Tuesday, February 17, 2004

World Bank on Iraq escallating dangers (more...) Posted here Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 12:45:28 PM     It is hard to get a solid assessment of trends in Iraq. My current assumption has been that it is going better than reporting tells us. But I've had doubts. This report supports that it is is not good and the trend is bad. World Bank 'wrote security fears report' By Nicholas Pelham in Baghdad and Alan Beattie in WashingtonPublished: February 17 2004 4:00 | Last Updated: February 17 2004 4:00 USAID, the American aid agency, said the report it circulated last week warning of a rise in Iraq attacks and possible "Balkanisation" of the country was an assessment received from the World Bank.The report, which the bank said was confidential, was sent by USAID's security officer in Iraq to help alert foreign aid agencies to what the document said was the danger of an "escalating" insurgency. The report, entitled "January national review of Iraq", carried a graph tracing a rapidly rising rate of high-intensity attacks on both civilian and military targets in Iraq ********

Use of robust social security for a weakened economy Posted here Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 12:08:20 PM     on social security. Note that it is fine, but Greenspan wants to cut benefits so more money is available for the general treasury. This, following on the previous article, suggests that folks like Greenspan and Bush will use all stops to keep the economy out of trouble, and that means using resources - like social security It is worth noting that Social Security is currently running a large surplus and is projected to continue to run annual surpluses for more than two decades into the future. The Social Security trustees projections show that the fund's trust will be able to support all scheduled benefit payments for nearly forty years into the future. If Social Security benefits are cut, without any corresponding reduction in the tax rate (which is exactly Mr. Greenspan's recommendation), then this would mean that Social Security taxes are being used to finance the general budget, not Social Security.This point is especially important in this context, since Mr. Greenspan had chaired the 1982 Commission that proposed a set of Social Security tax increases that were designed to build up a large surplus to help defray the costs of the baby boomers' retirement in later years. In other words, Mr. Greenspan's argument was that itwas desirable to raise Social Security taxes above the levels needed to support the program in the eighties, nineties, and zeros, so that the tax rate would be somewhat lower than would otherwise be necessary in the twenties and thirties. If benefits are now cut below the levels that had been scheduled, then it breaks the link between Social Security taxes and Social Security benefits. Social Security taxes were simply used to finance the general budget. The Social Security tax is highly regressive because it only applies to wage income and it is capped at approximately $85,000, so that wage income above this level is not subject to the tax. It is extremely unlikely Congress ever would have approved such a regressive tax to support the general budget. It would have been appropriate to note, in describing Mr. Greenspan's proposal, thatthe cumulative surplus in the trust fund is now approaching $2 trillion. This would give readers an idea of the extraordinary deception involved in proposing to cut Social Security benefits as a way of reducing the federal budget deficit. ********

On intrest rates and the economy (see the article..) Posted here Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 12:02:21 PM     On the economy, the more you know that is solid and systemic, the better. folks, all blame aside, I must tell you in advance that this story or movie does not have a happy ending. In terms of timing it may not be high noon, but High Noon it will be in terms of an ultimate outcome. Because in a finance-based economy that depends on more and more low cost money in order to thrive, the game ends when either the “more and more” or the “low cost” modifiers are replaced with “less” or “higher cost.” Let me explain with the two following charts. ********

Bush supports business, not broader social concerns (more..) Posted here Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 11:25:34 AM     On jobs and Bush support of Business. For three years, President Bush has been willing to anger environmentalists, civil libertarians of the right and left, unions, trial lawyers and conservative advocates of free markets. But one group that almost always comes out a winner when Bush sets policy is the business community, from Fortune 500 corporations to small, family-run companies. Bush's recent immigration initiative is a prime example. While commentary and reaction focused largely on how it might affect foreign-born workers, the unquestioned beneficiaries are U.S. employers. If the proposal becomes law, they will have a vastly enlarged pool of prospective workers, many willing to perform the dirtiest and most dangerous tasks for low pay. The policy's likely impact on other constituent groups -- including some important to a Republican president -- is far less clear. Social conservatives, for example, were furious at Bush's plan to make it easier for undocumented workers to stay in this country. The response from leaders of the nation's most prominent Hispanic organizations -- a constituency heavily courted by Republicans and Democrats alike -- ranged from ambivalence to outright opposition because of the administration's failure to provide a direct avenue to citizenship. But a range of employers hungry for low-wage, low-skill workers hailed the proposal without hesitation. The Essential Worker Immigration Coalition -- an alliance of associations and lobbies representing nursing homes, hotels, road and building contractors, restaurants, landscape companies and meatpackers -- praised the Bush initiative. Nothing surprising here, just to see how the press is handling it. The narrow range of benefits is met on the other side by the braod range of those hurt by Bush policies. Also his approach does not fit a standard conservative agenda. ********

for full article... Posted here Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 9:34:35 AM     On amazing population projections for eurasia. Very solid article, but note, with all the discussion, the impact of population on war potential, quality of life, plague possibilities,and potential of the economoy to absorb newcomers, is not discussed. These issues are mostly beyond current methodology. On world population, esp eurasia.   At this juncture, for example, sub-replacement fertility is thought to characterize every country and locale in East Asia save tiny Mongolia. In Southeast Asia, Singapore and Thailand are already subreplacement societies, and Indonesia appears to be rapidly closing in on the replacement fertility level. As for South and Central Asia, Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan are outposts of sub-replacement fertility within the region. Elsewhere in that area, fertility change has been more pronounced than is often appreciated. With an estimated TFR of 3.0, for example, India's overall fertility level is still thought to be well above replacement — but it has also plunged by an estimated 45 percent nationwide since the 1950s, and major urban centers like Mumbai (Bombay), New Delhi, and Kolkata (Calcutta) are all believed to be sub-replacement now, as are some entire Indian states (e.g., Kerala, Tamil Nadu). ********