In the 20th Century alone, we dealt with two great wars (one of which we initially appeared to be losing); a dozen orso panics and recessions; virulent inflation that led to a 211⁄2% prime rate in 1980; and the Great Depression ofthe 1930s, when unemployment ranged between 15% and 25% for many years. America has had no shortage of challenges.
Without fail, however, we’ve overcome them. In the face of those obstacles – and many others – thereal standard of living for Americans improved nearly seven-fold during the 1900s, while the Dow JonesIndustrials rose from 66 to 11,497. Compare the record of this period with the dozens of centuries during whichhumans secured only tiny gains, if any, in how they lived. Though the path has not been smooth, our economicsystem has worked extraordinarily well over time. It has unleashed human potential as no other system has, and itwill continue to do so. America’s best days lie ahead. Warren Buffett
Of late I've been encountering quite a few declarations similar to that from Warren Buffett above- our economic system works well, is the best ever devised, etc. Yet I take no comfort from such declarations, which seem to me, increasingly with the frequency of repetition, like whistling past the graveyard. The question I would pose to anyone making such a statement is simple- what system?
While I don't dispute Buffett's facts, I think there are additional causal factors behind the rapid rise in Americans' standard of living than the choice of industrial capitalism (which was imposed on the South during the Civil War) or the adoption of the Federal Reserve System- winning a few wars springs to mind. Victories against the British and Spanish Empires and the Native Americans gave us much of our land. Victory in WWII led to our role as monetary sovereign for much of the world.
Less than desirable outcomes in Vietnam and now Iraq increased our debt with little to show, in an economic sense, for the effort. If one considers military conflict as an element of economic policy, the return on investment of these relatively recent losses is extremely negative.
Yet, I suspect war as tool for economic gain was not what Buffett had in mind when writing his letter to shareholders. However, as Bertrand Russell argued in Icarus, a polemic on scientism, written in 1924, Economists have underestimated the part played by military prowess in the acquisition of wealth. The economic effect of the spoils of war, such as becoming the issuer of the world's reserve currency, a status neither Bernanke nor Geithner, according to recent comments, wish to lose, is the dirty secret of the Wealth of Nations.
Over the past few days the world has come to what can either be seen as the edge of a precipice or a golden road to another generation of economic growth- true globalization. For decades, commercial and financial corporations have organized themselves to take advantage of such a transition. Yet, two key issues need to be resolved before further gains can be generated from globalization- 1) the creation of a multi-national court to resolve disputes 2) a global currency.
After the implosion of the Soviet Union, the US$ was assumed by many to become that global currency. Unfortunately, a quarter century of expanding external deficits, accelerating since the Soviet collapse, has reduced US bargaining power. Neither Russia nor China seem keen to globalize so long as the US continues to abuse its position as issuer of the global reserve currency.
The emergence of a stumbling block on the road to globalization would not be a surprise to Bertrand Russell. In the aforenoted Icarus, Russell argues: Rivalry is, with most well-to-do energetic people, a stronger motive than love of money..... This rivalry has attached itself to nationalism, and enlisted the support of the ordinary citizens of the countries concerned; they seldom know what it is that they are supporting, but, like the spectators at a football-match, they grow enthusiastic for their own side. The harm that is being done by science and industrialism is almost wholly due to the fact that, while they have proved strong enough to produce a national organization of economic forces, they have not proved strong enough to produce an international organization.
After pondering Russell's views, I've come to think the quantum in Smith's Wealth of Nations needs to be expanded- the issue in a globalized economy is the Wealth of the World, and consequently the Death of Nations.
This perspective is a radical break from the past in that, inter alia, the virtues of war shrink dramatically. From a nationalist perspective, new territory gained comes ex nihilo, foreign destruction of capital infrastructure is not a loss but an opportunity to profit during rebuilding.
From a global perspective nothing comes ex nihilo. There are no spoils of war, just potential productivity gains arising from what is assumed to be a more efficient organizational form. From a global perspective, channeling the benefits of seigniorage to a single (or small group of) nation(s) is absurd.
Economics has come to a fork in the road. I believe a decision to take Frost's road less travelled by and expand the quantum of economics offers the potential for another generation of growth. If Nationalist concerns are not overcome, resource wars seem almost certain.
According to Politico, US Treasury Secretary Geithner, in response to China's call for a new global currency said, The continued use of the dollar as a reserve currency, depends..on how effective we are in the United States...at getting our fiscal system back to the point where people judge it as sustainable over time.
In an update to the story, Politico reports, Evidently sensing a gaffe, moderator Roger Altman told Geithner that it would be "useful" to return to the question, and asked if he foresaw a change in the dollar's centrality.
"I do not," Geithner said, adding several forceful promises, including, "We will do what's necessary to say we're sustaining confidence in our financial markets."
Mr. Geithner, it seems to me, is caught in a Catch-22. The only thing standing between further substantial deterioration of US financial markets is the US$'s position as global reserve- any normal currency under similar conditions would long ago have lost much of its value. Yet, US finances are such that the US$ shouldn't be that global reserve. Heck, if one applied the Maastricht criteria, the US couldn't even get into EMU.
The idea that the Wealth of the World requires the Death of Nations has been depressing me for weeks. Perhaps I'm wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but it seems to me that current conditions are similar to those of a century ago. Then, as now, the commercial world was about to globalize but satisfactory agreements could not be reached, Nationalism ruled the day and two World Wars followed.
A line from the movie, The Matrix comes to mind, You've been down there, Neo. You already know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be.