Re: Fred Bergsten on war and boom

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Skeptical Economic View Takes in More Than Iraq
By DAVID LEONHARDT

With the battles having begun in Iraq, the United States economy once
again looks as if it might be on the cusp of emerging from its torpor.
The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose more last week than it did
during any week since September 2001, and Wall Street forecasters
predict that a quick military victory will reduce economic uncertainty,
causing a surge of corporate and consumer spending.
Advertisement



But this has become a familiar refrain. A year and a half ago, many
economists said that the country would prosper as soon as it recovered
from the Sept. 11 attacks. Early last year, the scandals at Enron,
Worldcom and elsewhere were supposed to be all that was preventing a new
boom.

With each new month of layoffs and other corporate cost-cutting,
however, the exceptions begin to look more like a rule. Increasingly,
corporate executives and some economists worry that the slow-growth
economy of the last three years might in fact be the new reality, one
that will bedevil workers and investors for a few more years.

"When it all comes out, we're going to have a significantly less
sanguine outlook than we did in the late 90's," said Dale W. Jorgenson,
an economist at Harvard University and an expert in productivity, widely
seen as the most important factor for future growth. "That's something
we're just going to have to get used to."

Economic turning points rarely announce themselves clearly, and rapid
growth might truly be just around the corner this time, thanks to the
Federal Reserve's reduction of short-term interest rates, say, or a
technology breakthrough yet to be understood. At the least, a victory in
Iraq seems likely to cause a spurt of optimism and economic activity.

But there are tangible reasons to doubt that the United States will soon
return to the heady times of the late 1990's. The federal budget deficit
is rising, and the aging of the population will slow the growth of the
labor force. Consumers will probably not increase their spending as
rapidly as they did in recent years, and businesses — having invested so
much in the boom years — still have a lot of idle factories and machinery.

"The effects of the bursting of the stock market bubble have proven to
be far more long term and pervasive than expected," William J.
McDonough, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said
in a speech on Thursday. He specifically mentioned continuing doubts
about corporate accounting and governance as a drag on growth.

The war with Iraq and the occupation that will follow are certain to
deepen a budget deficit that without the war would exceed $300 billion
next year if President Bush's proposed tax cuts were to become law. Mr.
Bush's recent statements about North Korea and the scope of the war on
terrorism suggest that other conflicts are possible in coming years.

"The U.S. is going to take on quite an economic cost, whether it's
successful militarily and politically or not," said Bob McKee, the chief
economist at Independent Strategy, a consulting firm in London for large
investors. "Nobody is much prepared to help."

Independent Strategy predicts that the war and its aftermath will cost
almost $300 billion from now to 2006. William D. Nordhaus, a Yale
economist who has analyzed past conflicts, estimates that the United
States will have to spend $75 billion to $500 billion occupying Iraq.

Most economists think that higher deficits help cause higher long-term
interest rates by increasing competition for savings. Higher rates, in
turn, would sharply curtail mortgage refinancing and cool a housing
industry that has been among the economy's few strengths. Until growth
picks up and private demand for investment capital strengthens, few
economists expect interest rates to move significantly higher.

Last year, low interest rates and rising home prices permitted
households to take out $700 billion from their homes, through sales,
refinancings and home equity loans, up from about $400 billion a year in
the late 1990's, according to Economy.com. In a speech this month, Alan
Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, predicted that the pace
of extraction would slow, "possibly notably lessening support to
household purchases of goods and services."

 Even with mortgage rates still near a three-decade low, the number of
houses starting to be built declined 11 percent last month, according to
the Census Bureau's seasonally adjusted figures. Cold weather played a
role in the decline, but the drop also suggested that after a record
surge of house buying in recent years, the number of people looking to
buy new homes might not be growing as it once was.
Advertisement



Stocks, meanwhile, remain historically expensive, despite a market
correction that recently passed its third birthday. The stocks in the
Standard & Poor's 500 are trading at a price equal to about 30 times
their earnings per share over the last year. At the end of the 1990-91
recession, that multiple was 18.

If stocks grow only modestly in coming years, consumers — particularly
baby boomers, who are approaching retirement — are likely to increase
their saving, at the expense of spending, economists say. Now,
households are saving about 4 percent of their incomes, up from 2
percent during the boom but still well below their average of around 8
percent in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, according to the Commerce
Department.

Already, car buyers have shown some recent signs of ending their long
shopping spree, and Ford and General Motors have announced that they
will cut production.

Of course, as the economic pillars of the last couple of years weaken,
some rickety parts of the economy will stiffen.

Corporate profits have improved somewhat, and executives will eventually
start investing in new equipment and technology again. State governments
will not be cutting their budgets forever.

These are reasons that almost no economists think that the United States
will fall into a prolonged and deep slump as Japan has. But there is
still a great difference between booming and merely avoiding frequent
recessions.

Many top executives have focused on this difference, seeing the
slow-growth economy as more than a temporary phenomenon. At the end of
last year, most chief executives predicted continuing job cuts and
economic growth of less than 2 percent this year, according to a survey
by the Business Roundtable in Washington. Despite the deep cuts of the
last two years, industrial companies are still using just 75 percent of
their available capacity, less than they were during most of the 2001
recession.

"This is a period of adjustment," said David A. Daberko, chief executive
of the National City Corporation, a bank and large mortgage lender based
in Cleveland. "We're going to run higher unemployment. We'll have less
growth."

Most Wall Street economists, on the other hand, remain as cheery as
ever, saying economic growth will accelerate to 3.6 percent next year,
up from 2.6 percent this year, according to Blue Chip Economic
Indicators, a newsletter that surveys forecasters. But Wall Street has
been erroneously predicting a quick return to 3 percent growth since the
economy weakened in 2000.

Most analysts agree that growth must exceed 3 percent for unemployment
to fall and wages to rise broadly.

Those who foresee a postwar boom view the uncertainty created by the
conflict as the single biggest drag on the economy today. Without it,
optimists say, the interest rate reductions and corporate
belt-tightening since 2001 would leave both consumers and executives
wanting to spend money.

"There's no inventory anywhere. Financing costs are about as low as
they're going to get," said Ian Shepherdson, the chief domestic
economist at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla. "I think there is a
short period where we will see growth go off the charts."

Other economists say that to escape the cycle of miniboom and
disappointment that the economy has lurched through since late 2001,
Saddam Hussein — and not the budget deficit, consumer skittishness or
the overhang of corporate investment — would have to be today's biggest
economic problem. That might be wishful thinking.

"Even though I've seen a slowdown in the marketplace, I don't think it's
been a direct effect of the turmoil in Iraq; it's been a lot of other
issues," said Alan L. Boeckmann, the chief executive of the Fluor
Corporation, an engineering and construction company. "I've not seen
anyone pull back on projects where I could say, `That was a direct
effect of uncertainty over the Iraq war.' "

Consumers, for their part, typically reduce their spending during or
after the first few days of a major news event, partly because many stay
home and watch television. But that does not explain the weakening of
sales of vehicles, homes and other retail goods in recent months. Sales
in all the areas remained strong throughout much of 2002 — and, as a
result, many economists say, are unlikely to boom over the next year.

"The notion that consumers aren't willing to spend because of a military
skirmish with Iraq is simply ludicrous, in our opinion," said Richard
Yamarone, an economist at Argus Research in New York.

Instead, the slowing of wage growth for most workers to a pace below
inflation is leaving people with less money to spend, and the labor
market does not appear poised for a quick recovery, he said.

As baby boomers begin retiring, leaving the nation with fewer workers,
wages could start to rise rapidly again. Over all, though, the slowing
of labor force growth will also slow economic growth, economists warn,
restricting the resources that the country has to pay for new
investments or wars.

Professor Jorgenson of Harvard estimated that the number of hours worked
in the United States grew more than 2 percent a year in the late 90's.
In coming years, it will probably grow about 1 percent each year.

"That's a huge bite out of growth," he said. "We're not going to have
the 4 percent growth rate we had during the boom."


Stocks Off Sharply at Open Amid War Doubts


MARKET WATCH
War Rally Loses Sight of Deeper Risks
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

WAGING war against Iraq sure beats waiting for it.

Such is the view of United States investors, who have bid up the
Standard & Poor's 500-stock index by 2.5 percent since the war began on
Wednesday night and 7.5 percent for all of last week. Investors seem
grateful for reports of successes on the battlefield, given that
domestic economic news continues to be grim.
Advertisement



Though it is understandable that investors, fed up with a three-year-old
bear market, would seize on positive war news as a reason to buy stocks,
such a focus is exceedingly narrow. Some market strategists say that it
does not take into account some real market risks — and that it means a
return to unreasoned and potentially dangerous speculation.

"People are too focused on the war," said Richard Bernstein, Merrill
Lynch's senior United States strategist. "Jobless claims are over
400,000 for five weeks in a row, and people don't care. The Philadelphia
Fed report is bad; people don't care. I think the argument you will hear
from most people is the market's going up and the market is telling you
something. If that's the justification for why one should be bullish, it
shows that speculative fervor has returned to the market."

Investors may be hoping that history will repeat itself. As James B.
Stack, president of InvesTech Research in Whitefish, Mont., noted,
military conflicts are often followed by higher stock prices. "We looked
at wars and the market, and in almost all cases the market was higher 6
months and 12 months down the road after an initial sell-off," he said.
"One important aspect of a conflict is that during times of turmoil, it
gravitates the public toward patriotism and that patriotism toward
confidence. After the longest bear market in 60 years, what Wall Street
needs more than anything is a shot of confidence."

There were also technical aspects to stocks' advances once war seemed
certain. Many who had bet against stocks decided to close out their
positions rather than be run over by an emotional rally. Investors who
had been selling were, at least temporarily, buyers.

Because the market is known for spotting economic rebounds well before
they occur, many investors are starting to view the bounce in the S.& P.
— almost 12 percent since March 11 — as an indication of the
long-awaited turn. But such rallies have occurred before, only to fizzle
when the weak economy proved unable to sustain them.

The fact is, the recent momentum in stocks must be backed by higher
corporate earnings, which can come only if the economy improves. But
corporate spending remains moribund, consumers are nervous, and layoffs
keep coming. Stocks are a rare bright spot. Bright, and increasingly
expensive.


NE could say we're in a growth recession because we're not really
experiencing the level of growth to absorb the labor that's available,"
said Dimitri B. Papadimitriou, an economist and the president of the
Levy Economics Institute of Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.
"Since what has been proposed by the president in terms of fiscal
stimulus isn't going to have an impact, and my suspicion is the private
sector will continue to rein in expenditures, we are on a recession path."

Perhaps the biggest risk is that consumers will discover the joy of
saving. Their spending has kept the economy afloat, but that pattern may
be winding down. In a study by NPD Group, a market research company,
only 14 percent of consumers said they plan to spend more than usual
this spring; 41 percent will spend less.

Crushing consumer debt levels may be forcing these cutbacks. Another
likely culprit is continued layoffs. "The debt burden at the corporate
level may have peaked," said William W. Priest, a managing partner at
Steinberg Priest & Sloane Capital Management in New York. "But at the
consumer level it's been masked by rising home values. I think
unemployment at the end of this year will be higher than it is today. We
are going to struggle most of this year with the fact that final demand
will be below most expectations; corporate earnings will be up but
probably below expectations."

Consumers seem frustrated about their options. In a survey released on
Wednesday, the Conference Board said that 62 percent of consumers rated
the investment environment as bad, and that 65 percent expected no
change six months from now. Fourteen percent expected investment
conditions to worsen, up from 11 percent in September, and 69 percent
didn't plan to invest in stocks in the next six months.

Money flowing into mutual funds has been confirming these sentiments.
Bond funds are attracting far more money than stock funds. And when
investors do put money into stock funds, they are more likely to be
funds investing in foreign companies. AMG Data Services said that of the
$2.1 billion in net cash inflows to stock funds for the week that ended
Wednesday, 85 percent had gone into international and global funds.

Consumers' aversion to domestic stocks may be a result of the perception
that corporate earnings cannot be trusted, even now. In the past year
and a half, investors have seen repeated accusations of fraud at some of
the nation's largest companies, but this storm has yet to pass. In a
case brought last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission contended
that HealthSouth, a giant health care provider, and some of its
executives had committed $1.4 billion in accounting fraud since 1999.

Even if corporate earnings rise in 2003, exacting investors will reduce
the reported figures to account for stock options that companies
dispense but do not yet show up as a cost. David Zion, an accounting
analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston, said options costs, if counted,
could take 10 to 15 percent off S.& P earnings this year.

Chief financial officers are increasingly worried about the economy's
prospects. In a survey of 186 finance officers last week by Financial
Executives International and Duke University, 45 percent said they felt
less optimistic. Three months earlier, only 15 percent said that.

All these factors, said Mr. Bernstein, of Merrill, mean that investors
should sell into the rallies that euphoria over the war may produce. He
said he was mystified that investors seemed to think that success in
Iraq could remove geopolitical risks from the investment equation. "We
think we're entering a 10- to 15-year period of substantial change in
geopolitics, similar to the fall of the Berlin Wall or the demise of the
Soviet Union," he said. "But this time we're in the middle of it. We are
the target, and we are viewed by much of the world as the instigator.
What a change in geopolitics that is." And one that carries very
long-term risk.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/yourmoney/23WATC.html

high-tech warfare can happily coexist with high unemployment and
stagnant demand, as its demand on labor and production is narrowly
concentrated. Following the Gulf War, the US economy contracted by 0.5
percent in 1991, its only shrinkage in two decades. The only visible
economic spin-off from the 1991 Gulf War to civilian consumption was the
introduction of the Hummer as a luxury special utility vehicle.


 It is true that defense peaked as a share of US GDP (6.2 percent) in
1986. Before that, it had not been as high unless one goes back to 1972,
the height of the Vietnam War. In 1998, the defense/GDP ratio was 3.2
percent. The Clinton budgets caused the defense/GDP ratio to continue to
decline. Localized conflicts on the scale of the Gulf War did not alter
the basic trend of stagnation in military spending. Defense/GDP ratio
continued to decline from 1989 to the 2000. The Bush administration is
on record to want to reverse that trend. In February 2002, the president
proposed a total of $379.3 billion for the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2003 (including $10 billion to fight terrorism.) with a
defense/GDP ratio of 3.8 percent. This is a $45.3 billion increase from
FY2002. Added to this must be $15.6 billion for the nuclear weapons
activities of the Department of Energy.

The Council for a Livable World, a Washington-based public policy think
tank, states that "the US increase of $48 billion is larger than the
annual military budget of any other country in the world". By FY2007,
the defense budget is to increase to $451.4 billion (plus $16.9 billion
for the nuclear weapons program). Development of layered missile
defenses will take $7.8 billion. The Navy Area Theater Wide program has
been canceled. An additional $815 million will go into space-based
sensors, while the Space-Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) Low Component
Program slips by two years from its initial 2004 deployment. Over $27
billion of the budget is reserved to fight the war against terrorism. In
this context, the president plans an additional $37.7 billion budget for
homeland defense. One cannot resist the temptation of speculating how
much terrorist hostility can be neutralized by an aid and friendship
program of that dimension.

The real grease in military spending for lubricating the economy comes
from hardware and research and development, not from soldiers' pay. By
supporting anti-missile defense development during the last eight years,
Clinton and the Democrats already gave the contractors all that they
could have asked for. There is also the lead time factor. Military
spending requires first the depletion of inventory before the
replacement phase can come later. Armed conflicts, even localized ones,
accelerates this cycle.

The last thing a military hardware vendor wants is a battlefield test of
his product. To maximize sales, both buyer and seller have an interest
in controlled tests that make them look good, not real tests which could
be embarrassing. The technical and budgetary fallouts are more R&D and
upgrades. One B2 bomber now costs over $3 billion due to upgrades, up
one third from its original cost. The construction cost of the World
Trade Center towers was $1.5 billion at its completion in 1972, and its
replacement cost today would be about the same as the cost of a B2. The
Stealth fighter will cost 30 percent more to make it more stealthy and
less vulnerable. The new price will be around $65 million each. Yet
military spending meant more back in 1962 when the defense budget was
near 10 percent of GDP. It is precisely the fact that military spending
has not been a significant factor in the economy in the post-Cold War
decade that gives new incentives for new violent conflicts. Military
spending has always had an international strategic dimension. Reagan
used it in Star Wars to bankrupt the USSR, paying the price of record
high deficits and national debts. After the Cold War, the US economy was
fueled by neo-liberal globalization of trade and finance, which went
bust in 1997. With global trade contracting, and anticipated recovery
delayed, military spending takes on new importance.

Defense spending is now again a necessary option, but it takes time and
eventually it will take a total war to work as it did in World War II.
The NMD and TMD systems are part of the developing trend. For FY2003,
defense spending with military and homeland security expenditure
represents 17 percent of the federal budget. It will rise to 22 percent
by 2007 under current projections. Regional conflicts such as
Afghanistan and Kosovo ran at about $100 million a day in the first
phase and $200 million in the intensive later phases. For Iraq, an
expenditure of over $1 billion a day is being bantered about. It has
been announced that the Defense Department plans to deploy a barrage of
400 cruise missiles a day on the opening days of the Iraq offensive,
which at $2 million each, would incur a cost of $800 million a day just
for cruise missiles. Pretty soon, that adds up to a lot of money, even
though it pales against the $8 trillion loss of market capitalization
since the beginning of 2000.

The reason defense spending at this moment in history contributes
relatively little to US GDP is because the US economy is so much bigger
than those of its perceived adversaries. In that sense, it is correct to
observe that the role of defense spending has shifted from one of
domestic economic stimulant to global geopolitical weaponry. But the
very nature of war has changed, the link between economic warfare and
physical conflicts has become continuous. Neither Russia or China, or
even the European Union or Japan can afford an arms race with the US, so
NMD and TMD will go forward, but not to completion for lack of a
credible adversary. The EU is on record in opposing the two systems. As
for the so-called rogue states, their identities are quite whimsical and
they may well change before the systems are operational. But the nature
of armament has again fundamentally changed with the arrival of the age
of biological and chemical weapons. The nature of the threat has
changed. The logic of TMD and NMD is fundamentally faulty: why should
terrorists resort to ICBMs that are costly and difficult to launch when
a small bottle of biological agent can do more damage at a tiny fraction
of the cost? A recent NATO study shows that the costs of conventional
weapons ($2,000), nuclear armaments ($800), and chemical agents ($600)
would far outstrip the bargain basement price of biological weapons ($1)
to produce 50 percent casualties per square kilometer (1969 dollars).

Terrorism can only be fought with the removal of injustice, not by
anti-ballistic missiles and smart bombs. It is a straw-man argument to
assert the principle of refusal to yield to terrorist demands. It is a
suicidal policy to refuse to negotiate with terrorists until terrorism
stops, for the political aim of all terrorism is to force the otherwise
powerful opponent to address the terrorists' grievances by starting new
negotiations under new terms. The solution lies in denying terrorism any
stake in destruction and increasing its stake in dialogue. This is done
with an inclusive economy and a just world order in which it would be
clear that terrorist destruction of any part of the world would simply
impoverish all, including those whom terrorists try to help. The US can
increase its own security and the security of the world by adopting
foreign and trade policies more in tune with its professed values of
peace and justice for all.



g kohler wrote:
> Economist Fred Bergsten (USA) predicted that the war against Iraq will lead
> to an economic boom for the United States and the world economy. (Interview
> in Tagesspiegel (daily, Germany), 24 March 03) The arguments are along lines
> of military Keynesianism. I submit that an ecological post-Keynesianism (for
> sustainable global, national, and local development) would be a much better
> deal for the world and would not require war(s) for creating boom(s).
>
> Gert
>
> ---------------------------
>
> FromTagesspiegel" (Berlin) 24.03.2003
> [sorry, it's too much to translate it for pkt]
>
> "Die USA stehen vor einem Wirtschaftsboom"
>
> Der amerikanische Ökonom Fred Bergsten über die Folgen der US-
> Invasion im Irak für die Weltkonjunktur und die internationalen
> Beziehungen
>
> Herr Bergsten, ist der Krieg eine Gefahr für die Weltwirtschaft?
>
> Nein. Der Krieg wird der Weltwirtschaft und der Entwicklung in den USA
> sehr gut tun.
>
> Das ist sehr zynisch.
>
> Der Krieg schafft aber zum einen die große Unsicherheit aus der Welt,
> die die wirtschaftliche Aktivität in den vergangenen sechs Monaten
> gedämpft hat. Wir haben sehr deutlich gesehen, dass Investitionen
> zurückgehalten worden sind und Unternehmen die Lösung des Konflikts
> abwarten wollten. Auch die Verbrauchernachfrage ist hinausgezögert
> worden, das Konsumentenvertrauen ist gesunken. Vieles davon ist auf
> den Krieg zurückzuführen.
>
> Welche Rolle spielt dabei der Ölpreis?
>
> Er ist bereits dramatisch gefallen, als klar war, dass es Krieg gibt. Er
> wird noch weiter fallen - vermutlich um 10 bis 15 Dollar pro Barrel. Das
> wird ein sehr großer Beitrag für die Erholung der Weltwirtschaft in den
> kommenden Monaten sein.
>
> Wie stark wirkt sich das aus?
>
> Jede Reduzierung des Ölpreises um einen Dollar pro Barrel erhöht die
> globale Wirtschaftsaktivität um 30 Milliarden Dollar - zehn Milliarden
> davon entfallen alleine auf die USA. Nach dem Golfkrieg 1991 ist der
> Ölpreis um etwa ein Drittel gesunken - das war der Beginn eines
> zehnjährigen Booms in den USA. Ich glaube, wir werden dieses Mal ein
> ähnliches Ergebnis sehen.
>
> Aber diesmal sind doch die Voraussetzungen ganz andere. Die
> Weltwirtschaft steht am Rande einer Rezession.
>
> Ein Grund dafür ist wie gesagt die große Unsicherheit, die die weltweite
> Wirtschaftsaktivität gelähmt hat. Sie wird durch den Krieg eliminiert, was
> dazu führen wird, dass die US-Wirtschaft schon im zweiten Halbjahr
> dieses Jahres wieder stark wächst.
>
> Noch ist ein erfolgreicher kurzer Krieg nicht sicher. So besteht die
> Gefahr, dass der Irak seine eigenen und fremde Ölquellen
> anzündet.
>
> Es ist zwar denkbar, dass irakische Quellen angezündet werden und Öl
> verloren geht. Aber das ist nicht viel, vielleicht eine Million Barrel pro
> Tag. Das kann leicht durch erhöhte Fördermengen in Saudi Arabien
> oder die Freigabe von strategischen Ölreserven in den USA und
> anderen OECD-Ländern aufgefangen werden.
>
> Was wird der Krieg den amerikanischen Staatshaushalt kosten?
>
> 100 Milliarden Dollar für die eigentlichen Kriegshandlungen sind
> vermutlich eine realistische Größenordnung.
>
> Das ist mehr als der Haushalt vieler Staaten.
>
> Aber man muss bedenken, dass das gut für die Wirtschaft ist. Das sind
> zusätzliche Staatsausgaben, eine Art keynesianischer Stimulus. Wir
> haben keine Vollbeschäftigung, und wir haben auch kein ein
> Inflationsrisiko. Die Ausgaben sind also ein Impuls für die US-Wirtschaft
> und werden die Wirtschaftsleistung sowohl in den USA als auch in der
> Welt erhöhen.
>
> Können sich die USA angesichts steigender Haushaltsdefizite
> überhaupt zusätzliche Staatsausgaben leisten?
>
> 100 Milliarden Dollar sind zwar viel Geld, aber das ist weniger als ein
> Prozent des US- Bruttoinlandprodukts. Allerdings könnten die massiven
> Steuererleichterungen, die die US-Regierung gerade plant, langfristig
> ein Haushaltsproblem schaffen.
>
> Das Weiße Haus sagt aber, die stotternde US-Konjunktur braucht
> die Abschaffung der Dividendensteuer und die vorgezogene
> Einkommensteuerreform.
>
> Ich bin zuversichtlicher als die US-Regierung und glaube, wir brauchen
> kein zusätzliches Konjunkturprogramm. Zudem wird die Abschaffung
> der Dividendenbesteuerung kurzfristig noch nicht einmal große
> stimulierende Wirkungen entfalten.
>
> Welche Auswirkungen haben die Kosten für den Wiederaufbau des
> Iraks auf die langfristigen Haushaltsprognosen?
>
> Das sind ebenfalls zusätzliche Staatsausgaben und damit gut für die
>
> Wirtschaft. Zudem werden sie zum Großteil vom Irak selbst finanziert.
> Wer immer für den Wiederaufbau verantwortlich sein wird, wird sich vor
> allem darum bemühen, dass sich die irakische Wirtschaft schnell erholt.
> Dazu gehört, die irakische Ölproduktion zu steigern und die Erträge
> daraus für die Sanierung des Landes zu verwenden.
>
> Trotzdem verliert der Dollar gegenüber dem Euro an Wert. Ist das
> ein Zeichen, dass die ausländischen Investoren ihr Geld lieber
> woanders anlegen?
>
> Nein. Die USA haben schon immer große Summen unproduktiv in das
> Militär investiert, ohne dass das die von Ihnen beschriebenen Folgen
> hatte. Unser Militärbudget liegt heute bei über 300 Milliarden Dollar pro
> Jahr. Während des Kalten Krieges beispielsweise, als wir einen noch
> größeren Anteil unserer Wirtschaftsleistung für das Militär ausgegeben
> haben, haben wir immer noch große Kapitalzuflüsse verzeichnet.
>
> Der Dollar wird also nicht weiter verlieren?
>
> Doch, aber aus anderen Gründen. Wir befinden uns einfach in einer
> Korrekturphase für einen substanziell überbewerteten Dollar, was sich in
> unserem massiven Leistungsbilanzdefizit zeigt.
>
> Was heißt, dass die USA mehr Geld aus dem Ausland brauchen,
> als sie selbst an Waren und Dienstleistungen verkaufen. Wie
> gefährlich ist dieses Defizit?
>
> Verglichen mit allen anderen Ländern haben die USA wahrscheinlich
> das stärkste wirtschaftliche Fundament. Das Wachstumspotenzial der
> US-Wirtschaft liegt jetzt bei 3,5 bis vier Prozent wegen des großen
> Produktivitätswachstums, das wir in den 90er Jahren hatten. Wenn ich
> Recht habe und der Krieg tatsächlich die Konjunktur ankurbelt, dann ist
> es gut möglich, dass die US-Wirtschaft in der zweiten Hälfte dieses
> Jahres um vier bis fünf Prozent wächst. Dann werden die
> Kapitalzuflüsse in die USA wieder steigen.
>
> Wie wichtig ist es, dass bis dahin die internationalen Beziehungen
> der USA mit ihren Partnerländern in Europa wieder stimmen?
>
> Das spielt eine außerordentlich wichtige Rolle. Aber ich glaube, dass
> alle Parteien sich nach dem Krieg sehr stark bemühen werden, den
> Scherbenhaufen so schnell wie möglich zusammenzufegen.
>
> Wieso sollten sie?
>
> Unter anderem aus ökonomischen Gründen: Weltweite Investoren und
> Unternehmer fühlen sich nicht wohl, wenn unter den größten
> Wirtschaftsnationen große Streitigkeiten und Konflikte herrschen. Wenn
> man es sich erlauben würde, die Spannungen fortzuführen, würde das
> einen negativen Effekt auf die Weltwirtschaft und die Aussichten auf
> eine Erholung haben. Die Parole der Nachkriegsperiode muss
> Versöhnung sein.
>
> Bislang macht die Bush-Regierung keine großen Anstalten in diese
> Richtung. Im Gegenteil, die Parole lautet: mit oder gegen uns.
>
> Ich glaube, sie wird erkennen, dass sie das mildern muss. Sie wird so
> viel internationale Hilfe wie möglich für den Wiederaufbau des Irak
> wollen, ebenso für den gesamten Nahen Osten, und sie will mit Europa
> und Japan daran arbeiten, die wirtschaftlichen Aussichten zu
> verbessern. Im Moment mag die US-Regierung eher verletzt und
> rachsüchtig sein. Aber wenn der Krieg vorbei ist und sie mit der Realität
> der Nachkriegsphase konfrontiert wird, wird sie sich ebenfalls um eine
> Aussöhnung bemühen.
>
> Was bedeuten die aktuellen Streitigkeiten für den internationalen
> Handel, wo es auch vorher bereits erhebliche Spannungen gab?
>
> Einige Abgeordnete haben zwar über Vergeltung geredet, aber ich
> glaube, das ist total unmöglich. Die USA können sich nicht an
> Frankreich rächen - sie würden dann auch der Europäischen Union und
> damit ihrem engen Verbündeten Großbritannien schaden. Die
> Handelsbeauftragten in den USA und Europa haben sehr hart und mit
> Erfolg daran gearbeitet, diese Handelstreitigkeiten unter Kontrolle zu
> halten und Vergeltungsmaßnahmen und Handelskriege zu vermeiden.
> Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass dieser Erfolg jetzt revidiert wird.
>
>
> Das Gespräch führte Sandra Louven.