Wallerstein on impossible choices in world depression

Distinguished scholar Immanuel Wallerstein produces a short commentary on various aspects of political and economic interest, twice a month. Here's the latest one.

Commentary No. 283, June 15, 2010
"Impossible Choices in a World Depression"
As the world's leaders and pundits continue to deny the reality of the world depression - they won't even use the word - the impossible choices that are faced by government after government become more and more obvious every day. Consider what has happened in just the last month.

The United States had its worst unemployment figures in quite a while. Yes, there were some new jobs, but 95% of them were of temporary census workers. Private employers added just 10% of the jobs they were expected to add. Despite this, it has now become politically impossible to get further stimulus money voted by Congress. And the Federal Reserve has ceased to buy Treasury securities and mortgage bonds. These had been the two main strategies to increase jobs. Why? The call for deficit cuts has grown too strong.

The most immediate consequence can be seen at the level of the budgets of the separate state governments. The cost of Medicaid has gone up because of the economic crisis. This cost is borne by the separate states. They have been helped in the past year by increased federal subsidies of state spending on Medicaid. Congress won't renew this. Gov. Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania says this will increase his state's budgetary shortfall by two-thirds, and force it to lay off 20,000 teachers, police officers, and other government workers. Of course, this is in addition to lost medical services for many people.

In Great Britain, the new Prime Minister, David Cameron, says that cutting down on borrowing is "the most urgent issue facing Britain today." The Financial Times sums up his proposals in its headline: "Cameron pitches an age of austerity." Its assessment of this policy: "If the government is to make such steep reductions in spending, it cannot avoid visibly damaging frontline services. The cuts will be more savage than anything contemplated by even the Thatcher government."

Germany's Chancellor Merkel has announced her version of austerity: deep public spending cuts immediately, rising in amount each year for the next four years. She has also announced new taxes on airlines, which the world's airlines immediately announced would seriously hurt their ability to reduce their negative balance-sheets and save them from bankruptcy. Germany's unemployment rates will increase, but its unemployment benefits will be reduced. Other governments in Europe plus the United States have been urging Germany to spend more and export less, in order to restore world demand. Merkel rejected these demands, saying that debt reduction was her priority.

Japan's new Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, warned the country that the debt situation is so bad that Japan could face a situation comparable to that of Greece. To remedy this, he proposed some increased taxation, more regulation of the financial arena, and new kinds of public expenditures.

In the middle of all this super-austerity in the North, a most remarkable thing has occurred, which seems to have escaped almost all notice. As everyone knows, Spain is one of the many European countries now in economic difficulty because of very large debt ratios. On May 30, Fitch Ratings joined other ratings companies in reducing Spanish bond ratings from AAA to AA+. The question is why. Just the day before, the Spanish parliament had voted the country's deepest budget cuts in 30 years.

Budget cuts are presumably what Germany and others have been calling for in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and other countries threatened by too much debt. Spain responded to this pressure. And just because it did, Fitch Ratings downgraded it. Brian Coulton, Fitch's person in charge of ratings for Spain, said in the statement downgrading Spain: "The process of adjustment to a lower level of private sector and external indebtedness will materially reduce the rate of growth of the Spanish economy over the medium-term."

So there it is - damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The financial speculators have created a disastrous fall in the world-economy. The ball was then thrown to the states to solve the problem. The states have less money and more demands on them. What can they do? They can borrow, until those who lend money won't do it, or demand too high a rate of interest. They can tax, and the businesses say that this will cut back their ability to create jobs. They can reduce expenditures. And in addition to the terrible pain this inflicts on everyone, but especially on the more vulnerable, this action also will reduce the possibility of growth, as Mr. Coulton points out for Spain.

Of course, there is one big place to reduce expenditures - the military. Military expenditures do provide jobs but far fewer than if the money were used otherwise. This does not apply only to the biggest spenders like the United States. A virtually uncommented aspect of Greece's debt problems was its heavy expenditure on the military. But are governments ready to reduce significantly military expenditures? It doesn't seem too likely.

So, what can the states do? They are trying one thing today, and another thing tomorrow. Last year, it was stimulus. This year, it's debt reduction. The year after, it will be taxation.

In any case, the overall situation will be worse and worse.

Can China save us? Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's very acute analyst, seems to think so, provided the government "stimulate(s) private growth." In that case, rising wages will be offset by higher productivity. Maybe. But the Chinese government has been resistant to such a policy up to now, not for economic but for political reasons. Its drive to maintain political stability has been paramount up to now. Furthermore, even Roach has one great fear - China-bashing in Washington leading to trade sanctions. Myself, I think that's a high probability, as the U.S. economic situation continues to deteriorate.

The way out of all of this is not some small adjustment here or there - whether of the monetarist or the Keynesian variety.

To emerge from the economic box in which the world finds itself requires a fundamental overhaul of the world-system. This will surely have to come, but how soon?

Immanuel Wallerstein going over the top?

The distinguished American progenitor of world-systems theory produces a short fortnightly column that you can sign up for. Always worth a look. Wallerstein is vry much in the school of unstoppable American decline, but is he getting too alarmist (or excited) in this latest piece?

Mar. 15, 2009, Commentary No. 253
"Civil War in the United States?"

We are getting accustomed to all sorts of breakdowns of taboos. The world press is full of discussion about whether it would be a good idea to "nationalize" banks. None other than Alan Greenspan, disciple of the superlibertarian prophet of pure market capitalism, Ayn Rand, has recently said that we have to nationalize banks once every hundred years, and this may be that moment. Conservative Republican Senator Lindsay Graham agreed with him. Left Keynesian Alan Blinder discussed the pros and cons of this idea. And while he thinks the cons are a bit bigger than the pros, he was willing to spend public intellectual energy writing about this in the New York Times.

Well, after hearing nationalization proposals by arch-conservative notables, we are now hearing serious discussions about the possibilities of civil war in the United States. Zbigniew Brzezinski, apostle of anti-Communist ideology and President Carter's National Security Advisor, appeared on a morning television talk show on February 17, and was asked to discuss his previous mention of the possibility of class conflict in the United States in the wake of the worldwide economic collapse.

Brzezinski said he was worried about it because of the prospect of "millions and millions of unemployed people facing dire straits," people who have become aware "of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals without historical precedent in America."

He reminded the listeners that, when there was a massive banking crisis in 1907, the great financier, J.P. Morgan, invited a group of wealthy financiers to his home, locked them in his library, and wouldn't let them out until they all kicked in money for a fund to stabilize the banks. Brzezinski said: "Where is the monied class today? Why aren't they doing something: the people who made billions?"

In the absence of their doing something on a voluntary basis, Brzezinski said, "there's going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could even be riots!"

Almost simultaneously, a European agency called LEAP/Europe that issues monthly confidential Global Europe Anticipation Bulletins for its clients - politicians, public servants, businessmen, and investors - devoted its February issue to global geopolitical dislocation. The report did not paint a pretty picture. It discussed the possibility of civil war in Europe, in the United States, and Japan. It foresaw a "generalized stampede" that will lead to clashes, semi-civil wars.

The experts have some advice: "If your country or region is a zone in which there is a massive availability of guns, the best thing you can do...is to leave the region, if that's possible." The only one of these countries which meets the description of massively available guns is the United States. The head of LEAP/Europe, Franck Biancheri, noted that "there are 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, and social violence is already manifest via gangs." The experts who wrote the report asserted that there is already an ongoing emigration of Americans to Europe, because that is "where physical danger will remain marginal."

If Brzezinski hopes for the emergence of another J.P. Morgan in the United States to force sense upon the "monied" class, the LEAP/Europe report sees a "last chance" in the April 2 London meeting of the G20, provided the participants come forward with a "convincing and audacious" plan.

These analyses are not coming from left intellectuals or radical social movements. They are the openly expressed fears of serious analysts who are part of the existing Establishment in the United States and Europe. Verbal taboos are broken only when such people are truly fearful. The point of breaking the taboos is to try to bring about major rapid action - the equivalent of J.P. Morgan locking the financiers in his home in 1907.

It was easier in 1907.

by Immanuel Wallerstein