive at that $700 billion number. It is 5% of $14 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt and roughly the same percentage of the $10 trillion to $12 trillion of commercial bank assets. ‘So it seems like an appropriate amount relative to the size of the problem.’”[31]

Seems like an appropriate amount. You would have thought he would have hired someone to get figures so that he could be a little more definitive given the “size of the problem.” What we are looking at is a trillion-dollar intervention by the U.S. government into the financial system of the world’s biggest economy – the biggest ever economic intervention by a state into any economy anywhere – that is going to change the shape of economics and politics for a generation. The crisis brings into focus three central points.

1) The decline of the U.S. and the Danger of Militarism

There has been a sharp divide in anti-capitalist circles over the position of the U.S. in the world system. Theorists like Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt argued that empire had become disembodied from the state.

In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial centre of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentred and deterritorialized apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding powers. Empire manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command. The distinct national colours of the imperialist map of the world have merged and blended in the imperial global rainbow.[32]

The actions of states in the context of the current crisis shows this analysis to be inadequate. The states of the various central banks which had holdings of U.S. securities, including the state in China – all have particular interests that they seek to assert. Similarly, the state in the U.S. is suddenly enormously and obviously important to Empire – doing what no corporation on its own can do, mobilizing the tax resources of working people to bail out the financial system. “Empire” is just as bound up with the state system – a system of competing and predatory states – as were all previous systems of imperialism.

Theorists like Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin have challenged Hardt and Negri on exactly this point, seeing very clearly the continuing role of the state in shaping the field of power that has been called “Empire.” However, in the place of a system of imperialist states, they tend to reduce “Empire” to just one state – the overwhelmingly dominant U.S. state. They have argued that U.S. penetration of European and Asian capital is so profound as to make irrelevant and archaic any notion of inter-imperial rivalry.[33] But this view too is being revealed as problematic. The long decline of the U.S. dollar, documented above, is an indication of the worsening competitive position of the United States against its rivals in Europe and Asia. And the way in which this bailout took shape – in part from the threat of a strike by central bankers outside the United States, refusing to further invest in U.S. securities, is another powerful indicator of a changing world order. The U.S. remains the world’s biggest economy and most powerful state. But its position relative to others has been in decline for decades, and this débacle shows that the decline is ongoing.

There is a very developed literature, under the heading of the “Permanent Arms Economy,” that makes a compelling case to explain this decline.[34] The long-term structural shift of resources into arms has effectively starved key sections of the U.S. economy of investment, allowing others in the world system to catch-up and in some cases economically overtake the United States. The massive military presence sustained by the U.S. since the Korean War, has been accomplished at the cost of its international competitiveness. Other countries have invested in their “civilian economies” to a much greater extent than the U.S., overtime weakening the relative position of the U.S. in the world system, something now being starkly revealed in the current economic crisis.

But we also know from the last empire to fall under the weight of its arms spending – the Soviet Union – that an addiction to war might have negative effects for an economy, but it is still an addiction. The Soviet Union stayed mired in pointless and bloody wars abroad virtually until it collapsed in the years 1989-1991. The U.S. addiction to arms spending is likely to have the same contours – bad for the economy, but unshakeable for the state. It means that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to be with us for some time.

2) Ideological crisis of neo-liberalism

This September financial shock, has opened up a period of deep confusion and splits for the hegemonic ideology of neo-liberalism. The $700-billion bailout is being pushed by Republican George W. Bush, the world’s pre-eminent neo-liberal. Its principal opposition has come from – the staunchly neo-liberal Congressional Caucus of his own party.[35] It was these neo-liberal hardliners who were at the core of the defeat of the $700-billion bailout package in the first vote in Congress.[36] The neo-liberal monolith has cracked over its key precept – that markets should be “free” of the state.

Without any question, this chaotic, sudden shift from the neo-liberal orthodoxy of the small state and the free market to a new state-capitalist interventionism – this shift will like a thunderbolt make millions question the orthodoxies of neo-liberalism. Why are the bankers being given billions, while those who have lost their homes get nothing? In the parlance of the journalists, “why is Wall Street getting billions that come from the pockets of the ordinary folk of Main Street”? If we are going to have state intervention, why not go all the way – use the money for public transit, green jobs, public housing, schools and education, investments that help ordinary people not overpaid bankers?

But as Naomi Klein has pointed out, a crisis in the ideology of neo-liberalism is not the same thing as a retreat from the policies of neo-liberalism – the privatization and deregulation which have so plagued working peoples’ lives for more than a generation.

It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right’s ability to use this crisis – created by deregulation and privatization – to demand more of the same. … the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and “free-market stimulus.”[37]

It is worth remembering that one of the modern architects of neo-liberalism, Margaret Thatcher, was very clear on this point. Thatcher is associated with the phrase “there is no alternative” or “TINA” – usually seen as justifying the unbridled rule of competition. Susan George writes that Thatcher:

… was well known for justifying her programme with the single word TINA, short for There Is No Alternative. The central value of Thatcher’s doctrine and of neo-liberalism itself is the notion of competition – competition between nations, regions, firms and of course between individuals. Competition is central because it separates the sheep from the goats, the men from the boys, the fit from the unfit. It is supposed to allocate all resources, whether physical, natural, human or financial with the greatest possible efficiency.[38]

But in Thatcher’s classic and most often cited use of the term, this was not quite what she said and this was not quite her point. At a speech to the Conservative Women’s Conference, May 21, 1980, Thatcher’s theme was the way in which wages were increasing too quickly.

Wages in the public sector are still higher than the country can afford … earnings will have to rise much more slowly if we are to avoid still more unemployment and if we are to get inflation down. It is too often forgotten that during the last two years there has been considerable increase in average living standards. What we produce has been growing much more slowly. We have to get our production and our earnings into balance. There’s no easy popularity in what we are proposing but it is fundamentally sound. Yet I believe people accept there’s no real alternative.[39]

The point is, Thatcher was not in the first instance driven by an abstract commitment to the market, but by a class commitment to transferring wealth from workers to employers. In this, the role of the state is a tactic, not a principle. The Thatcherite state showed its capacity to intervene against workers’ wages with real brutality during the bitter miners’ strike of 1984-1985.[40] Neo-liberal orthodoxy may lie exposed as nonsensical, but the class which brought us neo-liberalism remains in power, motivated by the same project – capturing the wealth produced by “Main Street” and making sure it ends up in the pockets of “Wall Street.”

3) The need for social movements against capitalism in all its forms

Which leads to the most important point, the need to insist that Thatcher and the neo-liberals are wrong – there is an alternative. In the 1990s and early 21st century, there was a magnificent international movement against neo-liberal globalization. The great protests against NAFTA led by the Zapatistas, the protests against the WTO in Seattle, against the FTAA in Quebec City, against the G8 in Genoa – these protests mobilized hundreds of thousands.

But the political leadership of these movements rested in groups like ATTAC in France or the Workers’ Party of Brazil. For them the target was not capitalism itself, but capitalism in its neo-liberal form. Neo-liberalism is now in open crisis, but the alternative on offer is not re-assuring – a strong state that protects corporations from their own excesses, and does so by taxing and squeezing the wages of ordinary workers. The problem is not just neo-liberalism. The problem is capitalism, whether in its “neo-liberal” or “state-interventionist” form. The next round of anti-corporate mobilizations needs that understanding at its centre.

We are seeing today in North America the hollowness of the neo-liberal dystopia. Others saw it earlier. It was after all the indigenous people of Chiapas who rose up against the neo-liberal North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in January, 1994, the peasants of Cochabamba in 2000 who stopped the water privatizers in their tracks, the masses of Caracas who in 2002 prevented the coup d’état which would have restored neo-liberalism in Venezuela, part of the swelling rage of all the oppressed in Latin America who, the principal road-block to the 2005 imposition of the U.S. led neo-liberal Free Trade Area of the America (FTAA). Perhaps just as neo-liberalism’s birth was in Latin America, it will similarly be Latin America where we will see the beginnings of the new social movements challenging capitalism in all its forms.

© 2008 Paul Kellogg

References

[1] Gilberto Villarroel, “La herencia de los ‘Chicago boys’,” BBCMUNDO.com, December 10, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk
[2] David Harvey, Spaces of Global Capital: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development (New York: Verso, 2006), p. 12
[3] “US rescues giant mortgage lenders,” BBC News, September 7, 2008
[4] Alana Semuels, “Q&A about mortgage giants Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Los Angeles Times, September 8, 2008, www.latimes.com
[5] The Associated Press, “Answers to your Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac takeover questions,” New York Daily News, September 11, 2008, www.nydailynews.com
[6] Jackie Calmes, David D. Kirkpatrick, “McCain Aide’s Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac,” The New York Times, September 23, 2008
[7] Bank of Canada, “Monthly Series: V122150: Federal Funds Rate”, www.bankofcanada.ca
[8] HSH Associates Financial Publishers, “HSH’s National Monthly Mortgage Statistics,” www.hsh.com
[9] Shawn Tully, “Real Estate Survival Guide,” Fortune, Vol. 153 Issue 9, May 11, 2006, pp. 94-102
[10] Calculated from Joint Centre for Housing Studies, The State of the Nation’s Housing 2007, “Additional Table: Metropolitan Area House Price-Income Ratio, 1980-2006,” www.jchs.harvard.edu. Figures are not yet readily available for 2007 and 2008. However, an update has been released to one analyst, which shows the same general trend, with the addition that from 2007 on, house prices have started to fall – the graphical representation of the bursting of the housing bubble. See CalculatedRisk, “Update: Ratio Median House Price to Median Income (2008 Report),” June 24, 2008, http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com
[11] U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, H.10 “Foreign Exchange Rates,” “Price-adjusted Major Currencies Dollar Index,” www.federalreserve.gov
[12] Derived from “FXHistory®: historical currency exchange rates,” accessed September 24, 2008.
[13] Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,” http://data.bls.gov
[14] Vikas Bajaj, “Foreclosures Rose as Delinquencies Eased in Quarter,” The New York Times, September 5, 2008
[15] According to Peter Coy, “Back on Track – Or Off The Rails?” Businessweek, September 22, 2008, p. 24
[16] Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 83
[17] Coy, “Back on Track,” p. 24
[18] MarketWatch, The Wall Street Journal Digital Network, www.marketwatch.com and Forbes.com
[19] U.S. Treasury Dept., as reported by Bruce Einhorn and Theo Francis, “Asia Breathes a Sigh of Relief,” Businessweek, September 22, 2008, p. 32.
[20] Yahoo Finance, http://yahoo.finance.com
[21] Yahoo Finance, http://yahoo.finance.com
[22] Einhorn and Francis, “Asia Breathes A Sigh of Relief,” p. 32
[23] Einhorn and Francis, “Asia Breathes A Sigh of Relief,” p. 32
[24] Saskia Scholtes and James Politi, “Bank of China flees Fannie-Freddie,” Financial Times, August 28, 2008
[25] Einhorn and Francis, “Asia Breathes A Sigh of Relief,” p. 32
[26] Coy, “Back on Track – Or Off the Rails,” p. 25
[27] Clarence Baldwin Davis, Kenneth E. Wilburn, Ronadl Edward Robinson, Railway Imperialism (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1991)
[28] Colin Barker, “Origins and Significance of the Meiji Restoration,” 1982, www.marxists.de
[29] Stanley Ryerson, Unequal Union (New York: International Publishers, 1968)
[30] Edmund L. Andrews, “Fed’s $85 Billion Loan Rescues Insurer,” The New York Times, September 16, 2008
[31] Joshua Zumbrun and Liz Moyer, “Your Guide To The Bailout Debate,” September 24, 2008, Forbes.com
[32] Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Empire (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. xii-xiii
[33] See essays in Leo Panitch and Colin Leys, eds., Socialist Register 2004: The New Imperial Challenge and Socialist Register 2005: The Empire Reloaded (London: Merlin Press). For an exchange that goes over this controversy in detail, see: Alex Callinicos, “Imperialism and Global Political Economy,” International Socialism 108 (Autumn 2005); Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, “ ‘Imperialism and Global Political Economy’ – A Reply to Alex Callinicos,” International Socialism 109 (Winter 2006); and Alex Callinicos, “Making sense of imperialism: a reply to Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin,” International Socialism 110 (Spring 2007) – all available online at www.isj.org.uk.
[34] See Michael Kidron, Capitalism and Theory (London: Pluto Press, 1974) for a classic development of this thesis. Some of Kidron’s writings are available at The Marxists Internet Archive, www.marxists.org
[35] Sheldon Alberts and Don MacDonald, “Bailout plan stalls as conservative Republicans voice their opposition,” The Vancouver Sun, September 26, 2008
[36] Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn, “Lawmakers Defy Bush and Party Leaders, Rejecting Bailout,” The New York Times, September 29, 2008
[37] Naomi Klein, “Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street’s Shock Doctrine,” The Huffington Post, September 25, 2008
[38] Susan George, “A Short History of Neoliberalism: Twenty Years of Elite Economics and Emerging Opportunities for Structural Change,” Transnational Institute,, March 24, 1999, www.tni.org
[39] Margaret Thatcher, “Speech to Conservative Women’s Conference,” Margaret Thatcher Foundation, May 21, 1980, www.margaretthathcer.org
[40] See, among other accounts, Alex Callinicos and Mike Simons, The Great Strike: The Miners’ Strike of 1984-5 And Its Lessons (London: Socialist Worker, 1985)