When the U.S. was a developing nation, we expended our efforts and capital in developing the infrastructure for industry. Our government provided incentives for the development and extraction of natural resources to be used as raw materials to build, not just products, but a thriving national economy. And that’s exactly what China and other developing nations are doing today.
But, today, the U.S. is doing the opposite. Increasingly, over the past several decades, our government has been restricting the extraction of natural resources and dismantling the infrastructure for industry. Overregulation, combined with exorbitant and ever-increasing union demands, has succeeded in driving much of our industry offshore. If we want to recover our economy, we need to reverse that trend.
The recently published White House Plan to Revitalize Manufacturing, which focuses on federal funding for “green” technology experiments, is not likely to have a significant impact on our national productivity. This administration is thoroughly beholden to the unions and environmental lobbies. In true Chicago style, this administration has used the stimulus package to pay off political debts and, from every indication, will continue the trend of dismantling the economy in favor of political correctness and payback.
Every nation has a historical trajectory. This nation has apparently passed its apogee, and is now in decline. We no longer have the drive to overcome. We’ve become complacent and, instead of striving for ever greater industrial innovation and economic strength, we are focused myopically on the niceties that developing nations cannot afford to consider.
The problem is, there’s no such thing as stasis. A nation, a corporation, a species, an individual, must either advance or decline. That’s nature. And, as we sink into complacency, whining effetely about our declining economy, there will be others advancing to take our place as the dominant world power, industrially, economically, and (eventually) militarily. That’s a historical inevitability. The same pattern can be observed throughout nature and the history of civilizations. The only question is when.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Andy Marsh
Pretty negative way to start the new year, wouldn't you say?
2 - Arch Conservative
Hey Andy maybe he just wanted to start the new year with honesty instead of the bullshit and feigned optimism that most people themselves would offer and expect.
3 - Andy Marsh
The pendulum still swings Arch...it has to get better eventually...
4 - roger nowosielski
So was Greece, and so was Rome. As a student of history you ought to know that "greatness" in nations is temporary and fleeting, until they are destroyed by their own hubris.
5 - Arch Conservative
The pendulum still swings Arch...it has to get better eventually...
Says who............
Maybe it will only continue to get worse during our lifetimes Andy.
Have you ever thought of that?
6 - Dr Dreadful
Rome's a bad example, though, Rog. Remember that the Eastern Roman Empire persisted (as the Byzantine Empire) until 1453, when Constantinople was sacked by the Turks.
As for the West: well, there's a case to be made that the Western Empire never really ended, just adapted to changing circumstances. One of the main reasons the Roman Catholic Church became so powerful was that it was able to take advantage of existing infrastructure and political and economic alliances which the Romans had left behind.
I'd hazard a guess that whichever political entity or entities occupy the territories we now call the United States 200 years from now will be unrecognisable from the Republic we know today; but there's an excellent chance that it will still be a global force to be reckoned with.
7 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps you're right about Rome, Dreadful, because of its longevity in more than one form. But we did have the Dark Ages in the interim, until Charlemagne at least. But yes, Rome was a model for the Holy Roman Empire. Remember though, Gibbons's repartee.
As to the next two hundred years, it's anybody's guess. But I reckon that even by the end of this century, we shall undergo globalization projects along economic and eventually political dimensions, regionally and at stages at first, but all leading to a final unity.
At any rate, I can't think of better prospects.
8 - NotYourDaddy
Interesting that you should mention a pendulum, Andy, and that Roger and Dr. Dreadful should bring up Rome. I have a post on my blog discussing exactly this question, called Freedom is Not a Pendulum.
Arch Conservative may have point. Things don't always get better. Sometimes, a reversal can be brought about but, in the absense of active resistence, entropy increases.
9 - roger nowosielski
Interesting post, NYD. Perhaps close to my view of history as proceeding of its own accord, regardless of the human agency. While true that humans may shape history to a point, it's also the case that we are shaped by it. What I see happening at present is more on the order of human response to the unfolding events, more so than our determining our future.
10 - NotYourDaddy
I disagree that history proceeds of its own accord, regardless of human agency. Natural history, yes. (Climate change would be a good example. :)
But human history is made by humans. In the girp of apathy, most of us are simply swept along by the tides of history initiated and driven by others.
However, we can make a difference if we're motivated to. If we don't happen to history, history will happen to us. It's our choice.
11 - Cindy
Overregulation, combined with exorbitant and ever-increasing union demands, has succeeded in driving much of our industry offshore. If we want to recover our economy, we need to reverse that trend.
I agree. The first step is to evaluate the situation correctly. Capitalists have a gun to your head. If you want to recover, please just do what they want.
1) Forget about the environment. You'll probably be dead before it ever becomes that big of a problem. So, just forget about it and live for today.
2) If you are a worker, just take whatever you are given. Capitalists need to make profits. Whereas, you need nothing. And whatever you want, you probably don't deserve it. Just work harder. What is wrong with you anyway? Aren't you ever satisfied?
12 - roger nowosielski
"In the girp [sic] of apathy, most of us are simply swept along by the tides of history initiated and driven by others."
Not true of the Roman Empire. It fell victim to its own hubris, and the world had changed. There was a vacuum left in its ashes. The world wasn't driven by any other force because for all intents and purposes, there was none.
Of course I'm speaking metaphorically. But the truth is that the American/imperialist mindset is being usurped, slowly but surely, by the globalization trend, first in economics, eventually geopolitically. It's as good as a done deal.
13 - NotYourDaddy
Roger, I agree with you that that is what is happening. I disagree that it's a good thing. I also disagree that it is necessarily inevitable. It might be, but that's exactly what I meant when I quoted Dylan Thomas: "Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
We may not be able to reverse the trend. It may be too late. But, those of us who still believe in the vision, values, principles, and wisdom of our founding fathers should not go down without a fight.
14 - roger nowosielski
I'm less optimistic than you are, NYD. Nor do I see the humanity's future as essentially grim. Remember Toynbee;s monumental book and rise and fall of all civilization.
We had had our time in the sun and our trajectory is declining. It's time to move over and, hopefully, make a better world.
15 - Apemantus
"2) If you are a worker, just take whatever you are given. Capitalists need to make profits. Whereas, you need nothing. And whatever you want, you probably don't deserve it. Just work harder. What is wrong with you anyway? Aren't you ever satisfied?"
If workers aren't capitalists, what are they? Victims? You sell your time. You sell your skill. If you need a union to help you hold your pants up, you're just a sad puddle of uselessness who deserves to fail. Most of the modern workforce is not unionized. Are we all victims?
16 - Arch Conservative
You have a valid point apementus. There should be a symbiotic relationship between employee and employer. We're not entitled to jobs, we must earn them through our own skill/effort.
But even some who is pro business that acknowledges this must find it disturbing that executives are allowed to ruin companies and then walk away with multi million dollar paydays while so many suffer because of their action.
Capitalism and the free market have not failed us. We haven't had free markets for a very long time. What we've had is greedy, power hungry politicians in bed with greedy, power hungry CEO's who scratch each others back at the expense of the American people.
17 - roger nowosielski
Arch, you're beginning to see both sides of the story. But let's face it, whether we ever had "free markets" or not, the situation has devolved and resulted in the present. It's that what we've got to deal with, not some myth of capitalism at its best.
Yes, we have our amenities and our luxury goods and the internet, these are some of the fruits. But now we're paying the wages.
18 - Cindy
Arch,
That is how free markets are supposed to work. Greedy companies do everything they can to get the most and give the least. Greedy workers do the same. Greedy politicians fit right in with that economic strategy. In the end all the greed is theoretically supposed to even everything out and make sure everyone wins.
What does anyone expect from such a ludicrous plan? Those with power seize control. The system encourages and rewards them for greed and apathy toward their victims. What else would they be expected to do?
Sorry if it isn't working out for you, Arch. But it is Capitalism and this is its result. And, by the way, it is still working perfectly fine for a whole bunch of people--and it always has. It has also never worked for a whole bunch of others and it never will. The guest list changes. Those who are no longer invited to the party should just get used to it.
19 - Cindy
15 -
If workers aren't capitalists, what are they? Victims? You sell your time. You sell your skill. If you need a union to help you hold your pants up, you're just a sad puddle of uselessness who deserves to fail. Most of the modern workforce is not unionized. Are we all victims?
Capitalists generally use their capital to make money rather than their labor. (That is where they got that name.) They hire workers so that they can use what is produced by their labor and sell it for a profit. So you are a slave.
Are you a victim? You aren't a victim if you don't mind being harnessed, like an ass, and having someone use you to plow their field, for whatever it is they feel they have to give you. Does a cow feel like a victim when her master milks her? Or does she just feel too grateful for the barn and the straw? To me, people who don't mind being slaves are victims of a different sort.
Apart from that, everyone in the society as a whole is a victim. capitalism is destructive to the human psyche.
20 - Cindy
Capitalism
21 - roger nowosielski
If this won't convince him, nothing will.
22 - Apemantus
Communists are sub-human. If you haven't learned that by now, you never will.
23 - Franco
On the last day of 2009, that awful year, I was listening to a report on National Public Radio (yes, I’m a listener). Reporter Tamara Keith presented a by-now-familiar recap of the worst financial and corporate scandals of the decade, from Enron and Martha Stewart to Tyco and Bernie Madoff. It was a depressing slog of greed, venality, and theft. When the report was over, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep summarized the report with a tart: “The decade in capitalism.”
I don’t want to single out Inskeep, since he was doing what pretty much the entire media establishment has done, particularly of late: reducing “capitalism” to its alleged sins.
And that’s the point. There are few areas of life where a thing responsible for so much good gets so little credit for it.
Imagine if I were to collect the most infamous deeds of African Americans over the last decade " say, Michael Vick’s dog-fighting scandal and O. J. Simpson’s most recent criminal exploit " and then put a bow on it with the phrase “the decade in black America.” What if I did the same thing with Jews? Bernie Madoff, the face of Jewish America! Do the scandals of Rod Blagojevich, Charlie Rangel, and John Edwards define the Democratic party from 2000 to 2010? Do Abu Ghraib and the balloon boy sum up America?
Consider NPR. As a brand, it claims to be standing athwart capitalism because it’s “public.” What that means exactly is a bit unclear, since it still allows corporations to fund its programming in exchange for audio endorsements none dare call commercials and relies on the kindness of listeners to keep it afloat " listeners who, one way or another, make their money from you-know-what.
Indeed, speaking of the decade in capitalism, National Public Radio failed to mention that Joan Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s, left more than $200 million to NPR in 2003. Mrs. Kroc’s generosity of spirit was her own, but the wampum is all capitalism’s, baby.
In a similar vein, the decade of capitalism saw one of the world’s richest men, Warren Buffett, pledge more than $30 billion to a foundation created by another offspring of capitalism, Bill Gates, for the purpose of aiding the world’s poor. Surely capitalism should get some of the credit, since the book on philanthropy in non-capitalist systems is shorter than the guide to cities without Starbucks.
Capitalism doesn’t just create generous wealthy people, but generous poor people, too. Americans give twice as much to charity as the most generous European nations, and the most generous Americans are, in fact, poor Americans.
But forget philanthropy. Since 2000, hundreds of millions of people in China and India " home to a plurality of the world’s poor " have lifted themselves out of poverty and illiteracy thanks to capitalism.
China started to embrace markets as a last resort in the late 1970s. And by last resort, I mean last resort. First they tried murdering tens of millions of their own people through collectivism and oppression. When that didn’t work, they embraced markets, and the poverty rate dropped from 64 percent to around 8 percent today.
As it always does, capitalism drove innovation over the last decade. The BlackBerry was introduced in 1999, but the iPhone didn’t exist in 2000, nor did the iPod. YouTube was a fantasy, and no one could even imagine why you’d ever need something like Facebook or Twitter (in fairness, some people still ask that question). iTunes was launched in 2003, and five years later it was outselling Wal-Mart as the No. 1 music retailer. Government-funded basic research in medical science deserves some credit for breakthroughs, but it’s worth remembering that lots of countries invest in basic research. America, with its markets, stands alone as the leading, arguably sole, source of medical innovation. Breakthrough drugs are as American as apple pie.
Every good thing capitalism helps produce " from singing careers to cures for diseases to staggering charity " is credited to some other sphere of our lives. Every problem with capitalism, meanwhile, is laid at her feet. Except the problems with capitalism " greed, theft, etc. " aren’t capitalism’s fault, they’re humanity’s. Socialist countries have greedy thieves, too.
Free markets are in disrepute these days, particularly by the people running Washington. For them, government is the solution and capitalism is the problem. If they have their way over the next decade, they won’t cure what allegedly ails capitalism " people will still steal and lie " but they will impede everything that makes capitalism great. And that will be bad for everyone, even NPR.
By " Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online January 01, 2010
I don't cut and past artical here on the threads of BC, but given the gross mischarictrualtion of capitalims insted of focusing on humanity, I put it in.
Cindy, you try and reduce Capitalism down to nothing more then it's alleged sins. And it is so much more then that to so many masses of people, most who risk their lives just to have a chance to participate in it, that it is unfathimable.
I am shocked at your inablity to see the differace. I expected more out of you then that baby!
24 - Arch Conservative
That is not how capitalism is supposed to work Cindy.
Capitalism is about free markets where the laws of supply and demand rule the day. It's not about government intervention and regulation which is what we've had in spades. It's not about a corrupt international banking cartel respresented by the Fed Reserve arbitraily manipulating interests rates and making money out of thin air. It's not about the government favoring some some businesses over other creating nearly impossible entry into a market.
I really hate it when people who do not understand capitalism try to blame it for all of our ills. With each new year we have more and more government taxation and intervention in our lives and with each year things continue to get worse. But yet the same people, without fail, call for more government intervention to solve our problems.
Sorry Cindy but you couldn't be more wrong. It's not capitalism that's ruining us, it's the marriage of corporate cronyism with a power hungry big government.
All the federal government welfare and special interest programs do absolutely no good. They only serve to create a population that is more reliant upon the state rather than more self sufficient while also creating suspicion and animoisty between different groups of people.
Cindy says what we have now isn't working but doesn't offer her own plan. Based on the fact that she views having a job as being a slave I shudder to think what she believes the world ought to be like. Slaves got no monetary compensation for their effort, workers do. Also, workers in this nation are free to leave and seek more monetary compensation for their services somewhere else. Slaves did not have that option.
Forgive me Cindy but just because we have a bunch of corrupt politicians and CEO's we as American citizens are not excused of the personal responsibility in our own lives. We're not entitled to anything but the freedom to live our lives in the manner we choose for ourselves as long as we're not impeding on that very freedom for someone else. We're certainly not entitled to have the federal government reach into someone else's pocket to provide for us and I am certain that if the federal government would stop robbing us blind then we would see that private charitable donations for those in need would dramatically increase.
25 - roger nowosielski
Arch,
You can't think of a time when it wasn't so. You're too young. So when you're talking about how capitalism ought to work, it's just a conception in your head, and just as utopian as anything you're liable to hear. Perhaps in some distant past, at its primitive stages, there may have been what you call a "free market system," but even that is doubtful. The entire system is based on cutthroat, virulent competition, and securing a comparative advantage. Not that those things are bad in themselves, but they do lend themselves to creating a climate of corruption and collusion. If you want to create a "perfect capitalist system," you've got to change man. But then again, to change man you've got to create a different environment. So you do have an inherent contradiction. And what we're experiencing at last is the final breakdown.