Thursday, September 28, 2006

Editorial Asks THE Tough Question

There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post that really put its finger on the problem of the debate over Iraq and the problem with policy choices open to the US. As so often is the case, what the author says is fairly obvious, but it just points out the validity of the argument. You can read the whole editorial at the link below. I have quoted the most important two paragraphs in it.

A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War By Jonathan Finer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601691.html

"For politicians in campaign mode, self-assurance almost always trumps intellectual honesty, so there are few, if any, acknowledged tough calls. But candidates who make an issue of the war could start by addressing problems that have no easy solutions. Those, such as Lamont, who want U.S. troops withdrawn, should explain how they will prevent the resulting vacuum from being filled by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- two groups hellbent on exterminating each other's communities -- as has happened in virtually every region vacated by coalition forces so far..."

"Those who want to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq -- or even increase it -- have their own explaining to do. They should start with how redistributing or adding troops, whether a few battalions or an entire division, would change what has been an undeniable failure of U.S. forces to control even the terrain in which they are concentrated, such as Baghdad. Periodic "security plans" for the Iraqi capital -- which usually involve shifting thousands of troops from the hinterlands -- have never suppressed violence in a lasting way..."

"Those elected in November will be forced to choose what they consider the least bad option on Iraq from range of policies sure to cause pain. If you've spent any time in Iraq, you're inevitably asked what should be done. After traveling back and forth there since 2003, the most indelible impression I am left with -- aside from the sheer scale of the destruction and suffering -- is that there will be no easy end to this war. Voters are not being prepared for that reality.

A more robust, and honest, dialogue would be a good place to start. If there's one thing we've learned from nearly four years in Iraq it's that glossing over hard questions is the surest path to failure."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Tough Week for the Administration

When it rains, it pours. And information contrary to the White House's point of view on the war has been pouring in from all directions. To help channel the floodwaters (and hopefully to put an end to the rain methaphor), here are some links to some interesting primary sources and news articles.


Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States"
dated April 2006
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf
Here is the declassified portion of the NIE that has raised all the ruckus. This is definitely worth reading for yourself. Not only will it help you sort out the spin surrounding it, but I think (based on everything else I have read) it is a fairly valid assessment of the situation.

Maj Gen Batiste's Testimony before Senate Democratic Committee http://polstate.com/?p=4925 The whole transcript of the testimony. Very critical of Rumsfeld

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public
By Amit Paley, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
New polls are suggesting that solid majorities of Iraqi want the US to leave sooner rather than later.

Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short by By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,1,1852611.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Apparently, Gen. Schoomaker is drawing a line in the budget and pushing for a 41% increase in the Army's normal budget to cover the costs of the war. Actually, a kind of gutsy move in the bureaucratic battlespace (bureauspace?).

Unit Makes Do as Army Strives to Plug Gaps by David Cloud, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/us/25infantry.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
This article focuses on the Second Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division which appears to be suffering from a lack of equipment (as in no tanks) and personnel (as in half of the authorized strength). Explains Gen. Schoomachers concerns (see above).

Succeeding in Phase IV: British Perspectives on the U.S. Effort To Stabilize and Reconstruct Iraq By Andrew Garfield, Foreign Policy Research Institue
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060908.military.garfield.britishperspectiveiraq.html
This monograph actually came out a couple fo weeks ago but references to it started popping up thsi week. An in depth analysis of US military efforts in Iraq based on interviews with British officers serving in Iraq. Guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of anyone in the US Army, but ,coming from professional British soldiers on the ground in Iraq, it's a point of view worth considering.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Deficit in the Trade Story

The numbers are in and we hit another record trade deficit in July. What is interesting to me is not so much the deficit but the AP news story about it. The story is okay as far as it goes, but what troubles me is where it doesn't go.

First, we are given lots of numbers defining the absolute size of the trade deficit but this really isn't what is important. What we really need to know is what is the size of the trade deficit relative to GDP. Because GDP is always increaseing, we will frequently be setting new trade defict figures. The question is, is the deficit growing faster or slower than GDP?

Second, the article goes into the sources of the trade deficit and mentions the usual suspects (oil prices and China), but never mentions the real culprit, i.e., the Capital Account. This is the flow of capital into and out of the country and, almost by defintion, it is the opposite of the Current Account which includes the trade deficit. A $776 billion trade deficit implies that there is roughly a $776 Billion surplus in the Capital Account which means that foreign investors have invested $776 billion more in the US than US investors have invested overseas.

The question is, are they buying US stocks and private bonds or are they buying Treasury Bills? If they are making private investments, that just means the US economy is a good risk. However, it is more likely that they are buying the ever increasing quantituy of T-Bills taht the US is issuing to float our government budget.

There can be no doubt that a significant source of the trade deficit is our own budget deficit. But you alsmot never see thsi in the US news.


Trade deficit hits $68B record in July
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy


WASHINGTON - The U.S. trade deficit hit a record $68 billion in July as surging global oil prices pushed America's foreign oil bill to the highest level in history.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that the July deficit jumped 5 percent from the June imbalance. Analysts had expected the deficit to worsen slightly, but the overall imbalance was worse than expected and surpassed the old monthly record of $66.6 billion set last October.

So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $776 billion, putting the country on course to rack up a record annual deficit for the fifth straight year. Democrats, campaigning for control of Congress in the November elections, hope voters will view the soaring trade deficits as evidence that President Bush's trade policies are not working.

For July, U.S. exports, after setting a string of records, edged down 1.1 percent to $120 billion — still the second highest level in history. Sales of American jetliners, computers and food products all slipped.

Imports rose to a record high of $188 billion, an increase of 1 percent from the June level. America's foreign oil bill climbed 4.8 percent to an all-time high of $28.5 billion, reflecting record oil prices in July.

The politically sensitive deficit with China did decline slightly in July to $19.6 billion but is still on track to far exceed last year's $202 billion deficit, the highest ever recorded with a single country.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will leave later this week for an Asian trip that will take him to China for his first meetings with Chinese economic officials since he joined the Bush's Cabinet in July.

The administration is pushing China to move more quickly to allow its currency to rise in value against the dollar as a way to narrow the yawning trade gap by making American exports cheaper in China and Chinese goods more expensive for U.S. consumers.

Congressional critics of China's trade policies have warned that if China does not act, they plan to push for a Senate vote before the end of this month on legislation that would impose 27.5 percent penalty tariffs on all Chinese imports.

That would drive up the price American consumers would have to pay for Chinese clothes, toys and consumer electronic products, but supporters of the legislation contend a strong U.S. response is needed to force China to stop manipulating its currency to gain unfair trade advantages.

The big jump in America's oil bill reflects the sharp rise in global oil prices. The average price for a barrel of imported crude oil rose to a record of $64.84 in July while the spot price in global oil markets surged even higher to $77 per barrel.

However, since setting a record in mid-July, crude oil prices have come down by about 13 percent, raising hopes that the trade deficit will start to improve in coming months.

American exporters have been helped by a decline in the value of the U.S. dollar against many major currencies and an improved economic outlook in Europe and Japan.

The drop in exports in July was led by a $1.2 billion decline in sales of U.S. capital goods, reflecting declines in shipments of civilian aircraft, computers and computer accessories and industrial machinery.

While the deficit with China narrowed slightly, America's trade deficit with Japan rose by 8.1 percent in July to $7.6 billion.

The deficit with Canada, America's biggest trading partner, edged up to $5.9 billion while the imbalance with Mexico narrowed to $5.1 billion. The deficit with the 25-nation European Union jumped to $13.4 billion, up from $9 billion in June.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Valuing Immigrants

There is an interesting article in todays paper about a UNC study on the revenue generated by immigrants in NC. http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=241527

The North Caorlina Banker's Association commissioned a study which determined that Hispanics brought $9.2 billion dollars into the state economy.

Of course, the study also estimated that about half the Hispanic immigrants were illegal and that they are generating an $61 million dollar net cost to the state government. However, a little math shows that this shortfall is only 6/10 of a percent of their addition to the economy.

One of the truisms of modern economics is that people are now a nation's most vital natural resource. We need to do away with the old thinking that defines immigrants as a drain on resources and start looking at them as a source of wealth and prosperity in which we should be investing.

Valuing Immigrants

There is an interesting article in todays paper about a UNC study on the revenue generated by immigrants in NC. http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=241527

The North Caorlina Banker's Association commissioned a study which determined that Hispanics brought $9.2 billion dollars into the state economy.

Of course, the study also estimated that about half the Hispanic immigrants were illegal and that they are generating an $61 million dollar net cost to the state government. However, a little math shows that this shortfall is only 6/10 of a percent of their addition to the economy.

One of the truisims of modern economics is that people are now a nations most vital natural resource. We need to do away with the old thinking that defines immigrants as a drain on resources and start looking at them as a source of wealth and prosperity in which we should be investing.