Читаем Dismantling the Empire полностью

And what about the Japanese who, for more than fifty-seven years, have been paying big bucks to host American bases on their soil? Recently, they reached a deal with Washington to move some American Marines from bases on Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. In the process, however, they were forced to shell out not only for the cost of the Marines’ removal, but also to build new facilities on Guam for their arrival. Is it possible that they will now take a cue from the government of Kyrgyzstan and just tell the Americans to get out and pay for it themselves? Or might they at least stop funding the same American military personnel who regularly rape Japanese women (at the rate of about two per month) and make life miserable for whoever lives near the thirty-eight U.S. bases on Okinawa? This is certainly what the Okinawans have been hoping and praying for ever since we arrived in 1945.

In fact, I have a suggestion for other countries that are getting a bit weary of the American military presence on their soil: cash in now, before it’s too late. Either up the ante or tell the Americans to go home. I encourage this behavior because I’m convinced that the U.S. Empire of Bases will soon enough bankrupt our country, and so—on the analogy of a financial bubble or a pyramid scheme—if you’re an investor, it’s better to get your money out while you still can.

This is, of course, something that has occurred to the Chinese and other financiers of the American national debt. Only they’re cashing in quietly and slowly in order not to tank the dollar while they’re still holding on to such a bundle of them. Make no mistake, though: whether we’re being bled rapidly or slowly, we are bleeding; and hanging on to our military empire and all the bases that go with it will ultimately spell the end of the United States as we know it.

Count on this: future generations of Americans traveling abroad decades from now won’t find the landscape dotted with near-billion-dollar “embassies.”






PART IV


THE PENTAGON TAKES US DOWN






    11    

GOING BANKRUPT

January 22, 2008

The military adventurers of the Bush administration had much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups of men thought that they were “the smartest guys in the room,” the title of Alex Gibney’s prizewinning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States found itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempted to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars had destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration put off these costs for future generations to pay—or repudiate. This utter fiscal irresponsibility was disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (such as causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, we are spending insane amounts of money on “defense” projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, we are keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segments of the American population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures—so-called military Keynesianism. By “military Keynesianism,” I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs—an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing. Let me discuss each of these.


THE CURRENT FISCAL DISASTER

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

История экономического развитие Голландии в XVI-XVIII веках
История экономического развитие Голландии в XVI-XVIII веках

«Экономическая история Голландии» Э. Бааша, вышедшая в 1927 г. в серии «Handbuch der Wirtschaftsgeschichte» и предлагаемая теперь в русском переводе советскому читателю, отличается богатством фактического материала. Она является сводкой голландской и немецкой литературы по экономической истории Голландии, вышедшей до 1926 г. Автор также воспользовался результатами своих многолетних изысканий в голландских архивах.В этой книге читатель найдет обширный фактический материал о росте и экономическом значении голландских торговых городов, в первую очередь — Амстердама; об упадке цехового ремесла и развитии капиталистической мануфактуры; о развитии текстильной и других отраслей промышленности Голландии; о развитии голландского рыболовства и судостроения; о развитии голландской торговли; о крупных торговых компаниях; о развитии балтийской и северной торговли; о торговом соперничестве и протекционистской политике европейских государств; о системе прямого и косвенного налогообложения в Голландии: о развитии кредита и банков; об истории амстердамской биржи и т.д., — то есть по всем тем вопросам, которые имеют значительный интерес не только для истории Голландии, но и для истории ряда стран Европы, а также для истории эпохи первоначального накопления и мануфактурного периода развития капитализма в целом.

Эрнст Бааш

Экономика