Sorrowland, empire, and the Great Contraction
Oh my… I have not been very active on this blog as of late. It’s not for a lack of reading and/or thinking but more because what I have been reading and thinking about lately has been somewhat depressing and not something that one would want to share.
I just came across a most interesting website and wanted to share a very interesting article on another interesting article. The first is located at The Daily Bell: “Buffet’s Partner Says America Is Finished.” The second is the article penned by ‘Buffet’s Partner’: “Basically, It’s Over: A parable about how one nation came to financial ruin.” By Charles Munger (Slate.com). (By the way, I find The Daily Bell to be a very interesting website and plan to include this in my daily web-reading.)
Now, surely the titles of the two articles are using just a little hyperbole in order to grab attention, and I would also add that if the U.S. were indeed to unravel or is finished, it will take a lot of other countries in this globalized world with it (including Canada). In fact, the authors of the first make the interesting point that the U.S., as an empire, would in reality include the U.K. (I would add that it would also include Canada, since we are a major ally and trading partner). But even though the authors of the first article disagree somewhat with Munger (the author of the second), they are in reality only adding more nuance and detail.
Munger’s Slate article is a parable of a country that finds itself in dire economic straights similar to what the U.S. has been going through in the last few decades. Munger warns that the fictional country, if it continues down its fiscal path, would eventually turn into ‘Sorrowland.’ Of course, Munger’s partner, the famous Warren Buffet, penned a similar parable a while back warning of very similar things.
As I mentioned, the authors at the Daily Bell offer a more nuanced and detailed version and two paragraphs particularly caught my eye:
The problem with Munger’s point of view – from OUR point of view – is that is seems to leave out a lot of pertinent history. We would argue that the problems America faces go back a long ways. They have to do in fact with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the graduated income tax, the growth of the federal government, the empowerment of the executive branch, the loss of power of the states (which began after the Civil War) and the rise of America’s mighty military industrial complex which has supported the generation of nearly 1,000 military bases around the world.
America is truly an empire, though one can make the argument it is a bifurcated empire that includes Britain as well. One can also make an argument that an intergenerational power elite has worked patiently to hollow out what once was a republic with an eye toward creating a larger, international structure supported by America’s military might. It is this perspective that we find lacking in Munger’s parable.
Sorrowland/Empire. I would agree that that is what we are seeing struggle at the moment and it is not just the U.S. or the U.K. Most large powerful countries (and not just ‘Western’ countries) are looking like shadows of their formal selves (and not just before this recent financial crisis hit). Most of the powerful counties on the planet have been living off of a financial system that produces little more than monopoly money. Carmen M. Reinhart, Kenneth Rogoff call the current situation, the Great Contraction (I just finished their very interesting book a couple of days ago). But one aspect that I think is missing from all the above analyses is that the 20th century was basically the century of cheap energy (for those countries who controlled it) and that the 21st century will be marked by increasingly scarce and expensive energy. More succinctly, I think that the analyses of all the authors listed above are furthered by something that they don’t acknowledge: peak oil or the end of the era of cheap energy.
The easiest way for me to visualize this is that the early 1970s were a turning point for the U.S. It reached peak production in terms of domestic oil production (the backbone of its economic and military strength for almost a century) while it continued and expanded its efforts in the Cold War and military and economic expansion. It is not surprising that real purchasing power for U.S. citizens has been stagnant over that time but that the rise of the financial industry (think Nixon fully abandoning gold and the Bretton Woods agreements) and the rise of credit both exploded. So, while the petroleum that fueled the U.S. economy and empire began to gradually decline, it was propped up (for a time at least) with monoply money created by the federal reserve (and then multiplied by banks and other financial institutions) and giving it out freely to everyone in the form of credit (cards).
So, it should not be surprising that the ‘house of (credit) cards’ and the ludicrous belief that home values would magically grow forever would come down. It should not be surprising that it is financial firms (frauds and thieves, more accurately) like Goldman Sachs are the only ones making money these days… too bad it’s just monopoly money.
Sorrowland indeed. We will soon realize than Sorrowland is not just a country but the entire globe.
.
A warfare state? Really?
I hope you note the sarcasm in the title… it’s not really directed at any single person in particular but is motivated more by frustration. I just came across Tom Engelhardt’s essay at AlterNet where he makes the case that the U.S. is a military- or warfare-state:
“While You are Minding Your Own Business, The U.S. is Constantly Making War Around the Globe” by Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com / Alternet
As much as it might seem that most of us are going along, living peaceful lives, there’s another kind of America that operates on the same soil — a warfare state.
The article is excellent but my frustration comes from the necessity of him having to write such an article in the first place. As a person who has spent years studying propaganda, media and politics, this is certainly not new to me and even though I understand that for the average U.S. citizen, Canadian, etc. it all might come as a surprise, it really shouldn’t be so surprising. But, I guess that is the reality of living under (or beside) a military suoperpower. I teach a course on media, war, and propaganda which focuses primarily on the twentieth century and the U.S. Many students are genuinely surprised at the extent of the U.S. military empire, and these are well-educated and informed young adults. Of course, and Engelhardt points this out in his essay, there is little reflection of the military state in U.S. (or even Canadian) media. Of course, that is to be expected within a military empire: there is usually a lot of denial of empire or it is downplayed by carefully referring to it only by using euphemism.
.
US (total) financial meltdown?
Today, I spent most of the day re-reading essays I have collected over the last year or so on the concept of the ‘military-industrial complex.’ I had a pile of articles that came from the 1960s and early 1970s which tended to focus more on the financial/economic aspects of the US military-state. Doing this also necessitated (to legitimately answer my questions but also to get in a little procrastination) googling various terms, writers, concepts.
Of all this web-searching, some themes started to emerge… which often pointed to the link between maintaining a military-industrial state (which could be thought of as ‘unproductive’ economically) and rising levels of debt, long-term currency devaluation… basically, the burden of costs associated with maintaining military/economy super-power status. Again and again, I kept coming across Nixon’s ending of the gold standard and the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system, mounting US debt, deficits, trade deficits, etc.
At any rate, here are two interesting articles among the many that emerged from these web searches:
The second, since it is so recent, is a little more alarming in that the author, who seems to be a credible financial analyst of the international scene, predicts there will soon be another major US financial/currency default. Here are some of the many interesting tidbits:
“The world, as a whole, is passing through an unprecedented and uncharted territory in terms of scale and scope of current financial crisis. Never before such large scale credit losses were recorded, and never before a sole super power was so indebted to the world. The implication of credit losses and potential default by USA is far reaching and affects almost all people in the world.” …
“The rising price of gold is an indication that quietly countries are shifting their reserve in gold. No one wants to create panic which will lead to massive sellout of US dollar leading to its depreciation to unacceptable levels. But the question is up to when this unnatural position can be maintained. In their self-interest, countries will opt out of US investment trying not to alarm others.” …
“If world musters courage to stand up against USA and come up with an alternative reserve and trade currency. The fate of USA as super economic and military power will be sealed and it will become another Great Britain or France-ex great power. It will rapidly close all military bases and withdraw to its soil to save money.”
Hmmm….
Will the U.S. ever get its defense spending under control?
In all this economic meltdown talk, I was not surprised that the U.S. defense spending budget (which sits at just over $500 Billion… at least, that is the base, publicly disclosed budget… active wars and ‘black’ or secret projects add hundreds of Billions more) rarely if ever came up. As I said, it’s not surprising since defense spending has been a sacred cow in the American imagination but it, and the U.S.’s status as superpower/empire puts a severe strain on the U.S. economy. So, the few times that I heard Obama mention the need to take defense spending more seriously and to try to clean up the cozy and costly relationship between the Pentagon and numerous defense contractors and members of Congress (what Dwight D. Eisenhower famously called the ‘military-industrial-[congressional] complex’), I didn’t think much would come of it. I still don’t but I did find this Alternet article very interesting: “Obama’s Serious about taking an Axe to Corruption and Waster at the Pentagon,” by Alexander Zaitchik.
Of course, there is a lot standing in the way of any reform since defense spending is the biggest barrel of pork one could imagine. And it is probably the biggest example of how the U.S. political system regularly “spreads the wealth” and mostly to a few corporations and military contractors.
For more on the military-industrial complex:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/
Why We Fight, 2005 (dir. Eugene Jarecki)
Fabricating Niger evidence?
This is a very interesting story… I cannot comment on its veracity at all but it is very intriguing (and disturbing). It all makes me think that the Bush?Cheney era was one of the worst in U.S. history.