|
American
Economy: R.I.P.
By Paul Craig Roberts
09/10/07 "ICH' -- -- The US economy
continues its slow death before our eyes,
but economists, policymakers, and most of
the public are blind to the tottering fabled
land of opportunity.
In August jobs in goods-producing industries
declined by 64,000. The US economy lost
4,000 jobs overall. The private sector
created a mere 24,000 jobs, all of which
could be attributed to the 24,100 new jobs
for waitresses and bartenders, and the
government sector lost 28,000 jobs.
In the 21st century the US economy has
ceased to create jobs in export industries
and in
industries that compete with imports. US job
growth has been confined to domestic
services, principally to food services and
drinking places (waitresses and bartenders),
private education and health services
(ambulatory health care and hospital
orderlies), and construction (which now has
tanked). The lack of job growth in higher
productivity, higher paid occupations
associated with the American middle and
upper middle classes will eventually kill
the US consumer market.
The unemployment rate held steady, but that
is because 340,000 Americans unable to find
jobs dropped out of the labor force in
August. The US measures unemployment only
among the active work force, which includes
those seeking jobs. Those who are
discouraged and have given up are not
counted as unemployed.
With goods producing industries in long term
decline as more and more production of US
firms is moved offshore, the engineering
professions are in decline. Managerial jobs
are primarily
confined to retail trade and financial
services.
Franchises and chains have curtailed
opportunities for independent family
businesses, and the US government’s open
borders policy denies unskilled jobs to the
displaced members of the middle class.
When US companies offshore their production
for US markets, the consequences for the US
economy are highly detrimental. One
consequence is that foreign labor is
substituted for US labor, resulting in a
shriveling of career opportunities and
income growth in the US. Another is that US
Gross Domestic Product is turned into
imports. By turning US brand names into
imports, offshoring has a double whammy on
the US trade deficit. Simultaneously,
imports rise by the amount of offshored
production, and the supply of exportable
manufactured goods declines by the same
amount.
The US now has a trade deficit with every
part of the world. In 2006 (the latest
annual data), the US had a trade deficit
totaling
$838,271,000,000.
The US trade deficit with Europe was
$142,538,000,000. With Canada the deficit
was $75,085,000,000. With Latin America it
was $112,579,000,000 (of which
$67,303,000,000 was with Mexico). The
deficit with Asia and Pacific was
$409,765,000,000 (of which $233,087,000,000
was with China and $90,966,000,000 was with
Japan). With the Middle East the deficit was
$36,112,000,000, and with Africa the US
trade deficit was $62,192,000,000.
Public worry for three decades about the US
oil deficit has created a false impression
among Americans that a self-sufficient
America is impaired only by dependence on
Middle East oil. The fact of the matter is
that the total US deficit with OPEC, an
organization that includes as many countries
outside the Middle East as within it, is
$106,260,000,000, or about one-eighth of the
annual US trade deficit.
Moreover, the US gets most of its oil from
outside the Middle East, and the US trade
deficit reflects this
fact. The US deficit with Nigeria, Mexico,
and Venezuela is 3.3 times larger than the
US trade deficit with the Middle East
despite the fact that the US sells more to
Venezuela and 18 times more to Mexico than
it does to Saudi Arabia.
What is striking about US dependency on
imports is that it is practically across the
board. Americans are dependent on imports of
foreign foods, feeds, and beverages in the
amount of $8,975,000,000.
Americans are dependent on imports of
foreign Industrial supplies and materials in
the amount of $326,459,000,000--more than
three times US dependency on OPEC.
Americans can no longer provide their own
transportation. They are dependent on
imports of automotive vehicles, parts, and
engines in the amount of $149,499,000,000,
or 1.5 times greater than the US dependency
on OPEC.
In addition to the automobile dependency,
Americans are 3.4 times more dependent on
imports of manufactured consumer durable and
nondurable goods
than they are on OPEC. Americans no longer
can produce their own clothes, shoes, or
household appliances and have a trade
deficit in consumer manufactured goods in
the amount of $336,118,000,000.
The US “superpower” even has a deficit
in capital goods, including machinery,
electric generating machinery, machine
tools, computers, and telecommunications
equipment.
What does it mean that the US has a $800
billion trade deficit?
It means that Americans are consuming $800
billion more than they are producing.
How do Americans pay for it?
They pay for it by giving up ownership of
existing assets--stocks, bonds, companies,
real estate, commodities. America used to be
a creditor nation. Now America is a debtor
nation. Foreigners own $2.5 trillion more of
American assets than Americans own of
foreign assets. When foreigners acquire
ownership of US assets, they also acquire
ownership of the future income streams that
the assets produce. More
income shifts away from Americans.
How long can Americans consume more than
they can produce?
American over-consumption can continue for
as long as Americans can find ways to go
deeper in personal debt in order to finance
their consumption and for as long as the US
dollar can remain the world reserve
currency.
The 21st century has brought Americans (with
the exception of CEOs, hedge fund managers
and investment bankers) no growth in real
median household income. Americans have
increased their consumption by dropping
their saving rate to the depression level of
1933 when there was massive unemployment and
by spending their home equity and running up
credit card bills. The ability of a
population, severely impacted by the loss of
good jobs to foreigners as a result of
offshoring and H-1B work visas and by the
bursting of the housing bubble, to continue
to accumulate more personal debt is limited
to say the least.
Foreigners accept US dollars in
exchange for their real goods and services,
because dollars can be used to settle every
country’s international accounts. By
running a trade deficit, the US insures the
financing of its government budget deficit
as the surplus dollars in foreign hands are
invested in US Treasuries and other
dollar-denominated assets.
The ability of the US dollar to retain its
reserve currency status is eroding due to
the continuous increases in US budget and
trade deficits. Today the world is literally
flooded with dollars. In attempts to reduce
the rate at which they are accumulating
dollars, foreign governments and investors
are diversifying into other traded
currencies. As a result, the dollar prices
of the Euro, UK pound, Canadian dollar, Thai
baht, and other currencies have been bid up.
In the 21st century, the US dollar has
declined about 33 percent against other
currencies. The US dollar remains the
reserve currency primarily due to habit and
the lack of a clear
alternative.
The data used in this article is freely
available. It can be found at two official
US government sites: http://www.bea.gov/international/bp_web/simple.cfm?anon=71&table_id=20&area_id=3
and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm
The jobs data and the absence of growth in
real income for most of the population are
inconsistent with reports of US GDP and
productivity growth. Economists take for
granted that the work force is paid in
keeping with its productivity. A rise in
productivity thus translates into a rise in
real incomes of workers. Yet, we have had
years of reported strong productivity growth
but stagnant or declining household incomes.
And somehow the GDP is rising, but not the
incomes of the work force.
Something is wrong here. Either the data
indicating productivity and GDP growth are
wrong or Karl Marx was right that capitalism
works to concentrate income in the hands of
the few capitalists. A case can be made
for both explanations.
Recently an economist, Susan Houseman,
discovered that the reliability of some US
economics statistics has been impaired by
offshoring. Houseman found that cost
reductions achieved by US firms shifting
production offshore are being miscounted as
GDP growth in the US and that productivity
gains achieved by US firms when they move
design, research, and development offshore
are showing up as increases in US
productivity. Obviously, production and
productivity that occur abroad are not part
of the US domestic economy.
Houseman’s discovery rated a Business Week
cover story last June 18, but her important
discovery seems already to have gone down
the memory hole. The economics profession
has over-committed itself to the
“benefits” of offshoring, globalism, and
the non-existent “New Economy.”
Houseman’s discovery is too much of a
threat to economists’ human capital,
corporate research grants, and free market
ideology.
The media has
likewise let the story go, because in the
1990s the Clinton administration and
Congress overturned US policy in favor of a
diverse and independent media and permitted
a few mega-corporations to concentrate in
their hands the ownership of the US media,
which reports in keeping with corporate and
government interests.
The case for Marx is that offshoring has
boosted corporate earnings by lowering labor
costs, thereby concentrating income growth
in the hands of the owners and managers of
capital. According to Forbes magazine, the
top 20 earners among private equity and
hedge fund managers are earning average
yearly compensation of $657,500,000, with
four actually earning more than $1 billion
annually. The otherwise excessive
$36,400,000 average annual pay of the 20 top
earners among CEOs of publicly-held
companies looks paltry by comparison. The
careers and financial prospects of many
Americans were destroyed to achieve these
lofty earnings for the few.
Hubris
prevents realization that Americans are
losing their economic future along with
their civil liberties and are on the verge
of enserfment.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration. He was Associate Editor of
the Wall Street Journal editorial page and
Contributing Editor of National Review. He
is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good
Intentions.
Click on
"comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be
succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone numbers
and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those
including personal attacks and
profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this
link to notify us
if you have concerns about
a comment. We’ll
promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included
information for research and
educational purposes. Information
Clearing House has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information
ClearingHouse endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.)
|