Palestine/Israel: A Modest Proposal

by Reese Schonfeld

The cleverest man I have met in the last two years (he had been recruited by the NSA or CIA or DARPA after 9/11 as an “Imagineering” genius), told me that America will never succeed unless we legalize drugs and end our support for Israel. I don’t know what to do about drug running, but today’s news brings me back to the Israeli question. Is it possible for US government to abandon Israel entirely? I don’t think so. But I have another thought, and it’s almost as impossible as the first, but given the current state of the world, it might just work.

Let’s suppose the Obama administration enlists Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and all the other oil rich nations and gets them to contribute enough money to buy Israel back from the Jews. The Israelis could then take the money and use it to buy 10,0000 sq. miles of land in Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland or one of the other European countries that have gone broke. The country that sells the land would have to give sovereignty, but would end its status as a debtor nation, put its people back to work, and regain their independence from Angela Merkel.

The deal benefits all the parties: it gets the US off the hook about Israel, it permits the Palestinians to return to their homeland, which will be in far better condition then when they left it.  The other Arab nations will get the Palestinians off their backs, Israelis will no longer have to worry about suicide bombers and rockets from Gaza and the lucky state that sells the 10,000 sq. miles will be free at last.

The deal makes so much sense that I’m sure it will never be consummated. Orthodox Israelis will never give up what they consider to be their Holy Land.  No Arab coalition has held together since the Turks rolled into the Middle East 600 years ago. No European country has sold 10,0000 sq. miles of its land to another country since Napoleon completed the Louisiana Purchase. So I am forced to admit that this proposal to put an end to the Palestinian question is unlikely to be adopted. But that doesn’t mean I won’t pray for it.

Government Isn’t the Problem…and Austerity Isn’t the Answer

I have a friend who witnessed about half of the Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act. When he walked out of the courtroom, he wasn’t surprised to find a sea of people protesting the law. What did surprise him was how many of the protest signs were anti-Europe. Apparently, the protestors were worried that universal health insurance was the path to “becoming European” and all the nefarious consequences that implies.

If asked for their opinion on government spending to stimulate the economy, I imagine they’d give roughly the same answer.

But the truth is that fiscal irresponsibility has little to do with Europe’s current crisis.

Just before the recession hit, the European governments with the highest public social spending (relative to the size of their economy) were France, Austria, Belgium, and Germany — none of the so-called “PIIGS” nations that are in trouble. In fact, many conservatives have anointed Germany as the role model that its neighbors should emulate.

Even if you measure all government spending in the middle of the crisis, there is no correlation between a country’s public spending and the interest rates on its sovereign debt (which is the key indicator of financial distress).

From 1999 to 2007, the European government with the highest budget deficit (again, relative to economic output) was Slovakia, hailed by conservatives for its flat tax. France’s budget deficit was about as big as Italy’s, and Germany’s was close behind. Spain and Ireland actually had budget surpluses.

Besides, if government spending were the problem, then the crisis should be over by now. The EU and the IMF have forced the PIIGS nations to slash public expenditures — and the recession has only gotten worse.

Compare that strategy with what happened in the United States, where we took the opposite approach and increased public expenditures.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, real GDP contracted at an annual rate of 8.9 percent in the U.S. In January 2009, nonfarm employment declined by over 800,000. That was the lowest point both statistics — growth in economic output and jobs — would reach.

On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), better known as the “stimulus” package.

In the first quarter of 2009, real GDP contracted by 6.7 percent. In February 2009, nonfarm employment losses were closer to 700,000. The recession was clearly not over, but the bleeding had slowed.

On March 6, 2009, the Dow Jones reached its cyclical low of 6,626.94. The next day, it began a strong recovery.

By the third quarter of 2009, when the stimulus money was starting to be spent, the economy was growing again. By March 2010, job growth was positive again. (Job growth always lags behind economic output.) By February 2011, two years after Congress passed the ARRA, the Dow Jones cleared 12,000.

Clearly, the ARRA was the turning point. Its passage was the beginning of the end of the Great Recession.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

But isn’t it odd that none of the critics’ predictions came true? They warned that interest rates would skyrocket with the government borrowing so much money. Instead, interest rates plummeted. They warned that inflation would soar. Instead, it’s been low and stable.

And that’s not all. Several economists have measured the effect of the stimulus since it was spent. Two Dartmouth researchers, for example, compared jobs growth in each state and county to the amount of stimulus funds spent in that state or county. They found that every dollar spent on the poor yielded two dollars in increased economic output, and every dollar spent on infrastructure yielded $1.85 in output.

Another study compared jobs growth in each state to the amount of federal Medicaid matching funds spent in that state. They found that each dollar spent yielded two dollars in output. A similar study found that the ARRA “created or saved about 2 million jobs in its first year and over 3 million by March 2011.”

So it’s no surprise then that Europe continues to flounder while America continues to grow. You can’t beat a recession by cutting government spending. Even Mitt Romney said so.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Quote of the Day: William K. Black

The EU is not lending money to Ireland, Greece, and Portugal to help those nations’ citizens.  The EU is lending those nations money because if they don’t those nations and their citizens and corporations will be unable to repay their debts to banks in the core.  That will make public the fact that the core banks are actually insolvent.  When the Germans and French realize that their banks are insolvent the result will be “severe banking crises and a return to recession in the core of the eurozone.”  The core, not simply the periphery, will be in crisis. The ECB and the EU’s leadership would be happy to throw the periphery under the bus, but the EU core’s largest banks are chained to the periphery by their imprudent loans.

— William K. Black (University of Missouri-Kansas City)