The good people at Dow Jones’s Marketwatch recently read a blog of mine, and asked me to turn it into a article for them, which you can read here. Apparently, according to the comments, I’m both a communist and a tool of international bankers, which is nice. I’m just a bringer of people together. Enjoy.
It is fair to say that we live in a time of great economic turmoil and dissatisfaction, with many of the old accepted truths under question. At the heart of that debate must be the question of the current economic system of the west, and there are many on the left saying this too. However, they tend to propose solutions which have either been tried and failed, or indeed fail to take account of core factors in the human condition.
But supposing we were to seek a new economic model. What would be the principles at its core?
1. It is not unreasonable to state that at this stage of human development in the west we can eliminate poverty in a defined sense. We have the wealth to ensure a basic level of income, housing, healthcare and education for all of our people. No one need go hungry nor sleep rough if we as a society decided, assuming that we define poverty in a real material sense, as opposed to the theoretical gap between rich and poor.
2. That must be seperated, however, from our consumerist wants, something we would have great difficulty in accepting. We could fund a right to healthcare, but not the right to an iPad, and spending more money on poverty reduction means less money for disposable consumerism.
3. We must also accept that capitalism, for all its flaws, has still proven to be the most effective way of encouraging innovation and wealth creation. It is no accident that very few of the products produced by genuinely communist countries (China is not one) have survived communism, although I do hear that a stripped out Trabant makes a fine micro-glass house for an allotment.
4. If we are to fund a poverty free society, we must recognise that wealth production requires that the overwhelming majority of the adult populace must contribute. We also have to accept that the idea of people ceasing to be productive potentially from age 50-55 is an arbitrary concept founded on a retirement date decided in the age of Bismarck. It is simply not viable in an age where medical advances (another product of capitalist innovation) makes the idea of living to 100 no longer an outlandish concept. A society cannot have a large proportion of its population expecting to spend nearly half their adult lives being funded by the labours of others whilst they can still contribute to wealth creation. Retirement has to be more fluid and has to take account of increases in life expectancy and the quality of life of older people.
5. If capitalism is to survive, however, it must be with the consent of the great majority. This means that the great majority must feel that it works in the common good. This surely requires that an ordinary 40 hours a week worker has to be able to provide a reasonable life style for that effort. If this means that there must be wealth redistribution from the top, that is the price to be paid.
6. The creation of a permanent economic aristocracy of the mega wealthy is a threat to both democracy and capitalism itself, in that by sucking the finite resource of wealth away from the rest of society it calls into question the ability of capitalism to provide an acceptable living standard to the great majority, which could lead to dissatisfaction and eventual revolution.
7. This does not mean that we should follow the confiscatory policies of the hard left, because they advocate a short term solution which if followed will actually strangle the wealth creating abilities of the west. It should not be forgotten that the Iron Curtain was not built to stop westerners flooding to the communist states. The problem with the hard left is that they believe that wealth is a natural occurring phenomena, whereas capitalism believes, rightly, that wealth is created by the ingenuity of man, and requires that man be free to create and benefit from the fruits of his creation.
8. The key then, must be to balance the freedom to strive and create and benefit from that struggle with a level of regulation of permit the recycling of a proportion of that wealth back into society through redistribution. The question will be how one does that without stifling effort through punitive taxation? Estate Taxes, for example, have proven an effective means of doing so, in that they do not interfere with the wealth creation effort during the life of the creator. This does have to be balanced, on the one hand, with the maintaining of economically viable entities after their creator’s passing and also the very human desire to pass on wealth to one’s family.
9. Finally, a new ecomomic model must recognise that globalisation is a fact, and that the days of national sovreignty leading to control of the economic affairs of a state are now long passed, and that if the west wishes to protect its values, it must be willing to ensure cooperation, integration and common policy amongst its components to a scale unimagined before. It also has to be recognised that for proper free market competition to work, a strong state with an anti-monopoly/cartel regulatory function is vital.
Never mind EuroSocialists versus Capitalist Yanks, we have real problems.
There was once a time when the phrase “Far East”, referring to Asia and the Pacific Basin, made sense. After all, Europe had been the centre of the world, and so geographical locations were decided with reference to that fact. Yet today, it is Europe that is becoming a geo-political backwater. There is no question that China is the coming power, and that the United States will be seriously challenged to preserve its preeminent position as the world’s greatest power.
What is often forgotten in this scenario is that it is not just about a shift in geographical balance. It is also about the fact that the most populous nation on Earth is ruled by an ideology radically different from that upon which western values are founded upon. We in the west have become complacent about our values, believing that the post-1945 consensus of democracy and human rights and the rule of law is naturally superior and will therefore always triumph. Tell that to one billion Chinese.
The amazing thing is that the United States and Europe and our democratic allies spend so much time squabbling amongst ourselves over essentially minor differences whilst a force uncompromisingly in contrast to our way of live grows in power almost daily.
If we are not vigilant, and act upon that vigilance, we will awaken one morning to find that the centre of the world lies on the eastern coast of the Pacific, and we are living in the far west, the forgotten edge of humanity. And what will be the tool they utilise against us? Our own misguided nationalism, abandoning the multilateral ties of NATO and the EU which have bound both sides of the Atlantic together and which has kept us prosperous and free for 66 years, indeed spreading freedom throughout Europe post 1989. Old fashioned flag waving “ourselves alone” nationalism is on the march from Iowa to Dundalk to Marseilles to Vienna, the belief that retreat behind the barricades away from “them” will keep us safe.
The west does not need to retreat behind its individual borders as Sarah Palin or Marine Le Pen would have us do. Instead, we need to consider the idea of an Atlantic Union of North America and the European Union, based on free trade, shared employment rights and a common trade area, as well as a united approach to China and Russia.
Is it a radical concept? Absolutely. It’ll drive right wing Republicans and French National Fronters nuts. But let us be clear: At the moment, we are losing. It’s time to get back in the game.
There are two men who have a serious chance of being sworn in on the 20th of January 2013 as President of the United States. We cannot be sure as to which one it shall be. However, we can be sure of one thing from day one of the next presidential term, and that is that at least 40% of the American electorate will probably hate the president, deny him anything but the most perfunctory loyalty and regard him as a holder of values not just different from theirs but almost alien.
This is not good, nor is it normal. Across the western world voters are disappointed that “their” party is not elected, but even Margaret Thatcher had the respect of many voters who would not vote for her. The recent decision of Senator Olympia Snowe to not seek another term because of the poisonous atmosphere in US politics is a dire warning, as were the attacks on Jon Huntsman for serving his country as US ambassador to China. If the Democratic and Republican parties, and their respective hardcore voters now regard their political opponents as little better than an alien occupying power, then the US has to ask itself some very hard questions. Can it continue in its current format?
Or, should the United States look to the European Union model as one flexible enough to allow Americans of all persuasions and values to live peacefully? The EU is by no means perfect, and indeed needs to copy many of the US’s successes. But it also recognises within its 28 states a wide variety of different values and beliefs. Moreover, the EU, through its treaty mechanism, recognises the need to adjust its governing constitution as society changes.
Is it time for the US to follow suit? Is it time to draft a new US constitution which allows states more leeway on everything from abortion to same sex marriage to healthcare mandates, and to put such a constitution to the people? Some would say such a proposition is inherently conservative in its strict constructionism, but bear in mind that the more populous liberal states could also use such an opportunity to devolve powers on social issues to themselves, freeing themselves from over-represented low-population conservative states. They could also deal with the anomaly that so called low tax red states seem to be subsidisised by the blue states.
Would there be problems? Of course. For one, such a proposal, allowing states to anchor their social values into their own state constitutions, free from federal interference, would almost certain cause significant migration as women and gays and minorities fled certain states. For that same reason, it would probably cause considerable loss of foriegn direct investment as, say, European investors object to investing in states where gay bullying is subtly encouraged.
But so what? It would address the sore tooth at the heart of US politics, and allow for people in conservative states to share lunch counters with their own kind, whilst freeing up liberal states to make their own decisions.
In a shocking indictment of my social life, I recently came across this little nugget. Which dirty socialist country run by some filthy commie taxed its citizens at 91% of their income? The answer, if you just happened to be wondering, was the United States, under that filthy red liberal commie bastard Eisenhower. In fact, and it raises interesting questions about the whole idea that high taxes are a bad idea, the upper rate in the US did not drop below 70% until President Reagan was elected in 1981. Now, conservatives will of course whoop and holler at this, but given that the income tax rate was never below 63% from 1932 (reaching 94% during WW2) until 1981, you have to ask, was it really as detrimental as we are told? I mean, how did the US perform from 1932-1981? Well, it defeated two military superpowers, armed the free world, contained the Soviet Union, put a man on the Moon, rebuilt Europe, created Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and created a land of prosperity for its people to a level unparallelled by any people in history. Hmm.
Now, don’t worry, I’m not going all red. I have serious issues about the morality of confiscating wealth in those proportions. The other fact was that unlike any European country attempting to impose taxes at that rate, the US does not have a culture of people leaving the US to work elsewhere to pay less tax. The truth is, if you imposed taxes like that in any single EU country all you would do is clear out the business class. However, if there was an EU income tax, especially with the (in some cases) 23 different bands that existed in the US, you might have a different effect. Ironically, the sort of people in Ireland (the left) most in favour of taxing the wealthy at high rates are also the people most opposed to creating a federal Europe that could actually do it, a point that the Eurosceptic right know full well. Funnily enough, the French Socialists and the German SPD are beginning to twig it too. Imagine, for example, if you didn’t levy it at all on people creating labour intensive or export-led companies or in R&D?
A partisan but very nicely put togther 16min movie from Obama-Biden 2012, narrated by Tom Hanks. Watching it, I was struck that Fianna Fail could do something like this explaining the banking crisis, except that FF want to distance themselves from their time in government, and even if they did, would be so overly cautious that it would turn into 15 minutes of guff. FF more than any party desperately need to be deprogrammed from that weirdly old fashioned “my position is well known” media training they cling to.
The first time had been during a decade of the Rosary, as he had knelt in front of the desk, on the giant seal of the United States. It was a regular item on his daily agenda, the small card his personal aide presented him each morning with the day’s itinerary, slivers of time on his schedule to allow him to pray and find the strength from the Lord to continue his work. This was the first time God had ever spoken back.
President Santorum had jerked up when he had heard it, angry that someone had walked into the Oval Office during this private moment of prayer. He’d been very clear from day one that he was not to be disturbed unless it was absolutely vital.
But there had been no one there, and he had dismissed it as a rogue sound fragment, very unusual in the soundproofed office, but not impossible. Two days later, as he prayed, it had happened again. This time, he had heard it clearly.
If you liked The West Wing, you might like this. I must however point out that when it comes to the books of Christopher Buckley, I’m giving rigged results here as I just buy the guy’s books on spec. I read this in 1987, reread it a few times, and only discovered years later that he had actually written quite a few novels (This was in the days before Amazon.) The joy! The joy! It was like discovering a secret Beatles album.
Buckley’s a US political satirist most famous for being A) the son of US Conservative Ayatollah William F. Buckley, and B.) writing the novel Thank You For Smoking, which was made into a very enjoyable movie with the criminally underrated Aaron Eckhart.
It’s 1988, and Democratic President Elect Thomas Nelson Tucker is being sworn into office. What happens is a diary of his deputy chief of staff’s musings on the noble but chaotic Tucker Presidency, and it was, for many years, my favourite book. It’s both funny and touching, and will be really appreciated by those of us who take our politics with a bit of hope bit of hope on the side.
If you liked The West Wing, you might like this. I must however point out that when it comes to the books of Christopher Buckley, I’m giving rigged results here as I just buy the guy’s books on spec. I read this in 1987, reread it a few times, and only discovered years later that he had actually written quite a few novels (This was in the days before Amazon.) The joy! The joy! It was like discovering a secret Beatles album.
