The United States: Three Blind Spots
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 4 June 2011
by Moises Naim (link to original)
(Colombia) on 4 June 2011
by Moises Naim (link to original)
Translated from
by Gabriel Floud.
Edited by Michelle Harris.
It’s not that they are unknown, but discussion of them tends to be fleeting.
We all have topics about which we prefer not to talk. Maybe because we are ashamed, or because they are painful, or because they are problems for which we don’t see any solution. Countries also suffer from this. It’s not that these problems are unknown or that they don’t come up in national debates. They do come up, but discussion of them tends to be superficial, fleeting and without greater practical consequences. They are blind spots — problems whose importance is as obvious as the very little that is done to confront them.
Despite its vibrant democracy and its vigorous protection of the freedom of expression, national conversation in the United States also has many important blind spots. There are three worth pointing out.
Fraudulent Military Spending
The United States has the highest military spending of any country. It spends 43 percent of the world total and more than the 10 countries that follow put together. The Pentagon consumes almost one-third of the North American national budget and in the last 10 years, military spending has increased 9 percent each year. Recently, a debate began in Washington about the need to reduce military spending. But the maximum amounts they are talking about are minimal. And they speak very little — and this is an important blind spot — about the enormous waste that exists in military spending. Some estimates come to 30 percent of the total. Or more. The reality is that it is unknown: “The Department of Defense financial statements are not auditable,”* the Government Accountability Office concluded a little while ago. This means that the United States spends almost a trillion dollars a year without knowing how. And, according to the auditors, “lack of controls makes it difficult to detect fraud, waste and abuse.”* This does not form a part of the national conversation.
Wall Street’s Debilitating Gigantism
I know a recent university graduate who was hired by a bank on Wall Street. His yearly salary is $80,000. Another youth, a recent engineering graduate, was hired by an American manufacturing company for $40,000 a year. I know that there isn’t much difference between the two in talent, motivation or academic preparation, but the banker makes twice as much. The financial sector can afford it: In the last ten years it comprised 41 percent of all profits in the private sector in the United States. According to Simon Johnson, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), six financial conglomerates control assets equivalent to 60 percent of the U.S.' gross domestic product. In the mid-nineties, this percentage was 20 percent of the GDP. Robert Creamer has calculated that in 2007, the fifty most important brokers on Wall Street made $588 million each. The financial sector has become an economic weight and an enormous political influence. It grasps capital, talent and favorable political decisions possibly like no other sector. This is another topic that is discussed in a superficial and hardly useful way. What reigns is politicians’ innocuous populism and astute manipulation of the conversation by those who do not want there to be many changes.
The Hispanic Surprise
Some results from the recent census in the United States have just come out. There were 22 million Hispanics in 1990 and now there are 52 million. In 2016, there will be 60 million — 18 percent of the total population of the United States. Whites, which were almost 70 percent of Americans in 2000, are now 63 percent. The Latino community’s buying power is increasing quickly and Hispanic residents in the United States constitute the fastest-growing middle class in the world today. They are many, and there are more at every turn. But no one knows what to do with this reality. Hispanics’ increase in economic and political weight will change the country. It is another poorly discussed topic that has many surprises in store.
* Editor’s note: Though accurately translated, quotes could not be verified.
We all have topics about which we prefer not to talk. Maybe because we are ashamed, or because they are painful, or because they are problems for which we don’t see any solution. Countries also suffer from this. It’s not that these problems are unknown or that they don’t come up in national debates. They do come up, but discussion of them tends to be superficial, fleeting and without greater practical consequences. They are blind spots — problems whose importance is as obvious as the very little that is done to confront them.
Despite its vibrant democracy and its vigorous protection of the freedom of expression, national conversation in the United States also has many important blind spots. There are three worth pointing out.
Fraudulent Military Spending
The United States has the highest military spending of any country. It spends 43 percent of the world total and more than the 10 countries that follow put together. The Pentagon consumes almost one-third of the North American national budget and in the last 10 years, military spending has increased 9 percent each year. Recently, a debate began in Washington about the need to reduce military spending. But the maximum amounts they are talking about are minimal. And they speak very little — and this is an important blind spot — about the enormous waste that exists in military spending. Some estimates come to 30 percent of the total. Or more. The reality is that it is unknown: “The Department of Defense financial statements are not auditable,”* the Government Accountability Office concluded a little while ago. This means that the United States spends almost a trillion dollars a year without knowing how. And, according to the auditors, “lack of controls makes it difficult to detect fraud, waste and abuse.”* This does not form a part of the national conversation.
Wall Street’s Debilitating Gigantism
I know a recent university graduate who was hired by a bank on Wall Street. His yearly salary is $80,000. Another youth, a recent engineering graduate, was hired by an American manufacturing company for $40,000 a year. I know that there isn’t much difference between the two in talent, motivation or academic preparation, but the banker makes twice as much. The financial sector can afford it: In the last ten years it comprised 41 percent of all profits in the private sector in the United States. According to Simon Johnson, an economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), six financial conglomerates control assets equivalent to 60 percent of the U.S.' gross domestic product. In the mid-nineties, this percentage was 20 percent of the GDP. Robert Creamer has calculated that in 2007, the fifty most important brokers on Wall Street made $588 million each. The financial sector has become an economic weight and an enormous political influence. It grasps capital, talent and favorable political decisions possibly like no other sector. This is another topic that is discussed in a superficial and hardly useful way. What reigns is politicians’ innocuous populism and astute manipulation of the conversation by those who do not want there to be many changes.
The Hispanic Surprise
Some results from the recent census in the United States have just come out. There were 22 million Hispanics in 1990 and now there are 52 million. In 2016, there will be 60 million — 18 percent of the total population of the United States. Whites, which were almost 70 percent of Americans in 2000, are now 63 percent. The Latino community’s buying power is increasing quickly and Hispanic residents in the United States constitute the fastest-growing middle class in the world today. They are many, and there are more at every turn. But no one knows what to do with this reality. Hispanics’ increase in economic and political weight will change the country. It is another poorly discussed topic that has many surprises in store.
* Editor’s note: Though accurately translated, quotes could not be verified.