Kenneth Rogoff | There’s conjecture about the dominance of the American economy, but the superpower’s economy is living on borrowed time and borrowed money and 2006 could well see the start of its decline, says Kenneth Rogoff. Year after year, we’ve seen the “gargantuan” US trade deficit continue to blow out, with US consumers “bingeing as if it were Christmas all year round.” For those who believe in the transcendent dominance of the US economy, the States has a more flexible labour market, forces good corporate leaders to the top and draws in the world’s best scientists, researchers and students. On the other hand, says Rogoff, sceptics say the US already contains the “seeds of its own socio-economic decline” – namely worsening income equality, wage growth and poverty highlighted by Hurricane Katrina. And both sides point to the massive US trade deficit to prove their point – with the “true believers” claiming it represents the world wanting to buy into the US, and sceptics saying it’s a sign the US is running on borrowed time. Which is it? asks Rogoff. Well, the dominant age of “American exceptionalism” is almost over, and the per capita incomes of Europe and Japan will soon catch up with the US. Other countries will copy the US’s social and economic frameworks, and the huge trade deficit is just propping up an already inflated economy. “At some point, the party is going to end” and it could even start this year, says Rogoff. |
Crikey says: An even-handed look at the future of the almighty US economy which, according to Rogoff, might not be so mighty for much longer.
|
Max Hastings The Age |
Much comment in recent days has assumed that real progress was possible in what is called the Middle East peace process if Sharon had survived in power. But this view seems to be ill-founded, says Max Hastings. Sharon surely had no intention of allowing any dispensation on the West Bank that might enable the Palestinians to create an economically and socially viable state. He wanted peace – but he also wanted to secure Israel’s borders. All over the world, nations jostle for each other’s land, and we might fare better in assessing the Israel-Palestine conflict if we viewed it in the context of other such disputes. Consider India and Pakistan, Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan – even, within Britain, Northern Ireland. Yet most nations with territorial demands are reaching out to minorities of their own peoples from which they have become separated. Israel, by contrast, is seeking to colonise land inhabited either by Palestinians, or no-one at all. Resolutions are seldom achieved by rational bilateral negotiation, and are almost always imposed either by a dominant third party or some decisive catastrophe. But it seems the Israelis will remain insufficiently despairing to make indispensable territorial concessions; the Americans won’t oblige them to do so; and the Palestinians will remain unable to muster a credible negotiating position. And Sharon’s departure will not alter these fundamentals. |
Crikey says: Hastings continues the process that’s begun in some parts of the media of chipping away at Sharon’s golden reputation. More importantly, he changes the lens through which we view the Israel/Palestine conflict, presenting a pragmatic approach that clears away the usual rhetoric. Rating: |
Ratings:
Drivel Tries hard Worth reading Quality analysis Outstanding journalism
Crikey is committed to hosting lively discussions. Help us keep the conversation useful, interesting and welcoming. We aim to publish comments quickly in the interest of promoting robust conversation, but we’re a small team and we deploy filters to protect against legal risk. Occasionally your comment may be held up while we review, but we’re working as fast as we can to keep the conversation rolling.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please subscribe to leave a comment.
The Crikey comment section is members-only content. Please login to leave a comment.