Skip to main content

This diary seeks to question: why haven't we heard any more analysis about how the war against Iraq is being paid-for out of a situation called "dollar hegemony," wherein the US manufactures dollars and the rest of the world manufactures the things dollars buy.  My guess is that if dollar hegemony ends, the war ends too, for the US will then no longer be able to pay for the war.  Am I right or wrong?  I'm not really a specialist in this stuff, but as someone who cares about the world, I'm obliged to guess at what is really going on here.  At any rate, I can no longer believe in the "merely political" analyses of this war, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq were based on economic and political rationales that use the US government as a conduit for the interests of fraction of global capital.

Dollar hegemony part:

Awhile back, I was perusing the news on Iraq and found this article in Business Week by Mark Weisbrot, predicting that eventually the US would be forced out of Iraq by its (eventual) inability to pay for the costs of the ongoing occupation.  The crucial paragraphs are here:

Then there's the problem of the U.S. –- both the government and the private sector –- borrowing from foreign countries. Most government borrowing is now being financed from overseas -- especially the central banks of China, Japan, and other countries. These institutions are deliberately buying dollars in order to keep their currencies from rising against the greenback. But they won't keep doing this indefinitely. The U.S. is borrowing more than $600 billion a year from the rest of the world, and it can't go on much longer.

THE BIG BANG.  Sometime within a decade, and most likely in the next couple of years, foreign investors will see that a steep decline of the dollar is unavoidable and will begin to unload them and U.S. Treasury securities. As with any bubble, it will be better if this one bursts sooner rather than later, when it would be even bigger. But adjustment and pain will still occur, including higher interest rates and consequently slower growth.

Now, the "National Priorities Project" has created a counter to estimate the cost of the Iraq engagement; at the time of this writing, it's nearly $362 billion.  I suppose that's a drop in the bucket when compared with the $8.677 trillion national debt, though it all adds up, you know.  Of course, Mark Weisbrot's prediction of a crash hasn't come true, at least not yet.

Sometimes I see diarists suggest that more debt will bankrupt the government.  Rather, I expect that, if worse came to worse, the US would default on all its debts, so the level of debt before the default might not be that meaningful.  Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, or so the saying goes.  They will keep piling up that debt while it still appears to be "okay."  At any rate, I don't expect the US to pay back its national debt in the end.

Now, this is the age of what Kees van der Pijl calls "virtual accumulation," which means (among other things) that the global economy has taken on aspects of unreality.  The functioning of the neoliberal economic system is something I've tried to explain briefly, through the writings of Harry Shutt, in this diary.  At any rate, one of the main aspects of this unreality which we are stuck in is called "dollar hegemony."  Dollar hegemony, as Liu points out, means that "world trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy."  The result of all of this is that the world has given the US a blank check to run whatever debt it wants, and buy whatever it wants, for the rest of the world will cover for US profligacy by holding the dollar reserves the US creates in the process of running this huge tab, and investing them back in the United States through the purchase of Treasury Bills.

My understanding of this is that none of the big dollar holders want to be accused of being the first ones to dump the dollar, which would ruin the dollar reserves of all involved and create an economic crisis.  So they've been selling off their dollar reserves bit by bit.  The economists in the White House have been calling this a "soft landing."  But since under Bush the deficits keep coming and the debt (and thus the need for the world's banks to accomodate growing US dollar reserves) keeps growing, none of it does anything to forestall the "hard landing" to come.  Meanwhile the value of the US Dollar as compared to the Euro and the Yen continues to slide.  Am I right or wrong?  DKos economists, speak up now.

War on Iraq part:

At any rate, the "merely political" analyses of this war do not make sense to me.  Political contingencies (mostly involving public pressure upon the government) may make the US withdraw from Iraq, but at this point it looks quite unlikely.  As I said in the Intro, the invasion and occupation of Iraq were based on economic and political rationales that use the US government as a conduit for the interests of a dominant fraction of global capital.  These rationales will not wither away simply because the American people want the troops out.

Anyone who's listened to Scott Ritter's narrative of how the US went from embargo-plus-inspections to invasion to occupation will recognize a certain sort of continuity between the various plans for Iraq.  The US never really gave up on its prosecution the "first Gulf War"; under Clinton the bombing of Iraq continued well after the first Bush retook Kuwait.  The goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein was kept, too, although the Clinton administration went through that Chalabi fellow.  It would seem, then, that Bush hijo's invasion and occupation of Iraq achieved US foreign policy objectives that had been on the books for some time, yet had not been achieved because the elites (both as affiliated with Bush I and with Clinton) thought that the junior Bush's direct invasion would be too risky.

The occupation itself survives through a different set of justifications.  The US troops which had been guarding the oil in Saudi Arabia were asked to leave, which they did do soon after the invasion; invading Iraq gave them a place to stay and to monitor the entire Middle East.  Thus the fourteen enduring bases in Iraq.  And, of course, the US hopes to sit on top of Iraq's juicy oil reserves until such time as they can heedlessly exploited.  The insurgency's interference with the oil-pumping operations is doubtless no problem -- as long as the US sits atop that oil, its value is only likely to increase as the depletion of global oil reserves decreases supply.  If the US were to leave, the business deals it struck just after the invasion would no longer be guaranteed.  And, of course, Iraq serves as a neocon utopia for the optimists in the White House.

So, frankly, I don't see the US leaving Iraq for "merely political" purposes.  The oil under its surface is just too valuable, and the US serves as the insurer-of-last-resort to all of the corporate deals which were struck.  A crash in the value of the US dollar might, however, provide an impetus to get out, as Weisbrot suggested back in 2004.

What do you think?  Does this analysis work for you?  What flaws does it contain?  I am only presenting this argument because I am eager to get at the truth.  Speak!

Originally posted to Cassiodorus on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 03:44 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Been saying this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    object16

    ...for a couple years...

    "Rather, I expect that, if worse came to worse, the US would default on all its debts, so the level of debt before the default might not be that meaningful.  Might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, or so the saying goes.  They will keep piling up that debt while it still appears to be "okay."  At any rate, I don't expect the US to pay back its national debt in the end."

    I have been predicting and watching carefully for the fall of the dollar! I believe it when Bush said in WA in 2004 that he viewed the "deficit" as a "paper debt". He was either the craziest man on the planet or he knew exactly what the "game plan" is. Contrary to the popular conventional wisdom I predict that we are going to replace the dollar with a new currency. Possibly with the "Amero" on the order of the EU's Euro. Those holding Treasury bonds and securities and cash will be paid around 10% of their current value in Amero dollars. The dollar will go the way of the Weimar Republic's Marks. No telling what effect this de facto "bankruptcy" will have on the world's economy. I think Bush is crazy enough to do it and with his finger on the nuke button dare anyone to stop it or him.

    Change the course--change the Captain. Change the crew. But save the ship!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 04:08:35 PM PST

  •  Dollar's actually been quite stable... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    object16, Cassiodorus

    trading in a pretty narrow range for the past couple months...it lost some value last year and alarmed a few of us civilians, but the pros didn't seem too concerned about it. The only real source of currency volatility lately was when the Thai generals tried to put controls on foreign capital. And long-term interest rates, which are the best measure of what the really smart people think the risks are, is still really really low. This is in spite of all the things you point out, all of which I totally agree with. And it is true that currency traders have a disincentive to telegraph their moves, so that a movement out of the dollar could happen with amazing suddenness. I just can't see who would really gain, out of the major players, it would almost certainly trigger a worldwide recession.

  •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    object16

    The tea leaves are not murky at all. It's the PNAC plan. Iraq is just the beginning. The US is just a pawn being used by the PNACkers to achieve their goal of holding the entire industrialized world hostage by controlling access to oil. Once they've drained the teasury (and the Chinese, et.al. cotton on to the hopelessness of sustaining the status quo of the dollar), the Neocons' mercenary army and 'lily pad' bases throughout the middle east and Caspian basin will be in place, with (I guess) tactical nukes as leverage.

    More, with links, here.

  •  I'm no economist, but (0+ / 0-)

    I expect the dollar is bound to take a very serious hit sometime soon.  And as little confidence as I have in my knowledge of economics, I have FAR LESS confidence the Bushco folks have a clue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site