Oops. Turns out you can't find the free market on a map or in a phone book. Nobody established it or paced off its borders. It isn't a thing at all. The free market is just a phrase describing the way people interact with each other when exchanging goods and services. That is until the government gets in the way.
Whenever government "regulates" our interactions, we lose a little more freedom. And crucially, we lose a little more of the clarity we need to make good decisions about buying and selling. Alas, nothing on earth comes as close to a perpetual motion machine as an American legislator. Her output is so vast that printed Code of Federal Regulations is now the equivalent of 51 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica: over 2 million pages long. And it doesn't even include decisions and policies of any of the various Federal Agencies like, say, the Internal Revenue Service or the Treasury Department.
Ever watch Barney Frank run a hearing on banking and mortgage lending? He throws around initials like OCC, OFHEO, OTS, FHA, FASB, FDIC, FFIEC, SEC and even some famous names like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are all agencies charged in some way with "regulating" the exchange of money for houses.
So how, with nearly a dozen agencies and both houses of congress watch-dogging the housing and mortgage industry, did the housing debacle happen right under our noses? "Lack of regulation" is the answer from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd—and stated with a straight face (pun intended). Please.
I worked a couple of years at a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company, where I was paid very well to create page upon page of "compliance documentation" to satisfy the FDA and the DEA. The amount of regulation needed just to run a drug warehouse is truly mind-boggling.
I am not an anti-government hyper-libertarian. I believe in law enforcement—particularly in the areas of fraud, theft and breach of contract. But I am really tired of self-serving Big Government legislators telling me we need another batch of alphabet-soup agencies to sit on their thumbs until it's time to point their fingers at somebody else for screwing up yet again.
Whatever we have operating in the USA these days, it can hardly be called a free market.
Whenever government "regulates" our interactions, we lose a little more freedom. And crucially, we lose a little more of the clarity we need to make good decisions about buying and selling. Alas, nothing on earth comes as close to a perpetual motion machine as an American legislator. Her output is so vast that printed Code of Federal Regulations is now the equivalent of 51 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica: over 2 million pages long. And it doesn't even include decisions and policies of any of the various Federal Agencies like, say, the Internal Revenue Service or the Treasury Department.
Ever watch Barney Frank run a hearing on banking and mortgage lending? He throws around initials like OCC, OFHEO, OTS, FHA, FASB, FDIC, FFIEC, SEC and even some famous names like the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are all agencies charged in some way with "regulating" the exchange of money for houses.
So how, with nearly a dozen agencies and both houses of congress watch-dogging the housing and mortgage industry, did the housing debacle happen right under our noses? "Lack of regulation" is the answer from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd—and stated with a straight face (pun intended). Please.
I worked a couple of years at a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company, where I was paid very well to create page upon page of "compliance documentation" to satisfy the FDA and the DEA. The amount of regulation needed just to run a drug warehouse is truly mind-boggling.
I am not an anti-government hyper-libertarian. I believe in law enforcement—particularly in the areas of fraud, theft and breach of contract. But I am really tired of self-serving Big Government legislators telling me we need another batch of alphabet-soup agencies to sit on their thumbs until it's time to point their fingers at somebody else for screwing up yet again.
Whatever we have operating in the USA these days, it can hardly be called a free market.
I'm curious whether you see a correlation between a society's support of freedom of speech and its support of the free market?
ReplyDeleteYeah Merlin, I do see a connection. Only I wouldn't say the attack on freedom of speech is coming from "society", but from the Big Government elites and their cronies. In America right now the attack is being led by the Federal Communications Commission and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
ReplyDeleteOf course the American Civil Liberties Union—an Orwellian name if ever there was one—has long sought to eliminate Christianity from the public square and is a constant threat to citizens free expression in public.
And, as always, this stuff is coming from the left, who now like to call themselves "Progressives" after Woodrow Wilson. It was he who deemed our founding documents "obsolete".
It’s nothing new to “these days.” We've never had a free market. Nevertheless, we have a stunning amount of freedom. It’s a great time to be alive.
ReplyDeleteYeah Jeff, it's true that a totally "free" market has been a historical rarity. And this is a terrific time to be alive in America...for learning and comfort and safety. I'm grateful for the blessings of liberty.
ReplyDeleteBut there's not doubt about the rise of the bureaucratic state and that its arrival is at odds with many American's conception of liberty. We conservatives don't like the drift toward ever-larger government and an ever-shrinking vision of American exceptionalism.
I love these blogs because you’re a smart guy, but we're racing today to avoid having to work tomorrow, so I’ll ask one fast question and come back to the rest later: don’t most countries think they are exceptional? Most Canadians I’ve met think they live in the greatest country in the world, Brits the same, Germans ditto, Swedes for sure, and don’t get me started on Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, Switzerland, Denmark and Australia. Doesn’t everyone no matter where they live believe the children are all above average?
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly I’m probably walking up in the middle of a conversation here. I got a new car a week ago or so and when I turned in my old one, found I’d used exactly three of the fifty possible presets on my radio: CNBC, Bloomberg and a local sports talk radio channel. It’s just easier to read than listen or watch because of the stop-start nature of my work. So I get six daily newspapers, a dozen magazines, at least a book a week, and subscribe to a dozen blogs on my Kindle and that’s in addition to the random reading I do on my iPad.
So fill me in here. Isn’t there a mother in Yemen telling her child right now to be thankful he was born in a Muslim country and, “Eat your peas, there are children in Kyrgyzstan who have no peas?”
Yes, almost everybody loves their home and native land (if you're Canadian, you'll recognize that I've just quoted from "O Canada"). No place else is the land of my nativity...so a special attachment to one's birth-country is natural and admirable.
ReplyDeleteBut Kyrgyzstan, Yemen, Somalia, Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Belize, Croatia, Vietnam and a couple dozen other nations like them have not made much, if any, contributions to human achievement in medicine or science or commerce or politics. Many in this category are failed states where I dare say mothers aspire to get their children out to a better place.
Canada and Australia are wonderfully unique, relatively new nations that have made notable contributions to humanity. But they are not in the ranks of major, leading nations.
Great Britain, Spain and Germany are middle-aged nations that have made even more significant impacts for the good of the world (although Germany's balance sheet took a hit in the 20th century). Russia is a significant nation that has largely been a blot on the timeline of history.
Egypt and Greece are ancient nations that each made outsized contributions in their day. Rome would also fit into that category had it survived.
Ancient Israel towers above just about every other nation in the development of law and learning, having given the planet a moral code second to none.
But no other country on earth has made as great a contribution to the betterment of humanity as the United States of America. There is hardly a category of endeavor that this young nation of immigrants has not enhanced beyond the combined efforts of all other nations. Certainly in science and industry, in military and medical fields, as well as the arts and education.
America alone has achieved more wealth more quickly for more people through its uniquely structured political system than the next ten countries combined. It showed the world that hereditary or class-based power structures are a heavy burden holding their people down. It showed the world that, if left to their own devices and allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor, ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.
Like Israel before it, this country has truly been a light to the nations. The land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, schooled by Moses the lawgiver, was the first beacon of hope. The founders of this country were "common" men, but gave explicit and foundational homage to the Christian God. They had keen Biblically-based insights into the nature of man and the errors of previous political systems.
Today, America alone holds the undisputed distinction as the last, best hope for freedom. I pray it will not succumb to the impulse to give up that leadership role.
I’m not Canadian, but apparently have been to enough hockey games to recognize the line.
ReplyDeleteWhen measuring the past progress of a nation, I’d find it impossible to weigh the relative contribution of, say, algebra (Iraq) and penicillin (possibly Costa Rica). Or pasta (China) and railroads (England). Or Democracy (Greece) and capitalism (Europe). We’re definitely standing on some very big shoulders and we’d be silly to discount their value.
If the rules you create for measuring current progress must include advantages of size, you have basically the US, Russia and China as your competition. You need a huge land mass and a large population all speaking the same language and using a single currency to even be in the game. Favorable climate and a lot of useful natural resources are undeniably a boon. It wouldn’t matter how brilliant and wonderful the people were you populated Antarctica with, they would have a tough go. We, on the other hand, took a fabulous piece of real estate from the Indians (who took it from the buffalo, who took it from the grasses in the meadows), and built on it with the help of slaves (well, *we* didn’t; you and I and our ancestors weren’t here yet). So important is the land you reside on in fact, that Russia might even be knocked out of the final three before you factor in the enormous drag of communism and tolerated rampant corruption. But say they aren’t, two of the final three clearly took economic wrong turns in the last century plus. That might make us proud of how we played our hand, but to be sure, we weren't all dealt the same hands.
It might be more intelligent for us to look at innovations per person, or wealth created per square mile, so we can widen our pool of entrants. Not doing that is sort of like Australia defining the rules as “Whoever has the most kangaroos.” Even if we go to a per-capita or per-square-mile model, we got a big lead by simply not having been blown to bits during WII, and the immigration of many scientists from Germany et al during that time certainly gave us a nice boost as well. Maybe we've done the most with what we had, or maybe we just had the most.
In any case, with or without the US as a leader, freedom has a bright future. The trajectory of the world over the last few centuries is to become more, not less, free. It seems, however, if the US is to continue as a leader in the free world, we are, like any leader, smarter to listen and learn from every source possible, than to dictate. To build consensus rather than to demand. After all in a nuclear world, might has a definite ceiling. The days of insisting your might rather than your intelligence entitled you to lead the world are over.
I do agree that capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other economic system invented to date, that dynastic wealth is an enormous drag on a society, and that if you were born in America, you certainly drew one of the long straws in life. Within the US though, there are still those who drew short straws. Plenty here were born into poverty, sickness or an undesirable genetic makeup. Some of us had parents who insisted we study in school and paid our way through college and some of us only got to visit our biological parents in prison. We have a wide range of IQ’s and a diverse set of gifts that may or may not include entrepreneurial or other fiscal skills. “All men are created equal” only refers to our rights; it doesn’t mean we all stood at the same line when the starter’s pistol was fired. Far from it.
Come to think of it, I might even be inclined to measure the progress of a nation by how its least have fared, the amount of suffering eradicated. Among rich countries, our Gini coefficient unquestionably has room for improvement.
Thanks Jeff. No doubt America's founding benefitted from all the best of what went before. We came late in time, but our founders were wise enough and humble enough to appropriate the best and reject the worst. Most interesting to me is their contempt for "democracy"—based on the horror they were witnessing in the French Revolution.
ReplyDeleteI do not contend that Americans are better people, more wise or virtuous, only that our political structure—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—is the best yet designed for maximizing freedom and unleashing the power of the people.
You're right that there are many different parameters we could use to evaluate nations. I'm not a fan of the Gini Coefficient because its current use is to stir up envy. I don't see how Rich Peter's success in any way harms Poor Paul (assuming Peter's not a thief). There really is such a thing as a "rising tide"...and no nation on earth offers a more level playing field for Poor Paul to become Rich Paul. Heck, Rich Peter would probably love to invest in Poor Paul's business plan if it has prospects for success.
Most nations haven't gone out shopping for their land—although America and Israel came close. The parallel between Abraham's search ("Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee...") and the American Founders' quest is quite striking—particularly when you consider the religious freedom motivating the latter. None of the established nations you mention got their land or maintained their borders without war and seizure...it's how nations are still formed today.
You are, of course, correct that a nation's treatment of widows and orphans is a good barometer of its decency. My contention is that this responsibility is best handled within families and local communities—including churches. And my experience is that responsible families DO take care of our widows and orphans...and, to an extent, our "poor". When families and communities break down, that support structure goes away...and those pathologies cry out for resolution. I don't think LBJ's prescriptions offer hope.
So the USA would be smarter to listen and learn. From whom? What do you think we need to learn exactly? Who is out there showing a better way to do what needs to be done in the world? Not sure Obama's Apology Tour did much more for the world than to give tyrants and Islamists a big laugh.
I'm afraid I disagree that "with or without the US as a leader, freedom has a bright future." I look at the current crop of nations and say freedom can ONLY flourish with American leadership. If not for America standing up to, say, Iranian nuclear amibitions...who else would? Not Europe. Maybe Israel, who can only succeed with our support. If not for America modeling free trade and exporting technology and educating foreigners at our universities and promoting intellectual property rights and resisting Islamism...who else is "arrogant enough" to take on that mantle? Until I see another nation with the standing, influence and strength to drag the world away from fear and self-indulgence, I will contend that America alone must lead the world toward freedom.
Anyway, I gotta stop--need to go watch "True Grit" with my son-in-law! Merry Christmas my dear friend.
Merry Christmas to you and your wonderful family. Have a great time at True Grit. I’ve heard it’s terrific. I’m racing around a bit too, so I’ll save my thoughts and inquiries for you on the above and leave you with this one question: what gives a nation with a nuclear weapon the right to tell another nation that it is not allowed to possess one?
ReplyDeleteJeff:
ReplyDelete"True Grit" is the best Coen Brothers movie since "Fargo". I knew I was in good hands when a plaintive piano arrangement of "Leaning On The Everlasting Arms" began under the opening monologue. Jeff Bridges is brilliant, Matt Damon is excellent and Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation. Of course, as with any Coen Brothers movie, the writing and the direction are peerless. The climactic montage, which I will only refer to as Rooster's Run, is as moving as anything I've watched onscreen since "Reds".
On to your nuke question. I infer from your phrasing a presumption of moral equivalence between America and Iran, assuming you're not talking about Israel's stance. Or India's. I'll just say that we are the good guys and Iran's Mullahs are the bad guys. Period.
Secondly, the concept of avoiding Nuke-Yer Proliferation was Jimmy Carter's greatest concern, and one I share. Nobody thinks it's a good idea to "spread the nukes around".
Number three, America is but one of many nations opposed to Iran possessing nukes. I can't think of a single nation that has gone on the record as being in FAVOR of the Mullah's having nukes.
Fourth: when a nation DOES get nukes, their leverage goes waay up and the options for dealing with them go waay down. When a rogue regime as inscrutable as Iran gets nukes, things will quickly veer toward the apocalyptic.
Fifth is that America is the world's policeman. Obama admits it, lamenting that is it true "for better or for worse". This statement alone should disqualify him from serving as Commander in Chief of the world's sole super-power. But leaving that aside, America has earned the right to be The Cop thru sacrifice of blood and treasure for the benefit of others and thru her example of not seeking empire. (Exhibit A = South Korea.) The Cop role is not about being popular—Canada is probably better-liked around the world than America—it's about keeping order and ensuring safety. It is a duty this nation has shouldered with noble intent and, generally, to salutary effect for other nations.
Let’s say I have an air raid siren on my front lawn. Can I tell my neighbors they can’t have an air raid siren on their front lawn? How exactly do I say, “I can have a nuke but you can’t,” without coming off as a hypocrite? Can we tell Canada they can’t have a nuke? “We’re going to keep ours, of course, but you can’t have one.”
ReplyDeleteSir Jeff:
ReplyDeleteAir raid sirens aren't weapons. And Iran isn't a "law abiding citizen" as imagined in your good neighbor scenario.
Surely you acknowledge that nukes aren't like any other weapon. They are like a genie out of a bottle—once out, you can't get 'em back in. You have to fight to contain the damage they do and you sure as heck wanna put a lid on that bottle.
And yes... "We have to keep ours for deterrence and defense. But YOU can't have any and we'll do everything we can—in cooperation with all other civilized nations—to stop you from getting them. If you say that's hypocritical, we say you don't understand. But nonetheless, we'd rather you hate us than that you possess nukes."
BTW, Canada has signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and repudiated nuclear weapons.
If you don't think the world needs a cop, then my arguments will not carry any weight at all. If you do think a cop is needed, but it shouldn't be America, then we can discuss who else should be that cop.
I'm gonna hit the hay soon—up early tomorrow morning. Hope you have a warm and wonderful Christmas with loved ones!
On January 29, 2002, George Bush in his State of the Union address spoke of three governments he called the "axis of evil," Iraq, Iran and North Korea. He claimed they were all actively developing nuclear weapons and we know how right he turned out to be about Iraq. Nevertheless, we proceeded to smash Iraq to bits, pulled its President from a hole in the earth and handed him over to a US-created Iraqi “interim” government to be spat at and hung for all the world to see.
ReplyDeleteAre we surprise that the two countries working night and day to get nuclear-weapons capability right now are Iran and North Korea? It’s their only rational course of action. Were I them, I’d be throwing every resource I had at it too. Here’s where it gets exciting: you and I are both aware that when it comes to technological breakthroughs, knowing something *can* be done is eighty-percent of getting it done. It might slow me down that I don’t have your schematics, but if I know you were able to do it, I know not to give up until I solve the puzzle too. And unlike other explosives material that is weighed in tons and pounds, weapons-grade uranium for nuclear warheads is measured in ounces. Is anyone actually thinking it’s possible to track all of any material measured in ounces as it makes its way around the globe? You know what else is fun about technology as it moves through time? It gets smaller, cheaper and more capable.
Never in my scenario did I say my neighbor was a “law-abiding citizen” and I never said air-raid sirens were weapons. They are merely pieces of technology and, yes, of course nuclear weapons are unlike any other weapons. On January 29, 2002, we ripped the lids off of the genie bottles in Iran and North Korea, strapped those bottles upside down to a paint mixer and flipped it on high.
You honestly “can't think of a single nation that has gone on the record as being in FAVOR of the Mullah's having nukes?” I can. Iran. Knowledge spreads; I’ve never seen or read about it receding. It seems highly improbable that there is an Iran and North Korea that don’t have nukes in the future. Possibly as soon as the next decade. They’re the ones you’re going to have to listen to and find a way to reason with.
So good luck with your argument that the US should have nukes because, “we have to keep ours for deterrence and defense. But YOU can't have any.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m having trouble imagining they’re seeing it that way. I’m also not quite getting that they’re gonna care one iota who’s “earned the right to be” the world’s police or what those police think their contribution to the world’s progress has been. A cop is needed? Seriously? You’re a couple of clock ticks away from needing a negotiator. It’s possible you’re not even any clock ticks away right now.
God help us if our persuasion and reasoning doesn’t quickly get better than, “We are the good guys and Iran's Mullahs are the bad guys. Period.”
Merry Christmas.
Amen to that: God help us indeed.
ReplyDelete