사이드바 영역으로 건너뛰기

'2006/02'에 해당되는 글 5건

  1. 2006/02/23 The Scorecard on Development
  2. 2006/02/11 Intelligence, Policy and Invasion on IRAQ
  3. 2006/02/11 US Trade Deficit Sets Record High
  4. 2006/02/08 NYT Article on the US Budget 2007
  5. 2006/02/03 Some Useful Websites for Economics and Current Affairs 1

Newer Entries Older Entries

The Scorecard on Development

View Comments

Brief introduction

 

Last 25 years have shown a sharp slowdown in the growth of GDP per capita, a decline in the rate of improvement for life expectancy, (both adult and child) mortality rate, a drastic reduction in the rate of public spending especially on education and other social spending.

 

Since the last 25 years is characterized by the age of "globalization" or "liberalization," it is quite plausible to guess that there is close linkage or causal relationship between these socioeconomic results (the aggravation of the overall quality of life) and the unfettered liberalization policy.

 

In the following research paper, the author Mark Weibrot, et. al traces the patterns of economic growth in most countries in the world and the changes in public policy. He concludes that even though it is difficult to attribute these survey results to the single policy change driven by blind globalization policy, it is not unjustifiable to say that further debates and researches should pay attention to the effects of globalization before adopting any drastic policy change. 

 

The Scorecard on Development - 25 Years of Diminished Progress

http://www.cepr.net/publications/development_2005_09.pdf

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크
2006/02/23 14:28 2006/02/23 14:28

댓글0 Comments (+add yours?)

트랙백0 Tracbacks (+view to the desc.)

Intelligence, Policy and Invasion on IRAQ

View Comments

February 11, 2006

Ex-C.I.A. Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted

By SCOTT SHANE

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 — A C.I.A. veteran who oversaw intelligence assessments about the Middle East from 2000 to 2005 on Friday accused the Bush administration of ignoring or distorting the prewar evidence on a broad range of issues related to Iraq in its effort to justify the American invasion of 2003.

 

The views of Paul R. Pillar, who retired in October as national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, echoed previous criticism from Democrats and from some administration officials, including Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, and Paul H. O'Neill, the former treasury secretary.

 

But Mr. Pillar is the first high-level C.I.A. insider to speak out by name on the use of prewar intelligence. His article for the March-April issue of Foreign Affairs, which charges the administration with the selective use of intelligence about Iraq's unconventional weapons and the chances of postwar chaos in Iraq, was posted Friday on the journal's Web site after it was reported in The Washington Post.

 

"If the entire body of official intelligence on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war — or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," Mr. Pillar wrote. "What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in decades."

 

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Pillar said he recognized that his views would become part of the highly partisan, three-year-old battle over the administration's reasons for going to war. But he said his goal in speaking publicly was to help repair what he called a "broken" relationship between the intelligence produced by the nation's spies and the way it is used by its leaders.

 

"There is ground to be replowed on Iraq," said Mr. Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University. "But what is more important is to look at the whole intelligence-policy relationship and get a discussion and debate going to make sure what happened on Iraq doesn't happen again."

 

President Bush and his aides have denied that the Iraq intelligence was politicized. Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said in November, "Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources, and represented the collective view of the intelligence community. Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

 

Reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential commission on weapons intelligence headed by Laurence H. Silberman, a senior federal judge, and Charles S. Robb, the former Virginia governor and senator, found that C.I.A. analysts had not been pressed to change their views. A second phase of the Senate committee review, on how administration officials used intelligence, has not been completed.

 

Mr. Pillar alleged that the earlier studies had considered only "the crudest attempts at politicization" and that the real pressures were far more subtle. "Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that had already been made," chiefly to topple Mr. Hussein in order to "shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East," he wrote.

 

According to Mr. Pillar's account, the administration shaped the answers it got in part by repeatedly asking the same questions, about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons and about ties between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda. When intelligence analysts resisted, he wrote, some of the administration's allies accused Mr. Pillar and others of "trying to sabotage the president's policies."

 

In light of such accusations, he wrote, analysts began to "sugarcoat" their conclusions.

 

Mr. Pillar called for a formal declaration by Congress and the White House that intelligence should be clearly separated from policy. He proposed the creation of an independent office, modeled on the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, to assess the use of intelligence at the request of members of Congress.

 

Mr. Pillar suggested that the root of the problem might be that top intelligence officials serve at the pleasure of the president.

 

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said the agency had no comment.

 

Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that the C.I.A. had long resisted intervention in Iraq, and that internal pressure on analysts to resist war was greater than any external pressure.

 

"If the C.I.A. had spent less time leaking its opinions, throughout the 1990's, opposed to any conflict with Iraq, and more time developing assets inside Iraq, the agency would have more credibility and better intelligence," said Ms. Pletka, who served for a decade, until 2002, as a Republican staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

Visit the website on http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

 

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크
2006/02/11 14:44 2006/02/11 14:44

댓글0 Comments (+add yours?)

트랙백0 Tracbacks (+view to the desc.)

US Trade Deficit Sets Record High

View Comments

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

February 11, 2006

U.S. Trade Deficit Sets Record, With China and Oil the Causes

By VIKAS BAJAJ

 

The United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion in 2005, the government reported yesterday, adding more fuel to the increasingly partisan debate between advocates of further globalization and those who contend that free trade is causing the loss of too many American manufacturing jobs.

 

Hitting its fourth consecutive annual record, the gap between exports and imports reached almost twice the level of 2001. It was driven by strong consumer demand for foreign goods and soaring energy prices that added tens of billions of dollars to the nation's bill for imported oil. The nation last had a trade surplus, of $12.4 billion, in 1975.

 

The continued growth in the trade deficit, particularly with China, is likely to renew a fight in Congress as early as this spring over President Bush's trade policies. Lawmakers have seized on the growing imbalance with China to call on the White House to take a harder line with Beijing over its currency practices.

 

But as long as the American economy is growing faster than most of its trading partners and energy prices stay at elevated levels, economists expect little improvement, and perhaps even a slight widening, in the trade imbalance this year.

 

"You would need a dramatic slowdown in domestic U.S. demand to bring down the U.S. trade deficit, and we think that is unlikely," said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital in New York.

 

That means the nation will go deeper into debt with the rest of the world as Americans continue to rely on the strong flow of foreign money, particularly from central banks in Asia, to finance the trade gap. China, Japan and other foreign governments are some of the biggest holders of government securities, lending money to cover the substantial federal budget deficit and helping to keep interest rates and home mortgage costs here relatively low.

 

As a result, American consumers are able to spend more and save less.

 

Many economists say this situation is unsustainable over the long run, arguing that the United States could eventually face a harsh correction that would depress spending, increase the cost of borrowing and sharply lower the value of the dollar.

 

"There are certainly going to be inflows, the question is at what price?" said James O'Sullivan, an economist at UBS, an investment house. "As time goes on, it will become a little more difficult to attract foreign funds. That's another way of saying the dollar will fall."

 

But other economists argue that the huge trade gap mostly reflects stronger American growth and that money is flowing into the country at relatively low rates because of the attractiveness of the United States as a place to invest. They see little reason to fear a dollar crisis.

 

"As long as foreigners are willing to put their capital in the United States, we can sustain a trade deficit of 6 percent or more" of overall economic activity, said Phillip L. Swagel, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington who served as a staff economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

 

"It would be better that we saved more on our own," Mr. Swagel added, "but given that we aren't, I would rather have investment go on by foreign capital."

 

For its part, the Bush administration urged caution on the deficit.

 

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, touring an I.B.M. operation in North Carolina, told The Associated Press, "We can't overreact and make tactical choices that will hurt our economy."

 

As a share of the gross domestic product, the trade gap increased to 5.8 percent, from 5.3 percent in 2004 and 4.5 percent in 2003.

 

While most economists dismiss the importance of bilateral trade imbalances, it is the deficit with China that has set off the most political fireworks. That nation had the largest gap with the United States of any country, at $201.6 billion for the year, up 24.5 percent from 2004. In December, the deficit with China narrowed nearly 12 percent, to $16.3 billion.

 

Following increased pressure from the White House, the Chinese government allowed the yuan to rise by about 2 percent in July and allowed its currency to float in a narrow band. Since then the yuan, also known as the renminbi, has risen by an additional 0.7 percent. One dollar buys about 8.0505 yuan.

 

A stronger Chinese currency would make imports to the United States more expensive and American exports to that country cheaper. Most analysts agree the yuan would rise significantly if it were set free, but many experts also worry that many financial institutions in China are not strong enough to survive the shocks that might accompany a fully convertible currency.

 

In the Senate, Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, have proposed imposing a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports if the country does not allow its currency to appreciate further against the dollar. Late last year, the senators agreed to hold off on the measure after the Senate voted against stopping a floor vote on it.

 

Mr. Schumer said "there is a very strong likelihood that we will move our bill in March should the Chinese not show further movements."

 

"If you believe in free trade, you play by the rules," he said when asked if a protectionist tariff would hurt the American economy. "The long-term damage of the Chinese pegging their currency far exceeds any immediate benefits and almost every economist would agree with that. They might not agree with our methodology."

 

Experts note that a large portion of the deficit with China reflects its growing role as a hub for the assembly of goods as Asian manufacturers have shifted production there to save money. The overall deficit with Asia has changed little in recent years.

 

Bush administration officials have said they, too, would like to see the yuan appreciate further, but have contended that sanctions like a tariff would be counterproductive and would hurt consumers. This month, the Treasury Department urged the International Monetary Fund to improve its policing of currency manipulations by governments, without directly referring to China.

 

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow is expected to bring up the issue of exchange rates at a meeting of the Group of 8 finance ministers in Moscow this weekend.

 

But even some longstanding advocates of free trade are growing increasingly frustrated with China's intransigence on the currency front, warning that it may be inviting protectionist legislation by repeatedly deflecting Washington's requests.

 

"The administration," said C. Fred Bergsten of the Institute for International Economics in Washington, "has to let the Chinese know that it may not be able to stop it even though it doesn't want it."

 

While China draws most of the attention, perhaps the most important factor behind the swelling deficit last year was the rising cost of importing oil and other energy supplies. Trade in petroleum products accounted for 29 percent of the total deficit, up from 25 percent in 2004. Imports of petroleum goods climbed 39 percent, to $251.6 billion, after rising by 39 percent in 2004.

 

Over all, the deficit jumped nearly 18 percent in 2005 compared with the previous year. Excluding oil and other petroleum products, the trade gap grew by 10 percent.

 

After China, the United States' second-biggest deficit was with Japan, at $82.7 billion, up 9.4 percent, followed by Canada, a big supplier of oil and natural gas, at $76.5 billion, up 15.1 percent.

 

The deficit with members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries increased by 29 percent, to $92.7 billion. For December, the trade deficit grew by 1.5 percent over the previous month, to $65.7 billion, as imports of computers, cars and airplanes rose and exports of planes, which had risen sharply in November, dropped. It was the third-largest monthly trade gap on record.

 

And with oil prices rising again, said Ashraf Laidi, chief currency analyst for the MG Financial Group in New York, "we can expect to see worse numbers to come."

 

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크
2006/02/11 14:33 2006/02/11 14:33

댓글0 Comments (+add yours?)

트랙백0 Tracbacks (+view to the desc.)

NYT Article on the US Budget 2007

View Comments

February 7, 2006

The Proposals - Domestic Spending Squeezed Throughout the Government

By ROBERT PEAR

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — President Bush's budget squeezes domestic spending throughout the government, cutting the growth of Medicare, reducing crop payments to farmers, eliminating a food program for low-income people and slashing support for vocational education.

 

Over all, Mr. Bush said he would cut a large general category of the budget known as domestic discretionary spending, which includes most government programs outside of the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and large entitlement programs. Spending in this category would decline to $398 billion in 2007, from $400 billion this year, the White House said.

 

Under the president's budget, total federal spending would rise at the slowest rate in more than a decade, increasing 2.3 percent, to $2.77 trillion in 2007. But spending for the three biggest entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which account for 40 cents of every dollar spent by the government — would shoot up 8 percent in 2007.

 

Mr. Bush proposed substantial increases in premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which insures benefits provided under private pension plans to more than 40 million Americans. The Bush administration said the proposal would bring in $16.7 billion over five years.

 

The president proposed cutting all crop payments to farmers by 5 percent. This and other proposed changes in commodity programs would save $5 billion over five years, he said. Congress rejected similar ideas last year.

 

Mr. Bush urged Congress to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, saying it "overlaps with" the food stamp program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC. Most of the beneficiaries are low-income people 60 and older. Some receive food stamps, but their food stamp allotments would not be increased to make up for the loss of commodities.

 

"In the long term," Mr. Bush said, "the biggest challenge to our nation's fiscal health comes from unsustainable growth in entitlement spending. We do not need to cut these programs, but we do need to slow their growth."

 

The Deficit Reduction Act, just passed by Congress, would save $39 billion over the next five years. On Monday, Mr. Bush proposed $65 billion of additional savings in entitlement programs.

 

Mr. Bush offered Congress advice on how to rein in spending. He would impose statutory limits on programs subject to annual appropriations, known as discretionary spending, from 2006 to 2011. Legislation that exceeds these limits would automatically force cuts in other domestic discretionary programs.

 

The president proposed a similar device to control spending on guaranteed benefit programs, known as entitlements. If Congress changed these programs in a way that increased the budget deficit, other benefit programs would automatically be cut to offset the cost.

 

For further information on the US Federal Budget 2007,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

 

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크
2006/02/08 13:26 2006/02/08 13:26

댓글0 Comments (+add yours?)

트랙백0 Tracbacks (+view to the desc.)

Some Useful Websites for Economics and Current Affairs 1

View Comments

Archive and alternative analysis of international development economics

http://www.networkideas.org/default.htm

 

Association of Alternative economists - Union for Radical Political Economy

http://www.urpe.org/

 

Center for Economic Policy Analysis

http://www.newschool.edu/cepa/

 

Political Economy Research Institute

http://wwwx.oit.umass.edu/~peri/html/all.html

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크
2006/02/03 14:38 2006/02/03 14:38

댓글0 Comments (+add yours?)

트랙백0 Tracbacks (+view to the desc.)

Newer Entries Older Entries