«The specter of protectionism is rising. It is always a dangerous and foolish policy, but it is especially dangerous at a time of economic crisis, when it threatens to damage the world economy. Protectionism’s peculiar premise is that national prosperity is increased when government grants monopoly power to domestic producers. As centuries of economic reasoning, historical experience, and empirical studies have repeatedly shown, that premise is dead wrong. Protectionism creates poverty, not prosperity. Protectionism doesn’t even “protect” domestic jobs or industries; it destroys them, by harming export industries and industries that rely on imports to make their goods. Raising the local prices of steel by “protecting” local steel companies just raises the cost of producing cars and the many other goods made with steel. Protectionism is a fool’s game».
It is always Africa. The forgotten continent. It could be an empty lost planet, like Mars, but there are millions and of persons fighting to survive in its beautifully sad lands. You can see the metaphor of Africa in a sequence of The Constant Gardener, when people run away through the desert as bandits come to rob and kill them. While white men could get on the plane, black people only have the choice of running faster than their captors. The support of the white man is only an illusion because if times go harder, like in the movie, there is no chance to save Africans.
One of the most intriguing things of the think tank phenomenon is to determine if these research and policy action units have a real influence in the development of politics. In fact, most of them assure that they have a certain persuasive power over the decisions of government. It is the suppossedly main proof they offer when trying to justify their existence and in the funding process. However, due to the lack of systematic research on the think tank activities and the youngness of many institutes, it is still difficult to draw consistent conclusions about the topic.
I do not share all the principles classical liberalism defend. It is probably because I do not believe in a perfect man, nor in a road to perfection. Imperfection is in our genome. However, in the think tanks environment there are very intelligent people who passionately promote the free market policies. Where they work in small institutes, only funded by individual donations, usually they are very clear-thinking persons. It is worth to follow their proposals because the analysis of the economic and political keys is so well focused.
The Obama Presidency is not enjoying the best support from the Conservative think tanks front. In the middle of the crisis, the are afraid of the arrival of a new and stronger version of the damned Welfare State. If we did not know that in fact, the Welfare State has never left us, we firmly will believe their dramatic appeals against the new wave of communism is coming thanks to Mr Obama.
No, the launch of the Stimulus Plan is generating a big resistence from the Conservative economists. In other post I mentioned the economists’ rebellion leaded by the Cato Institute. Now it is the turn of the Heritage Foundation, whose experts prevent us from the socialist disguised in a Democrat.
With the motto The Left is on the March, this outstanding think tank has started a hard campaign to highlight all the decisions Obama Cabinet makes with the aim of returning to the Welfare State and even further.
“The 1996 welfare reform bill changed the way government treated welfare. But last week the Left reverted back to the liberal welfare state in the “stimulus” bill. Hidden in the bill was a massive increase in welfare spending. While the 1996 reforms gave states more money if they moved people OFF welfare, the new policy gives states more money if more people stay ON welfare”.
The analysts say the Government is going to spend $6,700 for every poor person in the United States. According to them this is not a worthwile investment because it perpetuates the aid and do not motivate people to leaving their bad situation. May be they have to ask themsleves who causes that situation. Not everybody is guilty of being a homeless.
People from the Heritage Foundation argues that the growth of welfare is the worst way to recover economy and family income. They remember the year 1996, when the Clinton Administration implemented another protection package that according to their point of view, did not stimulate at all the entrepreneurship and labour maket.
“It seems some bad ideas never die, and the welfare state is certainly one of them. Before 1996 the government heaped benefits on low-income individuals, crippling them in a cycle of dependency, and providing no incentives for state and local governments to help their citizens get jobs. And with last week’s bill, it seems we are turning back the clock and reinstating these failed policies again”.
But what about the opposite? It does not seem that George W. Bush economic policies have been a big success. And traditionally, Heritage, Cato, AEI and other protoconservative think tanks have the inspirers of the Republicans. The used to claim that. May be now they have forgotten the point.
