Sunday, September 4, 2011

Stiglitz: The real cost of 9/11

To put the amount in perspective, $2 trillion in direct spending so far in Iraq and Afghanistan is almost 5 times more than the stimulus (ARRA) spending to date.

Yet no Tea Parties have rallied on Washington or stormed town halls to end the wars and cut the deficit. Why not?


Trillions and trillions wasted on wars, a fiscal catastrophe, a weaker America.
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
September 1, 2011 | Slate

The Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks by al-Qaida were meant to harm the United States, and they did, but in ways that Osama Bin Laden probably never imagined. President George W. Bush's response to the attacks compromised America's basic principles, undermined its economy, and weakened its security.

The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to al-Qaida—as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive—orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning—as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation.

Indeed, when Linda Bilmes and I calculated America's war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50 percent of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans' medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health care costs will total $600 billion to $900 billion. The social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.

Even if Bush could be forgiven for taking America, and much of the rest of the world, to war on false pretenses, and for misrepresenting the cost of the venture, there is no excuse for how he chose to finance it. His was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit. As America went into battle, with deficits already soaring from his 2001 tax cut, Bush decided to plunge ahead with yet another round of tax "relief" for the wealthy.

Today, America is focused on unemployment and the deficit. Both threats to America's future can, in no small measure, be traced to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2 percent of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion—$17,000 for every U.S. household—with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50 percent.

Moreover, as Bilmes and I argued in our book The Three Trillion Dollar War, the wars contributed to America's macroeconomic weaknesses, which exacerbated its deficits and debt burden. Then, as now, disruption in the Middle East led to higher oil prices, forcing Americans to spend money on oil imports that they otherwise could have spent buying goods produced in the U.S. The Federal Reserve hid these weaknesses by engineering a housing bubble that led to a consumption boom. It will take years to overcome the excessive indebtedness and real-estate overhang that resulted.

Ironically, the wars have undermined America's (and the world's) security, again in ways that Osama Bin Laden could not have imagined. An unpopular war would have made military recruitment difficult in any circumstances. But, as Bush tried to deceive America about the wars' costs, he underfunded the troops, refusing even basic expenditures—say, for armored and mine-resistant vehicles needed to protect American lives or for adequate health care for returning veterans.

Military overreach has predictably led to nervousness about using military power, and others' knowledge of this threatens to weaken America's security as well. But America's real strength, more than its military and economic power, is its "soft power," its moral authority. And this, too, was weakened: As the U.S. violated basic human rights like habeas corpus and the right not to be tortured, its longstanding commitment to international law was called into question.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. and its allies knew that long-term victory required winning hearts and minds. But mistakes in the early years of those wars complicated that already-difficult battle. The wars' collateral damage has been massive: By some accounts, more than 1 million Iraqis have died, directly or indirectly, because of the war. According to some studies, at least 137,000 civilians have died violently in Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 10 years. Among Iraqis alone, there are 1.8 million refugees and 1.7 million internally displaced people.

Not all of the consequences were disastrous. The deficits to which America's debt-funded wars contributed so mightily are now forcing the U.S. to face the reality of budget constraints. America's military spending still nearly equals that of the rest of the world combined, two decades after the end of the Cold War. Some of the increased expenditures went to the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader "global war on terrorism," but much of it was wasted on weapons that don't work against enemies that don't exist. Now, at last, those resources are likely to be redeployed, and the U.S. will likely get more security by paying less.

Al-Qaida, while not conquered, no longer appears to be the threat that loomed so large in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the price paid in getting to this point, in the U.S. and elsewhere, has been enormous—and mostly avoidable. The legacy will be with us for a long time. It pays to think before acting.

This article comes from Project Syndicate.

Obama matches Reagan's record

When conservatives say they want Obama to be like Reagan, I wonder if this is what they have in mind?

Black America is certainly in the throes of an economic Depression. But this disparity is nothing new: at any given time you can take the U.S. unemployment rate for whites and double it, and that's roughly the black unemployment rate.


By Annalyn Censky
September 2, 2011 | CNNMoney

The August jobs report was dismal for plenty of reasons, but perhaps most striking was the picture it painted of racial inequality in the job market.

Black unemployment surged to 16.7% in August, its highest level since 1984, while the unemployment rate for whites fell slightly to 8%, the Labor Department reported.

"This month's numbers continue to bear out that longstanding pattern that minorities have a much more challenging time getting jobs," said Bill Rodgers, chief economist with the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.

Black unemployment has been roughly double that of whites since the government started tracking the figures in 1972.

Economists blame a variety of factors. The black workforce is younger than the white workforce, lower numbers of blacks get a college degree and many live in areas of the country that were harder hit by the recession -- all things that could lead to a higher unemployment rate.

But even excluding those factors, blacks still are hit with higher joblessness.


"Even when you compare black and white workers, same age range, same education, you still see pretty significant gaps in unemployment rates," said Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy program at the Economic Policy Institute. "So I do think the fact of racial discrimination in the labor market continues to play a role."

About 155,000 blacks got jobs in August, but the group's unemployment rate still went up because those jobs weren't enough to make up for all the people who started looking for work during the month.

However, the gain for whites of 211,000 jobs was enough to bring their unemployment rate down.

Overall, black men have it the worst, with joblessness at a staggeringly high 19.1%, compared to 14.5% for black women.

Black unemployment has now remained above 10% for four straight years, and the given current economic sluggishness, some experts say it's safe to predict the rate will remain above 10% for four more years.

"Our job creation is just not happening -- certainly not at the rate necessarily to bring rapid reductions to the unemployment rate," Austin said.

Latinos saw their unemployment rate remain unchanged at 11.3% in August. Unemployment remains at 9.1% for the country as a whole.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Earth suffering from dirty 'ring around the collar'

It turns out that true environmentalists have to extend their boundaries upwards. Explained NASA scientist David Kessler, summarizing his "Kessler Syndrome":

"Even if we add nothing else to orbit, the amount of [space] debris could continue to increase as a result of random collisions between fairly large objects. You'd generate debris faster than the natural decay process could return it."

In case you didn't know, we kind of depend on satellites nowadays to make the world go. If those satellites cease to function, we'll be in trouble.

I know, I know: this throws a major kink into every child's resolution to the world's problems: jettison all the earth's unwanted crap into space.

The "good" news is that the U.S. is responsible for only about 30 percent of space debris; but a lot of it contains sensitive technology. Small consolation.

Far be it from me to draw a parallel to climate change, but... this is another example of a system going haywire and reaching a point of no return while we dither around. We have 20 years max to do something about it. Since space really is the final frontier (read up on the U.S. doctrine of "full spectrum dominance" one of these days), and all frontiers entail military conflict, I have little faith that the U.S. will work with other major space polluters to resolve this problem in due time.

In the short term, however, we can relax a little, knowing that the U.S. isn't really putting its money where its neocons' mouth is: we must rely on Russia to get it up -- into space, that is. Consequently, the U.S.S.R. recently celebrated its victory over America in the 54-year-old space race.


By Eyder Peralta
September 1, 2011 | NPR

Entrepreneurship thriving... in liberal states

The latest State Entrepreneurship Index published by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is out, and guess what?

Coastal liberal Blue States are the most entrepreneur-friendly, while "freedom-loving," Southern, Tea Partying states fare the worst.

Gee, I wonder what that means?... I guess I'll have to wait for CATO to 'splain it to me.


By Janean Chun
September 1, 2011 | Huffington Post

Banning the rebel flag, one city at a time

Congrats to the Old South for doing something right, albeit 146 years too late. You recall that I've written before about the anti-American Confederate flag, and how it doesn't jibe with latter day Southerners' avowed patriotism for the United States, aka the Union.

But some Southern Tea-Party types just don't get it: "'I am a firm believer in the freedom to express our individual rights, which include flying the flag that we decide to fly,' said Philip Way, a Civil War re-enactor dressed in a Confederate wool uniform despite the summer temperatures. 'That's freedom to me.'"

The ordinance affects only public (municipal) displays of the Confedrate Flag; private displays are unaffected.

So "freedom," it seems, is a relative word. While anti-government conservatives say they want Big Gubument out of their lives, what they really mean -- like the rest of us -- is that they want government to promote their values, while diminishing others'. That's freedom for them.

Those retrograde bumpkins in wool underpants still have the right to fly their treasonous flag; but the People have spoken, and They don't want the rebel flag flown in the victor's halls.

And if you don't like it, look away, Dixieland!


September 2, 2011 | CBS News