Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

    America's Free Lunch is Over - How Should the Middle East Invest Its Oil Profits? By MICHAEL HUDSON

    Every week Mid-Eastern countries acquire more dollars in payment for their oil and other exports, and also for rising U.S. investment in their stock markets and other property. This confronts them with a problem: What can they do with these dollars?

    Traditionally, exporters have saved their export earnings by building up their assets. But is it still realistic for them to acquire more dollarized assets?

    Central banks throughout the world presently hold some $2.5 trillion of U.S. Treasury bonds, and another trillion dollars in private-sector U.S. dollar debt. As the dollar’s exchange rate falls, these banks suffer losses when their holdings are denominated in their own currencies. Even more serious, the principal itself is now in question. There is no foreseeable way in which the United States can redeem its foreign debt. Its trade surplus continues to deteriorate, while its foreign military spending adds to the overall balance-of-payments deficit.

    This means that the United States is pumping more and more dollars into the rest of the world without any means of repaying them – or any intention to do so. That is why foreign countries are beginning to treat these dollars as “hot potatoes,” trying to get rid of them as fast as they can.

    But how can they all do this? China is using its new dollar inflows to try and buy up foreign raw materials assets, land and other assets needed for its long-term growth. And some Middle Eastern countries are buying long-term supply agreements for food and raw materials produced abroad. But fewer countries are eager to accept these dollars. And the U.S. Government is blocking foreign investment in the most desirable and remunerative domestic U.S. sectors as its politicians become more nationalistic. This threatens to limit foreign investment in the United States to the junk-mortgage market, to real estate that is falling in price, and loans to bail out U.S. banks and financial institutions as they fight off insolvency and their stock-market prices plunge. Middle East purchases of Citibank shares last year are the most notorious example.

    This means that Middle Eastern oil exporters – and indeed, European industrial exporters – are in effect giving their oil and other products away to U.S. consumers in exchange for paper IOUs that are in danger of becoming unspendable and hence worthless.

    Fortunately there is a better alternative. That is for Middle Eastern governments to invest their export earnings in building up their own economies rather than that of the United States and those of other dollar-area countries. Two thousand years ago, even during the high tide of Greece and the Roman Empire, the Middle East had long been the world’s most entrepreneurial and prosperous region. What is stopping it from reclaiming this historic position?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    (contd)

  • #2
    Add'l Hudson Interview- June 21- w/ Mike Whitney

    Counterpunch has had 2 commentaries from Dr. Michael Hudson back to back! Below are exerpts and link to an interview Mike Whitney did with Michael Hudson, posted in Counterpunch June 21, 2008.

    Mike Whitney: The Fed has traded over $200 billion in US Treasuries with the big investment banks for a wide variety of dodgy collateral (mostly mortgage-backed securities). How can the banks possibly hope to repay the Fed when their main sources of revenue (structured investments) have been cut off? Are the banks secretly using the money they borrow via repos from the Fed to dabble in the carry trade or speculate in the futures markets?

    Michael Hudson: The Fed’s idea was merely to buy enough time for the banks to sell their junk mortgages to the proverbial “greater fool.” But foreign investors no longer are playing this role, nor are domestic U.S. pension funds. So the most likely result will be for the Fed simply to roll over its loans – as if the problem can be cured by yet more time.
    But when a bubble bursts, time makes things worse. The financial sector has been living in the short run for quite a while now, and I suspect that a lot of money managers are planning to get out or be fired now that the game is over. And it really is over. The Treasury’s attempt to reflate the real estate market has not worked, and it can’t work. Mortgage arrears, defaults and foreclosures are rising, and much property has become unsaleable except at distress prices that leave homeowners with negative equity. This state of affairs prompts them to do just what Donald Trump would do in such a situation: to walk away from their property.

    The banks are trying to win back their losses by arbitrage operations, borrowing from the Fed at a low interest rate and lending at a higher one, and gambling on options. But options and derivatives are a zero-sum game: one party’s gain is another’s loss. So the banks collectively are simply painting themselves into a deeper corner. They hope they can tell the Fed and Treasury to keep bailing them out or else they’ll fail and cost the FDIC even more money to make good on insuring the “bad savings” that have been steered into these bad debts and bad gambles.

    The Fed and Treasury certainly seem more willing to bail out the big financial institutions than to bail out savers, pensioners, social Security recipients and other small fry. They thus follow the traditional “Big fish eat little fish” principle of favoring the vested interests.

    Mike Whitney: According to most estimates, the Fed has already gone through half or more of its $900 billion balance sheet. Also, according to the latest H.4.1 data "the current holdings of Treasury bills is $25 billion. This is down from some $250 billion a year ago, or a net reduction of 90 per cent." (figures from Market Ticker) Doesn't this suggest that the Fed is just about out of firepower when it comes to bailing out the struggling banking system? Where do we go from here? Will some of the larger banks be allowed to fail or will they be nationalized?

    Michael Hudson: You need to look at what the Treasury as well as the Fed is doing. The Fed can monetize whatever it wants. And as you just pointed out in the preceding question, it has been buying junk securities in order to leave sound Treasury securities on the banking system’s balance sheets. Government bailout credit will keep the big banks alive. But many small regional banks will go under and be merged into larger money-center banks – just as many brokerage firms in recent decades have been merged into larger conglomerates.

    False reporting also will help financial institutions avoid the appearance of insolvency. They will seek more and more government guarantees, ostensibly to help middle-class depositors but actually favoring the big speculators who are their major clients.

    What we are seeing is the creation of a highly concentrated financial oligarchy – precisely the power that the Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent. A combination of deregulation and “moral hazard” bailouts – for the top of the economic pyramid, not the bottom – will polarize the economy all the more.

    Cities and states will preserve their credit ratings by annulling their pension obligations to public-sector workers, and raising excise taxes – but not property taxes. These already have fallen from about two-thirds of local budgets in 1930 to only about one-sixth today – that is, a decline of 75 percent, proportionally. While the debt burden and the squeeze in disposable personal income is pressuring workers, finance and property are using the crisis to get a bonanza of tax relief. Democrats in Congress are as far to the right as George Bush on this, as their base is local politics and real estate.

    http://counterpunch.org/whitney06212008.html

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

      parts of this interview scare me:

      He should make large depositors and “savers” take the losses on their bad bets. And he should repeal the Clinton repeal of Glass Steagall.
      what is considered a large deposit? i've tried to save as much money as possible in the last few yrs and have been very responsible with my savings. is a sizeable money market account considered a "bad bet" and should i be forced to "pay"?

      about social security:

      only people who earn over $60,000 a year should contribute. This would end up being fairly revenue-neutral. Pres. Obama should say that his policy is not to “soak the rich.” It is to make them pay their way once again by favoring a strong middle class.
      is he implying that if you make $60+k per year that you are rich? tell that to someone living in boston, manhattan or any major city for that matter.

      i agree that things are bad and are going to get worse - a result of bad policy. however, blaming the current crisis on "the rich" is not adequate when we don't have an agreeable definition on what exactly it means to be rich.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

        This has made my day: Dr. Michael Hudson talking toward a point I brought up many months ago:

        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
        6 trillion hot potatoes

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

          Originally posted by pescamaaan View Post
          parts of this interview scare me:



          what is considered a large deposit? i've tried to save as much money as possible in the last few yrs and have been very responsible with my savings. is a sizeable money market account considered a "bad bet" and should i be forced to "pay"?

          about social security:



          is he implying that if you make $60+k per year that you are rich? tell that to someone living in boston, manhattan or any major city for that matter.

          i agree that things are bad and are going to get worse - a result of bad policy. however, blaming the current crisis on "the rich" is not adequate when we don't have an agreeable definition on what exactly it means to be rich.
          We are fans of Hudson – without agreeing with everything he says, of course.

          Our recommended tax policy includes high tax rates on the rentier FIRE Economy to fund a zero tax rate for entrepreneurs who stick their necks out to risk their own money and current income to develop a new company. Profits of small companies should be taxed at zero up to an amount to be determined.

          Large corporations continue to be taxed at a high rate on the theory that they can always afford and do find ways to not pay taxes net of paybacks no matter what you do.
          Ed.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

            Originally posted by pescamaaan View Post
            is he implying that if you make $60+k per year that you are rich?
            Currently FICA is payable on all income upto $87,900 -- income above that pays no Social Security taxes

            Medicare taxes are payable on all income.
            From FICA Taxes

            Annual Social Security Wage Base: $87,900 (Note: no Social Security taxes are due for earned income above this amount)
            Social Security Tax Rate: 12.4% (employer and employee's portion)
            Maximum Social Security Tax: $10,899.60

            Annual Medical Wage Base: None (Note: the Medicare tax has no upper limit)
            Medicare Tax Rate: 2.9% (employer and employee's portion)
            Thus people earning less than $87,500 pay 15.3% off the top.

            In Hudson's suggestion people earning less than $ 60,000 would pay no FICA taxes. People earning $60,000 - $147,900 would pay the same or less than they currently pay, and people above that would pay larger amounts as their income increased above this level -- with the richest paying the most!

            Thus the tax burden would be shifted from the poor and lower middle class to the rich and upper middle class -- Note: US median Household income in 2006 was $48,201.
            Last edited by Rajiv; June 23, 2008, 08:29 PM. Reason: Corrected the income level at which the social security taxes would be equal to current taxes

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

              Thanks Rajiv for the post.

              I think that at some point Obama will have to tell the public the bad news that restoring vitality will take radical measures – probably ones that Congress will try to water down so much that things are going to get worse – much worse – before the needed reforms will be made. He can say this before taking office, blaming the Republicans for their regressive tax policies and at the same time bringing pressure on the new Democratic Congress to back a return to progressive taxation and serious financial restructuring. As president, he will have to do what FDR did, and challenge the financial oligarchy with new government regulatory agencies staffed with real regulators
              How much pain can people and the economy withstand before policy reform change is accepted? The economic pain will accelerate as this administration hands it to the next. Obama will have plenty of screaming public soon after he takes office and he should directly funnel it in the faces of financial oligarchy and demand reform.

              An optimum position is, mathematically speaking, one in which you can’t move without making your situation worse. That’s the position we’re now in. There’s nowhere to move
              America might as well move in the direction to solve its biggest economic pain problem first even though it’s going to hurt.
              No.1 pain problem “energy” causing severe economic conditions and change is needed.
              To attract foreign capital for an energy expansion project the US must offer real value. Energy projects with a low carbon foot print, similar to the deal recently done by UK.
              http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP...r-2306088.html
              Brown calls oil producers to invest in nuclear
              23 June 2008
              Rising demand for energy could in part be reduced by more efficient energy use plus the use of "alternative sources including nuclear and renewables," but this must be achieved in a way that would benefit both oil producers and consumers. He proposed that oil consumers should open their markets to new investments from oil producers in all forms of energy including renewables and nuclear, and in return oil producers should be open to increasing funding and expertise in oil development. This, he said, would provide increased oil supply in the medium term while growing economies adjust to a less oil-intense future in the longer term.

              An interest in a diverse range of non-oil energy sources would give oil producers the chance to "hedge their future production by investing in the alternative energy sources that will be the bedrock of future low carbon economies," said Brown. Abu Dhabi and Qatar are both already involved in discussions on possible energy investments in Britain and the UK has already agreed to work with the United Arab Emirates on nuclear energy opportunities, he noted. "Our commitment to the biggest expansion of nuclear power in Europe is now clear and definitive,

              A low-carbon re-industrialization
              http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...33297#poststop

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                Currently FICA is payable on all income upto $87,900 -- income above that pays no Social Security taxes

                Medicare taxes are payable on all income.
                From FICA Taxes



                Thus people earning less than $87,500 pay 15.3% off the top.

                In Hudson's suggestion people earning less than $ 60,000 would pay no FICA taxes. People earning $60,000 - $147,900 would pay the same or less than they currently pay, and people above that would pay larger amounts as their income increased above this level -- with the richest paying the most!

                Thus the tax burden would be shifted from the poor and lower middle class to the rich and upper middle class -- Note: US median Household income in 2006 was $48,201.
                In 2008, the limit was moved up to $102,000.... So on the first $102k of wages you pay social security portion of FICA (employer does too). After that, its just medicare.... They seem to be increasing this a healthy percentage every year so it doesn't seem you can ever escape. It's certainly more painful as a small business owner because it comes out on the employer's side too.

                Source: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

                -diznave

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                  So that would make the arithmetic even more compelling in Hudson's favour -- people with incomes upto $162,000 would be paying less than or equal to their current FICA bill.

                  The key element of Hudson's argument is that this approach would change FICA from a User Fee structure to a Progressive Tax structure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                    Shift the "tax burden" from the lower and lower/middle class? WHAT tax burden? They barely pay any taxes.

                    Does it occur to anyone that the reason we've spent ourselves into oblivion as a nation is that so many of us pay relatively no taxes that it's possible to continue enlarging the size of government w/o having to worry about the constraint of an angry voting populace? This is what they always dreamed of and what they have already basically acheived.

                    Based on some quick math, your lower middle class working hero married father of 3 doesn't pay a dime of income tax till the family income surpasses $51,533. Make that $61,533 if they save for retirement with deductible IRAs.

                    They only need to shuck out under $4,000/year in payroll taxes to enjoy the same benefits of living in the USA as the guy who pays $40,000 in taxes.

                    And even that will at least partly be returned to them in the form of (at least promises of) social security and medicare benefits from a paternalistic government that steals what they would have saved for retirement under the classic socialist concept that "government knows best", returning it as a pittance in their retirement.

                    Attached Files
                    Last edited by FRED; June 24, 2008, 08:43 AM. Reason: Posted chart

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                      I guess you don't pay FICA like the rest of us do! For a person who earns $ 60,000 FiCA comes to $9180 -- add to that your $4000 in Federal income taxes plus another $1000 on state income tax -- that leaves ! $44,000 -- for a state like California take out $24000 for rent That leaves $20,000 -- Take out another 10% for sales tax on half of that amount -- you get $19000 -- to feed, clothe and transport a family of four

                      But according to you that is what 60% of US families are -- namely stupid, lazy and poor -- since $60,000 is the 60th percentile of household income. (in other words 60% of US households earn less than $60,000 gross per year!)
                      Last edited by Rajiv; June 23, 2008, 11:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                        Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                        I guess you don't pay FICA like the rest of us do! For a person who earns $ 60,000 FiCA comes to $9180 -- add to that your $4000 in Federal income taxes plus another $1000 on state income tax -- that leaves ! $44,000 -- for a state like California take out $24000 for rent That leaves $20,000 -- Take out another 10% for sales tax on half of that amount -- you get $19000 -- to feed, clothe and transport a family of four

                        But according to you that is what 60% of US families are -- namely stupid, lazy and poor -- since $60,000 is the 60th percentile of household income. (in other words 60% of US households earn less than $60,000 gross per year!)

                        Rajiv,

                        I've paid no attention to this for 15years, but isn't the $9180 in FICA split between the employer and employee? Something like 7.5% each contributes to government, not that that makes your scenario a lot rosier.
                        Last edited by Jim Nickerson; June 24, 2008, 12:34 AM.
                        Jim 69 y/o

                        "...Texans...the lowest form of white man there is." Robert Duvall, as Al Sieber, in "Geronimo." (see "Location" for examples.)

                        Dedicated to the idea that all people deserve a chance for a healthy productive life. B&M Gates Fdn.

                        Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. Unknown.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                          Originally posted by brucec42 View Post
                          Shift the "tax burden" from the lower and lower/middle class? WHAT tax burden? They barely pay any taxes.
                          Originally posted by Rajiv View Post
                          I guess you don't pay FICA like the rest of us do! But according to you that is what 60% of US families are -- namely stupid, lazy and poor -- since $60,000 is the 60th percentile of household income. (in other words 60% of US households earn less than $60,000 gross per year!)
                          Brucec42 - Appreciate where you're coming from there. Just for your general interest, I don't think anyone's come closer to causing Rajiv to "blow a gasket". I'm always curious what happens to such infallibly polite and courteous people as Rajiv, when they really go off the deep end! Maybe they morph into "berserkers!! :eek:

                          All kidding aside, Rajiv's got a point though. At the Federal level you can argue that the tax burden is manageable, or (if you strained the point) even sensible for this income bracket, but in the high cost states the corrolary overt and implicit taxes quickly degrade that observation down to a farce. My observation to Rajiv in this context, is sitting somewhere between your two viewpoints. I think Rajiv is right, that in states like California the cumulative "rent cost to merely exist" is high enough to render large chunks of the "middle class" effectively marginal today. But I would also note, that our tax "burden" at the Federal level is a burden that would have a lot of Europeans looking at your accusations of US Government "paternalism" incredulously. They would instead be feeling like they had just passed through an airlock into a tax world filled with helium.

                          Our tax structure is absurdly low compared to the spider's web of taxes that truss up European middle class families tighter than a turkey being taken to market.

                          And you just may be even further are off the mark, thinking that the US government represents a "paternalistic" overgrowth of structures protecting and coddling Americans. If you had grown up in Europe (I did), and you ever stepped off a plane for the first time in America flying in from Europe, you immediately would get hit with that "raw capitalism" sensation. Like it was whacking you vigorously across the side of the head with a two by four! Our tax and government "social services" environment, to a European, feels like a typical South American country, and not necessarily one of the more stable - where the divide between the privileged hereditary aristocracy and the masses is raw, bleeding, and left abjectly to it's own devices.

                          You may be a little out of touch with international benchmark comparisons if you think the US government "coddles" anyone here. I will make the excception of course of Wall Street, who is today coddled like a newborn infant - and also of course our government employee sector, growing rapidly. But even that sclerosis, expressed as a per-capita percentage permeation of the economy is a hesitant imitation of it's advancement in some EU nations ie. France and Italy.

                          At least compared to a whole slew of European countries we are perhaps inching a little closer to Paraguay than to their own comparatively more civilized and humane (even if impossibly expensive) social services. You would pick this up instinctively by spending five years over in Europe - especially Northern Europe and then flying back to the US. The feeling you get climbing off that plane can best be described as "fear". There is a contradiction in terms inherent in your observations. One the one had the government is "paternalistically stealing from us" and on the other hand a lrge chunk of middle class Americans get away nearly scot-free from paying any real tax burden at all. The fiscal angle in your thesis does not fully add up as described, at least not compared to EU countries that have a good deal higher net tax burdens.

                          I suggest A) the government is indeed getting more paternalistic, but has a great distance yet to go, to catch up to the egregiously taxing EU governments, who are past masters at this art (hint, you definitely don't want to be a business owner over there) and B) you can't easily combine a portrayal of government as on the one had paternalistic, and on the other hand the middle class effectively not having a real tax burden up to 60K in earnings. A genuinely paternalistic government would be taxing that hapless middle class at 35%++ at the Federal level right off the bat, just to fund the kind of rampant "paternalism" you suggest. I notice that iTulip also regularly refer to creeping US Govt. paternalism. The truth is in the numbers however. Federal taxes in the US have a good ways to go to match the average of Federal taxes in the EU. JK has noted elsewhere in recent days this recurring reflexivity of America-centric analsyis here, and I agree with that. It pops up repeatedly.
                          Last edited by Contemptuous; June 24, 2008, 01:39 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                            Originally posted by Jim Nickerson View Post
                            Rajiv,

                            I've paid no attention to this for 15years, but isn't the $9180 in FICA split between the employer and employee? Something like 7.5% each contributes to government, not that that makes your scenario a lot rosier.
                            Jim,

                            Yes indeed that is the case -- But the tax is being paid in your name -- it does not matter whether the employer paid it directly to the government, or paid it to you, and then you paid it to the government. It is an accounting trick designed to make it appear that you are being taxed at a lower rate.

                            However, if you are self employed -- you pay the full 15.3% -- so indeed it is an accounting trick designed to make employees less strident about the taxes they pay -- and can ill afford to pay!
                            Last edited by Rajiv; June 24, 2008, 09:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Michael Hudson: America's Free Lunch is Over

                              Folks,

                              Don't forget the other taxes everyone must pay:

                              1) Sales taxes: In California, that's well over 8% and not avoidable
                              2) Government fees: Vehicle taxes, registration fees etc
                              3) Gasoline taxes: Well over 8% even at today's gas prices

                              I think Bart's NowandFutures.com shows the relative actual tax burden in the US vs. other nations. If you figure in their national health insurance vs. our private pay, it gets even uglier.

                              So I don't think the US is a low tax nation at all - unless you're Warren Buffett. Sir Warren himself says that he pays much less tax than the average American, 15% vs. 25%.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X