My prescriptions for increasing American competitiveness is for the government to do nothing. Except:
- End all the expensive Wars on Terror, Drugs, Poverty that are costing us not only blood and treasure but also our individual and civil liberties
- Stop acting as the world's policeman with 300 bases in 170 companies
- Repeal the horrible business legislation that is making us un-competitive. Sarbanes Oxley compliance has so far cost American investors as much as $1.4 trillion, about 40 times more than did Enron. We have imposed 40 Enrons on ourselves to avoid one! But its far far worse than that. Sarbox is driving away foreign investment. To avoid the costs of Sarbox compliance, foreign companies have deigned to invest here. In 2000, nine out of every 10 dollars raised by foreign companies were raised in the United States. In 2005, nine of the 10 largest public stock offerings were not registered in the United States. Of the largest 25 global offerings, only one took place in the US. No other country hampers its economy to such an extent. Europe does not have such overbearing regulations. This is a wake-up call. To compete in a global economy we must free business from its shackles. To retain our standard of living, we must level the playing field. Does this make sense? They that govern least govern best.
America did not grow prosperous and powerful because investment was top-down, but because it was *not* top-down. It is growing poorer and less competitive because of waste and the arrogance of those who think that a few elite should direct investments and choices of the many.
Government is not the solution. It is most definitely the problem. As is now acknowledged, regulators were overzealous when going after Enron in destroying another company, Arthur Andersen in the process, costing tens of thousands of jobs
?History is soon forgotten, Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.? - George Washington
Funding for science? Leave it to the private sector. Most countries dominance in a given industry sector is uncorrelated with the respective government's investments. Government frequently mal-invests money.
Better education for children. Should government run education? How about providing shoes, food, clothing, shelter? Are these not more critical to survival? I hope you caught the absurdity here. If government ran these things we would have only scarcity and poor quality. Haven't we yet learned that competition makes things more efficient, and drives quality while reducing prices?
Adult retraining? Again, government mal-invests money. The return on such programs has always been negative.
Widespread availability of technology and Internet access? Access to technology has much to do with individual's choices on where to live. Rural areas have less access. Let individuals decide whether access to some goods and services is worth the tradeoff against solitude, quiet, low property and land costs, fewer regulations and clean air. This is not the government's job.
Renewed emphasis on science and technology within our society. This can never be a top-down exercise.
Green technology. Get government out of subsidizing roads, oil (through military deployments which closely mirror oil reserves around the world), etc., and the appropriate technologies will rise. Government protection of special interests is the biggest cause of pollution in this country.
For America to become competitive again, the government has to stop doing almost everything it is currently doing. Through setting interest rates instead of letting lenders and borrowers set the rate, the Federal Reserve (a government-controlled private bank) caused inflation in housing and the bubble that is now bringing down the economy. We all know that government price control of goods and services is disastrous, so why do we let the government set the cost of money? Through deficit spending that today costs every American about $1,700 per year in taxes *just to pay the interest on the debt*, we are destroying our dollar. We cannot afford our domestic and foreign policies, our empire. Every day we out ourselves and future generations into hock.
The man who could have restored competitiveness is Ron Paul. Its too late. But you can vote for the candidates who are running in his name across the country, to restore the Republican party to its roots, and through it, perhaps someday return the government to its Constitutionally limited role as a defender only of individual and civil liberties. If the Democratic Party were headed in this direction, I would support it. The very premise of this article, that suggests top-down interventionism, is deeply flawed.
