Home
 

Trading Places

By Howie Rich

For years, the Communist Chinese have been the butt of American jokes for their Maoist principles and centralized government planning.

They've also received scathing international criticism for their at times brutal suppression of human rights – and deservedly so.

But in the years since Tiananmen Square, China has moved steadily towards a market-based economic system while America has racked up increasingly large deficits for centralized, socialist spending – with a growing percentage of our accumulating public debt held by Chinese creditors.

Also, China has taken steps to improve its human rights record in recent years, while American liberties have gradually eroded under the weight of an ever-expanding federal government.

Clearly repression and communism are still the laws of the land in China, but it is worth noting how one nation waxes and the other wanes – particularly when crisis comes.

Just look at the divergent approaches taken by the American and Chinese governments with respect to their economic “stimulus” plans.

Like our country, China is operating under the flawed assumption that investing in additional government will somehow bring about economic revival.

But, there are critical differences in these two superpowers' positioning and plans which could make the economic downturn much easier for China to manage.

Supporters of the “American approach” like point to the fact that China is ballooning its deficit from 0.4 percent to 3 percent of its national income to pay for its plan – but that argument ignores the fact that America's deficit currently stands at 12 percent of its national income.

We also have an $11 trillion (and climbing) national debt – of which China was holding $681 billion prior to the most recent U.S. bailout.

China, meanwhile, entered 2009 with nearly $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves.

There are also huge differences in the “meat” of the two plans.

In China, the majority of the stimulus package was actually devoted to bricks and mortar. Huge chunks were also devoted to business tax breaks, and a full quarter of the package was devoted to rebuilding an area of the country devastated by the Sichuan earthquake last May.

Has it worked? Few trust China's optimistic estimates of 8 percent growth in 2009, but the country's lending, spending and consumer confidence has largely stabilized.

By contrast, America has poured billions of dollars into the same failed financial institutions and government bureaucracies that conspired to create its current crisis – not surprisingly, to no avail.

The first bailout failed miserably to stimulate lending or lift the Dow Jones out of its doldrums, while the second bailout resulted in another massive selloff on Wall Street over fears that it “didn't do enough to stimulate the economy.”

Talk about the understatement of the millennium.

While China at least pursued its flawed interventionist philosophy (it's still a communist country, remember) with a modicum of common sense, America has plunged herself deeper into big government insanity.

For example, billions of dollars intended for small businesses were stripped from the final version of the “stimulus” package, which ended up as a liberal special interest goodie bag routed through the same old inefficient, unaccountable agencies.

Also, China pumped in its “stimulus” money immediately where it would have the maximum effect, whereas the U.S. approach is to engage in a protracted, multi-year federal spend fest on government programs with no immediate economic benefit.

In fact, the Treasury agency charged with picking winners and losers in our marketplace (where was that in the Constitution?) recently acquired four floors of DC office space by agreeing to a ten year lease – a sign they plan on sticking around for awhile.

Thinking that government can rescue a national economy under any circumstances is wrong-headed, but the clear differences in China's reaction to this crisis and America's are telling indicators of the direction each country is moving.

And sadly, America doesn't seem likely to reverse course anytime soon.

The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

North American Parliament?


For the past 6 years, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) has hosted a mock North American Parliament, or Triumvirate, in which college students are encouraged to “simulate a parliamentary meeting between North American political actors.” While the concept of hosting a conference for a fictional legislature may seem innocuous in and of itself, the intentions of the decidedly globalist sponsors are far less than subtle.

On its website, NAFI explicitly states:

“On a general basis, the objectives of NAFI are:
  • “Making the academic world, the public and decision-makers aware of the challenges posed by integration between the three NAFTA countries;
  • “Identifying the elements of the North American agenda which would allow the consolidation and reinforcement of the North American region;
  • “Favouring the creation of North American networks to set the basis for a trilateral dialogue.”

Additionally, a number of the leaders heavily involved in the mock parliament project have made surprisingly revealing remarks radically supportive of integrating the US, Canada, and Mexico. So much for national sovereignty.

As can be seen, the inherent problem with this “Triumvarate” is that it openly encourages the support of collectivism among the youth. Clearly, the intention is to convince the youthful leaders to support consolidation—be it on the issues of health care, education, or other social services—and then take the message home to their peers.

Should the Triumverate succeed in its goal, the already thin line of sovereignty will have been breached. And, American taxpayers will have even less control over how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent, or even whether or not their values are upheld, once the goal of “harmonizing” the three countries into one collectivistic, “mutually-beneficial” utopia is realized.

Sadly, this is not the only case of globalization indoctrination slipping into the “education” realm. In 2006, Harvard Law School announced that it would be requiring first-year students to take courses in international law. The law school stated:

From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe - global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems.

The most disturbing aspect of this development is the fact that courts could cite international law – as the Supreme Court now has on more than one occasion – instead of strictly relying on US constitutional law as a framework for legal decisions. The citizens could essentially lose all governmental power, as the non-elected courts turn into one-world tribunals, picking and choosing which sections of broad, socialist international law to apply as they strike down the laws passed in the elected legislatures in the United States. At that point, all traces of US sovereignty will have evaporated.

The slow academic push for globalization appears to already be making inroads, as shown by a 2004 poll in which 68% of Americans stated that globalization – resulting in “new ideas” and “positive influences” – has had a constructive impact upon the country.

And, if that and the Triumverate’s indoctrination continues, we can all look forward to being mindless automations barely subsisting in the United States of Canico.

ALG Perspective: A pipeline rupture is much easier to spot than a steady drip. But left over the long haul, the drip can be just as damaging.

The slow advance of collectivism should raise concerns among patriotic citizens, as those who spend our money will become one more level removed from us, the American taxpayer. Grassroots change in government will become much more difficult to implement, while government regulation will become much easier to generate. With courts relying on international law when handing down decisions, elected officials themselves will have far less power than before, as will the citizens who elected them.

If our nation loses its sovereignty, it will not be because of black helicopters and secret conspiracies; it will happen right in front of us, in our college campuses, and community centers.
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT