COMMENTS: 10
It's a Global Economic Meltdown -- Why Are We Shouldering Most of the Burden of Bailing Out the World?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
According to its critics, the "Buy American" provision of President Obama's economic recovery package will set off a vicious cycle of 1930s-style retaliatory protectionist measures that will only push us and the rest of the world deeper into recession. Concern about a return to a version of "beggar thy neighbor" retaliatory trade policies, however, completely misses the real problem facing the global economy today: international foot-dragging on stimulus that has given birth to "beggar thy neighbor" fiscal policy.
As the United States undertakes a major stimulus package in order to pull the U.S. and world economies out of a tailspin, many of our trading partners are implicitly relying on U.S. fiscal stimulus to save the world economy, so they don't have to. A simple tweak to the controversial "Buy American" clause, however, could actually help to turn this all around.
The U.S. stimulus currently under consideration weighs in at about 2.9 percent of GDP per year for two years. This is almost certainly well short of what we'll need to right the economy, but even this level of stimulus is already substantially more than what most of our major trading partners have put on the table.
The European Union (EU) has announced a coordinated plan for a one-time expenditure of about 1.5 percent of its collective GDP. Some EU countries will top up these EU-wide expenditures, but taken together, the European economies are still lagging far behind the United States.
Germany, for example, is on course to spend about 1.25 percent of its GDP on stimulus in 2009, followed by an additional 0.5 percent of GDP in 2010. France has committed to spend not quite 0.7 percent of GDP per year this year and next year. Even giving credit to Germany or France for their share of the combined EU spending, the average annual level of stimulus over the next two years in both countries amounts to only about 1.5 percent of GDP per year, barely half the size of the U.S. plan.
The stimulus package proposed by our biggest trading partner, Canada, meanwhile is even less generous. Canada is planning to spend only 1.2 percent of GDP and only for one year.
China is one of the few U.S. trading partners that is rising to the current fiscal challenge. The Chinese will use some of their massive reserves to fund a stimulus equal to almost 7 percent of GDP per year in 2009 and 2010.
This is exactly where a modified "Buy American" clause can help. The President could rewrite the current "Buy American" restriction to allow U.S. recovery funds to be spent on U.S. goods -- as well as those from any country that passes an economic stimulus program that is at least as large (as a percent of their national GDP) as the package ultimately passed here. Call it a "Buy Keynesian" plan.
The "Buy Keynesian" clause would let the President thread the political needle. He gets to keep the "Buy American" provision that many taxpayers (and Senators) are demanding. And, when foreign leaders accuse him of protectionism, he can rightly respond that their goods have been excluded not because they are foreign, but because their countries aren't pulling their weight in the international recovery.
More importantly, a Keynesian clause would increase the effectiveness of both the U.S. and foreign stimulus packages by encouraging a virtuous circle of fiscal stimulus. Access to the U.S. stimulus expenditures increases the incentives for the rest of the world to carry out stimulus of their own. The larger the scale of these international efforts, the more effective each national stimulus plan will be.
As the world's largest economy -- with a voracious appetite for imports -- the United States is uniquely placed to lead the world out of a recession. Replacing "Buy American" with "Buy Keynesian" could actually go a long way toward filling the biggest hole in the current global response to the deepening recession: the lack of coordinated international fiscal policy.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moving forward I would like to see all countries try to protect ( within reason ) as many industries as possible. The way the world is moving now most countries are becoming one trick ponies destined for catastrophe when their bare bones economic models are stressed.
In this regard I think there should be a standing 15%-20% tariff across all borders unless specifically, under treaty altered. In this way all countries will have a better diversity of economic activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are you ...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: What are you ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Feb 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
article still stuns me. The US drove this
bloated Hummer off the cliff and millions will
suffer worldwide.
But (smile)
"Oh, we're not protectionist, it's your
fault for not matching the US in your stimulus packages!"
Attitude adjustment required....
BTW, I have no theoretical objection to protectionism,
and I am aware that the US wasn't
the only player in the games that brought us
to this point.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My thought exactly.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Ummm, maybe because the rest of the world didn't LEAD the meltdown!?!?!
Posted by: kiwibill44
» RE: Ummm, maybe because the rest of the world didn't LEAD the meltdown!?!?!
Posted by: kiwibill44
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Feb 16, 2009 6:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US invaded Iraq against the advice and in opposition to most of the world. As the predicted disaster unrolled, there were the Yanks yelling: ‘Why isn’t everybody helping us?’
The US has dominated the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, imposing conditions on developing countries that opened them up for US led exploitation. It is obvious to everybody that the Financial system imposed by the US, but not I note, practised at home, is both flawed and inequitable. Greed and stupidity accounts for much of the rest of the worlds problems — even a kid knows not to hand over his money for a bag of lollies that he has not seen.
Then there are those countries that reinvested profits into US ‘paper’, knowingly supporting an economy that could not afford what it was consuming, but seeing only the ‘profit’ that could be made from this profligate customer.
There is not a small business person anywhere, who has been in business for five years that doesn’t know that ‘selling’ to those who cannot pay is the shortest road to disaster.
The fact is neither the US or the financial system that it has imposed upon the world is worth saving. The quicker it is jettisoned the better off the world will be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: katz22br on Feb 16, 2009 8:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As they say in some stores:
- You broke it, you bought it.
Also, U.S. is not exactly "bailing out the world", only what they call "American interests" which happen to be located elsewhere.
You know... the price of Empire and all that.
k
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 16, 2009 9:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mmckinl has it right: makes more sense to impose low, across-the-board tariffs that encourage self-sufficiency without blocking trade that makes sense. (Meaning, I don't want to do without Chinese and Indian tea, but I'm willing to pay a reasonable premium for it.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moving forward I would like to see all countries try to protect ( within reason ) as many industries as possible. The way the world is moving now most countries are becoming one trick ponies destined for catastrophe when their bare bones economic models are stressed.
In this regard I think there should be a standing 15%-20% tariff across all borders unless specifically, under treaty altered. In this way all countries will have a better diversity of economic activity.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What are you ...
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: What are you ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jparsons on Feb 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
article still stuns me. The US drove this
bloated Hummer off the cliff and millions will
suffer worldwide.
But (smile)
"Oh, we're not protectionist, it's your
fault for not matching the US in your stimulus packages!"
Attitude adjustment required....
BTW, I have no theoretical objection to protectionism,
and I am aware that the US wasn't
the only player in the games that brought us
to this point.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My thought exactly.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Ummm, maybe because the rest of the world didn't LEAD the meltdown!?!?!
Posted by: kiwibill44
» RE: Ummm, maybe because the rest of the world didn't LEAD the meltdown!?!?!
Posted by: kiwibill44
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phindrup on Feb 16, 2009 6:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US invaded Iraq against the advice and in opposition to most of the world. As the predicted disaster unrolled, there were the Yanks yelling: ‘Why isn’t everybody helping us?’
The US has dominated the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, imposing conditions on developing countries that opened them up for US led exploitation. It is obvious to everybody that the Financial system imposed by the US, but not I note, practised at home, is both flawed and inequitable. Greed and stupidity accounts for much of the rest of the worlds problems — even a kid knows not to hand over his money for a bag of lollies that he has not seen.
Then there are those countries that reinvested profits into US ‘paper’, knowingly supporting an economy that could not afford what it was consuming, but seeing only the ‘profit’ that could be made from this profligate customer.
There is not a small business person anywhere, who has been in business for five years that doesn’t know that ‘selling’ to those who cannot pay is the shortest road to disaster.
The fact is neither the US or the financial system that it has imposed upon the world is worth saving. The quicker it is jettisoned the better off the world will be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: katz22br on Feb 16, 2009 8:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As they say in some stores:
- You broke it, you bought it.
Also, U.S. is not exactly "bailing out the world", only what they call "American interests" which happen to be located elsewhere.
You know... the price of Empire and all that.
k
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: oregoncharles on Feb 16, 2009 9:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mmckinl has it right: makes more sense to impose low, across-the-board tariffs that encourage self-sufficiency without blocking trade that makes sense. (Meaning, I don't want to do without Chinese and Indian tea, but I'm willing to pay a reasonable premium for it.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign
Why Congress Wants You to Shun Your Local Bookstore and Shop at Amazon Instead




