One of the most repulsive characteristics of the modern Left movement is the level of arrogance it consistently employs. Leftism is inherently arrogant due to its central philosophical tenet: central planning. Yet there are times when this arrogance permeates into aspects of our lives that should never be touched.
Jimmy Carter's, Maureen Dowd's, and Eugene Robinson's comments over the past couple of weeks reminded me of a passage in Clarence Thomas' memoir My Grandfather's Son concerning Thomas' ardous journey of being appointed to the Court of Appeals:
As I reflected on the long, unpleasant process that had led up to this brief public performance, I was struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights. It was as ludicrous as a well-fed man lecturing a starving person about his insensitivity to world hunger (p. 202).
Carter claims to know what the millions of Americans are truly thinking when they oppose Obama's anti-liberty policies. A significant number of them are without a doubt racists. Dowd asserts Rep. Joe Wilson, a man whom she has never met or most likely never heard of, knows who Joe Wilson is based on his idiotic screaming at the president. And Robinson, a black man, knows what's best for all black people. What that is he never really says, but he still knows.
Who do they think they are that they can exclaim such ridiculous notions? How is this arrogant, condescending excuse for a way of thinking appealing to anyone besides the most pompous and disillusioned of individuals?
Barack Obama and Competition
Barack Obama has displayed an affinity for sports since he first came into the national spotlight. In particular, Mr. Obama seems quite enamored with basketball. I wonder if Mr. Obama thinks there is enough "competition" in the NBA at the moment. If he did not think there was, what would his solution be? If he viewed competition in the NBA like he does national healthcare, why Mr. Obama would simply form an "NBA team". No one would really know what or who this team was, only that it would be implicitly backed by the NBA. In other words, the NBA could shape the rules however it saw fit to benefit its "team".
Now what would this team's name be? How about "Public Option".
Who in their right mind actually thinks this would increase competition?
Now what would this team's name be? How about "Public Option".
Who in their right mind actually thinks this would increase competition?
Mary O'Grady on the Mexican War on Drugs
Here's The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady on Mexico's War on Drugs and the country's decision to decriminalize minute possessions. A key point:
Mr. Calderón's new policy is unlikely to solve anything... The reason is simple: Prohibition and demand make otherwise worthless weeds valuable. Where they really get valuable is in crossing the U.S. border. If U.S. demand is robust, then producers, traffickers and retailers get rich by satisfying it... trafficking will remain illegal, and to get their products past law enforcement the criminals will still have an enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the money out of the business and therefore will not reduce corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democratic-government authority, or the terror heaped on local populations by drug lords.
To understand the War on Drugs, this point needs to driven home. The value of an illegal drug, like any good, does not stem from what one party believe it is worth. It is determined by what all the other players in the marketplace think it is worth. But with drugs and other illegal products, you get highly distorted prices for one main reason (there are of course many others, but this one, in my estimation, is key).
That is the lack of application of The Rule of Law. Without The Rule of Law, anything goes. Contracts cannot be enforced and private property has no relevant meaning, so the actors in the market do not have a stable or predictable environment to engage in. This is then intensified by the extremely harsh penalties that are applied to those caught dealing in this illicit affair. Consequently, the incentives to commit violent crimes to accomplish ones goals increase dramatically (why negotiate with another party when one can just kill them? If one get caught doing either the penalties are both so bad there is little difference).
Combined with high inelastic demand, the result, as we have seen for four decades now, is quite disastrous. The true problem is the illegality of the transaction and the idea that demand can simply be stemmed by government policy. This is beyond naive. People enjoy getting high. It's a reality of life that we all should get used to (and enjoy).
Hillary Clinton said back in March "Our [American] insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade." On a very simple, face-value level she is correct; if no one wanted to get high, then drugs would not be a commodity in demand and there would be no violence surrounding it. But what Mrs. Clinton is clearly implying is that demand is the main cause for the violence that surrounds the drug trade. This is wrong. Foreign beer, foreign cars and foreign accounting services are all highly demanded goods or services, but none are plagued by the violence that follows the drug trade around like a shadow. Why is that?
Prohibition breeds crime because no matter what majorities, politicians and special-interest groups may want, demand for certain goods and services will always exist. So instead of driving these industries into the hands of violent criminals, we should instead accept them as a part of our modern-day culture and facilitate their legal and open transactions peacefully.
Mr. Calderón's new policy is unlikely to solve anything... The reason is simple: Prohibition and demand make otherwise worthless weeds valuable. Where they really get valuable is in crossing the U.S. border. If U.S. demand is robust, then producers, traffickers and retailers get rich by satisfying it... trafficking will remain illegal, and to get their products past law enforcement the criminals will still have an enormous incentive to bribe or to kill. Decriminalization will not take the money out of the business and therefore will not reduce corruption, cartel intimidation aimed at democratic-government authority, or the terror heaped on local populations by drug lords.
To understand the War on Drugs, this point needs to driven home. The value of an illegal drug, like any good, does not stem from what one party believe it is worth. It is determined by what all the other players in the marketplace think it is worth. But with drugs and other illegal products, you get highly distorted prices for one main reason (there are of course many others, but this one, in my estimation, is key).
That is the lack of application of The Rule of Law. Without The Rule of Law, anything goes. Contracts cannot be enforced and private property has no relevant meaning, so the actors in the market do not have a stable or predictable environment to engage in. This is then intensified by the extremely harsh penalties that are applied to those caught dealing in this illicit affair. Consequently, the incentives to commit violent crimes to accomplish ones goals increase dramatically (why negotiate with another party when one can just kill them? If one get caught doing either the penalties are both so bad there is little difference).
Combined with high inelastic demand, the result, as we have seen for four decades now, is quite disastrous. The true problem is the illegality of the transaction and the idea that demand can simply be stemmed by government policy. This is beyond naive. People enjoy getting high. It's a reality of life that we all should get used to (and enjoy).
Hillary Clinton said back in March "Our [American] insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade." On a very simple, face-value level she is correct; if no one wanted to get high, then drugs would not be a commodity in demand and there would be no violence surrounding it. But what Mrs. Clinton is clearly implying is that demand is the main cause for the violence that surrounds the drug trade. This is wrong. Foreign beer, foreign cars and foreign accounting services are all highly demanded goods or services, but none are plagued by the violence that follows the drug trade around like a shadow. Why is that?
Prohibition breeds crime because no matter what majorities, politicians and special-interest groups may want, demand for certain goods and services will always exist. So instead of driving these industries into the hands of violent criminals, we should instead accept them as a part of our modern-day culture and facilitate their legal and open transactions peacefully.
Sam Tanenhaus and The Death of Conservatism
Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewing Sam Tanenhaus of the New York Times on his new book, "The Death of Conservatism. Short but interesting interview. I particularly like Tanenhaus' points on the "alternating one party system" and the importance of language in modern day discourse.
Shika Dalmia, Healthcare and Polticians
Here's Shikha Dalmia of the Reason Foundation and forbes.com take on Obama's Healthcare speech last night. A snippet that I found personally jarring:
Perhaps the most striking--and disturbing--thing about the speech was the unblinking confidence Obama exuded while breaking key campaign promises he made to voters. He had raked poor Hillary Clinton over the coals for admitting that her road to universal coverage was paved with an individual mandate. "Everyone would be forced to buy coverage, even if you can't afford it," warned Obama in an ad. "You pay a penalty if you don't."
My father and I watched the speech together and while we were taking it in he turned and asked me "So what do you think of this guy?" I told him that I wasn't a fan as I fundamentally disagreed with him philosophically, but that I did not dislike the man from a personal perspective. But I stopped myself, thought about it for a second, and said I didn't trust him. My Dad only nodded and said something along the lines of "So that's what you think of him personally." And he was right.
I have told myself that I will never form an opinion about someone, no matter how tempting it is, without personally meeting them and getting to know them. Maybe this is a good policy to follow when dealing with regular folks, but when concerning politicians it is certainly not. These are people who have unprecedented power to intrude in virtually every aspect of our lives. To not consider them personally is hiding behind a facade of tolerance and cool-headedness, when all one is really doing is being a coward, too frightened and weak to step into the fray.
Do I think Barack Obama has Americans' best interests in mind? No, I do not. Do I trust him? No, I do not. Although I disagree with him, can I say Barack Obama is principled? No, I believe he is not.
I would not shake the hand of President Barack Obama. I could not look myself in the mirror afterward if I ever did.
Note: In the article, Dalmia has a far more effective analogy for mandating care for those with pre-conditions. After reading hers, I realized mine is both inaccurate and actually portrays the policy in far too generous a light.
Perhaps the most striking--and disturbing--thing about the speech was the unblinking confidence Obama exuded while breaking key campaign promises he made to voters. He had raked poor Hillary Clinton over the coals for admitting that her road to universal coverage was paved with an individual mandate. "Everyone would be forced to buy coverage, even if you can't afford it," warned Obama in an ad. "You pay a penalty if you don't."
My father and I watched the speech together and while we were taking it in he turned and asked me "So what do you think of this guy?" I told him that I wasn't a fan as I fundamentally disagreed with him philosophically, but that I did not dislike the man from a personal perspective. But I stopped myself, thought about it for a second, and said I didn't trust him. My Dad only nodded and said something along the lines of "So that's what you think of him personally." And he was right.
I have told myself that I will never form an opinion about someone, no matter how tempting it is, without personally meeting them and getting to know them. Maybe this is a good policy to follow when dealing with regular folks, but when concerning politicians it is certainly not. These are people who have unprecedented power to intrude in virtually every aspect of our lives. To not consider them personally is hiding behind a facade of tolerance and cool-headedness, when all one is really doing is being a coward, too frightened and weak to step into the fray.
Do I think Barack Obama has Americans' best interests in mind? No, I do not. Do I trust him? No, I do not. Although I disagree with him, can I say Barack Obama is principled? No, I believe he is not.
I would not shake the hand of President Barack Obama. I could not look myself in the mirror afterward if I ever did.
Note: In the article, Dalmia has a far more effective analogy for mandating care for those with pre-conditions. After reading hers, I realized mine is both inaccurate and actually portrays the policy in far too generous a light.
Norman Borlaug, 1914 - 2009
Norman Borlaug has died. Here is a link to Reason's 2000 interview with one of history's true heroes. That he has received .00001% the tribute Ted Kennedy and Michael Jackson received is one of the greatest shames I have ever witnessed.
Don Boudreaux on Obama's School Speech
Here's Dr. Donald Boudreaux of GMU on Obama's talk to schoolchildren across the country yesterday:
For the record, I oppose all such “Great Leader” poses, regardless of the party affiliation of the Great Leader du jour. The idea that we should be ‘inspired’ by winners of political elections — the notion that successful politicians have some special wisdom to impart — the stupid consensus that high political office renders its holders unusually trustworthy when delivering clusters of cliches — is intolerable to men and women who value freedom and individuality.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
*Note: Is it just me, or is the Left consistently tossing up meatballs for Conservatives to criticize, but the Right is just repeatedly screwing it up?
For the record, I oppose all such “Great Leader” poses, regardless of the party affiliation of the Great Leader du jour. The idea that we should be ‘inspired’ by winners of political elections — the notion that successful politicians have some special wisdom to impart — the stupid consensus that high political office renders its holders unusually trustworthy when delivering clusters of cliches — is intolerable to men and women who value freedom and individuality.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
*Note: Is it just me, or is the Left consistently tossing up meatballs for Conservatives to criticize, but the Right is just repeatedly screwing it up?
Obama's Healthcare Speech - Language
As is often the case on this blog, I enjoy examining the use of language and how people/groups distort it to further a certain agenda. Barack Obama did this tonight (numerous times) in his Congressional Address. There is one specific example I want to focus on though: "no denial of insurance for preexisting conditions".
The President decreed that in his plan no persons suffering from a pre-existing condition (two other words that need to be thoroughly examined) would never be denied coverage. This sounds like a wonderful idea at first glance (I know I thought it did). But it begs the question: why would an individual ever purchase insurance in the first place until they became afflicated with said condition? Of course they have zero incentive to do so. Consequently, insurance companies are going to have to make up for these unintended coerced costs in another way. One method may be to raise premiums. But what if they can't do this either? Well, like with any price control that puts a ceiling on prices (and this is what the pre-existing argument essentially is), you will have market participants drop out and a shortage will occur and this will further the path of a government takeover.
Look at the incentives in another way. What if tomorrow the federal government mandated that car insurance companies could not deny any applicants with car accidents or points on their licenses on their records.
(I don't have any data, on this, but I am fairly sure such applicants generate enormous revenues for car insurance companies. What the companies do though is counter the added risk with increased premiums and deductibles).
What signal would this send consumers? First, it would tell them there is zero chance they could be denied coverage, so they would never purchase the insurance until they were involved in an accident or were assigned points by a court. Secondly, it takes away negotiating power from the companies. If they have to sign such applicants by law, what is to prevent prices from plummeting to artificially low levels (the cost problem)? Finally, such a policy would create a significant moral hazard. If I know that government will force insurance companies to provide me "insurance" at the lowest cost due to the cost problem, or totally subsidize me through taxpayer dollars if I cannot afford said prices, what is to stop me from taking adverse risks while driving?
I digress though. My basic point is if the federal government implements this rule insurance will no longer be insurance. It will be a subsidy. The guise of calling it "insurance" is incredibly dangerous.
The President decreed that in his plan no persons suffering from a pre-existing condition (two other words that need to be thoroughly examined) would never be denied coverage. This sounds like a wonderful idea at first glance (I know I thought it did). But it begs the question: why would an individual ever purchase insurance in the first place until they became afflicated with said condition? Of course they have zero incentive to do so. Consequently, insurance companies are going to have to make up for these unintended coerced costs in another way. One method may be to raise premiums. But what if they can't do this either? Well, like with any price control that puts a ceiling on prices (and this is what the pre-existing argument essentially is), you will have market participants drop out and a shortage will occur and this will further the path of a government takeover.
Look at the incentives in another way. What if tomorrow the federal government mandated that car insurance companies could not deny any applicants with car accidents or points on their licenses on their records.
(I don't have any data, on this, but I am fairly sure such applicants generate enormous revenues for car insurance companies. What the companies do though is counter the added risk with increased premiums and deductibles).
What signal would this send consumers? First, it would tell them there is zero chance they could be denied coverage, so they would never purchase the insurance until they were involved in an accident or were assigned points by a court. Secondly, it takes away negotiating power from the companies. If they have to sign such applicants by law, what is to prevent prices from plummeting to artificially low levels (the cost problem)? Finally, such a policy would create a significant moral hazard. If I know that government will force insurance companies to provide me "insurance" at the lowest cost due to the cost problem, or totally subsidize me through taxpayer dollars if I cannot afford said prices, what is to stop me from taking adverse risks while driving?
I digress though. My basic point is if the federal government implements this rule insurance will no longer be insurance. It will be a subsidy. The guise of calling it "insurance" is incredibly dangerous.
Federalism in Action
The Wall Street Journal reports New Hampshire's lack of an alcohol tax is spurring record sales and drawing the ire of neighboring northeastern states. The title of the article, "Tax-Free Liquor Lures Buyers, Stirring Crossborder Tensions", is a bit misleading in that no states seem to actually be irked by New Hampshire's fiscal policy. Massachusetts, the only state mentioned reacting to the lack of tax, seems to actually to accept it as reality and plans to move forward accordingly.
A few things to note. I find this to be a wonderful illustration of our democracy's greatest feature, federalism. Federalism is a preferable style for democratic rule for two reasons. One, it gives states the authority and flexibility to enact policies they feel would most benefit their residents. Consequently the country becomes a hotbed for experimental policy which ultimately results in failure and success. If there is failure, residents exit. If there is success, they flood in. One only needs to observe the Texas vs. California debate to begin to understand. In addition to experimentation (aka the application of freedom), the states disperse power over themselves and away from the federal government. In almost every case this is a good thing.
Another point I wish to address is that one may say this refutes my idea of international, or in this case interstate, competition. I do not believe this is true. New Hampshire's policy, as far as I can tell, was never reactionary. It was simply what legislators determined was the best policy for the state. Now it is possible, theoretically, State A could identify a policy weakness of State B, and thus adjust their policy to capitalize on the failures of State B's policy. In a certain sense, I could see this interpretation of applied federalism to be somewhat similar to the traditional definition of competition. It is an idea worth further studying.
A few things to note. I find this to be a wonderful illustration of our democracy's greatest feature, federalism. Federalism is a preferable style for democratic rule for two reasons. One, it gives states the authority and flexibility to enact policies they feel would most benefit their residents. Consequently the country becomes a hotbed for experimental policy which ultimately results in failure and success. If there is failure, residents exit. If there is success, they flood in. One only needs to observe the Texas vs. California debate to begin to understand. In addition to experimentation (aka the application of freedom), the states disperse power over themselves and away from the federal government. In almost every case this is a good thing.
Another point I wish to address is that one may say this refutes my idea of international, or in this case interstate, competition. I do not believe this is true. New Hampshire's policy, as far as I can tell, was never reactionary. It was simply what legislators determined was the best policy for the state. Now it is possible, theoretically, State A could identify a policy weakness of State B, and thus adjust their policy to capitalize on the failures of State B's policy. In a certain sense, I could see this interpretation of applied federalism to be somewhat similar to the traditional definition of competition. It is an idea worth further studying.
Do Countries Compete? II
A note on this topic. I approached it from a modern-day perspective, aka post-WWII. I suggested Nazi Germany's domestic and foreign policies were some of the most recent manifestations of country competition. I don't think this is a perfect example, but I think it illustrates the point effectively. What illustrates the point even better though, and what I should have mentioned earlier, is mercantilism.
Merriam-Webster defines mercantilism as "an economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a strict governmental regulation of the entire national economy usually through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a favorable balance of trade, the development of agriculture and manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies." Mercantilists viewed wealth as a zero-sum game. In other words, if an English ship stole 100 pounds worth of gold from a Spanish ship, the English would be considered better off than the Spanish by whatever monetary amount 100 pounds worth of gold was valued at.
Smith, Ricardo and other enlightened thinkers dismantled such thinking in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
Merriam-Webster defines mercantilism as "an economic system developing during the decay of feudalism to unify and increase the power and especially the monetary wealth of a nation by a strict governmental regulation of the entire national economy usually through policies designed to secure an accumulation of bullion, a favorable balance of trade, the development of agriculture and manufactures, and the establishment of foreign trading monopolies." Mercantilists viewed wealth as a zero-sum game. In other words, if an English ship stole 100 pounds worth of gold from a Spanish ship, the English would be considered better off than the Spanish by whatever monetary amount 100 pounds worth of gold was valued at.
Smith, Ricardo and other enlightened thinkers dismantled such thinking in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
Choice and Competition
I am watching Meet the Press at the moment and David Gregory is interviewing David Axelrod on healthcare. I've heard Axelrod invoke the ideals of choice and competition and that implementing a public choice option is essential to ensuring the optimal amount of competition and providing the American people with the most options. Merriam-Webster defines "competition" as "the act or process of competing as a : the effort of two or more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by offering the most favorable terms b : active demand by two or more organisms or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply".
A few things to note. First, I am becoming more and more convinced that the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of language is the root cause of many conflicts in the world. Gay marriage strikes me as a great example of an issue that suffers from this language disparity. Ala, how does one define "marriage"? Where does that definition come from? What makes it legitimate? Has it evolved at over time? How does culture change the definition? Naturally, many answers can be given to these questions. Consequently, people will fundamentally disagree on the premise, and it will thus be impossible to move forward.
Axelrod makes the claim that competition is enhanced if the government enters the fray. Given the above definition, I have enormous difficulty in seeing how this is possible. The state is not a desirable producer. There are two distinct reasons for this. The first is the state has the unique power to shape the rules of the game, aka regulations. Consequently, would be like having two teams participate in a basketball game, but the ref is employed by one of the teams. He will clearly be biased and enforce the rules in favor of his team.
Secondly, the role of power and the government's ability to use coercion, has direct effects on the incentives of the state as a producer. When you can collect billions of dollars in taxes, borrow billions of dollars for low interest, or print money at any rate you wish, and the public MUST fall in step with such policy implementions, the government gains an advantage over private companies that can ONLY end in monopoly. Look at public education. No one would suggest that public education in this country is at a desirable level given the cost. Yet what is public education? Quite simply, it is a public option. If a public option or something like it is implemented, we will see the same inefficiency, malaise and perverted incentives that make public education what it is infect the healthcare industry. The cost will be overwhelming.
A few things to note. First, I am becoming more and more convinced that the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of language is the root cause of many conflicts in the world. Gay marriage strikes me as a great example of an issue that suffers from this language disparity. Ala, how does one define "marriage"? Where does that definition come from? What makes it legitimate? Has it evolved at over time? How does culture change the definition? Naturally, many answers can be given to these questions. Consequently, people will fundamentally disagree on the premise, and it will thus be impossible to move forward.
Axelrod makes the claim that competition is enhanced if the government enters the fray. Given the above definition, I have enormous difficulty in seeing how this is possible. The state is not a desirable producer. There are two distinct reasons for this. The first is the state has the unique power to shape the rules of the game, aka regulations. Consequently, would be like having two teams participate in a basketball game, but the ref is employed by one of the teams. He will clearly be biased and enforce the rules in favor of his team.
Secondly, the role of power and the government's ability to use coercion, has direct effects on the incentives of the state as a producer. When you can collect billions of dollars in taxes, borrow billions of dollars for low interest, or print money at any rate you wish, and the public MUST fall in step with such policy implementions, the government gains an advantage over private companies that can ONLY end in monopoly. Look at public education. No one would suggest that public education in this country is at a desirable level given the cost. Yet what is public education? Quite simply, it is a public option. If a public option or something like it is implemented, we will see the same inefficiency, malaise and perverted incentives that make public education what it is infect the healthcare industry. The cost will be overwhelming.
Steroids II
One short addition I would like to make to Dr. Fost's argument is the role of journalism in this affair. A professional who has specialized in a particular trade his entire life and devoted his career to it will have difficulty being forced out of that said profession to pursue another. If he can, he will do whatever is possible to maintain his position in the world he knows and is or was significant in. This is purely speculation, but I believe many "journalists", or more appropriately "columnists", have jumped on the steroid wagon to further their careers. Sensationalism, controversy, feigned investigation and serving as the bridge between superstar and Joe Six Pack is a perfect way to stay relevant. The result is perverted cyclical incentive system for journalists, the supposed watchdogs of society and government. The journalist will report the steroid situation negatively because if he doesn't, what is the point in a cash-strapped newspaper in retaining him? The plot thickens when said newspaper is desperate to stay afloat and is consequently tempted to lower standards for sales.
In an internet world where opinion is a dime a dozen, a journalist cannot rely on opinion alone. He must instead perpetuate whatever sensational controversy is going on at the time, demonize and make it seemingly relevant, and continue the routine to maintain his stature.
I am an enormous sports fan but I do not take them too seriously. Consequently I do not take sports journalists too seriously. This is certainly not mean to be an insult to them or their profession, but in the grand scheme of things I do not find it terribly important. My only point is that like all businesses, and all people for that matter, when faced with difficult prospects, difficult decisions must be made. In the case of steroids in baseball, I feel many so-called journalists abandoned their principles to become gossip columnists and promoters of lies to simply prolong their own inevitable deaths. This is not about being for or against steroids. It is about approaching the topic in a rational and fair manner with integrity and reason serving as guides. I cannot name a single journalist that has done that when it comes to steroids in baseball.
In an internet world where opinion is a dime a dozen, a journalist cannot rely on opinion alone. He must instead perpetuate whatever sensational controversy is going on at the time, demonize and make it seemingly relevant, and continue the routine to maintain his stature.
I am an enormous sports fan but I do not take them too seriously. Consequently I do not take sports journalists too seriously. This is certainly not mean to be an insult to them or their profession, but in the grand scheme of things I do not find it terribly important. My only point is that like all businesses, and all people for that matter, when faced with difficult prospects, difficult decisions must be made. In the case of steroids in baseball, I feel many so-called journalists abandoned their principles to become gossip columnists and promoters of lies to simply prolong their own inevitable deaths. This is not about being for or against steroids. It is about approaching the topic in a rational and fair manner with integrity and reason serving as guides. I cannot name a single journalist that has done that when it comes to steroids in baseball.
Do Countries Compete?
I wrestled with this question last night as I struggled to fall asleep. During the winter semester my senior year, in an International Business Seminar course, I had said, no, they do not. A fellow student promptly countered my assertion and claimed of course they do. I do not remember too much of what he said, but what from what I do recall it was mostly that countries' compete for foreign investment. I never came up with a proper response (on the spot) to his argument and it has bothered me ever since.
I think the problem lies not in either of our arguments but more fundamentally, how the question is posed. In other words, is competition even a relevant concept to international relations? Or can the word be tinkered from the traditional, market sense to a more cooperative meaning? I'm not positive, but as of now I'm leaning toward the former.
I believe this because the stated goals and disposable tools to accomplish those goals are distinctly different for a nation than they are for a private enterprise. For instance if Dell is selling less laptops than Apple or selling them at a lesser margin, Dell can alter their business model by slashing price, cutting costs, hiring better workers, etc...
For a country, there are two issues fundamentally different from the above. One, a nation does not have the ability to do such things to such an efficient degree as a private company can. This is an issue in and of itself, but for now I will simply accept it as true to examine the more important premise.
A country, ideally, should not base its policies around what other countries are doing. The state should, again ideally, do everything in its power to provide its citizens with the clearest and simplest avenue to achieving their own means and building their own wealth, whatever course of action other countries are taking. In other words, nations should step back to let companies compete. Competition, ultimately, should not be in the vocabulary of government when it comes to international relations. If two countries do decide to effectively "compete", each nation's respective government must seize control of the nation to direct as they see fit to defeat their competitor. This quite obviously would lead down the road to war and totalitarianism.
Looking back, Hitler's Germany seems to be the most blatant case of one country explicitly attempting to compete with other countries.
I think the problem lies not in either of our arguments but more fundamentally, how the question is posed. In other words, is competition even a relevant concept to international relations? Or can the word be tinkered from the traditional, market sense to a more cooperative meaning? I'm not positive, but as of now I'm leaning toward the former.
I believe this because the stated goals and disposable tools to accomplish those goals are distinctly different for a nation than they are for a private enterprise. For instance if Dell is selling less laptops than Apple or selling them at a lesser margin, Dell can alter their business model by slashing price, cutting costs, hiring better workers, etc...
For a country, there are two issues fundamentally different from the above. One, a nation does not have the ability to do such things to such an efficient degree as a private company can. This is an issue in and of itself, but for now I will simply accept it as true to examine the more important premise.
A country, ideally, should not base its policies around what other countries are doing. The state should, again ideally, do everything in its power to provide its citizens with the clearest and simplest avenue to achieving their own means and building their own wealth, whatever course of action other countries are taking. In other words, nations should step back to let companies compete. Competition, ultimately, should not be in the vocabulary of government when it comes to international relations. If two countries do decide to effectively "compete", each nation's respective government must seize control of the nation to direct as they see fit to defeat their competitor. This quite obviously would lead down the road to war and totalitarianism.
Looking back, Hitler's Germany seems to be the most blatant case of one country explicitly attempting to compete with other countries.
Introductory Economics Books Lists
Greg Ransom's, Greg Mankiw's and Arnold Kling's lists of ten books for freshman economics are worth noting.
The Road to Serfdom
Last night I finished Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I came to be familiar with the book during my sophomore year in college as I became more enthralled with classical liberal economic theory. As it is well known, the work is a mainstay in this field and is considered by many to be the ultimate critique of socialism and totalitarianism. I have encountered the arguments and ideas of this book through many economists, political theorists, journalists, businessmen and others over the past few years, but never encountered the primary source itself. Well, after finally completing the short but extremely dense book, I can say I am thrilled to have taken the time and effort to absorb it.
I would very much like to write a critique of certain parts of the book, and its message entirely, but my father has borrowed it so it will be a little while before I can do so. A couple brief thoughts though:
1. There is little doubt in my mind that I will constantly consult this book for the rest of my life. Whether for research or pleasure, it is a treasure chest of insight on the human condition.
2. The prose is absolutely marvelous. Hayek writes like a world class historian, his complex and insightful ideas supported not only by historical example, careful reasoning and logic but also extremely persuasive language.
3. Speaking of logic, Hayek's ability to link abstract ideas like the role of language and importance of Rule of Law is brilliantly done. A separate post needs to be devoted to this very idea.
All right, I'm off to Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I shall see how it holds up.
I would very much like to write a critique of certain parts of the book, and its message entirely, but my father has borrowed it so it will be a little while before I can do so. A couple brief thoughts though:
1. There is little doubt in my mind that I will constantly consult this book for the rest of my life. Whether for research or pleasure, it is a treasure chest of insight on the human condition.
2. The prose is absolutely marvelous. Hayek writes like a world class historian, his complex and insightful ideas supported not only by historical example, careful reasoning and logic but also extremely persuasive language.
3. Speaking of logic, Hayek's ability to link abstract ideas like the role of language and importance of Rule of Law is brilliantly done. A separate post needs to be devoted to this very idea.
All right, I'm off to Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I shall see how it holds up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
