The 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan provided another occasion for the media to celebrate the government's good works. The U.S.'s headlong plunge into global welfarism (nearly $100 billion in current dollars), they said, saved European economies after the Second World War. One reporter, Garrick Utley of NBC, even theorized that Marshall aid explains why East Germany was poor and West Germany rich.
One peculiar aspect of the 1993–95 trade debate was the contradictory purposes—or so it seemed—of Nafta and Gatt. They embrace different theories of how the U.S. should conduct trade policy. The "bilateralistists" think that the U.S. should negotiate trade with one country at a time. The "multilateralists" say that leads to protectionist alliances; what we really need is one big agreement with the world.
"We Russians are doomed to teach mankind," wrote philosopher Grigory Chaadayev in 1848, "some awful lesson." The lesson turns out to be more than proving socialism's brutality and futility. It is also about the unlikelihood that elections alone will resolve a deep social and economic crisis.
The sad spectacle of political stalemate in the United States suggests that Americans are stuck with our current size and scope of government—and the lackluster economy that the government's strictures cause. Is the welfare state a tangled web from which no nation can escape?
Evidently not.
Copy Japan! was the cry of the 1980s. That country, economically speaking, appeared to have it all: an industrial policy that knew good and bad investments before markets themselves did, a disciplined workforce, and, most of all, an unshakable banking system in which everyone had confidence.
Surveying the present wreckage, it's hard to believe these banks were once the envy of moneylenders worldwide. Now they have a reputation no better than the U.S. public school system.
Newt Gingrich claims that "Alvin and Heidi Toffler have given us the key to viewing current disarray within the positive framwork of a dynamic, exciting future" .
In the Clinton administration's spin control on the Mexican meltdown, Nafta had nothing to do with it. Without the treaty, matters would have been worse, the White House says, and now Nafta will help Mexico recover.
When discussing the secession of Quebec from the Rest of Canada (ROC), many Anglo-Canadian economists become doomsday preachers of apocalyptic scenarios. They predict social calamities such as poverty, mass unemployment, civil war, and mass exodus.
They should settle down, try to be rational, and focus on the only real issue: the long-term economic well-being of Quebecois and Canadians.
Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn's return to Russia has engendered more than the usual amount of scaremongering. The author, we are told, is a Pan-Slavic nationalistic and religious fanatic whose views are outdated and irrelevant. Yet Solzhenitsyn used his first speech and press conference in Russia to promote two economic ideas that can actually move Russia forward: private property and free enterprise.
