HBO. Its not TV... its HBO.
SERIES | MOVIES | SPORTS | DOCUMENTARIES | HBO FILMS | SCHEDULE | ON DEMAND | SHOP HBO | GET HBO
Welcome Guest
Topic Archived This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.

Obama's Economic Plan

[Replies: 322]
We need to pay off our debts to free up the resources tight up on servicing the debts. Then invest in our infrastructures to generate jobs and solid economy to be ready for the next boom. That's pretty much Clintonomics 101.

Ever heard of President Bill Clinton repeating super information highway back in those days?

Obama mentioned, "green," infrastructure.

Same difference, except the fact Obama has no viable exit strategy for the Iraq War. Link/Click

Yet, he sold a lot of votes through the pullout schedule he had been preaching.

When push comes to shove, most posters here try to dismiss this by telling me Obama and Clinton are really the same. No, they are not the same.

First of all, Hillary Clinton was far more honest about her approaches to Iraq. Second, President Bill Clinton has far more authorities on the Clintonomics which Obama is trying his best to mimic.

Many posters here told me I shouldn't be looking at only one issue. So lets take a look at the Obama economic plans, aside from the fiscal policies.

Why the United States of America cant leave Iraq

Source/Link

With its economy in rapid decline and with oil increasingly in short supply, the U.S. will not only remain in control of Iraqi oil, but will also attempt to seize Iran?s oilfields.

Have you noticed that the U.S. anti-war debate has begun to resemble Congress?s attitude to Iraq and Iran? There?s mild criticism of the Bush administration?s devastation of Iraq but the president does whatever he wants in Iraq and makes absurd accusations against Iran unchallenged. Debate concentrates on mistakes made rather than asking why such immense costs are being expended in the first instance.

More than most Americans, the anti-war movement examines the Iraq war in detail and it is realizing consciously what the U.S. political class already know. There are no mistakes. The U.S. is staring over a cliff and is going to go over. It cannot leave Iraq. If he can find a plausible reason, President Bush will be allowed to invade Iran as well. Everyone will then pretend that it?s all another tragic mistake.

Two factors make up the cliff that America nears:

? Simple supply and demand: the depletion of oil reserves, the necessity for the oil producers to conserve supplies and the inevitable effects of oil price rises on the world?s most intensive oil user.

? The U.S. dollar?s status as the world?s reserve currency. This requires some explanation.

A reserve currency is one that all countries will accept for trade purposes. It is really a substitute for gold because there is not enough gold to underpin the world?s currencies. It is particularly useful for trading oil, which is normally priced in dollars. Most countries also hold much of their foreign currency reserves in dollars both for this purpose and because the U.S. has been regarded as a politically and financially stable country.

Unhappily, the U.S. is running a trade and current account deficit, that is, it pays other countries more dollars in trade and services than it receives. The U.S. is essentially a business running at a loss. You might wonder where it gets the dollars to pay for the difference between cash received and cash paid.

Firstly, it uses the capital inflows from foreign investors. This is like spending borrowed money because investors are entitled to take their money back. Secondly, it can print money. That?s right. To get a billion dollars cash, the government simply prints the banknotes or interest bearing treasury notes for any amount it needs. These are purchased both within the U.S. and by foreign investors and governments who can use them for trade generally, not necessarily with the U.S.

Now, it is not always a bad thing to print money; indeed, in an expanding economy it is essential to increase the ?money supply?. Unfortunately, the U.S. economy is not expanding. The money supply increase is to support increased borrowing, both domestic and foreign. It is of concern to many that in March 2006 the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank ceased publishing M3 data, which is the broad measure of money supply. The fear is that this was to hide an inflationary borrowing.

Inflation in a reserve currency is a bad thing. Other governments? reserves are devalued ? they need more dollars to buy the same amount of oil and anything else priced in dollars. They might think it better to keep their foreign exchange reserves in euros, yen or a basket that corresponds more to their trade pattern. Investors don?t like inflation because both their capital investment and earnings are worth less. They will look for a more stable home for their investments.

There are particular concerns in the case of the USA:

? The level of government debt is now 9.5 trillion dollars with interest payable of about 450 billion dollars per year. This can only come from taxation (depressing the economy) or printing more money (fuelling inflation).

? The U.S. economy is arguably contracting. Figures for jobs and GNP do not necessarily provide an accurate picture. The types of jobs and distribution of income, for example, need to be taken into account.

? Much U.S. manufacturing has shifted off-shore or closed down. The industrial base is weak; industry is increasingly uncompetitive against China, India and other Asian countries. U.S. financial and other services are highly vulnerable to European and Asian competition.

? The recent sub-prime mortgage problems, crash in house prices and massive increase in liquidity in response from the Federal Reserve bring into question the Federal Reserve?s monetary competence (money supply and interest rate policy).

? Government borrowing against present and future expenditure commitments is unsustainable. The USA is living beyond its means, according to David Walker, recently retired U.S. Comptroller-General who is the government?s top accountant. This calls into question the U.S. government?s fiscal competence (taxation and government spending policy).

? Due to increasing competition for a diminishing supply, oil is being bartered or direct access agreements are being made between states. This undermines the petrodollar (dollars reserved for or involved in oil transactions).

? Oil is being priced in currencies other than the U.S. dollar and large-scale oil barter schemes are being established between Venezuela-South America and Iran-China/Japan, also undermining the petrodollar.

There is plenty here to worry international investors and holders of dollar reserves ? and they are worried. The change in the dollar?s value demonstrates this:

1 April 2002: = 1.14 euro

1 April 2008: = 0.64 euro

Over this period, foreign governments and international investors have seen their dollar reserves; U.S. investments and earnings lose 43 per cent against the euro, 33 per cent against the yen and 18 per cent against the rupee. This means that a manufacturer holding euros at present has an oil-buying advantage of 43 per cent over an American manufacturer, compared with their positions in 2002. The same is true of other commodities priced in dollars. This is why some governments are selling their dollar reserves.

If oil ceases to be traded in dollars, an important reason for the dollar?s reserve currency status will have disappeared and if it should lose reserve status, the U.S. will find few foreign buyers for its paper debt. If foreign investors disinvest in the U.S. as well, its economy could well collapse.

It does not increase international confidence in the U.S. government?s financial policies and regulatory systems that the U.S. has in the last few years exported to other countries many billions of dollars in worthless sub-prime mortgage ?securities?. Nor does it help that debt supports its high profile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the threatened war against Iran.

Here we come to the imperative for the U.S. to seize the Iraqi and Iranian oilfields. With its own oil nearing exhaustion, it cannot in future afford to purchase the enormous proportion of the world?s oil production on which its living standards are based. Its industrial production is uncompetitive, currency depreciating, finances supported by debt and, recently, its banks and investment houses have been supported by printed money in defiance of its much vaunted free market principles.

The U.S. needs an alternative philosophy and finds that it does not have one. It needs to change but cannot bring itself to change.

If the U.S. fails to put its economy and finances into a fit state for world competition it could be paying 500 dollars per barrel, perhaps 1,000 dollars per barrel for oil in five or 10 years time. This is why it cannot leave Iraq and why direct control of the Iranian oilfields is also desirable. Of course its actions in Iraq are themselves creating instability.

I have previously suggested from circumstantial evidence that the U.S. is stealing Iraqi oil and falsifying the statistics. In fact, no statistics for the past five years of U.S. occupation exist. The Iraqi oil fields and export terminals have been unmetered for this period.

(See the 2007 report of the International and Advisory Monitoring Board (IAMB) on Iraq, operating under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483. The published production and export statistics have no validity whatever. One may reasonably conjecture that the trading records are of similar quality.)

The IAMB also reports that barter agreements for oil are not accounted for by the Development Fund for Iraq as required by UN Security Council Resolution 1483. In terms of even the most basic standards of accounting and accountability this can only be called scandalous and criminal. It makes a mockery of the U.S. government?s claims to be developing Iraq and reveals the simple truth behind the invasion of Iraq. The invasion was a strategic plan to seize oil supplies that the U.S. government will soon be in no position to purchase.

We have tended to think that the American people have been deceived by the Bush administration?s lies. It appears that, although initially this was the case, America has realized the truth but cannot admit its complicity. It cares about its high living standards and American deaths, not Iraqi or Afghan poverty and deaths.

The American people do not recognize themselves in the mirror. They evidently see only fantasy images, unrelated to reality, derived from films. The reality that others see is horrific. If President Bush can engineer an excuse and a plan involving low American casualties, America will permit him to invade Iran as well ? and pretend that it did not know the truth. Pakistan Daily (www.Daily.pk)
Last Post Jun 23, 2008 6:03 PM by: infoseek
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(323 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 6:03 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Clinton vetoed drilling in AnWar 10 years ago......
>
> let Clinton pay for the oil..........
>
> until the oil prices come down.......
>
> anyway I don't think Obama can have a
> meaningful.....
>
> Economic Plan with only 143 days on experience as
> a.....
>
> Senator........


Nobody knew there'll a president insane enough to tip the balances of power in the ME THEN?

Nobody knew 911 will happen.

That was then, this is now. Drill+regulations on trading will probably cut the oil back down significantly.

--
McCain 08

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/23/2008 3:04 PM PDT
Nemeses2008
Posts: 1,627
Registered: 3/8/08
(322 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 6:00 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
Clinton vetoed drilling in AnWar 10 years ago......

let Clinton pay for the oil..........

until the oil prices come down.......

anyway I don't think Obama can have a meaningful.....

Economic Plan with only 143 days on experience as a.....

Senator........

--
Edited by Nemeses2008 at 06/23/2008 3:01 PM PDT
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(321 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 4:26 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
McCain's change to push for drilling opens up a whole new door.

Yes, it deepens our reliance on petro, but it's a plan.

Sure, we should always consume less through better battery technologies for hybrid, and other ways to cut down. However, we're still a petro-based economy.

Our dollar is riding on it.

Fuckos!

That sounds like a plan.

Pelosi? Do we just drill our way out of it? YES, because you've no plans.

Remarks By John McCain On Energy Security
Thursday, 19 June 2008, 8:20 am
Press Release: John McCain 2008

Remarks By John McCain On Energy Security

June 17, 2008 - Thank you all very much. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, and other distinguished guests, I appreciate your joining us today. And thank you all for the warm welcome to Houston.

Among its other distinctions, this great city is known as the oil capital of America. But people in Houston and all of Texas understand as well as anyone that the high price of oil and gas today is causing great harm all across our economy. People are hurting, small farmers, truckers, and taxi drivers unable to cover their costs, small business owners struggling to meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks falling. All of this, in large part, because the price of oil is too high, and the supply of oil too uncertain. These citizens believe their government has a duty to finally assure the energy security of this country, and they are right.

I first addressed this issue at the outset of my primary campaign. And in just that time -- a little more than a year -- the price of a barrel of oil has more than doubled. And the price of a gallon of gas in America stands at more than four dollars. Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134 dollars. And various oil ministers and investment firms have confidently informed us that soon we can expect to pay 200 dollars for every barrel, and as much as seven dollars for every gallon of gas. That may come as good news in Moscow, Riyadh, or Caracas, where economic growth and rising oil prices are more or less the same thing. But their oil prosperity is our energy vulnerability. And the jobs, family budgets, and futures of the American people should not depend on the whims of foreign powers. Oil and gasoline are the most vital of all commodities in a modern economy. Their price affects the cost of things even more basic and essential. America's dependence on foreign oil is a matter of large and far-reaching consequences -- none of them good.

Whoever controls oil controls much more than oil. And in our time, much of the world's oil supply is controlled by states, regimes, and a cartel for which America's well being is not exactly a priority. Many occupy a violent part of the world -- a region all the more violent for the influence of oil wealth. Their opinion of America runs the full spectrum from indifference to hatred. And yet these regimes are today the masters of the oil market.

Somehow the United States -- in so many ways the most self-reliant of nations -- has allowed and at times even encouraged this state of affairs. This was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation twenty years ago. It is a dangerous situation today. And starting in the term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy future, and become once again the master of our fate.

The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America. So in the days ahead I plan to return to the subject in a series of discussions to explain my reform agenda. And I will set forth a strategy to free America once and for all from our strategic dependence on foreign oil.

Energy policy has enormous implications for America's economic security, our environmental security, and, above all, our national security. Each one of these challenges demands our concentrated consideration. And each one requires that we look beyond the special interests that too often dominate energy policy. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good.

As in other challenges that confront our nation, we must shape events, and not simply manage crises. We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. There are dangers in the long term and dangers in the short term. Some tasks will be the work of decades, and some the work of years. And they all will begin in the term of the next president.

Among these is a challenge we hardly even understood back when America first learned to associate the word "energy" with "crisis." We now know that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all the need to avoid the consequences of global warming.

In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue. Conservation serves a critical national goal. Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources. This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar, biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented. It will include a variety of new automotive and fuel technologies, clean-burning coal and nuclear energy, and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to put the power of the market on the side of environmental protection.

But to make the great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels, we will need all the inventive genius of which America is capable. We will need as well an economy strong enough to support our nation's great shift toward clean energy. And this gives us only further incentive to protect ourselves from the sudden shocks and ever-rising prices that come with our dependence on foreign oil.

Up to a point, these sudden rises in the price of oil are explainable in the terms of basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, prices always rise, and this has happened very dramatically in the demand for oil. Two powerful forces in the oil market today are China and India, nations in which a third of humanity is suddenly entering the industrial era -- with all the cars, construction, and consumption of oil that involves.

There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.

That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.

Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.

Of course, with the formation of the OPEC cartel, and the oil embargo of the early 70's, we already left behind pure economics in the oil market, and we entered a new era of power politics. No longer was crude oil simply a commodity. Now, suddenly, it was a strategic weapon.

At the time of OPEC's oil embargo, we imported roughly a third of our oil. Now we import two thirds. At that time, every day, we produced more than nine million barrels of oil domestically. Now America produces five million barrels a day. Five million barrels sounds like a lot until we compare the number with the oil we use, which comes to 20 million barrels, or a quarter of all the oil used every day across the earth.

Of that total, a little more than half comes from Canada, from Mexico, and from our own domestic production. That's a heavy reliance on these two nations. But there is a world of difference between relying on two democratic neighbors and partners in NAFTA, and relying on often hostile and undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. When critics of trade talk about unilaterally renegotiating NAFTA, as my opponent has done, that's one more concern they might want to keep in mind.

It takes a very short leap in logic to wonder why we produce less and less crude oil, while we use more and more of it, or why politicians talk so much about promoting alternative energy sources, but often do so little to promote these alternatives. A reasonable observer, presented only with these numbers of consumption and production, might draw the conclusion that America has accepted this fate because we have no choice in the matter, or because we have no resources of our own. But just the opposite is true: We do have resources, and we do have a choice.

In oil, gas, and coal deposits, we have enormous energy reserves of our own. And we are gaining the means to use these resources in cleaner, more responsible ways. As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston. Yet for reasons that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign oil, the federal government discourages offshore production.

At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people -- especially in the summer season. But the policymakers in Washington haven't got around to that, either. There's so much regulation of the industry that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.

As for nuclear energy -- a proven energy source that requires zero emissions -- we haven't built a new reactor in 31 years. In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we've waited so long that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, as other nations understand. One nation today has plans to build almost 50 new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26 major nuclear stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people -- a population of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China, Russia, and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don't we?

So, taking stock of our energy situation, it is time we draw a few sensible conclusions of our own. In their sum effect on the American economy, the policies of our government could hardly have left us more dependent had they been designed to do precisely that. This vulnerability is clear in many ways, and never more than when American leaders are reduced to supplicating for lower prices before the sheiks and princes of OPEC. Of course, they are unmoved by our troubles. They regard even the need to ask as a sign of weakness. And in the end, they take their cues not from our entreaties for relief, but from our failure to diversify and to produce.

Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a "refuge" for a reason.

But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.

We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.

We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our resources where they are -- even as we press on with new and cleaner sources of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I'll be offering a vision that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life.

What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either.

So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab-bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us. Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's.

Oddly enough, though, Senator Obama doesn't want to lower the gas taxes paid by consumers, which would be the most direct and obvious way to give Americans a break at the gas station. Even in tough times for our economy, when folks are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just isn't change he can believe in.

Along with the harm that America's dependence on foreign oil has inflicted on our economy, there remain other costs that are even greater and harder to count. The massive wealth we have spent over the years on foreign oil is not flowing to the most upstanding citizens of the world. When trillions of dollars are transferred to other nations in exchange for oil, the consequences are serious and pervasive. But they can be understood in three simple ways.

The first takes the form of a current accounts deficit that has drained vast sums out of the American economy. We are borrowing from foreign lenders to buy oil from foreign producers. In the world's capital markets, often we are even borrowing Saudi money for Saudi oil. For them, the happy result is that they are both supplier and creditor to the most productive economy on earth. For us, the result is both dependency and debt. Over time, in interest payments, we lose trillions of dollars that could have been better invested in American enterprises. And we lose value in the dollar itself, as our debt portfolio undermines confidence in the American economy.

As bad as all that is, the second consequence is worse by far. Oil revenues are enriching the enemies of the United States, and potentially limiting our own options in containing the threat they present. Iran alone receives more than 66 billion dollars a year from oil sales, even as that regime finances terrorists, threatens Israel, and endangers the peace of the world with its designs on nuclear weapons. Moreover, by relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on -- and Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are. Osama bin Laden has been quite explicit in directing terrorists to attack the oil facilities on which so much of America's economy depends. They have come close more than once. And we are one successful at tack away from an economic crisis of monumental proportions.

Even if our economy were somehow immune to this threat, the vast wealth we shift to the Middle East, Venezuela, Angola, and elsewhere would still have a third harmful and perverse effect. It would continue to enrich undemocratic, unjust, and often corrupt regimes. Some of the most oil-rich nations are also the most stagnant societies on earth. And among the many luxuries their oil wealth affords them is the luxury of ignoring their own people. In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.

We cannot allow the world's greatest democracy to be complicit in such corruption and injustice. America's most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power -- so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy.

This will require great ingenuity and resolve of the American people, and these are not in short supply. Americans like to say that there is no problem we can't solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time to show those qualities once again.

Thank you.

ENDS

--
McCain 08

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/23/2008 2:57 PM PDT
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(320 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 4:16 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
What is Obama's strong dollar strategy?

He has none.

--
McCain 08
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(319 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 4:11 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
US economic decline top issue

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, Correspondents

* Last Updated: June 16. 2008 12:03AM UAE / June 15. 2008 8:03PM GMT

WASHINGTON // The most important long-term strategic challenge facing the Gulf Cooperation Council is not the threat of Islamic extremism or the rise of Iran ? it is the continuing economic decline of the United States.

Ever since 1980, when Jimmy Carter, then president, first publicly committed the United States to use military force to defend the free flow of oil from the Middle East, the United States has been the region?s unquestioned hegemon. And ever since the GCC was formed in 1981, its members have relied on the United States as the ultimate guarantor of their security.

To support the US security umbrella, GCC states have extended various types of co-operation to the United States ? such as basing rights, pre-positioning of equipment and making their own militaries more ?interoperable? with US forces. In addition, GCC states have tied their economies to the United States ? through petrodollar recycling, importing US capital goods, pricing international oil sales in dollars and pegging their own national currencies to the greenback.

Looking ahead, the United States will remain the Middle East?s military hegemon for years to come, with a unique ability to project substantial military power into the Gulf for at least the next quarter of a century. The United States economic hegemony, however, is in a serious and continuing decline, as the country continues its run as the world?s leading debtor and the dollar reaches historic lows against other major currencies.

In recent years, GCC states have provided vital financial and monetary support for America?s increasingly strained international economic position. But the costs of extending such support to the US economy are steadily rising ? a reality reflected in recent debates about the wisdom of the GCC states? continuing peg of their national currencies to a falling dollar. Also, rising economic powers in Asia are emerging as increasingly important trade and investment partners for the GCC, as the United States becomes more marginal to the region?s economic future.

All of this is occurring as a series of strategic blunders by the United States ? invasion and occupation of Iraq and feckless stewardship of the Arab-Israeli peace process, first among them ? are raising doubts in GCC leaders? minds about the competence with which the United States exercises its military and diplomatic hegemony in the region. Under these conditions, Gulf Arab leaderships will be challenged to maintain effective security co-operation with Washington while also managing more diversified foreign policy agendas and preserving conditions for economic growth at home.

Since the turn of the millennium, three critical developments have overlapped, almost as a ?perfect storm?, to put the United States? continued international economic leadership in serious jeopardy.

First, fundamental shifts in international energy markets have driven energy prices dramatically higher since 2002. While downwards fluctuations in price are inevitable in a volatile market, energy prices will continue to be much higher on average in coming years than in the 20th century?s last decade and a half.

Second, the sustained increase in energy prices is redistributing wealth across the world. The winners in this process, measured by their rising current account surpluses, are major oil exporters ? primarily in the GCC and Russia ? and the major industrial exporters (ie, China, Japan and Germany, the countries with the three largest current account surpluses in the world) that serve them. The principal loser, of course, is the United States, whose international financial position has deteriorated substantially since 2001.

Third, the transfer of wealth from the United States and other energy importers to energy exporters and a small number of manufacturers, such as China, is the main impetus for ballooning global economic imbalances. And, as China and other Asian manufacturers, along with energy exporters in the GCC and Russia, become the dominant capital providers funding these imbalances, foreign government agencies ? central banks and, more recently, sovereign wealth funds ? have surpassed private purchasers of US assets as the most important sources of financing for the current US account deficit.

This perfect storm is putting unprecedented strain on the dollar?s international standing. It also makes the sustainability of global economic imbalances a hot topic of debate among economists and financial market players around the world. The policy decisions by GCC states will be critical to determining how this debate ultimately plays out. In the aggregate, the GCC is now almost as important to financing America?s current account deficit as China. On a per-capita basis or as a percentage of gross domestic product, the GCC?s aggregate current account surplus is larger than China?s.

Although the GCC states are beginning to diversify their reserve assets, a wholesale move by the GCC away from the dollar as the basis for currency pegs and the transactional currency for international oil trading seems unlikely for now. Saudi Arabia is staunchly opposed to these steps, on what Saudi officials candidly describe as ?strategic? rather than economic grounds.

Other GCC states are constrained to follow the Saudi lead to avoid damaging prospects on currency pegs for eventual monetary union. Even Kuwait, which shifted the peg for its dinar last year to a ?basket? of currencies, gives the dollar disproportionate weight in that basket. And the kingdom carries sufficient weight within Opec to block precipitous shifts in the currency regime for international oil trading.

But, over time, the costs to GCC states of providing continued financial and monetary support for the US economy will grow. And that will pose hard economic and strategic choices for Gulf Arab leaderships.

During his recent trip to the Middle East, Henry Paulson, the US treasury secretary, tried to project a welcoming US posture towards financial flows from the GCC. He also went beyond conventional ?strong dollar? rhetoric, pledging his determination to keep the dollar as the world?s leading reserve asset. Mr Paulson?s observations notwithstanding, why should anyone believe that the current Bush administration, in its last months, or the next US administration will seriously pursue policies to defend the dollar?s value, such as balancing budgets and raising interest rates? The political debate over economic policy in the United States is headed in precisely the opposite direction.

Under such circumstances, how high a price are Gulf Arab states willing to pay to prop up a ?deadbeat? United States, which may well choose to let dollar depreciation and inflation write down significant parts of its debt to the GCC and other international creditors?

On the strategic front, are GCC states prepared to use their financial support for the United States to influence the ways in which Washington exercises its military hegemony in the region? In private, Gulf Arab officials and elites complain about the consequences of US strategic initiatives in recent years, voicing concerns that US foreign policy may be creating more numerous and potent threats to the security of GCC states than those against which the US military protects them.

But, for all that GCC states complain about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for example, they have effectively financed the whole operation by continuing to purchase US treasury securities and other dollar-denominated reserve assets. Will GCC states be so accommodating again ? if, say, the United States initiated a military confrontation with Iran?

The next US president, whether John McCain or Barack Obama, will be challenged to put US policy in the Middle East on a course more productive for the interests of US allies in the region as well as the interests of the United States. For their part, GCC states will be challenged to manage their relations with the United States in ways that increase the chances Washington will actually find that more productive course. And that will mean being frank with US partners about what Gulf Arab states need from their alliances with the United States, what they are prepared to put on the table to make strategic co-operation more effective, and ? just as importantly ? what they are not prepared to pay for.

So! What is Obama going to give up?????????

Come! Tell us.


Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, is a senior fellow and director of the New America Foundation?s Geopolitics of Energy Initiative. Hillary Mann Leverett, former director of Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, is chief executive officer of Stratega, a political risk consultancy.

Source/Link

--
McCain 08
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(318 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 3:21 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Ok,
>
> Since when was Hillary Clinton a part of the GOP?
> Second question, why is it when asked, an Obama
> a supporter can't differntiate between a question
> about his policy and an attack?
>
> What's up with the pavlovian lock step of these
> supporters?


Beats me. All I can say is the media is powerful?

--
McCain 08

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/23/2008 12:21 PM PDT
Posts: 1,132
Registered: 6/23/08
(317 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
Ok,

Since when was Hillary Clinton a part of the GOP? Second question, why is it when asked, an Obama supporter can't differntiate between a question about his policy and an attack?

What's up with the pavlovian lock step of these supporters?
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(316 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 22, 2008 5:21 PM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> yes the economy does tend to correct itself after
> awhile. the best we can try to do is limit the
> volatility of the economy.


You don't seem to understand!

Buy less and save more can be interpreted as:

Buy less=From having a home to No home
Save more=No credit

Some are already living the extreme of such description.

How can I spin this?

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/23/2008 11:30 AM PDT
Posts: 1,014
Registered: 2/22/08
(315 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 22, 2008 12:47 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Then I thought about people who lose their homes are
> buying less and saving more, in a sick way. Does
> that make any sense?


yes the economy does tend to correct itself after awhile. the best we can try to do is limit the volatility of the economy.

--
"What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more. Surely, He that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and God-like reason to fust in us unused."
Posts: 1,014
Registered: 2/22/08
(314 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 22, 2008 12:45 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Can we all agree on the fact people really voted for
> Obama without any substance?


no!!! you talk about fighting spin, yet you ate the clinton/gop spin on obama right up! that's been how they've spun everything from the start. and to answer your question, i did not "really vote for Obama without any substance." i voted for obama because of his position on the war, his position on ethics reform, his education and economic plans, etc. etc.

> MSM made another sale.

> Tell me if any of them sound like they'll be holding
> Obama accountable. THAT is my point.


they don't hold anyone accountable to the extent that we would all like. stop pretending that the only one not being held fully accountable for his positions is obama.

i'd say the most underreported story of the whole campaign is mccain's flip-flopping on every single issue, depending on who is audience is. it's really blatant and obvious, but it's never reported.

but i live w/ it and i don't think it's a big fucking conspiracy to get mccain elected. and you can say you don't buy into conspiracies, but when you say that the media is making a sale, and that obama has essentially been chosen by the DNC and the media (not even true), you're buying into a conspiracy. you can call it what you want, but that's what it is.

sorry but this attitude of obama as nothing more than a pretty boy "chosen" by the media pisses me off, because it's NOT TRUE!!! and THAT is my point.

--
"What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more. Surely, He that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and God-like reason to fust in us unused."
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(313 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 21, 2008 8:13 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
I've been thinking and the only strong dollar strategy I (unqualified dipshit) can think of is to have the whole country buy less and save more (hardship).

Then I thought about people who lose their homes are buying less and saving more, in a sick way. Does that make any sense?

Solution lies in hardship and miseries?

--
McCain 08
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(312 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 21, 2008 7:56 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Barack Hussein Obama's Economic Plan........
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9cDlYY1bdM


This is another line he borrowed from President Bill Clinton:

"...IN HIS Feb. 17 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton said that all Americans must do their part to revitalize the economy..." source

Alright, which Obama writer has been snooping around?

*Sigh*

--
McCain 08

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/21/2008 4:56 AM PDT
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(311 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 21, 2008 5:27 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
All except Lou Dobbs of course.

--
McCain 08
Posts: 11,399
Registered: 2/5/06
(310 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
Can we all agree on the fact people really voted for Obama without any substance?

MSM made another sale.

How do you know?

Tell me if any of them sound like they'll be holding Obama accountable. THAT is my point.

--
McCain 08

--
Edited by infoseek at 06/21/2008 1:05 AM PDT
4bee
Posts: 741
Registered: 11/21/05
(309 of 323)

Re: Obama's Economic Plan

Jun 21, 2008 3:10 AM
Rate this post:
1 star
2 stars
3 stars
4 stars
5 stars
> Live with what? MSM and DNC's presidential pick?
>
> Hell no! I'm proud to defect and vote for exactly
> the opposite.


of course,
I didn't mean the presidential candidate, but the whole scenario here

--
4bee
Page: of 22