> With deficits as large as these it's no surprise the economy's been
> stimulated, but it's taken quite a long time and the growth rates are
> hardly overwhelming, testimony to the inefficiency of the stimulus,
> because of its upper-bracket skew. Tax cuts for millionaires and
> Halliburton contracts (the biggest component of military spending in
> the second quarter, which saw the biggest spurt in Pentagon spending
> since the beginning of the Korean War, was "support services," i.e.,
> transport, setting up bases, fixing turkey dinners) just don't pack
> the punch that higher unemployment benefits or infrastructure
> spending would.
It would appear then that growth or slowdown in the US economy is largely driven by factors internal to the US economy. That far from the US imperialism requiring the rest of the world for extended reproduction of capital in the US (as assumed by the traditional theory of imperialism), it is the capitalism in rest of world (or at least very large part of it) that requires the capital accumulation in the US for its own growth. Would that be accurate description of the relationship between the two? And if this is case, the US economy far from being a obstacle to the growth elsewhere, may in fact be a condition for it. Or am I missing something?
Ulhas