"The Problem with Socialism is that you Eventually Run Out of Other People's Money"

The title of this blog posts is one of the best quotes from Margaret Thatcher. The market economy is far more efficient than government at allocating resources and identifying investments in a cost-effective manner. When government grows as a percent of GDP it crowds out the true engine of American society -- entrepreneurs -- to the detriment of future economic growth.

The forthcoming cover story for the February 16, 2009 edition of Newsweek declares "We Are All Socialists Now." Key passage:

Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is an extremely alarming trend. Politicians, in my experience and perspective, are far more concerned being viewed as "doing something" to address perceived problems than actually solving them. An incredible amount of money is wasted and misallocated by government bureaucrats. When firms fail they go out of business. When firms stop being competitive they lose market share to competitors. Entrepreneurs and businesses thus have powerful incentives to continually look to innovate, increase productivity and seek creativity ideas and solutions. The largest incentive for government bureaucrats is to protect their turf and budgets.

Furthermore, these figures only add to my firm belief George W. Bush was by far the worst President in the history of our republic. Beyond that fact that he did not produce one significant piece of legislation in regards to public policy (Medicare Part D? the education bill? Please...) his assault on liberty was simply stunning:

1. Iraq. If misleading the public and resorting to fear tactics to drive our nation into a war of choice was not bad enough, this misadventure saddled our nation with an incredible debt that only adds to our future massive financial liabilities with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

2. The Patriot Act.

3. Implicitly condoning torture as an acceptable interrogation tactic.

4. Allowing government to grow as a percent of the economy PRIOR to the financial meltdown:
5. Failure to prevent the extent of the financial meltdown. As 43 claimed he was a man who favored less government and the virtues of free trade (despite the steel tariffs in his first administration, allowing the Democratic Party to push Fannie and Freddie to take increased risk with the goal of increasing the home ownership rate, etc.). Consequentially, the ideology that he claimed to adhere to, and aided by his incredibly high disapproval ratings, has has led many to question the virtues of the free market and provided greater credence to the belief that government can and should "solve" people's problems.

edit: Per an op-ed from John Taylor, professor of economics at Stanford and originated of The Taylor Rule:

My research shows that government actions and interventions -- not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy -- caused, prolonged and dramatically worsened the crisis.

6. Bailouts. The government had to prevent the complete meltdown of the financial sector. However, the rush to approve TARP and the failure to have any kind of transparency was simply stunning.

7. Failure to reform long-term entitlement spending.

I'm probably missing a few more. So much for 43's belief that "the advance of liberty is the path to both a safer and better world."

You Run Your House Differently?

If there wasn't enough already on Obama's inbox...

The Wall Street Journal has a must read article online on the U.S./Chinese relationship. Apparently the Chinese government had no idea how exposed it was to Fannie, Freddie and the U.S. financial system until last summer. Needless to say they are not too happy they took a serious financial hit as a result of the collapse of the U.S. financial sector. To make this point to the new administration -- especially after Treasury Secretary Geithner appealed to U.S. politist demand by blaming China for manipulating their currency (perhaps this was necessary for U.S. domestic constituencies, yet I disagree on Geithner's analysis and this clearly angered the Chinese) -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao became the first Chinese premier to visit the World Economic Forum. From the WSJ:

Leaders in China, the world’s third-largest economy, have been surprised and upset over how much the problems of the U.S. financial sector have hurt China’s holdings. In response, Beijing is re-examining its U.S. investments, say people familiar with the government’s thinking. …

Chinese leaders have felt burned by a series of bad experiences with U.S. investments they had believed were safe, say people familiar with their thinking, including holdings in Morgan Stanley, the collapsed Reserve Primary Fund and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

….. The Reserve issue “is causing a lot of concern with a lot of financial institutions in China,” said the Chinese official. Some officials expected that the U.S. and its financial institutions would better protect China from loss. “If the U.S. is treating us this way, eventually that will be enough cause for concern in the stability of the [U.S.] system,” the official said.

and:

Around October, a lengthy Chinese-language essay began circulating on the Internet excoriating Mr. Lou and other top CIC officials, along with Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank governor, for being too close to the U.S. and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The diatribe quickly gained wide circulation in Chinese financial circles. One passage charged that Mr. Zhou “colluded with Henry Paulson to buy U.S. bonds, forced [Chinese yuan] appreciation, attached China’s economy to the U.S. and broke China’s economic independence.

Brad Setser, a fellow for Geoeconomics at the Council on Foreign Relations, discusses the article and his role in bringing to light the extent China invested in U.S. agencies and financial institutions in a must read blog post. In his own words:

China’s leaders have a major problem. They have accumulated an enormous quantity of US assets as a result of their efforts to manage China’s exchange rate But they don’t have a mandate to lose money investing the public’s money abroad. China’s losses have generated a public outcry. However, avoiding credit losses means piling into Treasuries and — well — that has risks of its own.

I don't think people realize how delicate political institutions around the world are right now -- especially China. With exports expected to drop off 19 percent and with a GDP growth rate of only 5-6 percent in 2009 (8 percent considered necessary to avoid social unrest), the Chinese people will not be in a forgiving mode as the country loses millions of jobs. As such, the situation in China could deteriote to the point:

1. The current Chinese government resorts to nationalism to stabilize their political power... threatening ties to the United States and Japan;
2. Civil unrest throughout China provokes a massive backlash by the government that has the whole world in an uproar over human rights abuses (think Tieneman, whose 20 year anniversary is this summer, ... yet potentially 25 times bigger; or even
3. A coup within China replaces the current leadership with a nationalistic military regime.

Alright, now this is all very pessimistic. The point is that we must work with the current Chinese leadership to try and stabilize the situation in China as much as possible. Stop the economic populist attacks in China -- your only going to get a response back from China that makes the situation worse!

While I firmly believe China must eventually open up its political system and become a democracy, now is not the time for us to be pushing this agenda. The alternative to the current Chinese leadership is not a constitutional democracy, it is something far nastier that would not only harm the people of China -- it would damage our national security interests and the future growth of the global economy.

On the Unipolar Moment...

I just listened to a fantastic podcast reading of a Richard Haass article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs entitled "The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance."

Highlights, or rather comments/observations I particularly found of interest:

• Realist theory would predict an era of unipolarity would be followed by a multi-polar world. Haass makes a persuasive case we are headed towards an era of nonpolarity, or "a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power."
• Potential competing global powers are too entrenched in the movement of technology, energy, goods, etc. to consider removing themselves from this structure -- their own political stability depends on access to this system.
• Nonpolarity will increase the potential military/terrorist threats to the U.S. A global system with multiple powers (state and nonstate) is more difficult to defend against than a single enemy (Cold War).
• Nonpolarity makes diplomacy significantly harder. Getting a broad base of stakeholders to agree on anything will be increasingly difficult.
  

Haass is totally on point to state free trade of goods and investment amongst countries must be expanded. My final thoughts:

• The fact that we are leaving a unipolar world to an era where the U.S. has less power to shape the world in the image we see fit only gives greater impetimus on the importance of increasing the free trade of goods and investment.
• As much as some regimes, such as China, are not exempliary actors for the world or their own people, it is essential that we enhance global free trade of goods and investment to ensure the current system continues to be stable. I would hate to find out what would happen if Communist Party of China (CPC) where to disintegrate, much less the governments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others.
  
• I agree with Haass that our military budget probably should be increased, yet I would go further than Haass on the military expansion concept. The wars of the future are going to be different than the wars of the past. Iraq and Afghanistan clearly have shown that. Honestly -- and granted I have no military experience or expertise -- we should explore radically increasing the number of marines and eliminating the army completely. Are we really going to ever fight a broad based land war again? Probably not. Instead of the army we need to develop a core of nationbuilders (funny how Bush was disgusted with the thought of nationbuilding as a candidate in 2000 and it has since defined his Presidency). Details and role of engagement would have to be hamered out, yet the concept should be explored.