EL SISTEMA SE ESTÁ DESANGRANDO"El sistema se está desangrando por el peso de la deuda y parte de esa deuda se debe a la guerra en Irak".
Joseph Stiglitz
"One way or another, now or later, we'll have to pay the bill."
Nicholas Donabet Kristof
Es curioso que al hablar de la crisis económica mundial que vivimos por culpa del capitalismo salvaje , del modélo económico neocon, en casí ningún medio de comunicación encuentro referencias a la relación que tiene con la invasión ilegal de Irak.
Muy interesante leer al premio nobel de economía Joseph Stiglitz y al periodista Nicholas Kristof , premio Pulitzer.
Y cuanto me gustaría que pudieran leer este blog quienes sin sentir el màs mínimo dolor por las victimas que iba a causar la invasión ilegal de Irak, intentaron justificarla mientiendonos deliveradamente sobre la existencia de armas de destrucción masiva en Irak.
Alan Greenspan ha dicho en su libro que la invasión de Irak ha sido una guerra por petroleo, y yo
me pregunto :como es que los responsables de esa invasión, los responsables de tanta muerte, de tanto terror, de tanto sufrimiento ,de tanta destrucción , DE LA RUINA ECONÓMICA , QUE VA A SER QUE ES LO ÚNICO QUE LES IMPORTA A QUIENES DISEÑARON LA INVASIÓN DE IRAK, se atreven a salir a la calle con la cabeza levantada y a mirarnos a la cara ?
Podrán dormir tranquil@ s algún día l@ s responsables de tantas muertes, de tanto terror, de tanta destrucción ?
El Tribunal Penal Internacional , no podrá juzgar a quienes no firmaron el Tratado de Roma, como es el caso de EEUU, pero eso no va a impedir que l@ s ciudadan@ s y la historia les coloquemos en el lugar que les corresponde, el lugar que ocupan quienes han cometido crímenes contra la humanidad, porque estos crímenes no prescriben ni para la justicia , ni en la memoria de cada ciudadan@.
Menos mal que quedan muy pocos días para que haya elecciones y Bush deje de ser presidente de EEUU, por el bien de todo el planeta espero que gane las elecciones Obama.
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel de economía: "Esto sólo es el principio de la crisis"
EFE: ¿Usted ve un vínculo directo entre ese conflicto y la crisis financiera?
Stiglitz: La guerra ha contribuido al debilitamiento de la economía. En el 2008-2009 está previsto que tengamos el mayor déficit presupuestario de nuestra historia.
La guerra también ha contribuido al alto precio del petróleo. Hemos drenado nuestra economía para comprar petróleo. Eso fue el motivo de la amplia liquidez (suministrada por la Reserva Federal antes de la crisis): aminorar los efectos de un gasto tan alto en Irak, pero por supuesto, con eso se creaba un problema en el futuro.
EFE: Es sorprendente que la economía estadounidense siga creciendo, aunque lentamente, pese a la crisis financiera. ¿Cómo ve usted sus perspectivas?
Stiglitz: El desempleo ha subido, al 6,1 por ciento, y probablemente se eleve sustancialmente más. Esa es una de las razones por las que esto es sólo el principio de la crisis.
Stiglitz: La guerra ha contribuido al debilitamiento de la economía. En el 2008-2009 está previsto que tengamos el mayor déficit presupuestario de nuestra historia.
La guerra también ha contribuido al alto precio del petróleo. Hemos drenado nuestra economía para comprar petróleo. Eso fue el motivo de la amplia liquidez (suministrada por la Reserva Federal antes de la crisis): aminorar los efectos de un gasto tan alto en Irak, pero por supuesto, con eso se creaba un problema en el futuro.
EFE: Es sorprendente que la economía estadounidense siga creciendo, aunque lentamente, pese a la crisis financiera. ¿Cómo ve usted sus perspectivas?
Stiglitz: El desempleo ha subido, al 6,1 por ciento, y probablemente se eleve sustancialmente más. Esa es una de las razones por las que esto es sólo el principio de la crisis.
Kristof: Iraq, $5,000 per second?
The Iraq war is now going better than expected, for a change. Most critics of the war, myself included, blew it: We didn't anticipate the improvements in security that are partly the result of last year's "surge."
The improvement is real but fragile and limited. Here's what it amounts to: We've cut our casualty rates to the unacceptable levels that plagued us back in 2005, and we still don't have any exit plan for years to come - all for a bill that is accumulating at the rate of almost $5,000 every second!
More important, while casualties in Baghdad are down, we're beginning to take losses in Florida and California. The United States seems to have slipped into recession; Americans are losing their homes, jobs and health insurance; banks are struggling - and the Iraq war appears to have aggravated all these domestic woes.
"The present economic mess is very much related to the Iraq war," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "It was at least partially responsible for soaring oil prices. Moreover, money spent on Iraq did not stimulate the economy as much as the same dollars spent at home would have done. To cover up these weaknesses in the American economy, the Fed let forth a flood of liquidity; that, together with lax regulations, led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom."
Not everyone agrees that the connection between Iraq and our economic hardships is so strong. Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International and author of a book on how America pays for wars, argues that the Iraq war is a negative for the economy but still only a minor factor in the present crisis.
The improvement is real but fragile and limited. Here's what it amounts to: We've cut our casualty rates to the unacceptable levels that plagued us back in 2005, and we still don't have any exit plan for years to come - all for a bill that is accumulating at the rate of almost $5,000 every second!
More important, while casualties in Baghdad are down, we're beginning to take losses in Florida and California. The United States seems to have slipped into recession; Americans are losing their homes, jobs and health insurance; banks are struggling - and the Iraq war appears to have aggravated all these domestic woes.
"The present economic mess is very much related to the Iraq war," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "It was at least partially responsible for soaring oil prices. Moreover, money spent on Iraq did not stimulate the economy as much as the same dollars spent at home would have done. To cover up these weaknesses in the American economy, the Fed let forth a flood of liquidity; that, together with lax regulations, led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom."
Not everyone agrees that the connection between Iraq and our economic hardships is so strong. Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International and author of a book on how America pays for wars, argues that the Iraq war is a negative for the economy but still only a minor factor in the present crisis.
"Is it a significant cause of the present downturn?" Hormats asked. "I'd say no, but could the money have been better utilized to strengthen our economy? The answer is yes."
For all the disagreement, there appears to be at least a modest connection between spending in Iraq and the economic difficulties at home. So as we debate whether to bring our troops home, one central question should be whether Iraq is really the best place to invest $411 million every day in present spending alone.
I've argued that staying in Iraq indefinitely undermines our national security by empowering jihadis - just as we now know that our military presence in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s was, in fact, counterproductive by empowering Al Qaeda in its early days. On the other hand, supporters of the war argue that a withdrawal from Iraq would signal weakness and leave a vacuum that extremists would fill, and those are legitimate concerns.
But if you believe that staying in Iraq does more good than harm, you must answer the next question: Is that presence so valuable that it is worth undermining our economy?
Granted, the cost estimates are squishy and controversial, partly because the $12.5 billion a month that we're now paying for Iraq is only a down payment. We'll still be making disability payments to Iraq war veterans 50 years from now.
Stiglitz calculates in a new book, written with Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, that the total costs, including the long-term bills we're incurring, amount to about $25 billion a month. That's $330 a month for a family of four.
A congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums spent on the Iraq war each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college. Or if we're sure we want to invest in security, then a day's Iraq spending would finance another 11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers.
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America's image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
All that would consume less than one month's spending on the Iraq war.
Moreover, the Bush administration has financed this war in a way that undermines our national security - by borrowing. Forty percent of the increased debt will be held by China and other foreign countries.
"This is the first major war in American history where all the additional cost was paid for by borrowing," Hormats notes.
If the war backers believe that the Iraq war is so essential, then they should be willing to pay for it partly with taxes rather than charging it.
One way or another, now or later, we'll have to pay the bill.
For all the disagreement, there appears to be at least a modest connection between spending in Iraq and the economic difficulties at home. So as we debate whether to bring our troops home, one central question should be whether Iraq is really the best place to invest $411 million every day in present spending alone.
I've argued that staying in Iraq indefinitely undermines our national security by empowering jihadis - just as we now know that our military presence in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s was, in fact, counterproductive by empowering Al Qaeda in its early days. On the other hand, supporters of the war argue that a withdrawal from Iraq would signal weakness and leave a vacuum that extremists would fill, and those are legitimate concerns.
But if you believe that staying in Iraq does more good than harm, you must answer the next question: Is that presence so valuable that it is worth undermining our economy?
Granted, the cost estimates are squishy and controversial, partly because the $12.5 billion a month that we're now paying for Iraq is only a down payment. We'll still be making disability payments to Iraq war veterans 50 years from now.
Stiglitz calculates in a new book, written with Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, that the total costs, including the long-term bills we're incurring, amount to about $25 billion a month. That's $330 a month for a family of four.
A congressional study by the Joint Economic Committee found that the sums spent on the Iraq war each day could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start or give Pell Grants to 153,000 students to attend college. Or if we're sure we want to invest in security, then a day's Iraq spending would finance another 11,000 border patrol agents or 9,000 police officers.
Imagine the possibilities. We could hire more police and border patrol agents, expand Head Start and rehabilitate America's image in the world by underwriting a global drive to slash maternal mortality, eradicate malaria and deworm every child in Africa.
All that would consume less than one month's spending on the Iraq war.
Moreover, the Bush administration has financed this war in a way that undermines our national security - by borrowing. Forty percent of the increased debt will be held by China and other foreign countries.
"This is the first major war in American history where all the additional cost was paid for by borrowing," Hormats notes.
If the war backers believe that the Iraq war is so essential, then they should be willing to pay for it partly with taxes rather than charging it.
One way or another, now or later, we'll have to pay the bill.
posted by Ciudadana Cinthya @ 5:50 p. m.
0 comments
