"The Thucydides Trap - As It Applies to Europe"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

October 16, 2017

“The Thucydides Trap – As It Applies to Europe”

“There is no week, nor day, nor hour when tyranny may not

enter our country, if the people lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.”

                                                                                                            Walt Whitman (1819-1892)

The Greek Historian Thucydides (460BC-395BC) wrote that the growth of Athens and the fear that caused in Sparta would lead inevitably to war. It did, the Peloponnesian Wars (431-404BC), which were ultimately won by Sparta. Graham Allison, Harvard professor of political science coined the term “Thucydides Trap,” otherwise known as the “security dilemma,” to describe the rise of a new power and the fear it instills in an established, dominant power – China and the United States. A clash, he argues, almost always ensues. Such phenomena are not limited to geo-politics. In physics, it would be an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. And, all of us were once recalcitrant teen-agers, pushing back against resolute parents.

In his book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap?, Professor Allison looks to history to provide lessons for managing “great power” rivalries that were resolved without full-blown war: the Spanish-Portuguese match-up in the 15^th Century, the rise of the U.S. in the 19^th Century against the British Empire, the more recent peaceful resolution of the Cold War, among others.

While a nuclear conflagration between great powers represents the world’s biggest risk, the desire for self-rule, for security is not limited to great powers.  Its consequences can be seen in the rise of nationalism, and the desire for sovereignty and respect, throughout many parts of the world – Scotland, Catalonia and Ukraine in Europe; the Kurds in the Middle East, and secessionists in the West African nations of Cameroon and Nigeria. It is in those areas where the unwary might be ensnared.

Each part of the world is unique, as is each group’s desire for independence. Regardless of the merits of each bid for independence, it is the causes that must be addressed. We can treat symptoms, and we can play the “blame” game, but cures require an understanding of causation.

In Africa, causes relate to centuries of colonization, along with the tribal nature of their indigenous people. Two countries on that continent are now experiencing separatist movements – Cameroon and Nigeria, both which became independent in the early 1960s. Cameroon, one of the oldest continuously populated parts of the world, had been occupied from the 15^th through the 19^th Centuries by Portuguese and Germans. After World War I, the French and English divided the country. It is the English-speaking regions that today want to split off. Nigeria, the largest country in Africa, in terms of population (and the 7^th largest in the world), was once part of the British Empire. The natives of Biafra, in the southeast of the country, want independence. Like most African nations, their borders were drawn by Europeans who cared more about mineral extraction and commodities produced, than the tribes that comprise their populations. (There are, for example, over 500 languages spoken in Nigeria.) A civil war in that region fifty years ago left a million dead. Nigerian forces have again been deployed to put down this new rebellion.

In the Middle East, the Kurds seek independence from four countries – Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria – where they comprise significant minorities. Apart from Turkey, which is what remains of the Ottoman Empire, these countries, as in Africa, had their borders drawn by European colonial powers after the First World War, with little regard for the people who had lived there for centuries.

But it is Europe that is the focus of this essay. Most secessionists rebel against out-of-touch elitists. Does Madrid stand aloof from Catalonians? Does Brussels respect the Flemish?  Is London concerned about the welfare of the Scots? Does Paris have the interest of the Corsicans? Most worrisome, has been a rising, entitled administrative state in Brussels that threatens the sovereignty of countries that have existed, in some cases, for over a thousand years. What, for example, does the EU Parliament know about Welch coal miners, Manchester cab drivers and London bankers? Why should laws that govern these businesses and the regulations by which they must abide be created in Brussels? Is not this taxation without representation?

Europe deserves our respect. It was the birthplace of the Enlightenment, which gave to the world civilization, democracy and free-market capitalism. It was in Europe where Christianity took hold. It was Europe, with a big assist from the United States, that stood up to Fascism and Nazism. But, it was also Europe that first appeased and then fell victim to the persuasion of Mussolini and Hitler. It was Europe, through colonization, that exploited much of what we now call the developing world. Europe’s industrialization depended on cheap raw materials from overseas. Luxuries, like tea, coffee, sugar and tobacco – grown in fields worked by slaves – came from those colonies. Armies were deployed to put down insurrections. With colonization came sanctimony and arrogance, traits that infect Europe’s leaders today. There is hypocrisy in the assumed moral and intellectual superiority expressed by Brussel’s bureaucrats toward any who challenge them. With globalists, the administrative state replaces local governments.

Governing is not easy. It is akin to herding cats. But, without it, anarchy reigns; with too much, autocracy rules. Good government permits freedom of speech, assembly and movement. It offers a basic education and the right to own property. It provides the rule of law. It allows individuals with disparate political leanings to live in harmony. The nation state is worth preserving, as Lincoln did in 1861. But not all nations are born equal. In the post-War period, many were subjected to Communist rule. Germany was divided. Those who were consigned to the East in 1945 fared poorly, as do Koreans today who live north of the 38^th Parallel. On the other hand, most of the fifteen or so countries that were given independence upon the collapse of the Soviet Union have fared well. Does anyone believe that the average Ukrainian would be better off governed from Moscow? Every separatist bid should be considered on its own merits. There is no “one-size-fits-all” in the realm of geopolitics.

Most Europeans want what all people want – freedom, peace and prosperity. The question: how can it best be achieved? Is a Europe united in government, defense, laws and currency required? Or is respect for one another’s sovereignty – governments, borders, laws, culture, human rights – a better answer? A forum for the free exchange of ideas should be available; trade should be fair and open. Nations’ tax systems and laws should not impede the flow of capital, nor should borders stem the tide of honorable, hard-working people.

The trap that bears Thucydides name is not limited to great powers. The world and its inhabitants are in constant flux. Nations rise and fall. Since 1990, there have been, according to one source, thirty-four new countries formed – in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific. Since my birth, in January 1941, 157 of the 195 sovereign states have been born or had new forms of governments. Every new state poses risk for those that were there before.  But the “trap” also applies to smug administrators who, due to their claimed superior intelligence and morality, feel entitled to rule, like those in multi-national organizations, or in Brussels. What is the cause for revolts against authority. Bureaucrats should look in the mirror.

"Good Intentions - Unintended Consequences"

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Good Intentions – Unintended Consequences?”

September 25, 2017

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless

 by the good intentions of those who create it.”

                                                                                                 Milton Friedman

Governments face myriad challenges. Among them are natural disasters: hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, tornados, blizzards, mudslides, floods, cyclones and wildfires – at least those not set by humans. Other challenges include changes wrought by technology and the disruptions they bring – changes that government feels, because of their significance, require their involvement: space travel, renewable energy, transportation and farming. But, do good intentions always achieve intended results?

Massive problems (and opportunities) do demand government involvement. For example, while businesses and individuals sent millions of dollars and hordes of supplies to help disaster victims in Houston and Florida, only government had the size, scope and authority to bring order to the chaos that ensued – to repair streets, harbors and buildings, and to protect the innocent from the unlawful few who take advantage of the confusion disasters unleash. Likewise, when individuals’ dreams show promise of change that can positively affect all lives, it is often governments that marshal resources to turn dreams into reality. More than a hundred years ago, Mary Shelly, Jules Verne and H.G. Wells wrote science fiction about space trips, life beneath the sea and time travel, but it took NASA to put a man on the moon. It was World War I that turned submarines into effective weapons. Time travel remains a dream.  

In its desire to help, government is not driven by the calculus of profit and loss, but by intentions that are noble in conception, but, at times, inferior in execution. Government is fallible. It is composed of armies of bureaucrats led by elected officials. It is in the self-interest of bureaucrats to protect their turf, to expand their departments, to achieve personal goals. It is in the self-interest of elected officials to attract funds, expand their bases of support and win re-election. It is left to the electorate – often gullible, swayed by rhetorical skills and promises of Nirvana – to determine whether an elected official remains in office. Too often, promises made become unrealistic expectations. There is a wide girth between what we want and what we can have. James Boswell quoted Samuel Johnson as saying, “Hell is paved with good intentions.” Aldous Huxley went further: “Hell isn’t merely paved with good intentions; it is walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.”

In providing below-market-cost flood insurance, governments help those living in low-lying coastal areas continue to live in exposed, unsafe areas. It is not right to forcibly move people, but is it right to encourage them to stay? Does government unintentionally abet human suffering by removing the “risk” from risk insurance? If the true price of living in coastal Florida, Texas, New Jersey, etc. – the real costs, including insuring to rebuild – were reflected in home prices, would as many people populate flood-prone zones? If towns and cities taxed residents for the true costs of investing in damage-mitigation measures, would those communities be abandoned, or would residents ante up? I don’t pretend to have answers. It is right we help our neighbors, and it is true that everyone is susceptible to the unexpected, but some places are more vulnerable than others.

Another example of government interference: Tesla’s sales have been built with taxpayer support. When Hong Kong cut back its electric-vehicle tax credits in April this year, sales dropped to zero from 3,000 the month earlier. When Denmark scaled back incentives last year, sales of electric cars dropped 70%. Now, in California, the $2,500 rebate Tesla buyers receive is at risk because of union pressure.

Government’s interference in the renewable energy industry has negatively impacted consumers – at least over the short term. Taxpayers, according to Forbes in February 2015, had invested $150 billion over the previous five years in renewables – for 2.6% of electricity production. One consequence has been higher electricity costs, despite coal and natural gas prices – the two principal fuels used in electricity generation – having fallen between forty and fifty percent over the past decade. Coal prices declined as demand abated. Gas prices fell because fracking and horizontal drilling increased supply. Wind and solar are not economically feasible without government support. Is it government’s role to pick winners? Are they supporting cronies? We can be skeptical without being cynical.

Commodities have long received government help – supporting farmers, but at the expense of consumers. These problems are not exclusive to the United States. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal described how the European Union capped local production of sugar, keeping prices high, thereby benefitting exporters from poor African nations, like Swaziland. Reversing that policy, which the EU is now considering, will bring hardship to farmers in Swaziland. Was this an unintentional consequence of good intentions? When markets are essentially free, prices and production adjust. When tariffs and other forms of protectionism are employed, prices trend higher; and adjustments, when policies change, are more abrupt and disruptive to producers and consumers. Other industries, like construction and technology, are examples where government must balance societal needs against costs and entrepreneurialism. Lobbyists protect the status quo-favored at the expense of the consumer. Also, are good intentions behind the welfare and entitlement mess, or the dependency of government on regressive lotteries?

There is no way to protect everyone against nature’s devastation, or against technological advances. In that sense, our lives are a form of Russian Roulette. But we can mitigate those affects with commonsensical approaches. Whenever and wherever we can, we should avoid building on fault lines, in flood zones, or in areas subject to mud slides. Or, if we must do so, the price we pay should reflect the added risk. Likewise, we cannot be protected – nor would we want to be – against all technological changes, and the Schumpeterian effect of creative destruction in manufacturing and services. Improved living standards, after all, rely on bettering the way we do things. Embedded in the theory of the survival of the fittest is that we adapt or we die. Government can help ease the adjustment, but we must be careful lest their heavy hand in allocation of resources or in pricing, hampers productivity and hurts consumers.

It is natural for organisms to grow. What is true for weeds in our gardens is true for bureaucracies that infest our politics. In concentrating power in a few government agencies, composed of the unelected and unaccountable, the people are not better served. In fact, they are often penalized. It is the needs of the people that should be our guiding light, not policies to support a political ideology.

A Trumpet for Reason, is a short book, formatted as a debate between youth and age and written by Leo Rosten, a humorist and journalist, forty-seven years ago. As the dust jacket reads, the book is “…a ringing, cleansing answer to the New Left and the New Right, the militants and the extremists and romantic demagogues who have been tearing our country apart.” It was written at a time when the Vietnam War was rendering the fabric of American culture – not dissimilar to today, with White Supremacists and Antifa polarizing our politics. Reading the book is a reminder that life doesn’t change so much as reinvent itself. When emotions rule actions, reason is wanted, and honesty sought: “…Nothing is more sacred,” Rosten wrote, “than the unflagging pursuit of truth, whomever it may disappoint, or contradict, or upset.” It is a truism worth remembering.

"A Lesson in Government and Government Compassion"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

Thought of the Day

“A Lesson in Government and Government Compassion”

August 7, 2017

“Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income

tend to smother production incentives and lead toward general impoverishment.”

                                                                                    Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)

                                                                                    American journalist of economics and business

This is a primer, written as a reminder to myself as much as for readers. With our government grown large and complex, with demands placed on it that were never envisioned by the Founders, with its purpose enshrouded in a miasma of social demands and political correctness, and with its being used by those who enrich themselves at the expense of the needy, it seemed appropriate to recall its original intent, and to acknowledge that, from a perspective of government largesse, wealth must precede compassion.

Without government, anarchy would reign, chaos would ensue and the strongest would rule. So, government is necessary for man to survive, at least civilly. The question has always been – what form of government best serves man? Winston Churchill, a sometime satirical critic of democracy (“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”), nevertheless admitted it was the best form of government yet devised. Most would agree. Additionally (and concomitantly), we should remind ourselves that private economic growth is a necessary prelude to public compassion.

Most people are, and have been, ruled by authoritarians: royalty, military or civilian dictatorships, religious leaders, a cabal of strong men, or an oligarchy of the wealthy. Examples today would include North Korea, Syria, Iran, Uganda and Venezuela. China and Russia restrict the rights of their citizens. (Incidentally, the leaders of three of those countries – Russia, North Korea and Syria – show up on a list of the world’s richest political leaders.) The origins of these governments lie in the military like Uganda, religion like Iran, or socialism like Venezuela. China and Russia came to be despotic regimes by way of revolution against imperial powers. But, unlike ours, their revolutions devolved into even harsher regimes. The consequence for their peoples: the murder of millions of their citizens, deprivation of human rights, unequal opportunities, sustained poverty, and no desire to provide adequately for their people. While both have emerged from the worst of their self-inflicted atrocities, both have recently reverted to authoritarian ways.    

In democracies, where the fortunate among us live, the essential purpose of government is twofold: To keep its citizens safe against threats from home and abroad, and to assure that its citizens’ civil rights are not abrogated. Compassion in government, a common expectancy today, can only be achieved with sustained economic growth. President George W. Bush once said, “The major role of government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.” A belief in, and encouragement of, free market capitalism is necessary to attain the things we today want government to do: to care for the indigent, the aged, the infirm, to provide healthcare for all, to educate our youth and to protect the environment. A nation may be rich in resources, as is ours, but without the rule of law and without a legal framework that allows people to own private property those resources may sit idle. One has only to look at nations like Venezuela, Argentina, Nigeria and Rwanda – poor countries with abundant resources. A successful nation needs a freely elected government, along with men and women who are entrepreneurial, aspirant, creative and willing to take risk, those who see opportunity and exploit it. Government should act as referee: assure fairness, protect the innocent, see that laws are upheld, and prevent the willful destruction of resources for short term gain. It should not be the arbiter of who becomes successful.

To accomplish this, a successful nation must make available a basic education, and it must strive to provide equal opportunities for all. As a country becomes powerful and wealthy, demands on its resources intensify. That is unsurprising. A free and independent nation, grown rich because of adherence to the principles of free-market capitalism, can afford to be compassionate. But it must be careful lest it slay the goose that lays the golden eggs. Without wealth created through private enterprise, compassion becomes empty promises – wind puddings with air sauce, as my mother-in-law used to say.

To achieve the goal of a representative republic and to avoid the tendency of man to accrue power, the Founders established a government in which leverage was diffused – a separation of control – a legislative branch to create laws, an executive branch to implement them, and a judicial branch to adjudicate them.

As we recall that history, we should not forget what the Founders did not promise: equality of outcomes, the promotion of gender studies, health care, the protection of our rivers and forests, etc. They had little idea of the of how big, rich and complex the United States would become. They had no inkling of labor-saving devices that would be forthcoming, from cars to washing machines to telephones. They realized that people are not all the same. They knew they were not creating Nirvana, but I like to think they would approve of the charity and humanity that are central to today’s citizens and government. However, I also like to think that they believed we should live within our means, and that we should not derail the engine of economic growth, which has brought so much good to so many.

There is a reason that immigrants seek our shores – we are a land of opportunity. We are a place where hard work and ability provide awards, where gains made legally cannot be confiscated, where the right to speak out, to protest, to practice one’s religion are not inhibited, where, if accused of a crime, a jury of one’s peers determine one’s guilt or innocence, where discrimination is not absent, but not so prevalent as in those countries where it is exercised by government. The people must ensure those principles are never reneged.

As well, as charitable people we should strive to do what we can to help those in need, regardless of what government does; though our government does and should play a role. But the promise of equal outcomes is nothing more than an empty campaign pledge – a promise that what is Sally’s will be given to Harry. Such policies do not recognize inherent differences in people: Some are stronger; others are smarter. Some have high aspirations; others are content to be followers. Some work hard; others prefer personal pursuits. Some shun the material world for that of art, music or dance. Some of the most talented are willing to forego high incomes, so that they may teach others, attend their medical needs, or do research. We are a nation of doctors, plumbers, lawyers, electricians, artists, stockbrokers, storekeepers, actors and accountants. A marvel of our communities is that society’s needs get filled without government edict.

What should government do? Simplify the tax code, eliminate prohibitive regulation, reduce dependency, encourage personal responsibility, celebrate the dignity of work and motivate entrepreneurs. Let economic growth reach its potential. Let the next generations enjoy the fruits of democracy and free-market capitalism, as have we. Keep in mind, civil rights and economic freedom are inextricably entwined.

Here endeth the lesson.