The bistro of the site, leisure and relaxation, humor and friendlinessGetting IMF warned against USA

The developments of forums and the site. Humor and conviviality between the members of the forum - Everything is anything - Presentation of new registered members Relaxation, free time, leisure, sports, holidays, passions ... What do you do in your spare time? Forum of exchanges on our passions, activities, leisures ... creative or recreational!
philflamine
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 13
Registration: 06/05/04, 17:34

Unread Messageby philflamine » 09/08/04, 08:54

A warning from the IMF in the US
The war only alternative to economic crisis
The self-congratulatory statements from the Bush administration announcing record economic growth are belied by the facts. In reality, unemployment is rising, domestic production is collapsing and the economy turns around entire war. External debt reached a critical level, unprecedented for an industrialized country and, according to the International Monetary Fund, threatens the global economy. The specialization of arms industries makes it impossible to return to a peacetime economy. The United States entered a vicious cycle where economic survival depends on the continuation of the war.




2003 end, the Commerce Department released its final estimate of growth in the United States jumped 8,2% of gross domestic product (GDP) for the quarter 3e. The country had not known such strong growth since 19 years. In the same spirit, the press hailed "the return of growth in the United States." Some analysts, however, taken the distance with enthusiasm, noting that unemployment rose sharply between 2000 and 2003 (4,0% in 2000, 4,8% in 2001, 5,8% in 2002 and 6,1 2003% in). But two important facts were quickly evacuated. Growth is indeed related to high indebtedness of the country and a redeployment of social spending to the military. The US economy is now facing war.





The credit growth
The United States financed their growth through debt. In 2002, the country had its first budget deficit since 1997. It has gradually sunk to 1,5 2002% in at 3,5% in 2003 4,2% and should reach in 2004. In comparison, the budgetary stability pact for the euro area establishes a limit on 3%.

The external debt, which was to 2000 3 600 billion (39% of GDP), is passed to 2003 6 500 billion (58,5% of GDP). A worrying assessment by the Congressional Budget Office, said that the debt should be 14 000 billion in ten years. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, meanwhile, conducted a study that the deficit of the United States in the next fifty years would reach 44 000 billion.

The January 7 2004, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) organized a press conference on the fiscal policies of the United States and their consequences on the global economy [1]. The organization, however, created and largely controlled by Washington, has engaged in an indictment against the economic policy of the Bush administration. According to the IMF, the external debt of the United States has reached an unprecedented level for an industrialized country. This causes an increase in interest rates and a slowdown in global growth.

Looting, one strategy to deal with debt
Noting the steep increase in debt greatly exceeds the country's creditworthiness, Robert Freeman questions the economic orientation chosen by the Bush administration. There, he said, five possible strategies. [2]

The first is to raise taxes and pay the debts. This is clearly not the option chosen by the Bush administration. The second is to print greenbacks. But the massive use of such a solution would lead to an inevitable collapse of the economy.

A third strategy, proposed by the IMF to countries of the Third World, is to privatize national assets and sell them abroad. One might think that very unlikely option. Yet letting down the dollar, the Bush administration not only promotes export: it also allows foreign capital to repurchase US companies.

A fourth strategy is to refuse to pay the debt, as did the Bolsheviks when they took power in Russia. Robert Freeman, this option is "closer than is imagined by most US citizens" .In fact, a significant part of the deficit of the financing of Social Security whose privatization should be one of Bush's priorities it won the elections of 2004.

But it is a fifth strategy that the Bush administration seems to have resolutely adopted. "Ultimately, there is looting, said Robert Freeman. When the repayment of the debt of a nation becomes so large that it becomes impossible to reassure creditors, it must seek some source of wealth, any source. " The United States has chosen to attack Iraq not because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, nor to establish democracy. The goal was to take control of the oil, or rather the international oil market.

Growth related to military spending
The facts confirm Robert Freeman's analysis: under the Bush administration, the US economy was oriented toward war and conquest.

The administration has legitimized the increase of the budget deficit by the need to conduct the war on terrorism. This rationale also helped move the budgets of social infrastructure investments for war. Defense spending increased from 3,1 2001% of GDP, to 3,4% in 2002 and 3,5% in 2003.

The growth of these public expenditures benefited private arms companies. Thus, Northrop Grumman was up to 57% of its sales between 2002 and 2003 and went from a loss to a profit. Boeing's defense division has accumulated an operating profit increase of 38%. Sales of Lockheed Martin, the world of defense, increased 23%, while its aerospace division saw sales rise 60%.

But according to Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, spending on labor and armaments have remained relatively low. The lion's share went to Halliburton, Bechtel and some other private groups linked to the Bush administration.

Thus, growth much applauded by analysts mainly affects investments related to the war. During the second quarter 2003, during the war against Iraq, about 60% of the growth was attributable to military spending. [3]





Refusal to sign the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines, war against Iraq, through the titanic military draft "Star Wars" and the establishment of a perpetual war on terror all indicate the new economic policy of the United States turned to the war and conquest.

In the last century the reconversion of a war economy into a peace economy was extremely difficult. The transformation of an industry for military use was delicate. Today, the sophistication of weapons makes it impossible. The economic direction taken by the Bush administration is therefore without return. The war is for the United States the condition of its economic survival.
0 x

philflamine
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 13
Registration: 06/05/04, 17:34

Unread Messageby philflamine » 11/08/04, 14:23

Unfortunately I do not have the exact source but it seems that the author of this article is Michael Moore ...... I contacted the IMF for confirmation of bienfondé remarks and am awaiting a response.
0 x



  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "The bistro of the site, leisure and relaxation, humor and friendliness"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 6 guests