![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The ugly effects of irresponsible economic policy
I do not greatly like Gordon Brown. I think that, as far as betraying Labour principles, he is as bad as Tony Blair. Personally, I would not like to work for him, and I think that his surly and vindictive streak has done great harm - especially to London, the city I live in, on whom he has imposed a scheme of Tube privatization that no Londoner wanted and that is doing us no favours at all.
But there cannot be doubts about his competence. He is the most long-lived Chancellor of the Exchequer in decades, and probably the most successful manager of the British economy since Robert Peel.
Why am I saying this? Because Gordon Brown, after years of preparation and opening-fire propaganda, has put to the G7 group of rich countries a plan for the relief of African debt and the reform of terms of trade, that is well designed and might well work. It involves the Western countries taking over the debt of impoverished African countries. And the US government has shot it down without even listening to it.
The plan may well go ahead without them; Italy, France and Germany are already on board, and a few more rich countries could quite conceivably enact it without any help from the US. However, the reform of the terms of trade becomes much more difficult once the US are out. And, more to the point, why on Earth have the US rejected the whole idea so brutally, inflicting a major public humiliation on their closest ally just as Condoleeza Rice is rocketing back and forth across Europe, trying to mend the relations that the previous four years have driven to a record low?
There is only one reason I can think of. The US cannot afford the plan. Bush's insane policy of pursuing an expensive foreign war while cutting taxes has driven the country into deep deficit (by contrast, Brown is quite right when he says that Britain can afford her share of the plan's costs). And there is something seriously wrong with the American economy: the latest data show that the meteoric fall in the dollar's value has done nothing to increase American exports. With government debt inflating out of control and a lasting deficit of exports against imports, the United States of America is haemorraging wealth at a fantastic rate.
A meaner but significant collateral reason is that Bush is one of the most protectionist Presidents in recent history. All sorts of tricks are pulled to keep foreign produce, especially foodstuffs, out of American markets. From Italian ham to Vietnamese catfish, American imports and tariffs policy is one long list of prevarication and plain lies intended to shelter local producers. This is the last President to allow a real free trade in foodstuffs and agricultural produce. America has replaced France as the worst obstacle on free trade in foods; the difference being that French farmers, at least, produce top quality food. And, of course, American industrial farmers are smothered with subsidies.
But there cannot be doubts about his competence. He is the most long-lived Chancellor of the Exchequer in decades, and probably the most successful manager of the British economy since Robert Peel.
Why am I saying this? Because Gordon Brown, after years of preparation and opening-fire propaganda, has put to the G7 group of rich countries a plan for the relief of African debt and the reform of terms of trade, that is well designed and might well work. It involves the Western countries taking over the debt of impoverished African countries. And the US government has shot it down without even listening to it.
The plan may well go ahead without them; Italy, France and Germany are already on board, and a few more rich countries could quite conceivably enact it without any help from the US. However, the reform of the terms of trade becomes much more difficult once the US are out. And, more to the point, why on Earth have the US rejected the whole idea so brutally, inflicting a major public humiliation on their closest ally just as Condoleeza Rice is rocketing back and forth across Europe, trying to mend the relations that the previous four years have driven to a record low?
There is only one reason I can think of. The US cannot afford the plan. Bush's insane policy of pursuing an expensive foreign war while cutting taxes has driven the country into deep deficit (by contrast, Brown is quite right when he says that Britain can afford her share of the plan's costs). And there is something seriously wrong with the American economy: the latest data show that the meteoric fall in the dollar's value has done nothing to increase American exports. With government debt inflating out of control and a lasting deficit of exports against imports, the United States of America is haemorraging wealth at a fantastic rate.
A meaner but significant collateral reason is that Bush is one of the most protectionist Presidents in recent history. All sorts of tricks are pulled to keep foreign produce, especially foodstuffs, out of American markets. From Italian ham to Vietnamese catfish, American imports and tariffs policy is one long list of prevarication and plain lies intended to shelter local producers. This is the last President to allow a real free trade in foodstuffs and agricultural produce. America has replaced France as the worst obstacle on free trade in foods; the difference being that French farmers, at least, produce top quality food. And, of course, American industrial farmers are smothered with subsidies.