Re: economics on pen-l

[Peter Dorman]

Agreed -- let's hear more analysis of the near-term economic situation. I'm wondering whether foreign central banks are already financing the US current account deficit, in light of the weakness in US financial markets. (We won't know until the numbers come out, some time from now.) If so, what implications, if any, does this have for global political economy? How can we explain Bushite unitaleralism and in-your-face hegemony in light of the increasing fragility of the US external position?

Moreover, if we assume that serious money is now international (international portfolios and their mirror-image, international ownership of corporations, financial institutions and tradeable funds), how do we think about the constraints, if any, on US economic policy? (It doesn't look like we have vehicles for domestic constraints at the moment.) Or is US policy really reflective of a global consensus among the rich?

Peter

Michael Perelman wrote:

The sh* is hitting the fan. I think that knowledge of Bush's economics
plans will be very important in the coming months. Some of us will be
called upon to make public statements about what is afoot.

Isn't it important that we do more to get us up to speed on such matters?

The bankruptcy bill, as Robert Manning has insisted, would have be strong
drag on the economy. Tax cuts and privatizing employment will not have a
positive aggregate effect over and above its redistributional effects.

Also, the Repugs are trying to shift liability in a number of ways --
curtailing punative awards by electing conservative state courts,
restricting suits on vaccines, giving subsidies to terrorism insurance
....
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]