Posted on 02/16/2006 6:44:35 AM PST by .cnI redruM
"To remain competitive in the global economy, the United States needs to improve the education and skills of its residents and prepare them for jobs that will be available in the future." -- Economic Report of the President 2006, Chapter Two
The rhetoric of economic nationalism is scattered throughout this year's Economic Report of the President, and it pervades policy discussions among politicians and in the press. It comes so naturally that we hardly even notice it -- I'm sure I've slipped into it myself. So it's important to point out how unnatural it really is.
As I write this, the Winter Olympic Games are taking place. If you think about it, the nationalistic element of the Olympics is unnecessary. Why make a big deal about how many medals are won by "the United States" as a collective entity? Why not just focus on the achievements of the individual entrants?
Nationalistic rhetoric about economics is even worse than nationalistic rhetoric about the Olympics. Nationalism about the Olympics is a marketing tool for commercial exploitation, and the harm done is relatively minor. Nationalism about the economy is a marketing tool for politicians, and it leads to loss of freedom and responsibility, with enormous quantities of resources channeled through government.
Not "Our" Trade Deficit...
Recently on TCS, Don Boudreaux challenged the economic nationalism of those who worry that "our" trade deficit is causing "us" to become too burdened with foreign debt.
As Boudreaux points out, debts accumulated by our government are indeed collective debts. But if someone from the private sector borrows from overseas, that is his debt, not your debt or our debt. In and of itself, a trade deficit -- or a Capital Account Surplus, as the Economic Report refers to it -- would have no collective implications. With private transactions, those who borrow are in debt, and those who don't -- aren't.
Immoral Government Debt
What is immoral about government debt is the disconnect between the people receiving the benefits and the people who will bear the responsibility of repayment. When my credit card statement shows up, I know what I could have done differently to owe less money. My children won't have that same direct personal responsibility when they wind up having to pay taxes down the road to pay for government spending today.
In fact, it is not just the intergenerational-shifting component of government spending that creates a moral disconnect. Even with a balanced Budget, the people paying the taxes are not directly in control of how the money gets spent.
All that said, the nationality of the holders of our government debt is irrelevant. We are eventually going to be forced to pay taxes to cover the interest and the principal, whether the bondholders live in Tokyo or Peoria. If you want a useful measure of collective liabilities, look at the total future commitments of the government (including payments promised under Social Security and Medicare as well as outstanding debt). Those figures are much more important indicators of future problems than the statistics on the balance of trade or the amount of government debt held by foreigners.
Not Our Oil Dependence
The United States gets much of its oil from Canada and Mexico. Still, we are "dependent" on Middle Eastern oil, because oil is traded in a world market. Any time there is a shock to demand or supply, the price is affected.
"We" are not doing anything wrong by using oil instead of a more-expensive fuel. "We" are not funding terrorism. If you think that Saudi Arabia and Iran are doing bad things with the money they earn, then the place to go to get that fixed is the State Department or the Pentagon, not the Department of Energy. The Energy Department only affects our collective interests by increasing government indebtedness (see "Immoral Government Debt," above).
Not Our Lack of Skills
Individuals need education and skills. Employers need workers with education and skills. But there is no separate "national need" for education and skills.
We do not need a government-schooled population to have an educated population. Instead of No Child Left Behind, the slogan could be Every Family Left Alone. Instead of school districts where the most affluent families are also the ones with the most money to spend on public education, we could have a voucher system where the voucher starts at $15,000 a year per child for the poorest families and gradually declines to zero for families earning the median income.
It can be argued that there are spillover effects from education. I benefit from the fact that you are educated. There is some truth to this, but relative to the benefit that you get from being educated, my benefit from your education is small.
It used to be that our education system helped to promote understanding of our history and culture, and that is a legitimate benefit. Today, however, university education departments seem to turn out teachers who are folk Marxists, not folk Locke-ists.
Not Our Health Care Spending
If libertarians face an uphill battle in selling the notion that education is an individual responsibility, that is nothing compared to the battle we face in health care. Nearly all discussions of health care policy are framed in the rhetoric of economic nationalism. We spend too much on health care. Our system emphasizes acute care rather than preventive care. We have too many uninsured.
When we hear this litany, we should ask skeptical questions. Who spends too much on health care? If I choose to spend a lot on my health care, how does that hurt anyone else? How is the "system" stopping me from getting preventive care? Isn't prevention my personal responsibility? Why don't the uninsured buy catastrophic health insurance? Is it because health insurers won't take them, or is it because the individuals don't really want health insurance unless someone else gives it to them?
I have to concede that there may be a deep cultural impulse to collectivize health care. As the Left is fond of pointing out, every other advanced country has government pay for at least three-fourths of total health care spending. Even in the United States, 45 percent of health care spending is paid for by government, and another 40 percent is paid for by the prepaid health plans that we call health insurance. Less than 15 percent of health care spending is paid for out of pocket.
Still, it might be a useful exercise to take a moment to think about health care without any economic nationalist preconceptions. Suppose that we start with a presumption that consumers can make their own health care decisions, with advice from doctors and information available from third parties. Would it be unreasonable to have an individual factor in cost when making these decisions, rather than take it for granted that an insurance company will pick up the tab? If individuals were choosing health insurance to purchase themselves, rather than using employers as middle men, what sorts of policies would they want? If someone does not choose any health insurance policy, what consequences should they face? Should we continue to force working people to subsidize the elderly, or should people be expected to save enough to pay for the almost-inevitable expenses of health care in their retirement years, and to obtain insurance to cover any unusually expensive late-stage illness?
What I suggest is that instead of starting with the rhetoric of economic nationalism and working down, we start with a presumption of individual responsibility and work up. Maybe the solution for "our" health care system does not come from "us." Perhaps my health care needs and my family insurance needs are something that I appreciate better than anyone else, and perhaps I can choose solutions that are best for my situation.
I am happy to have my tax dollars go to assisting people who are in poverty or who have chronic illnesses. It is the leap from that to a system where everyone uses taxpayer-financed health care that has me confused.
He did disagree and wrote a contrary opinion for Washington's consideration. The latter's quick rejection of the specious argument Jefferson attempted caused the already deteriorating relation between them to go past the point of no return. After future demonstrations of Jefferson's perfidity and hypocrisy Washington forbid mention of his name in his presence.
Fortunately Hamilton's victory on the Bank question provided the necessary strength to the new government, a Lamb among Wolves, to survive. Without it there would likely have been no ability to finance the Louisiana Purchase, no ability to pass through the economic disaster Jefferson provoked/could not avoid, and no ability to finance the War of 1812.
Fortunately the Washington-Hamilton program allowed the nation to survive the ideological idiocy and incompetence of the Democrat-Republicans. Had the latter party taken power first I have no doubt the nation would not have survived without incredible cost if at all.
Hamilton played as significant role in the calling for the convention, the writing of the document and its ratification and explanation as any man. Madison was not the "principal" author any more than Morris was. This "father" of the constitution title is dubious at best though his role during the 1780s working closely with Hamilton in driving the nation toward the CC was critical. That work was superlative in sharp contrast to his thought after falling under the sway of Jefferson which attacked what he had help create.
We have not been discussing what the Founders would have thought about our current government and what I have claimed about what they believed about their own times is entirely true.
While they certainly would have been shocked by the growth of government they did not have the ability to foresee the rise of totalitarian dictatorships bent on world domination or a world religion filled with suicidal lunatics bent on the destruction of western civilization. So I will not claim knowledge of what they would have thought about the current government. I will say they would not have advocated National Suicide because of ideological blinders. Jefferson (though not a "Founder" under a strict definition) might have but not the greatest and deepest of those thinkers.
Thats debatable (only an opinion).
The only reason I wrote that Jefferson would disagree earlier, was because you noted no one as a better source on the constitution them Hamilton.
Jefferson loathed and hated Hamilton, to the point where even after Hamilton died (shot by a Vice President, if you have a sense of humor, you have to find that funny now) he could not stop bad mouthing him.
My response was only about the fact you said anything postive about Hamilton, the joke being that Jefferson would disagree. It was not ideological.
Hamilton's achievements and deeds for this nation during the Founding were exceeded only by Washington and he has never been able to escape the punishment therefrom. Tearing down him while fraudulently building up Jefferson has been the intent of the Leftists in the universities and the media from that day forward. Washington admired no man more than Hamilton.
Jefferson is the most overrated president in our history and the more I learn about him the lower I rank him after starting out believing he was wonderful. Great cabinet maker, rhetoritician and demogogue but terrible statesman.
It wasn't the leftists that started tearing down Hamilton (if you want to get techincal, FDR was the first person to start ripping Hamilton, and he also bad mouthed Jefferson), but everyone else.
If you go back to the time frame, the men hated each other, Hamilton died young, Jefferson didn't, and his supporers didn't.
Jefferson and his friends spent years and years tearing down Hamilton after his death while building up Jefferson (who I actually am quite fond of, though I admire Hamilton more).
But not every liberal likes Jefferson just as not every conservative likes Hamilton.
A good example would be Robert Rubin whose role model was Hamilton and who went so far as to build a bust of him to admire every day while Senator George Allen is a huge fan of Jefferson and quotes him often (as did Reagan many times).
The destruction of Hamilton's reputation became long before FDR was even born. He was hated throughout the South during the entire 1800s mainly because of Jefferson and Jackson's insanity about the Bank. Newspapers during the 1790s went out of their way to lie about him, his program and his intentions.
Not praising Jefferson in Virginia would be political suicide. I see little to admire in Jefferson whom I consider to be a form of "limosine liberal". Though I used to believe the conventional propaganda about him.
I like Jefferson, but I am smart enough to sperate the myth from the man.
Acadamia loves Jefferson in a symbolic way, even if they hate many of his ideas or things he believed in.
Hamilton, however, will never ever be loved, as the author of a recent book noted "No one likes Hamiliton, not then, not now".
Sad, but true considering he was a great patriot, a founding father and a leader and hero to this great republic.
That will all change just as soon as my screenplay is optioned and filmed. :^)
I like that one a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.