Free Markets – Page 19 – artdiamondblog.com

Obama Should Remember that a Tariff War Helped Create the Great Depression

As an economics graduate student at Harvard, David Rockefeller was a student of Joseph Schumpeter.
After Schumpeter died, his wife spent the last few years of her life working to pull together the disorganized, but nearly completed, manuscript of Schumpeter’s magnificent History of Economic Analysis. In her preface, Mrs. Schumpeter writes: “It seems appropriate at this point to acknowledge gratefully a gift from David Rockefeller and a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation which made possible much of the secretarial and editorial assistance outlined above.” (p. x)
Below I quote a few passages from David Rockefeller’s reaction to Obama’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese automobile tires:

(p. A21) AS if he needed another policy concern to distract him from the health care debate, President Obama now finds himself embroiled in a quarrel with China over his imposition of a steep tariff on automobile tires from that country that is to take effect this week. The Chinese have responded by threatening to impose higher tariffs on American chicken. This may seem like a petty dispute, but the controversy could endanger the global economic recovery if the underlying issue — the rise in protectionism –is not resolved quickly and forcefully. Perhaps Washington has justification for increasing tariffs in this particular case, but in general it sets a bad precedent.

President Obama should resist the desire to accommodate the forces of protectionism from unions, environmentalists and cable television pundits alike. Giving in to their demands may be politically astute, but it would send the wrong message to our trading partners and, more important, inflict damage on the already weakened American economy. Despite the recent rally in the stock market, the next two or three years could still be very painful.
I lived through the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed it, and I saw that there was no direct cause and effect relationship. Rather, there were specific governmental actions and equally important failures to act, often driven by political expediency, that brought on the Depression and determined its severity and longevity.
One critical mistake was America’s retreat from international trade. This not only helped to turn the 1929 stock market decline into a depression, it also chipped away at trust between nations, paving the way for World War II.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID ROCKEFELLER. “Present at the Trade Wars.” The New York Times (Mon., September 21, 2009): A21.
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated Sun., Sept. 20.)

Free-Market German Aristocrat Receives Ovation for Opposing Bailout

(p. A7) BERLIN — Could the heir apparent to Chancellor Angela Merkel be a wealthy, handsome 37-year-old baron who loves rock ‘n’ roll?

The baron, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, vaulted to prominence this year when he took over the often dull job of economics minister in the midst of the financial crisis. His independent stand on a thorny economic matter earned him the respect of voters.
. . .

It was his independent streak that earned him the respect of voters, rather than just their curiosity. Mr. Guttenberg broke ranks with Mrs. Merkel over how to handle the troubled German automaker Opel. Mrs. Merkel supported a consortium led by Magna International, a Canadian auto parts maker, and Sberbank, a Russian bank. Mr. Guttenberg favored bankruptcy, and even offered to resign just months into his tenure.
He lost the battle, but gained credibility with voters — an important commodity with a disenchanted electorate that has largely ignored the coming vote. At the big kickoff campaign rally in Düsseldorf for Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union, Mr. Guttenberg was the only politician to receive a spontaneous ovation from the crowd of 9,000.

For the full story, see:
NICHOLAS KULISH and JUDY DEMPSEY. “Aristocrat’s Rise Shakes German Doldrums.” The New York Times (Weds., September 22, 2009): A7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Increase Health Insurance Competition by Ending Cross-State Ban

(p. A13) How do we get to a competitive market? The tax deduction for employer-provided group insurance, which has nearly destroyed the individual insurance market, is a central culprit. If we don’t have the will to remove it, the deduction could be structured to enhance competition and the right to future insurance. We could restrict the tax deduction to individual, portable, long-term insurance and to the high-deductible plans that people choose with their own money.

More importantly, health care and insurance are overly protected and regulated businesses. We need to allow the same innovation, entry, and competition that has slashed costs elsewhere in our economy. For example, we need to remove regulations such as the ban on cross-state insurance. Think about it. What else aren’t we allowed to purchase in another state?

For the full commentary, see:
JOHN H. COCHRANE . “What to Do About Pre-existing Conditions; Most Americans worry about health coverage if they lose their job and get sick. There is a market solution.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., AUGUST 14, 2009): A13.

Feds Force Farmers to Let Tons of Cherries Rot

“Leonard Ligon, a farmer near Traverse City, Mich., stands in mounds of tart cherries that he had to dump because of a price-stabilization program. Mr. Ligon says he discarded 72,000 pounds of the crop.” Source of photo and caption: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A5) Farmers in Michigan and six other states are harvesting a bumper crop of tart cherries. But the bounty is turning out to be the pits for farmers whose fruit is rotting in orchards instead of bubbling in cherry pies.

Under a Depression-era federal program designed to keep prices from plummeting, tart-cherry farmers are being told by fruit processors to leave up to 40% of their crop unharvested.
“It’s kind of heartbreaking,” said Rob Manigold, a tart-cherry farmer near Traverse City, Mich. Michigan grows about 75% of all the tart cherries in the U.S.
. . .
The tart-cherry industry operates under a government-sanctioned plan called a federal marketing order that dates to 1933. It allows farmers and processors to legally regulate supply to keep prices stable. Other commodities that operate under similar programs include some types of dates, olives and kiwifruit.
. . .
This year, the industry board, a 18-member panel of growers and processors, determined that there were more than enough cherries in the fields to satisfy demand and to replenish the reserves. So the board limited how much processors can put on the market in the U.S. That leaves farmers with cherries they can’t sell and are left to rot.
Bern Kroupa, a 61-year-old fruit farmer outside Traverse City in Michigan’s northern lower peninsula, said this year he is going to let about a quarter of his crop — about 500,000 pounds — rot.
. . .
Leonard Ligon, another tart-cherry grower near Traverse City, Mich., generated a lot of local press last week when he dumped 72,000 pounds of cherries alongside a country road on his farm. “I wanted to make the public aware of the plight of the tart-cherry farmer,” he said. “I could call it a mulch pile.”

For the full story, see:
LAUREN ETTER. “Bumper Cherry Crop Turns Sour; Tons of Unharvested Fruit Rots Under Government Program to Keep Prices Stable.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., AUGUST 22, 2009): A5.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Obama Industrial Policy Risks Funding Dead Ends

(p. B1) President Obama has cast himself as a reluctant interventionist in two of the nation’s major industries, Wall Street and Detroit. The federal aid, he says, is a financial bridge to a postcrisis future and the hand-holding will be temporary.

Even so, the scale of the government investment and control — especially by the auto task force now vetting plans at Chrysler and General Motors — points to an approach that has been shunned by the United States more than other developed nations.
“By any coherent definition, this is industrial policy,” said Marcus Noland, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
. . .
(p. B7) . . . a more comprehensive, industrial-policylike approach to Detroit carries its own perils, economists say. In trying to manage the industrial shrinkage, they say, there is a fine line between easing the social impact and protecting jobs in ways that inhibit economic change and renewal. In pursuit of new growth, governments risk encouraging overinvestment in areas that prove to be technological dead ends.
In the Japanese experience, economists see evidence of both dangers. Problems, they say, are typically byproducts of what economists call “political capture.” That is, an industrial sector earmarked for special government attention builds up its own political constituency, lobbyists and government bureaucrats to serve that industry. They slow the pace of change, and an economy becomes less nimble and efficient as a result.
Economists say the phenomenon is scarcely confined to nations with explicit industrial policies and cite the history of agricultural subsidies in America or military procurement practices.
But going down the path of industrial policy certainly holds that risk. “You have to bear in mind the opportunity costs of these kinds of government interventions, and remember that life is not an economic textbook and that politics can easily override economic rationality,” said Mr. Noland, an author, with Howard Pack, of “Industrial Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons From Asia.”

For the full story, see:
STEVE LOHR. “Highway to the Unknown; Forays in Industrial Policy Bring Risks.” The New York Times (Weds., May 19, 2009): B1 & B7.
(Note: the online title is “In U.S., Steps Toward Industrial Policy in Autos.”)
(Note: ellipses added.)
The full reference to Noland and Pack’s book is:
Noland, Marcus, and Howard Pack. Industrial Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons from Asia, Policy Analyses in International Economics. Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute, 2003.

Four Month Wait for Blood Test in Brits’ Government Health Care

(p. 6) Founded in 1948 during the grim postwar era, the National Health Service is essential to Britain’s identity. But Britons grouse about it, almost as a national sport. Among their complaints: it rations treatment; it forces people to wait for care; it favors the young over the old; its dental service is rudimentary at best; its hospitals are crawling with drug-resistant superbugs.

All these things are true, sometimes, up to a point.
. . .
Told my husband needed a sophisticated blood test from a particular doctor, I telephoned her office, only to be told there was a four-month wait.
“But I’m a private patient,” I said.
“Then we can see you tomorrow,” the secretary said.
And so it went. When it came time for my husband to undergo physical rehabilitation, I went to look at the facility offered by the N.H.S. The treatment was first rate, I was told, but the building was dismal: grim, dusty, hot, understaffed, housing 8 to 10 elderly men per ward. The food was inedible. The place reeked of desperation and despair.
Then I toured the other option, a private rehabilitation hospital with air-conditioned rooms, private bathrooms and cable televisions, a state-of-the-art gym, passably tasty food and cheery nurses who made a cup of cocoa for my husband every night before bed.

For the full commentary, see:
SARAH LYALL. “An Expat Goes for a Checkup.” The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., August 8, 2009): 1 & 6.
(Note: the online title is “Health Care in Britain: Expat Goes for a Checkup.”)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Clunker-Like Subsidies May Mainly Affect Timing of Purchases

(p. A6) The next program to test the effect of government funds comes this fall. Consumers who buy high-efficiency appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines and dishwasher can receive rebates of up to $200 on certain products; no trade-ins would be required. The $300 million program was included in the $787 billion stimulus law.

As with the clunkers program, it’s unclear whether the rebate program will offer anything more than a short-term economic boost.
“The people who will most like likely respond to this are the people who need appliances, and they were probably going to buy appliances anyway,” said Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “If all you’ve done is move that from tomorrow to today, then the economy is going to lag even more tomorrow.”

For the full story, see:
SUDEEP REDDY. “Dealers Get More Time to File for Clunker Rebates.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., AUGUST 25, 2009): A6.

Government Regulations Stifle Creative Venture Capital

(p. A9) This is a good time to recall that the venture-capital industry was born as a reaction to New Deal regulations that stifled capital and prolonged the Depression. The country’s first venture-capital firm (other than family-run funds) was American Research and Development, planned in the 1930s and launched after World War II in Boston.

Its leader was longtime Harvard Business School professor Georges Doriot, who is the subject of a fascinating recent biography, “Creative Capital,” by Spencer Ante. Mr. Ante, a BusinessWeek editor, tells me that as he researched the topic “one of the most surprising things I learned was how concerned financiers and industrialists had become about the riskless economy in direct response to the New Deal. Even in the 1930s, people understood that small business was the lifeblood of the economy.”
American Research and Development backed early-stage companies deemed too risky by banks and investment trusts at the time. The firm was an early investor in Digital Equipment Corp., the Boston-area company that revolutionized computing.
Despite financial success, the history of the firm is a reminder that our regulatory system, by its nature focused on avoiding risk, has a hard time dealing with investment firms whose mission is to take risks. Doriot was a well-known name in commerce and academia from the 1940s through the 1970s. He was the first French graduate of Harvard Business School, a founder of the INSEAD business school and a leading adviser to the U.S. military.
But even as a pillar of Boston’s commercial and academic worlds, Doriot had many run-ins with federal regulators. Over the years, regulators dictated compensation for the American Research and Development staff, tried to force disclosure of the performance of its early-stage companies, and second-guessed how it tracked the valuations of its investments.
The Securities and Exchange Commission hounded the company so often that Doriot once wrote a three-page memo saying, “ARD has more knowledge of what is right and wrong than the average person at the SEC.” He was prudent enough not to send it. He did mail another memo to the SEC enforcement office in Boston, in 1965: “I rather resent, after 20 years of experience, to have two men come here, spend two days, and tell us that we do not know what we are doing.”
. . .
No venture capital firm has asked to be bailed out, and none are too big to fail. As hard as it is for regulators to understand, the nature of venture capital is such that it should not even aspire to be a low-risk enterprise

For the full commentary, see:

L. GORDON CROVITZ. “No Such Thing as Riskless Venture Capital; New regulations could retard the innovation our economy needs.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., AUGUST 9, 2009): A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Government Protects Us from Unlicensed Eight Year Old Lemonade Entrepreneur

Daniela Earnest at her lemonade stand (left) and in court (right). Source of photo: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GGAmzDRA_BY/SnvDbYoMpzI/AAAAAAAAHEg/W1BI2XK8DH4/s400/daniela%2Bearnest.jpg

(p. 5A) THE FRESNO BEE

TULARE, Calif. — Eight-year- old Daniela Earnest made lemonade out of lemons in more ways than one last week.

Hoping to raise money for a family trip to Disneyland, the Tulare girl opened a lemonade stand Monday. But she didn’t have a business license, so the city shut it down that day.
. . .

Tulare officials said they could not recall ever shutting down a lemonade stand before, though such action is not uncommon. Authorities across the nation have done it.
. . .
Daniela found the situation “pretty weird” but said it hadn’t soured her on reopening the lemonade stand.

For the full story, see:
The Fresno Bee. “City puts squeeze on pint-size purveyor of lemonade.” Omaha World-Herald (Sun., Aug. 9, 2009): 5A.
(Note: ellipses added.)

BB&T Founder John Allison Speaks for Rand’s Free Market Philosophy

“John A. Allison IV, chairman of the banking company BB&T, is a devoted follower of Ayn Rand’s antigovernment views.” Source of photo and caption: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) OVER much of the last four decades, John A. Allison IV built BB&T from a local bank in North Carolina into a regional powerhouse that has weathered the economic crisis far better than many of its troubled rivals — largely by avoiding financial gimmickry.

And in his spare time, Mr. Allison travels the country making speeches about his bank’s distinctive philosophy.
Speaking at a recent convention in Boston to a group of like-minded business people and students, Mr. Allison tells a story: A boy is playing in a sandbox, only to have his truck taken by another child. A fight ensues, and the boy’s mother tells him to stop being selfish and to share.
“You learned in that sandbox at some really deep level that it’s bad to be selfish,” says Mr. Allison, adding that the mother has taught a horrible lesson. “To say man is bad because he is selfish is to say it’s bad because he’s alive.”
If Mr. Allison’s speech sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because it’s based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who celebrated the virtues of reason, self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism while maintaining that altruism is a destructive force. In Ms. Rand’s world, nothing is more heroic — and sexy — than a hard-working businessman free to pursue his wealth. And nothing is worse than a pesky bureaucrat trying to restrict business and redistribute wealth.
Or, as Mr. Allison explained, “put balls and chains on good people, and bad things happen.”
Ms. Rand, who died in 1982, has all sorts of admirers on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms and in the entertainment industry, including the hedge fund manager Clifford Asness, the former baseball great Cal Ripken Jr. and the Whole Foods chief executive, John Mackey.
But Mr. Allison, who remains BB&T’s chairman after retiring as chief executive in December, has emerged as perhaps the most vocal proponent of Ms. Rand’s ideas and of the dangers of government meddling in the markets. For a dedicated Randian like him, the government’s headlong rush to try to rescue and fix the economy is a horrifying re-(p. 6)alization of his worst fears.

For the full story, see:

ANDREW MARTIN. “Give Him Liberty, but Not a Bailout.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., August 2, 2009): 1 & 6.
(Note: the online title is the slightly different: “Give BB&T Liberty, but Not a Bailout.”)

“How Do We Get on the Special Interests, Special Treatment Bandwagon?”

Uncreative destruction. “Jose Luis Garcia pours sodium silicate into a junkyard car engine to render it inoperable at a lot in Sun Valley, Calif., on Tuesday. The process destroys the car’s engine in a matter of minutes.” Source of photo and part of caption: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A4) WASHINGTON — Who doesn’t like the government’s “cash for clunkers” program? Your mechanic, for one.

Owners of automotive repair shops say the program to help invigorate sales of new cars is succeeding at their expense.
Bill Wiygul, whose family owns four repair shops in Virginia, said he has already had five or six customers decide against repairs. A man who sits on the board of Mr. Wiygul’s bank traded in his car rather than repair it. “He’d been a customer at our Reston store since it opened,” Mr. Wiygul said.
The clunkers program, formally known as the Car Allowance Rebate System, offers subsidies of as much as $4,500 to consumers who trade in older vehicles and buy new, more fuel-efficient models. The program was initially given $1 billion. That money was spent in one week.
The Senate reached a deal to extend the clunkers program Wednesday night, agreeing to vote on a measure Thursday that would add $2 billion to the program, the Associated Press reported.
The House approve a $2 billion extension last week.
For Mr. Wiygul and other mechanics, until now the recession has brought them more customers as people fixed cars rather than go into debt for new ones. He has hired five people and is expanding one of the shops.
Auto dealers who offer the rebates on new cars in exchange for clunkers must agree to “kill” the old models by disabling the engines and shipping the dead vehicle to a junkyard.
The loss of such potential work — as many as 250,000 vehicles will be destroyed in the program’s first round — prompted Mr. Wiygul to question the federal program’s focus on dealers and big business at the expense of the little guy.
“How do we get on the special interests, special treatment bandwagon? How much is it going to cost me and to whom shall I send the check?” he said. “Who picks the winners in this game ’cause obviously the game is fixed.”

For the full commentary, see:
GARY FIELDS. “Clunkers Plan Deflates Mechanics.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., AUGUST 6, 2009): A4.