Tag: China

Trump’s second go

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently stated that:  “I don’t think people are voting for Trump because of his family values. If you just take a step back and are honest, he’s kind of right about NATO, kind of right on immigration, he grew the economy quite well, tax reform worked. He was right about some of China….  I don’t like how Trump said things, but he wasn’t wrong about those critical issues. That’s why they’re voting for him. People should be more respectful of our fellow citizens. When you guys have people up here [on a CNBC panel] you always ask them why — not like it’s a binary thing that you’re supporting Trump or you’re not supporting him– but why are you supporting him.” “Jamie Dimon on Trump”

In addition, during Trump’s administration many excessive regulations were revoked or reduced. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos promoted school choice and restore due process to college rape cases. Andrew Wheeler, Trump’s administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reduced greenhouse gas emissions, improved water quality, and cleaned up contaminated sites while strengthening cost benefit assessments of environmental regulations. And much more.

His administration did many bad things as well.  His advisors Stephen Miller and Peter Navarro implemented protectionist, buy American trade policies that hurt our economy. His crazy withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership was an ill advised gift to China. He Imposed a travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program, separated families at the US-Mexico border and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which was designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Trump’s promise to leave Afghanistan was not kept (and was later very badly executed by President Biden). His initial love affairs with North Korea’s President Kim Jong Un and China’s Xi Jinping exploded into hostility. If reelected Trump promises revenge against his enemies. He promises to strip tens of thousands of career employees of their civil service protections in order to dismantle the “deep state.” He promises to impose tariffs on all imported good and to revoke the visas of students studying in the U.S. who are critical of the U.S. None of these is keeping with the traditions and policies that have helped make America great.

On the other hand, I hope that he would keep his promise not to send American soldiers to Taiwan should China attack it militarily, which would be insane. Whether we would get the better or worse policies under another Trump administration would also depend on the team that he would bring with him.

Trump’s small-minded pettiness, dishonesty, vindictiveness, and egotism are on daily display. He is not someone I would invite into my home. But we are right to look at the policies he pledges and is likely to pursue if elected President again in 2024. As with his previous administration, his next one, if reelected, will depend on those who join and run his administration.

My expectation is that Trump will be more careful next time to choose loyalists rather than the most capable. It is also likely that the most capable people would refuse to be part of another Trump administration. I expect the worst.

More on constructive competition

In contrasting our treatment of others as competitors or enemies in my blog on “What to do About China”  I am reminded of the 120 days I spent in Baghdad as an advisor to the Central Bank of Iraq paid for by the USAID and supervised by the US Treasury. Our occupation of Iraq included staff from the US Treasury, USAID, Commerce Dept, State Department, and, of course, the Dept. of Defense. Competition by each of them to do a better job than the others would clearly be win-win making our overall occupation more successful. But too often one agency treated the others as enemies diminishing and undermining their efforts rather than supporting them. My biggest fear with my dual association with USAID and Treasury was that each would see me as on the other side, which would have undermined my effectiveness. Luckily the each saw me as on their own side.  “Iraq-An American Tragedy-My Travels to Baghdad”

What to do about China?

“China’s much anticipated post-pandemic recovery appears to have flopped, with signs of a significant slowdown after decades of supercharged growth and data flashing warning signs.” Bloomberg “China’s failing recovery”

“Signs of deflation are becoming more prevalent across China, heaping extra pressure on Beijing to reignite growth or risk falling into an economic trap it could find hard to escape.”

What, if anything, should the U.S. response be? That depends on whether we see China as a competitor or an enemy. That should depend on our assessment of China’s objectives. Does China want to expand its territory one way or another, or to expand its influence in the global order? China’s behavior might support either assessment.

China claims sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, including the Paracel and Spratly islands, which are also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. In 1947 China asserted its claims with a map depicting a U-shaped line covering almost 70 percent of the South China Sea, known as the nine-dash line. In 2016, an Arbitration Tribunal rejected many of China’s maritime claims as lacking a basis in international law.

The UK returned Hong Kong to China July 1, 1997, with the understanding that it would be self-governed independently of the Peoples Republic of China for fifty years. China violated this agreement with its full takeover in 2020.

In 1972 President Richard Nixon confirmed that Taiwan was part of the People’s Republic of China but would continue to govern itself independently until it agreed to merge its government with the mainland’s. In the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the U.S. committed to providing defensive weapons to Taiwan to defend itself from invasion (as opposed to the volunteer absorption into the Peoples Republic envisioned in the One China Act). What we provided instead were heavy weapons irrelevant to Taiwan’s defense but prized by America’s defense industries. “Taiwan-China policy assurances military” The U.S. has more recently seemed to even question its commitment to the One China agreement.

These aggressive moves by China are better seen as solidifying its borders (much in the same way the US worries about its borders with Cuba) than military expansions. On the other hand, China joining the World Trade Organization, pressing for representation in the IMF and World Bank that is more reflective of its economic size, and its Belt and Road, Asian Infrastructure Bank and BRICS initiatives reflect China’s desire to gain status in the global system comparable to that of the U.S. In short, they reflect the behavior of a rising economic competitor.

We seem to be treating China as an enemy rather than the trade and economic competitor they see themselves as. Among sportsmen, competition takes the form of doing your best—of being the best you are capable of. Within our economy we rightly see competition as good and healthy. With fair competition, both sides benefit. The world is made wealthier. Kneecapping our competition is the approach of bad guys. I explored this more fully in my blog “Competing with China”

But China is not competing fairly either. We would be wiser to use the mechanisms of the global system of rules to push and pull them into compliance. We should end our own tariff—industrial policy violation of these rules as well. We might start by restoring the dispute resolution body of the WTO. While there will be genuine security justifications for trade restrictions, they should be very limited.  They should not include taxing steel purchased from Canada. Trade is win, win.

A recent G-7 statement clarified that: “We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.” US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stressed this message during her recent visit to China. We should facilitate and encourage China’s economic rise as it contributes to our own. The opposite direction—treating China as an enemy—ends in war.

America’s Unipolar period has corrupted us. We demand that others follow rules that we violate ourselves when we don’t find them convenient. We have become a bully. My hope is that we adjust to the fact that we are no longer the world’s sole superpower by strengthening the rules we helped develop and competing fairly under them: “Goodbye unipolar world and good riddance”

Goodbye Unipolar World, and Good Riddance

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton. The United States has accomplished a lot—a lot of it good—as the world’s indispensable nation.  But as Lord Acton said, power tends to corrupt and as the time of American dominance has gone on its diplomatic skills have eroded. It behaves more and more like a bully that expects to get its way. It is in our interest to recognize and adjust to our diminished relative power and to rebuild our diplomatic, soft power skills of persuasion. It will help us better adhere to the values and rules we preach to others but increasingly ignore ourselves.

In the July, 2023 issue of Foreign Affairs, Justin Winokur offers an excellent review of the adjustments we need to make in The Cold War Trap How the Memory of America’s Era of Dominance Stunts U.S. Foreign Policy “Cold war trap-America foreign policy”

These days our most important international challenge is our relationship with China. While each sovereign nation is entitled to its own approach to its internal governance, its interactions with the rest of the world require mutual understandings and/or agreements. Following World War II, the rules for such cross border interactions have generally been developed by international organizations to which all or most countries are members, such as the UN and its many agencies, the World Bank and regional development banks, and the IMF. To take but one example, the skies full of telecommunications satellites would not be able to serve anyone properly without the rules and spectrum allocations via the International Telecommunications Union.

It is in America’s interest, as well as the interest of most countries, to draw China more fully into the international organizations established after World War II—the Bretton Woods and UN Institutions. “Chinese competition-Asia stability-institutional balancing”  But China is increasingly going its own way and creating its own international organizations. BRICS, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Asian Development Bank, The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Why?

Why have we failed to convince China that its interests are also serviced by joining and cooperating with the liberal international order? When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization on December 11, 2001, and requested help from the IMF with how best to satisfy the WTO’s rules, the IMF sent me. The officials I met with in China told me over and over that there was no differences of opinion in China over where it wanted to go (in joining the liberal international order). The debate was only over how fast to get there. In recent years this has changed. It has changed, in my view, in part because the U.S. has abused its dominance in the world and failed to yield (balance) appropriate power to China.

As I have spent most of my professional life with the International Monetary Fund, let me illustrate these points with the determination of IMF quota’s which is meant to reflect its members voting strength and financial contribution to world trade. A member country’s quota reflects its size and position in the world economy. The basic formula, which provided the base line for quota decisions is:  Quota = (0.50*GDP + 0.30*Openness+ 0.15*Variability  +0.05*Reserves)^K.

But when the IMF was created, the US wanted to ensure that it would dominate it. It insured that some important decisions could only be taken with super majorities. A few even required an 85% majority, such as to adjust quotas, or amend the IMF’s Article of Agreement.  The U.S. was initially given a quota well above that 15% that gave it veto power over these limited policies. As the rest of the world has grown, the size of the US economy relative to the whole world’s output has fallen from 40% in 1960 to 24% in 2019. “US share of global economy over time”  China’s GDP relative to world GDP, on the other hand, rose from 4.5% in 1960 to 16.3% in 2020. Thus, a strict adherence to the IMF’s quota formula should have significantly increased China’s quota and reduced the US quota.

Quoting from Wikipedia: “China has been trying to expand its political and decision-making power within the IMF. The IMF’s voting system weights each country’s vote based on the amount of that country’s monetary contribution to the Fund. China has been trying to raise its quota. In May 1980, the Chinese government appealed to adjust its IMF quota. With approval from the IMF board, the quota of China was increased from 1.2 billion SDRs to 1.8 billion SDRs. China also obtained a single-country seat on the IMF executive board, which expanded the number of IMF directors to 22 members. As of 2017 the quota of China in the IMF was 30.5 billion SDRs, giving it 6.09% of the total vote.

“To further rebalance power in the IMF, China appealed for changes that would transfer voting power to developing economies.[5] In 2010, the Chinese executive director of the Fund, Zhou Xiaochuan, addressed the board and asserted that giving more power to the emerging economies was critical for the group’s legitimacy, accountability and long-term health.” China and the International Monetary Fund – Wikipedia

Currently the IMF quota for the US is 17.43%, remaining well above the critical 15% needed to retain its veto power, while those of other larger economies are China 6.40%, Canada 2.31%, Germany 5.59%, Japan 6.47%, and UK 4.23%. This is not in keeping with the IMF’s base line quota formula.

This exploitation of American dominance is driving China away and dividing global cooperation to the detriment of the whole world, including the U.S. The current U.S. approach to “competing” with China is not consistent with our values nor our long run interest. “Competing with China”

Our economic and political success—the beacon on the hill that has attracted the best and the brightest to our shores—is the result of our individual freedom and rule of law, not our coercive power and its bullyish use. I hope that we wake up before it is too late. “Why do we promote growth in other countries?”

The politics of Trade

The post WWII history of international trade and the World Trade Organization has been one of gradual liberalization, i.e., a gradual roll back of tariffs and other trade restrictions. Each side offering freer imports in exchange for freer exports. But the game can work in revers as well. The U.S. has restricted –actually banned—the export to China of high end semiconductors that it fears might have military uses in China. China has responded by banning the export to the U.S. of rare materials needed to produce these chips. It sounds a bit like a joke—a bad joke.

Poor Janet Yellen, who is now visiting China. The Secretary is as sharp as they come but is in the middle of this impossible game.

“U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen criticized China during a visit to Beijing for imposing export controls on critical metals, expanding subsidies for state-owned firms, and imposing punitive measures on foreign businesses. Her harsh remarks spotlight the gulf between the U.S. and China, and the difficulty of translating calls for improved ties into actual improved ties. A top Chinese official told China Daily that the curbs on metals exports were “just the beginning” of efforts to combat U.S. restrictions on China’s semiconductor sector, and warned that Beijing could yet “escalate” if Washington were to toughen its rules further, a move it is reportedly considering” Semafor Flagship July 7, 2023

But as reported by Bloomberg she had more positive things to say as well:

“Yellen Says US-China Rivalry Not ‘Winner-Take-All’ Situation (Bloomberg)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said competition between the world’s biggest economies is not a “winner-take-all” situation, and called for both sides to manage their rivalry with a fair set of rules. Yellen’s comments were delivered today during a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Qiang as she made a long-anticipated trip to Beijing, aimed at finding some common ground between the two superpowers. “We seek healthy economic competition that is not winner-take-all but that, with a fair set of rules, can benefit both countries over time,” the Treasury chief told China’s No. 2 official, adding that U.S. actions to protect national security should be “targeted.” Li also struck a note of optimism, telling Yellen he believed bilateral ties would eventually see a “rainbow,” after going through a period of “wind and rain.” He also urged Chinese entrepreneurs to brace themselves for “hardships” and “look further to the horizon.” From IMF News Report, July 7, 2023

Yes, these are from the same trip. How it turns out is anyone’s guess. But a return to freer trade is in everyone’s best interest—win win as we say. National security can be a legitimate (sensible) reason for restricting trade. But it must be very carefully applied if it is not to degenerate into counterproductive protectionism.

Independence Day

Six years ago, Ito and I celebrated the 4th of July at the American Ambassador’s residence in Rome as the guest of our friend David Zimov (Economic Councilor at the American Embassy in Rome). It was a very fun event with lots of hamburgers and hot dogs, beer, and a concert by the US Marine Band. The cost of this extravaganza to us taxpayers was truly trivial compared to the cost of one day of our many wars (or our “special military operations” as Russia likes to call its wars). And the benefit to America in the form of international good will, far exceeds any American benefit from our wars, if there is any.

Janet Yellen’s upcoming trip to China will also cost a small drop in the bucket compared to sending the Sixth Fleet with a benefit for American security and wellbeing many times greater. At the same time, the US Senate continues to stall the confirmation of nominees to critical diplomatic positions. Go figure.

We seem to favor military spending over diplomacy to the detriment of our security and to our wellbeing more generally. In testimony before the UN Security Council Max Blumenthal recently stated that “The Biden Administration knows that ‘it is escalating a proxy war against the world’s largest nuclear Power. Why are we tempting nuclear annihilation by flooding Ukraine with advanced weapons and sabotaging negotiations at every turn?’  For those US officials who personally benefit financially, ‘a negotiated settlement to this territorial dispute means an end to the cash cow of close to $150 billion in US aid to Ukraine.’”  https://expose-news.com/2023/07/03/us-officials-benefitting-from-ukraine-war/  

When I noticed that the small handheld American flags we were all given at the Embassy’s 4th of July party was made in China (they had a very conspicuous “made in China” tag on the handle) the person sitting next to us was appalled. I explained to him why he should celebrate a feature of American life that has helped make us freer and more prosperous: 1. Our tax dollars were prudently spent in buying the cheapest flags; 2. The money the government saved could be spent on other government priorities (or—God forgive—returned to us taxpayers); 3. The American workers who otherwise would have been diverted to make these flags at higher cost; would remain in their current more productive activities raising our standard of living; 4. The larger volume of world trade strengthened America’s standing in the world. Though I don’t know how the American Embassy was able to avoid the shortsighted “Buy American” requirement, I was glad that it had.

Why do we promote growth in other countries?

The world’s twenty largest economies give around $100 billion in aid to poorer countries each year, about 40% of which is to promote economic development. Promoting economic development and growth in other countries is not just charity or to buy peace. More prosperous countries, those that produce more, contribute to our own prosperity more directly as well. 

It is easiest to understand this fact if we think of growth within our own country or state or town. https://wcoats.blog/2023/01/22/trade-once-again/  When you sell something you made and/or own, you benefit from the sale or you wouldn’t have undertaken it. Similarly, the buyer benefits or it wouldn’t have made the purchase. As you have heard or read me and other economists state over and over again, trade is win-win.

But the benefits go beyond the win-win benefits of the transaction itself. Being able to buy some of what I need from others rather than having to make it myself frees up my time to specialize in producing for sale to others what I am best at. In short, and forgive me for repeating this for the umpteen time, world out increases from the specialization that trade enables. As the result of trade world GDP skyrocketed in just 50 years from $1.3 trillion in 1971 to $96.5 trillion in 2021. https://wcoats.blog/2018/03/03/econ-101-trade-in-very-simple-terms/

We benefit from the inventions of entrepreneurs anywhere in the world and should encourage such developments. Pfizer’s Covid vaccine was developing in Germany by BioNTech, with whom Pfizer partners to produce to large quantities demanded. China’s incredible growth over the last thirty years has contributed to our own growth as well. In 1991 the US exported to China $5.2 billion worth of goods, which had grown to $151.i billion in 2021. In 1991 the US imported $12.7 billion worth of goods, which had grown to $506.4 billion in 2021. Following Nixon’s famous trip to and recognition of China in 1972, I remember well a friend who asked “what would we possibly want to buy from China?” We should cheer the fact that China’s economy has grown dramatically to the benefit of us all.

In general, we should welcome and encourage the economic growth of all countries around the world. The exceptions might be for countries that threaten war on their neighbors or us. We might well block the export of our products and related technologies with clear military applications to countries that might pose a military threat. And we might be cautious not to rely on such products from such countries. While these would be sensible policies, they are also easily abused by domestic industries wanting to be protected from competition.

When I was in China in the summer of 2002 to help its compliance with the requirements of the World Trade Organization, those I met were excited about growing into the world trading system. China was a rising power, most certainly not an enemy. How did they become an enemy, if indeed they are. In a word, Taiwan. But I can see nothing China has done to violate their agree with the US about Taiwan as part of One China. If China has become an enemy—a threat to the US—we are largely responsible in my opinion by raising doubts about our commitment to the One China policy.

This is not to say that China has always behaved according to the rule. I and many others were there to help them move in the right direction. Now we have pushed them backward for no good reason. Hopefully the Biden administration is beginning to recognize this and we will return to promoting China’s growth rather than repressing it.   https://wcoats.blog/2022/10/23/competing-with-china/

Reducing CHIP Supply Risks

When semiconductors where invented in the U.S. in the late 1950 and began to replace vacuum tubes in electronic circuits, the world of electronic circuitry changed dramatically forever (from the computer I am composing this note on, to the mobile phone on which I might discuss it with you or the electronics in the car I might drive to meet you while listening to the radio these chips made possible, not to mention of submarines, planes, and satellites they empower).

American companies continue to lead the world in the design of the most sophisticate chips and semiconductor circuits. However, they have increasingly found it more economical to outsource their manufacture to facilities in foreign countries. Almost all the most sophisticated chips (still designed in the US) are now produced in Taiwan by TSMC, which produces about 56% of world output of semiconductors.  Especially given the increasing suggestion, even by the President of the United States, that the U.S. might renounce its acceptance of China’s claim to Taiwan, such reliance on TSMC for our most advanced chips is an economic and security risk we should reduce.

What is the best way to reduce the risk of our heavy dependance on Taiwan’s supply of such Chips? The rest of this note briefly compares the market approach with the government (socialist/industrial planning) approach to reducing that risk.

American and other firms concentrated the manufacturing of the chips they designed and/or needed where it was cheapest to produce (and deliver) them. Where China violated the WTO rules of fair trade via state subsidies, importing countries are allowed by WTO rules to impose tariffs at levels designed to neutralize such artificial advantages. WTO rules also allow the use of tariffs to diminish the risk to national security of dependance on foreign supplies.

The opposite approach is for a government to subsidize the otherwise uneconomical manufacture of semiconductors (or whatever) in their own country.  In the U.S., the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 appropriated $280 billion in part to subsidize factories to produce such chips in the U.S. Why was so much needed to get firms to produce chips in the U.S.? “’It’s much cheaper to build the chips and the factories in Taiwan than it is in the United States,’ former Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Semafor. ‘Similarly, the workforce quality is not as good as it is in Taiwan.’” “Chip war-US-Taiwan”

The Biden administration’s industrial policy approach suffers all the well-known disadvantages of industrial policy. First, like China’s subsidies, it violates WTO trading rules, which the U.S. seems all too willing to do when it is the violator rather than someone else. Second, it, rather than market factors, must decide who gets the subsidies (and tax breaks), either by establishing the rules for access or by outright picking winners. Governments’ records at picking winners, especially picking technologies, have historically been poor compared with the search for profit by entrepreneurs, most of whom fail and quietly fade away without further cost or waste. Third, when governments pick winners, they establish an economic incentive for corruption by those seeking to be “picked”. Governments, like everyone else, tend to bend to such temptations.

Rather than paying hundreds of billions of American taxpayer’s money for more costly Made in American products, imposing tariffs on imported chips sufficient to reflect the existing sole source risk would leave it to the market to find the best alternative and more diversified sources (India, Korea, Japan, Viet Nam, etc.). The full cost of lower living standards from industrial policies will only be felt in the longer run. “The slippery slope”

The same economic forces and arguments apply to slowing or preventing further global warming. A carbon tax reflecting the global warming externality of carbon producing activities leaves to the market the search for the best technologies for reducing carbon emissions without loss or with minimal loss of output.

The Slippery Slope

Beyond defining and protecting property rights, most governments dip into the private market for one reason or another (e.g., national defense) to some extent.  In doing so, they reward (e.g., subsidize) or penalize (e.g., tax) specific firms and/or industries. These firms have a MUCH stronger incentive to protect their interests than do the general public with regard to these activities. As a result of this asymmetry, firms spend more (fight harder) to protect their privileges than do the general public to protect a fair and competitive marketplace. As a result of these incentives, government privileges tend to grow over time and are hard to reverse. Governments keep getting bigger and bigger. Worse yet, if taxes do not match these increases in government costs, i.e., if the government borrows to finance them, these asymmetric incentives are even stronger.

These realities are now being confronted by the Republican Party as it attempts to agree on which government budget items to cut in order to reduce the fiscal deficit without raising taxes. As Steve Clemons reported in this morning’s Semafor Principles: “When Speaker Kevin McCarthy only has four votes of wiggle room in passing GOP legislation, the corn caucus can be as powerful as the Freedom Caucus. After a proposed repeal of biofuels subsidies prompted a rebellion by Midwestern lawmakers, leadership is making changes to a bill they presented as non-negotiable”

The Chips Act of 2022 provides an even costlier example that will be almost impossible to get rid of. The Act provides $52 billion in manufacturing grants and research investments and establishes a 25% investment tax credit to incentivize semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.”  It makes financially attractive what was on its own an inefficient and costlier way to acquire these produces than buying them abroad. It makes us poorer as do other “Buy American” requirements.

Especially now with a labor shortage (we should increase legal immigration), moving workers to subsidized areas means taking them away from producing what the market found more profitable. It reduces overall output and our standard of living. If we insist on producing our own tanks and airplanes for national security reasons, that is a cost we should probably bare.  But for 5G phone service, Tik Toc, steel from Canada, or whatever???? Tell your congressman to stop subsidizing these special interests. And if they are really justified by national security, pay the cost properly with tax revenue.

Who Decides?

Who decides what we eat, drink, and how to go about being merry? Societies range from those that rely heavily on government determination to those that leave most choices to individuals. At one end of the spectrum, the government determines what it is healthy or safe for us to consume and do and at the other end each person freely makes their own decisions about most aspects of their life.  Neither of these extremes is absolute, of course. At the freedom end we are not free to violate the freedom of others (steal their property, assault their bodies, etc.).  At the cradle-to-the-grave -government-protection end we safely eat, drink, and enjoy the activities the government allows us to.

America flourished economically and culturally because we were largely free to make our own decisions. Government largely enforced property rights and public safety and provided information on which we could make better informed private choices. We innovated and took calculated risks with the deployment of our ideas and flourished.

In recent decades the government has increasingly restricted our choices to what it determined was good or safe.  The superiority of our private choices depends on how well informed and responsible we are. While we and the government may both think we are motivated to act in our personal best interest, the incentive to get it right is stronger for the individual actor.  And incentives always matter.

Take but one example—the “War on Drugs.”  Despite this war, 11,712 people died from drug overdoses in 2000 rising in two decades to 83,558 in 2020 (from 6,190 to 64,183 for opioids). “Drug overdose deaths-fentanyl-Greenville NC” I believe, with many others, that ending the drug war (legalizing the purchase and consumption of them) and instead educating the public about their effects (honest, fact-based information) would reduce such deaths.

The growing, selling and consuming of Cannabis is now legal in 21 states. When I gave into the social pressure in college to take a drag as a joint was passed around, I learned that it makes me less social. Wine was my better option. Not only do I enjoy wine, but I appreciate its socializing properties.  So, it has probably been 50 years since I have smoked marijuana. Its not clear whether its legalization along with better information and education on its pros and cons will increase or decrease or leave unchanged its consumption. The destructive prohibition of alcohol and the organized crime syndicates that grew up to circumvent it and its subsequent repeal did not eliminate the damage that alcoholism visited on some people.  However, Americans have generally benefited from the reliance on education and persuasion rather than government coercion.  Rather than crime syndicates to distribute illegal booze, we have AA and health facilities to help those who have not been able to resist overusing it.

Challenging and sensitive examples concern racial, sexual and religious discrimination.  The Civil Rights Law of 1964 attempted to address racial discrimination but in some ways overreached. The case of same sex marriage and the cake baker come to mind. We are still struggling to find the best balance between potentially conflicting individual rights.  I fail to see how the refusal of a baker to cook for the marriage of two men (which violates his religious beliefs), interferes with their right and ability to marry —an arrangement society has always seen as beneficial and important (and thus not to be denied to homosexuals).

The case of affirmative action also provides a challenging example of addressing a problem with social attitudes vs coercion. The Supreme Court decided in 1978 that the prohibition against racial discrimination could be violated for a temporary period in the interest of greater racial diversity and balance.  Harvard University chose to discriminate against Asian students, who would have been overrepresented if admitted on the basis of academic merit only, in order to admit a larger number of African Americans.  Asian students have challenged Harvard’s policy and the Supreme Court is expected to rule next year in “STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. PRESIDENT & FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Respondent” on the question “Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?”

I believe that a public discussion of the benefits of diversity to schools and other institutions as well its contribution toward overcoming earlier and existing negative discrimination against African Americans is the more promising and flexible approach to this issue than government coercion. I find it interesting that many federal court judges take race into account in hiring their clerks.  “Appeals court judges consider race of their clerks”  This is also an interesting perspective: “How liberals lost their way on affirmative action”

The times are changing

In 1978 China began to free up and open its economy to move its economic policies toward ours. Although the Communist Party of China remained in complete control of the political domain, the growth in China’s economy was dramatic. “According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.” “Poverty in China”

As I wrote 11 years ago: “Chinese people strike me as more like us than most any other people (including Europeans) I have met. And who do I mean by “us?” I don’t mean just Anglo Saxons like myself. I mean the hard working, innovative, entrepreneur types who are creating most of the wealth in this country like Google founders, Larry Page (American born Jew) and Sergey Brin (Russian born Jew), or Steve Jobs, who was born in San Francisco to a Syrian father and German-American mother, as well as many Anglo Saxons like myself.” ‘My G20 trip to China”

Sadly, Xi Jinping has been reversing this free market trend with very damaging results to economic growth and personal privacy and freedom in China.  

Sadder still, the United States has reversed direction since 9/11 as well, though more slowly. Not only has our government increasingly intruded into our privacy (it didn’t end with Edward Snowden’s revelations:  “Civil rights-Brennan-domestic terror-white supremacy”), but it has flooded the economy with excessive regulations, increasing trade restrictions and even the launch of industrial policies and subsidies that violate WTO rules. “US chip war to hit allies as hard as it does China”   “Competing with China” Our championing of the rule of law is growing increasingly hollow. Asset forfeiture provides but one example: Coats on the abuse of civil forfeiture”  and George Will on civil forfeiture nightmare”

How can this be? Why do we seem to want to be more like China? Many of today’s voters had not been born when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. We must make the case for free markets and limited government again and again, but in a way that is understood by, and appeals to the concerns and sensitivities of, generations X and Z and our future children.   “Global protests-democracy-autocracy”