US rebound expected to fizzle

[dArKeR]

TROUBLES AHEAD: American economists said a recovery funded by defense and deficit spending would not last, with one predicting a threat to the US' prosperity.

"Developing countries that still rely on the American market as an engine of growth should be cautious about expecting too much after 2004."
James Galbraith, University of Texas professor

The US economy is enjoying a growth spurt that will not last beyond this year because it is driven by military spending and tax cuts while the George W. Bush administration turns a blind eye to a looming deficit crisis, American economists said in Havana on Monday.

"Developing countries that still rely on the American market as an engine of growth should be cautious about expecting too much after 2004," said University of Texas professor James Galbraith at an annual economists conference on globalization issues hosted by Cuba.

Economic Nobel laureate Daniel McFadden warned that the US was heading toward a generational demographic crisis in social security and Medicare that will require government funding, and in turn imply unsustainable deficits.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/02/11/2003098358

[Mountainman]

1. Will we see this analysis on our cable news shows?

The country is going to hell in a hand basket and all the people will here from our media is going to be some wingnut attacks against Kerry who is running for President so he can do something about it.

[denverbill]

4. Sorry. No time. Can't fit that in. Not unless there's a breast or death.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. So basically

we need an ongoing war to sustain us. At least that's my take on it.

[UpInArms]

3. War = Peace and Prosperity n/t

[southpaw72]

5. hasn't it been that way since the end of ww2?

The military industrial complex was created by the international crises of the 1930s, and pulled us out of the Great Depression. We've never gone back to a more sustainable model. That's one reason why over the last 50+ years we've gone from fighting one set of "Evil Doers" to another. 1st the Nazis, then the Commies, now the all-encompassing "War on Terra." Each generation the enemy becomes less centralized and more universal.

The sad thing is that, despite what we're told over and over, military spending does not "trickle down" very much when compared to other industries. Whenever there is talk about increasing spending on, for example, education or the environment, no one mentions that this money isn't just going into a black hole, it's going to pay for teachers, or to create new industries, etc. It's creating jobs. It's only when we look at our bloated defense budget that people worry about losing jobs.

[NeoConsSuck]

6. You got it, Southpaw

Ike warned us about the miltary-industrial complex.

[DCDemo]

8. Money for the military is primarily for technology

Be it bombs, guns, tanks, planes, fuel, etc. Spending money on these things results in little as compared to spending on people, who then spend the money on services and products which keep businesses going.

100 million dollars paid to people will make a biggger bump in the economy than 100 million dollars paid to a corporation for "stuff".

[Fovea]

9. Correct you are.

That is why it is framed as a choice between guns and butter.
Guns are meant to be used and buried with the user.
Then you draft more kids, and hand them newer guns.

How do you sustain this sort of economy?
You maximize injustice, and tell the
kids that God wants a lot of
babies.

It takes a lot more work to sustain so
many lies over time, and a lot of money.
But a world with comfort and health for all
and moderate wealth for some is contrary
to the theology of greed.

[0007]

7. ....who's gonna ask for another 50 billion for Iraq?

[tom_paine]

10. Considering the whole "rebound" was a Stalinist Sham from the start

it makes perfect sense that the illusion would collapse of it's own weight, eventually (after the rigged and Stalinist 2004 "election").

Hint to the Imperial Subjects of Amerika: There never was a recovery. Imperial Pravda is lying.

[David__77]

11. It's very un-Stalinist actually.

Although I think you use communist terminology to indicate some kind of "totalitarian" concept, the "recovery" is in fact quite un-Stalinist in nature. While the Soviet economic progress under Stalin during the 1920's and after the second world war was founded upon actual, real physical production and expansion of industrial capacity, this one in the U.S. is founded upon fictituous paper wealth without any corresponding product. While we may criticize Soviet politics, the economy in that country, up until the Gorbachev period, expanded greatly, on the basis or real production.

[tom_paine]

13. You got me there, David

(which doesn't make Stalin a good gy or anything)

And yes, I do use communist terminology to inidcate Totalitarianism and to draw attention to the irony of the supposedly Commie-Hating Busheviks emulating so many of their strategies.

I honesty think the Busheviks are JEALOUS of Soviet Totalitarianism and it's ability to Keep the Filthy Little Nobodies in Line.

[yellowcanine]

12. UH OH! Recoveryin Doubt? Tax Cut Time!

That will be the prescription from old one note Shrubbie.

[lark]

14. Bush = 2 notes

The answer to all questions in his pea brain are

cut taxes more
make more war

lark

[libview]

15. I hope it all crumbles before the election