National debt and Neoliberalism

Velkataakka

Amerikkalainen neoliberalismi koettelee maailman markkinoita. Maailmanpankki, kansainvalinen valuuttarahasto ja WTO ovat kaikki yhteen aaneen kuuluttaneet amerikkalaista neoliberalismin evankeliumia, joka pelastaa maailman koyhat. Kotimaan markkinat on avattava globalismille (lue: amerikkalaisille yrityksille), verot on pidettava alhaisina, valtion rahankayttoa hillittava pitamalla sosiaalimenot kurissa. Monet koyhat, kehittyvat valtiot ovat joutuneet ojasta allikkoon, yrittaessaan toteuttaa neoliberalismin hyvaa sanomaa. Amerikan ja Euroopan markkinat eivat ole avautuneet lupausten mukaisesti, mutta omassa maassa maanviljely on kaynyt kannattamattomaksi amerikkalaisten dumppauksen jaljilta. Omavaraisuus on kadonnut ja ihmiset jopa nakevat nalkaa. Argentiinan lahihistoria on hyva esimerkki tasta.

Amerikka karsii itsekin omasta neoliberalistisesta politiikastaan. Velkataakka on kasvanut huikeaksi viimeisten viiden vuoden aikana, mutta verohelpotuksia annetaan huippurikkaille, joilla on jo nyt niin alyttomasti rahaa, etta he eivat tieda mita silla tehda. Mutta he eivat ole sijoittaneet sita uusiin tyopaikkoihin, kuten luvattiin (trickle-down economics). Sotaa kaydaan kohta neljatta vuotta, ja jotkut rikastuvat sotateollisuuden siivella, mutta me muut velkaannumme yha lisaa. Kuka lopulta maksaa amerikkalaisten velan kun sen aika tulee? Kun kiinalaiset lopulta paattavat, etta dollariin ei voi enaa luottaa (ja velkojen korko nousee akisti), vajoamme koko maailmanlaajuiseen depressioon, joka kestaa pitkaan.

Jan Nederveen Pietersen mukaan Bushin taustajoukot ovat valmiit ottamaan huikeita riskeja taloudellisesti, silla heidan tavoitteenaan ei olekaan neoliberalistinen maailma, vaan globaali imperiumi, jota Amerikka johtaa ja hallitsee. Siksi sota ja taloudelliset riskit eivat pelota, eika tavoitteesta poiketa muutamien "pikku" takaiskujen vuoksi.

National Debt

“When a country lives on borrowed time, borrowed money and borrowed energy, it is just begging the markets to discipline it in their own way at their own time. As I said, usually the markets do it in an orderly way - except when they don't.” (Friedman, 2005)

The United States has been the leader in the neoliberal onslaught on domestic and global markets for the last quarter century. It was on the agenda of Southern conservatives to dismantle New Deal capitalism in the name of competitiveness and flexibility, and bring in “lean government”. Gradually the belief in low taxes, fiscal discipline and small government became the mainstream mantra; everyone seemed convinced that making these structural reforms would bring prosperity across the board. But George W. Bush and his “Southern” conservative administration appear to be on a different path: yes, they do want to dismantle the remnants of the New Deal and privatize large parts of public services, but when it comes to fiscal discipline, they are on another planet!

According to Jan Pieterse neoliberalism is the “confluence of the economic ideas of the Chicago school and the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher” (Pieterse, 2004). The main tenets of neoliberalism are: 1) free markets and trade; 2) low taxes and small government; 3) commodification and privatization (and dismantling) of public services; 4) corporate deregulation; 5) promotion of consumerism; 6) strong military [in the U.S.] (Pieterse, 2004 & Cavanagh, Mander, 2004). Pieterse calls this “Dixie capitalism” denoting its roots in the deep South. “The economic strategy of the American South was ‘based on low-wage, labor-intensive, high-exploitation production, and hostility to unions…’” (Pieterse, 2004). The foundation of Dixie capitalism was on plantation economics with authoritarian leadership and low-cost labor.

The United States has been preaching the gospel of neoliberalism to the world through IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Its promise was to liberate the world’s poor through free markets, free trade and deregulation. So far it has not delivered. The income gap between the poorest and the wealthiest of the world is widening at a rapid rate (Pieterse, 2004). What is also troubling is the fact that the Bush administration is ignoring its own recipe for prosperity and stability.

…the main reason why the dollar is sinking is that the United States is going deeper into debt as our budget deficit and trade deficit continue to widen. Dollars are just like IOUs, worth less and less as debts mount. In other words, America’s deficits represent a kind of economic unilateralism that worries Europe almost as much as America’s go-it-alone foreign policy. (Reich, 2005)

The U.S. is not practicing fiscal discipline as expected by the tenets of neoliberalism. Americans are spending way over their heads while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and to multinational corporations, and fighting an expensive war all at the same time. This has caused the value of the Dollar to plummet with no end in sight. If there is another unforeseen event, such as a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, or a financial crisis with the Chinese, it could create a global recession not seen since the 1930’s. Why is the Bush administration taking such risks with the U.S. economy? According to Pieterse this administration’s seeming inconsistency with neoliberal strategy is due to the fact that the administration is not really after a neoliberal world but a global empire with the U.S. at the helm.

The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial project yields a combine of American economic and political-military unilateralism and a novel formation of neoliberal empire… The core of empire is the national security state and the military-industrial complex; neoliberalism is about business, financial operations, and marketing… so imperial policies come in addition to and not instead of the framework of neoliberal globalization. Neoliberal empire is a marriage of convenience with neoliberalism, indicated by inconsistent use of neoliberal policies, and an attempt to merge the America whose business is war, at a time when business is not doing so great. (Pieterse, 2004)

The Bush administration’s goal is global hegemony both militarily and economically. Bush and his neo-conservative comrades are willing to pay a high price for achieving this goal: they are willing to risk the collapse of the U.S. economy, the death of thousands of troops and civilians in wars abroad, and global chaos for years to come.

1) Cavanagh, John, Mander, Jerry 2004. Alternatives to Economic Globalization.

2) Friedman, Thomas 2005. Honey, I Shrunk the Dollar.

The New York Times

3) Pieterse, Jan Nederveen 2004. Globalization or Empire?

4) Reich, Robert 2005. That Sinking Dollar.