Having looked at the numbers on past performance I've been interested to see the current debate on which candidate has an economic plan to turn the US around - an item of not academic interest to most of us out in the global economy...
I found an interesting article at the Washington Post that looks at their plans and their ability to deliver.. it included this quote:
"Austan Goolsbee, who advises Democratic candidate Barack Obama, said McCain had consistently called for balancing the budget without explaining how he would do so." ...which given the numbers seems a pretty fair criticism.
In the 12 years under Democratic presidents since Jimmy Carter the American gross national debt rose by an average 5.3% per year for a compounded increase of 87%(!) ...but in eighteen years with Republican predidents it rose an average of 11.2% per annum - compounding to a huge 679% increase...
So I ask you.. just how likely is it the McCain is your man to get a grip on US finances???
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Monday, 20 October 2008
Spending your inheritance...
The economy has been big news of late - and not least as a topic of debate in the USA in the run up to the election. So I thought I'd have a look at at how things really are and dug up some numbers on the American national debt.
I was interested to see how things fared under the different political parties over there and the results were a bit of a surprise. Common rhetoric says the Democrats are wont to raise taxes and spend more - and that it's the Republicans that aim to cut cost and give money back to the taxpayer. What I found was that yes... Federal spending tends to rise faster under the Democrats - but the clearest trend was that the national debt almost always rises faster under a Republican president.
But hej, isn't it the Senate and the House of Representatives that agree those things? Check it out...
So what does it show?? It measures the increase in gross federal debt as a proportion of the increase in GDP.. and covers the period from 1979 to 2007. As the economy grows what part of that growth is mortgaged to meet current spending? The numbers at the bottom show who has control of the two houses - +2 is both Republican, -2 is both Democrat - and each point is a year - red for a Republican president, blue for a Democrat. All but two of the Democrat years lie below a limit of debt increasing by half the rise in GDP.. and all but one of the Republican years lie above that same limit.
Surprisingly it doesn't matter who runs the parliament - under a red president the debt just keeps on rising... In effect Republican presidents are giving tax cuts funded not by growth but by borrowing. If you need the money can't you just go and borrow it for yourself!!
If you read this report from the US Government Accountability Office you can see that escalating debt interest combined with increasing welfare and pension costs for the ageing population means America is facing a huge funding crisis in the coming decades.
My conclusion? America can't afford another Republican in the White House...
I was interested to see how things fared under the different political parties over there and the results were a bit of a surprise. Common rhetoric says the Democrats are wont to raise taxes and spend more - and that it's the Republicans that aim to cut cost and give money back to the taxpayer. What I found was that yes... Federal spending tends to rise faster under the Democrats - but the clearest trend was that the national debt almost always rises faster under a Republican president.
But hej, isn't it the Senate and the House of Representatives that agree those things? Check it out...
So what does it show?? It measures the increase in gross federal debt as a proportion of the increase in GDP.. and covers the period from 1979 to 2007. As the economy grows what part of that growth is mortgaged to meet current spending? The numbers at the bottom show who has control of the two houses - +2 is both Republican, -2 is both Democrat - and each point is a year - red for a Republican president, blue for a Democrat. All but two of the Democrat years lie below a limit of debt increasing by half the rise in GDP.. and all but one of the Republican years lie above that same limit.
Surprisingly it doesn't matter who runs the parliament - under a red president the debt just keeps on rising... In effect Republican presidents are giving tax cuts funded not by growth but by borrowing. If you need the money can't you just go and borrow it for yourself!!
If you read this report from the US Government Accountability Office you can see that escalating debt interest combined with increasing welfare and pension costs for the ageing population means America is facing a huge funding crisis in the coming decades.
My conclusion? America can't afford another Republican in the White House...
Sunday, 19 October 2008
The American Dream?
I watched the last of the American Presidential Debates yesterday - not live you understand, but in replay. It was my first real chance to see the candidates presenting themselves...
It was shocked by the huge difference in how the candidates came across. McCain commented several times on Obama's rhetoric - but to my ears Obama stuck to lucidly explaining what he wanted to do and why it was important for America to do it.
McCain was the one I thought lacked substance, making fine claims and aiming at an emotional appeal - trying to demonise his opponent as a liberalist wanting to steal money from the people to waste on public programmes - spreading muck about Obamas links with terrorism - and painting himself as the champion of the American dream. He made more than one reference to Sarah Palins special understanding and interest in those poor families dealing with autistic children - which crudely put is trying to get sympathy votes out of her personal circumstances.
He also made a great play on his record of fighting against the establishment and vested interests - very laudable - but I was left with the impression that this meant would struggle to unite his own party under his leadership, never mind leading the nation.
At times he looked frail - and at times he reminded me of one of those wind up monkeys. Asked a specific question he'd reply with some stock sound bite he'd prepared beforehand - something completely off subject.
It was, to put not too fine a point on it, scary to think that this was someone that could end up sitting down to negotiate with leaders in China, Russia or Iran.
The sad part was that behind the guff it's clear that he actually has been active in pushing for what he sees as good for his country.. and not just toed the line.
Obama.... pretty much stuck to presenting his platform of policies and defending the flack launched from across the table... He was probably too kind.
McCains policies will put more money in the pockets of 30 million Americans - the other 270 million will be better off under the Democrats...
The American dream - means aspiring to be part of that rich clique of 30 million... and for that it seems that half the electorate are willing to ignore the fact that they are not part of that small minority that are taking the cream. The ironic part is that getting rich is about redistributing wealth to the small number that succeed. Does the personal avarice of the American dream really mean people don't want to see the rest of the population get a decent education and the security and reassurance of good health care?
And for me it is somewhat ironic that the party that stands proud of that avaricious dream is the same party so warmly supported by all those evangelical Christians.
It was shocked by the huge difference in how the candidates came across. McCain commented several times on Obama's rhetoric - but to my ears Obama stuck to lucidly explaining what he wanted to do and why it was important for America to do it.
McCain was the one I thought lacked substance, making fine claims and aiming at an emotional appeal - trying to demonise his opponent as a liberalist wanting to steal money from the people to waste on public programmes - spreading muck about Obamas links with terrorism - and painting himself as the champion of the American dream. He made more than one reference to Sarah Palins special understanding and interest in those poor families dealing with autistic children - which crudely put is trying to get sympathy votes out of her personal circumstances.
He also made a great play on his record of fighting against the establishment and vested interests - very laudable - but I was left with the impression that this meant would struggle to unite his own party under his leadership, never mind leading the nation.
At times he looked frail - and at times he reminded me of one of those wind up monkeys. Asked a specific question he'd reply with some stock sound bite he'd prepared beforehand - something completely off subject.
It was, to put not too fine a point on it, scary to think that this was someone that could end up sitting down to negotiate with leaders in China, Russia or Iran.
The sad part was that behind the guff it's clear that he actually has been active in pushing for what he sees as good for his country.. and not just toed the line.
Obama.... pretty much stuck to presenting his platform of policies and defending the flack launched from across the table... He was probably too kind.
McCains policies will put more money in the pockets of 30 million Americans - the other 270 million will be better off under the Democrats...
The American dream - means aspiring to be part of that rich clique of 30 million... and for that it seems that half the electorate are willing to ignore the fact that they are not part of that small minority that are taking the cream. The ironic part is that getting rich is about redistributing wealth to the small number that succeed. Does the personal avarice of the American dream really mean people don't want to see the rest of the population get a decent education and the security and reassurance of good health care?
And for me it is somewhat ironic that the party that stands proud of that avaricious dream is the same party so warmly supported by all those evangelical Christians.
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Ethics and the Olympian ideal?
I've not paid too much attention to the Olympics... or looked into the protests surrounding it - until now. I came across a piece at The Conscious Earth laying out the distasteful history of Chinese intervention in Tibet going back to the invasion in 1948. I have a great respect for the results of China's economic renaissance which has done much to reduce poverty in China ( and hence on a global scale). It's sadly clear that there is still a long way to go to in improving the state ethics there. Read the blog.... I've just copied here the final piece which is a quote from the Dalai Lama
"It is therefore part of our responsibility towards others to ensure that the world we pass on is as healthy, if not healthier, than when we found it. This is not quite such as difficult proposition as it might sound. For although there is a limit to what we as individuals can do, there is no limit to what a universal response might achieve. It is up to us as individuals to do what we can, however little that may be. Just because (our action) seems inconsequential, it does not mean that we should not do it."
"It is therefore part of our responsibility towards others to ensure that the world we pass on is as healthy, if not healthier, than when we found it. This is not quite such as difficult proposition as it might sound. For although there is a limit to what we as individuals can do, there is no limit to what a universal response might achieve. It is up to us as individuals to do what we can, however little that may be. Just because (our action) seems inconsequential, it does not mean that we should not do it."
Monday, 18 August 2008
News travels...
I read a blog item on Henrik Alexandersson's blog on the shifting boundaries of legislation in the surveillance state... with a link to a Swedish article about the latest proposals in the UK to give councils and other agencies access to stored information on your calls and internet access.
But that article was a citing an article at Times Online about the governments proposals for implementing the EU directive covering monitoring of telecoms usage. The comments to the article were full as you might expect with criticism of the heavy hand of Big Brother. ..but one in particular caught my eye...
"It clearly infringes on everyone's right to privacy. What will those control freaks devise next - a scheme by which everyone's mail will be opened and logged, or will they just demand that the populace is microchipped and fitted with tracking devices "to prevent crime"?
Paul C. Dickie, Stockport, UK"
Welcome to Sweden!
But that article was a citing an article at Times Online about the governments proposals for implementing the EU directive covering monitoring of telecoms usage. The comments to the article were full as you might expect with criticism of the heavy hand of Big Brother. ..but one in particular caught my eye...
"It clearly infringes on everyone's right to privacy. What will those control freaks devise next - a scheme by which everyone's mail will be opened and logged, or will they just demand that the populace is microchipped and fitted with tracking devices "to prevent crime"?
Paul C. Dickie, Stockport, UK"
Welcome to Sweden!
A bear with a sore head?
The Russian bear wants respect. It wants to be seen to be strong and powerful. Have you noticed?
Russia has a good deck to play with - an expanding economy and rich mineral resources - and a strong academic and scientific tradition. Lots of things going for it - but today it plays it's cards like a shoddy crook - or the schoolyard bully. It's led by politicians that don't trust their vision and abilities enough to put them to an honest vote - or to allow a free and open press - and it behaves internationally as if the whole world ran on the same principles that internal politics are based on - the same ones that earn Russia a placing of 143/179 in Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perception Index. It's hardly the stuff great nations are made of now is it???
And it's such a shame. Russia doesn't need to throw it's weight around to get respect. (Bullies don't earn respect... ..ask George Bush). Imagine if the Bear cleaned it's act up internally, stopped throwing it's weight around with the neighbours and committed to a peaceful collaboration with it's trading partners. With it's resources and geography it won't have to try too hard to succeed - and a secure and honest society free from crime and corruption would suck in investment from all parts of the globe.
Imagine a thriving vigorous Russia joining the EU. What a powerhouse it would be... What a nation to be proud of... a land of science and arts built on commerce - not corruption.
Brer Bear, please, do the world a favour. Be GREAT!!
..in all the right ways.
Be a land that would make your grandfathers proud.
Russia has a good deck to play with - an expanding economy and rich mineral resources - and a strong academic and scientific tradition. Lots of things going for it - but today it plays it's cards like a shoddy crook - or the schoolyard bully. It's led by politicians that don't trust their vision and abilities enough to put them to an honest vote - or to allow a free and open press - and it behaves internationally as if the whole world ran on the same principles that internal politics are based on - the same ones that earn Russia a placing of 143/179 in Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perception Index. It's hardly the stuff great nations are made of now is it???
And it's such a shame. Russia doesn't need to throw it's weight around to get respect. (Bullies don't earn respect... ..ask George Bush). Imagine if the Bear cleaned it's act up internally, stopped throwing it's weight around with the neighbours and committed to a peaceful collaboration with it's trading partners. With it's resources and geography it won't have to try too hard to succeed - and a secure and honest society free from crime and corruption would suck in investment from all parts of the globe.
Imagine a thriving vigorous Russia joining the EU. What a powerhouse it would be... What a nation to be proud of... a land of science and arts built on commerce - not corruption.
Brer Bear, please, do the world a favour. Be GREAT!!
..in all the right ways.
Be a land that would make your grandfathers proud.
United in delusion
"A nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors".
- William Ralph Inge
Nationalism.. with religion.. the scourge of the earth.
At a time when the Olympics are the source of so much national pride about sporting achievement we witness another contest - the worst fruits of nationalism. Patriots from Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia all ready to make life a misery for someone else to claim 'their' land... to 'enoble' their nation. It makes me sad.
And when the blood is spilt and a thousand new feuds begun.. what have they gained these patriots. Sow misery in your fields and what do you hope to reap?
Go home, shake hands with your neighbour and have done.
The earth is mute. She doesn't hear your claims...
- William Ralph Inge
Nationalism.. with religion.. the scourge of the earth.
At a time when the Olympics are the source of so much national pride about sporting achievement we witness another contest - the worst fruits of nationalism. Patriots from Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia all ready to make life a misery for someone else to claim 'their' land... to 'enoble' their nation. It makes me sad.
And when the blood is spilt and a thousand new feuds begun.. what have they gained these patriots. Sow misery in your fields and what do you hope to reap?
Go home, shake hands with your neighbour and have done.
The earth is mute. She doesn't hear your claims...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
