The Mouse on "Conservatism" (Part II)
But then, modern conservatives are not in the truest sense seeking to implement Hayek’s ideas. Having confused “economic activity” with any act of a central government, they find themselves enrolled in what appears to be a suicide club. They object to, and actively seek to defeat, measures designed to promote human health (Medicare), safety (the Pure Food and Drug Act), the health of the planet (the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts), and similar devices that are “economic” primarily because they have to be paid for.
But as I have said – and my tongue was no deeper in my cheek then as now – no one should blame these suicidal people (or any others) for seeking what they regard as their own best interest. That their measures may harm other people (and themselves) should be of no concern to us, since we all tend to do similar things, sometimes with equally suicidal results. But even as we ironically approve their destructive behavior, we should still hold them pejoratively accountable. They have, with increasing frequency, covertly used the power of government and abused the rule of law to satisfy their personal ambitions.
By way of setting up a contrast, consider that when the representatives of elderly people without health insurance sought to have the government institute a program to assist them, no one could (or should) have been in doubt about the objectives and main beneficiaries of the program. The way they went about seeking government assistance was open and above board. If there were cost problems with what they were asking – and by now it should be obvious that there were – the debate could have been (and was to a great degree) centered upon those problems.
But when corporate America, facing difficulties of its own, sought government’s assistance – by way of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – the debate was almost entirely deceptive. NAFTA’s sponsors claimed that the act would benefit American workers by creating more new jobs. They did not make it clear that those jobs would materialize only after the living standard of the Mexican people was raised to a level where they could afford American products. But the deception went deeper than a mere error of omission. To suggest that American jobs would be gained as a result of NAFTA was a lie, since even if the Mexican living standard were raised (in four decades or so) most of the market thus created would be satisfied by foreign and Mexican competitors of American companies. In the four-decades of the meanwhile, Americans would lose their jobs, and probably lose them permanently to cheaper labor.
In the famous NAFTA television debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot, when Perot suggested that the job losses in America would create a “giant sucking sound,” Gore’s response was (1) to repeat the lie (that jobs would be gained) and (2) to engage in a character assassination of Mr. Perot. I do not recall that Gore or any other of NAFTA’s proponents acknowledged the time frame in which the putative Mexican market would materialize, and they certainly never admitted the probability that, in the long run, foreign workers would benefit more than American workers from the improved Mexican economy.But then, none of that really mattered. The true objective of NAFTA (and now the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA) had nothing to do with long term benefits for American workers or anyone else’s workers. NAFTA (and CAFTA even more so) provides American corporations a way around the environmental and fair labor laws they must obey if they do business in America. The international corporations could foresee that those laws were not going to go away, so they engineered a side-step around them. The cheap labor of the Mexican and Central American nations – to which health insurance and other benefits do not have to be paid – could more easily be exploited than the more informed and more strongly supported American workforce. I cannot offer an estimate of the damage that will be done to the world’s atmosphere and water supplies by the actions of the NAFTA/CAFTA beneficiaries; that’s for water and air quality experts to assess. I can say that the ethical considerations involved in deceiving the American public are evidence enough to conclude that Smith’s invisible hand is sometimes attached to the arms of self-serving prestidigitators. If the impetus behind NAFTA/CAFTA were actually the promotion of free market theory, why not concentrate on opening up the markets between us and places like Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and Italy, instead of only those places where cheap labor and weak environmental laws exist? And why load NAFTA/CAFTA with caveats protecting those aspects of the American economy where the Mexicans and Central Americans can already compete, like in the sugar market?
[To be continued]
But as I have said – and my tongue was no deeper in my cheek then as now – no one should blame these suicidal people (or any others) for seeking what they regard as their own best interest. That their measures may harm other people (and themselves) should be of no concern to us, since we all tend to do similar things, sometimes with equally suicidal results. But even as we ironically approve their destructive behavior, we should still hold them pejoratively accountable. They have, with increasing frequency, covertly used the power of government and abused the rule of law to satisfy their personal ambitions.
By way of setting up a contrast, consider that when the representatives of elderly people without health insurance sought to have the government institute a program to assist them, no one could (or should) have been in doubt about the objectives and main beneficiaries of the program. The way they went about seeking government assistance was open and above board. If there were cost problems with what they were asking – and by now it should be obvious that there were – the debate could have been (and was to a great degree) centered upon those problems.
But when corporate America, facing difficulties of its own, sought government’s assistance – by way of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – the debate was almost entirely deceptive. NAFTA’s sponsors claimed that the act would benefit American workers by creating more new jobs. They did not make it clear that those jobs would materialize only after the living standard of the Mexican people was raised to a level where they could afford American products. But the deception went deeper than a mere error of omission. To suggest that American jobs would be gained as a result of NAFTA was a lie, since even if the Mexican living standard were raised (in four decades or so) most of the market thus created would be satisfied by foreign and Mexican competitors of American companies. In the four-decades of the meanwhile, Americans would lose their jobs, and probably lose them permanently to cheaper labor.
In the famous NAFTA television debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot, when Perot suggested that the job losses in America would create a “giant sucking sound,” Gore’s response was (1) to repeat the lie (that jobs would be gained) and (2) to engage in a character assassination of Mr. Perot. I do not recall that Gore or any other of NAFTA’s proponents acknowledged the time frame in which the putative Mexican market would materialize, and they certainly never admitted the probability that, in the long run, foreign workers would benefit more than American workers from the improved Mexican economy.But then, none of that really mattered. The true objective of NAFTA (and now the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA) had nothing to do with long term benefits for American workers or anyone else’s workers. NAFTA (and CAFTA even more so) provides American corporations a way around the environmental and fair labor laws they must obey if they do business in America. The international corporations could foresee that those laws were not going to go away, so they engineered a side-step around them. The cheap labor of the Mexican and Central American nations – to which health insurance and other benefits do not have to be paid – could more easily be exploited than the more informed and more strongly supported American workforce. I cannot offer an estimate of the damage that will be done to the world’s atmosphere and water supplies by the actions of the NAFTA/CAFTA beneficiaries; that’s for water and air quality experts to assess. I can say that the ethical considerations involved in deceiving the American public are evidence enough to conclude that Smith’s invisible hand is sometimes attached to the arms of self-serving prestidigitators. If the impetus behind NAFTA/CAFTA were actually the promotion of free market theory, why not concentrate on opening up the markets between us and places like Great Britain, Germany, Japan, and Italy, instead of only those places where cheap labor and weak environmental laws exist? And why load NAFTA/CAFTA with caveats protecting those aspects of the American economy where the Mexicans and Central Americans can already compete, like in the sugar market?
[To be continued]
posted by Benedict S. at 2:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home