socialism

The military government that replaced Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak is now moving to reverse recent reforms that gave Egypt solid economic growth in the last several years. It wants to curb free-market competition with military-run enterprises that dominate parts of Egypt’s economy.

As The New York Times reported on Friday, economists say the military “has already begun taking steps to protect the privileges of its gated economy, discouraging changes that some argue are crucial if Egypt is to emerge as a more stable, prosperous country.”

Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the minister of defense and military production who now leads the council of officers ruling Egypt, has been a strong advocate of government control of prices and production. He has consistently opposed steps to open up the economy. . . already there are signs that the military is purging from the cabinet and ruling party advocates of market-oriented economic changes, like selling off state-owned companies and reducing barriers to trade. . . the military-led government also struck at advocates of economic openness, including the former finance minister Youssef Boutros-Ghali, who was forced from his job, and the former trade minister Rachid Mohamed Rachid.

The young protesters who helped bring down the Mubarak government are short-sightedly not criticizing these measures. Indeed, the Times reports that “some of the young revolutionaries at the vanguard of the revolt identify themselves as leftists or socialists.”

Egypt’s economy had long been a moribund socialist backwater after much of the economy was nationalized by the founder of Egypt’s ruling party, Gamal Abdel Nasser. His successors Sadat and Mubarak had largely continued those policies. But in the last five years, Mubarak finally embarked on serious economic reform, resulting in sustained economic growth. The reforms made property rights more secure, and made it easier to start a business — although much of Egyptian industry remained government-owned.

Ironically enough, this economic liberalization made possible the recent demands for political liberalization that contributed to Mubarak’s ouster, by giving Egyptians access to cell phones, the Internet, and other means of mass communication, and increasing their political consciousness. As Marshall Stocker noted:

Egypt today evidences Milton Friedman’s ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ thesis that a large measure of political freedom only comes when economic freedom exists. The World Bank’s 2006 “Ease of Doing Business index” scored Egypt 165 of 175, among the worst countries for business. After several years of economic liberalization, Egypt is 94 of 183 this year, more economically free than Brazil, India and Russia. The number of days it takes to start a business legally has dropped 85%. It now takes me 10, not the 500 days it took Mr. de Soto in 2004. The World Bank says that property registration now takes 72 days, down from 193, and now costs 90% less.  Economic liberalization permitted Egyptians to afford the tools of freedom: cell phones, satellite TV, Facebook and Twitter. Economic liberalization facilitated this revolution.

The economic regression occurring in Egypt is mirrored in more backward Yemen, where the longtime ruler of Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries, has sought to shore up his popular support in the face of mass unrest by promising rigid “price controls” and an expansion of welfare to cover 500,000 more people. President Ali Abdullah Saleh has promised to expand his bureaucracy to hire more “college graduates,” and is increasing the pay of government employees. These measures will wreak havoc with his country’s finances, resulting in massive deficit spending. They will further stifle his country’s slow-growing economy, which has failed to keep pace with rapid population increases. Yemen’s lousy economy has helped make it a fertile ground for Al Qaeda recruiters.

In Libya, the viciously bloody and oppressive longtime dictator Muammar Qaddafi is shoring up his support base in the face of public protests by promising to double public-employee pay, even though public employees are much richer than the average Libyan. Egypt recently increased government employee pay by 15 percent to buttress their loyalty, a decision sure to increase its budget deficit and aggravate its economic problems.

We wrote earlier about how ethanol subsidies and mandates were fueling Islamic extremism and contributing to unrest in Egypt’s slums by driving up wheat prices, and thus shifting the locus of opposition to the Mubarak government away from Egypt’s small pro-democracy movements towards the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, which is popular in the slums because of its relief efforts there.

Image credit: Muhammad Ghafari via Wikimedia Commons.

I wrote recently how Hugo Chavez is stealing productive sectors of the Venezuela economy on its ‘Road to Serfdom.’ Now, Chavez has developed a new way to engage in class warfare: Stealing golf courses. In fact, his demagoguery against private property rights is quite disturbing.

That’s an injustice — that someone should have the luxury of having I don’t know how many hectares to play golf and drink whiskey and, next door, there’s misery and children dying when there are landslides,” Chavez said during his weekly television show, “Alo, Presidente.”

Economically, what Chavez says above can only lead to disaster. Assuming the golf courses are privately maintained, private owners pay the costs of upkeep. Moreover, the legal framework of private property creates an incentive for other private landowners to improve their property as well, thereby improving the Venezuela economy overall. With Chavez’s bully tactics, however, all the right incentives are destroyed. Now, what is to prevent Chavez for taking anything on the grounds that people somewhere in Venezuela are doing worse?

In the end, that is the point. This has nothing to do with the poor or uplifting those who are less-fortunate in Venezuela. Instead, it is to make an excuse to take more and more power.

Photo citation.

CBS is reporting today that Hugo Chavez “ordered the expropriation of U.S.-based glass maker Owens-Illinois Inc.’s unit in the South American country.” This is just a fancy way of saying that Chavez stole another company. Moreover, Chavez isn’t too concerned that he is impoverishing his citizens and that Caracas is running out of milk and eggs.  If he was remotely concerned, he wouldn’t be nationalizing the entire country.

What is so depressing about all of this is that the American media largely ignores, or doesn’t understand, the economic ramifications of what Chavez is doing. For example, last month The New York Times printed a glowing article on Chavez’s new government-run coffee shops. Here are two relevant excerpts:

The planners behind the cafes have multiple objectives: to provide food and conviviality at democratic prices, to serve as commercial linchpins to renew some of the city’s most run-down districts and, not incidentally, to remind satisfied patrons of the government’s populist program in an election year.

Judging by the long lines that snake from the counter onto the sidewalk on most days, they are a hit.

The reporter doesn’t seem to understand that the long lines are due to the fact that Chavez instituted massive price controls on the coffee, using subsidies and government force at his disposal to undercut all private coffee shops. Moreover, the reporter laughably mentions the shortage of eggs and milk, but can’t seem to figure out that the price controls on those products are what caused the shortages in the first place:

The government’s entry into the restaurant business is part of its effort to alleviate shortages of basic foods like milk and eggs, which weighed heavily on voters in 2007, when Mr. Chávez lost a referendum about overhauling the Constitution, his only major electoral defeat since rising to power in 1998.

So here we have an example of the reporter supporting policies and programs based on good intentions rather than results.  However, I do not give Chavez the benefit of the doubt that he has good intentions behind what he is doing.  There is too much evidence that his policies are a recipe for disaster.   Instead, he will continue to accumulate power and the people will get poorer.  Eventually, violent force will be the only way to prevent Chavez’s democratic opposition, which  may have already started.

Link to photo.

A House ethics panel has released the charges against left-wing firebrand Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) arising out her shady dealings with OneUnited Bank. (Her family owns an interest in the bank, which got $12 million from taxpayers.) We previously described the controversy here.

This is the same congresswoman who once told a CEO in a public congressional hearing, “This liberal will be all about socializing . . . would be about, basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

Having socialist leanings apparently doesn’t stop a politician from cozying up to banks like the terribly mismanaged OneUnited Bank–or supporting corporate welfare. In practice, socialism has nothing to do with equality, as its supporters claim; it’s just a way to justify taking and spending other people’s money.

Despite her ethical problems, Waters is a powerful lawmaker. She inserted racial preferences into the financial reform bill, which became law despite criticism from the Wall Street Journal and economists.

Richard Morrison and Marc Scribner welcome guest co-host Alex Nowrasteh to Episode 102 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We take on the healthcare tax, obscenity and the First Amendment, the prognosis for the Gulf of Mexico, and the collective insanity coming out of Venezuela.

Law professor llya Somin notes a “lesson of the original Thanksgiving: that the Pilgrims nearly starved to death because of collectivism and eventually saved themselves by adopting a system of private property.” He then highlights an article by economist Benjamin Powell:

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. . .People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. . . Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. . .

This change, [Governor William] Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. . . .

Professor Somin also links to this 1999 article by Tom Bethell, which provides a more detailed account of how property rights saved the Pilgrims.

Robert Service’s new biography of Trotsky is reviewed in today’s Wall Street Journal. Having read Service’s excellent biography of Lenin a few years ago, this seems like a book worth reading. Joshua Rubenstein’s thoughtful review touches on some thoughts about socialism and socialists.

Socialism had three major failings. The first is what economists study most closely. It is the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism, because of the rejection of prices and money as a medium of exchange. Whether you support socialist ideals or not, it is literally impossible to achieve. Do away with prices and currency, and they will emerge in a different form. They are part of human society.

The second aspect of socialism intrigues philosophers: socialism genuinely sought to change human nature itself. People as they currently are are in no shape to realize Marx’s vision of communist society. So part of the communist program was to actively mold and change people so that vision could one day become a reality.

Before Marx came along, Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia were also written about societies with a fundamentally changed human nature. More, knowing his ideal to be impossible, coined the word “utopia,” which literally means “no place.” His book is a pleasant dream (for a collectivist at least), but More knew it was one that could ever come true. We are they way we are. And we’re stuck that way, for better or worse.

This leads us to the third aspect of socialism, which most concerns Trotsky. This is, for me, the most remarkable part, and the most chilling. It is the sheer violence that accompanied Marxism-Leninism everywhere it was tried. And I mean everywhere. Every single country to adopt communism had a checkered human rights record. No exceptions. Not one had anything resembling freedom of speech or press, or due process, or property rights.

Most historians now estimate that communist governments killed around 100,000,000 people. Mostly their own citizens. At no other point in human history have governments been so murderous of their own people. No other ideology has had consequences so bloody as Marxism and its variants.

One reason for the violence is that it allowed the governments to maintain power; resistance is less likely when the prevailing climate is of fear. Another is that human nature is stubborn. If it is to be changed, force is required. But, of course, the basic tenets of humanity are immutable. We are who we are.

Communist leaders, including Trotsky, were simply chilling. Many of them come off as sadists. They seemed to actually enjoy bloodshed. Revel in it. Yet Trotsky still has his admirers today. They need to answer for why they look up to someone who would even have thoughts like the following, let alone give voice to such brutish impulses in public speeches:

“The strength of the French Revolution,” he shouted to a group of revolutionary sailors, “was in the machine that made the enemies of the people shorter by a head. This is a fine device. We must have it in every city.” And have it they did. Once in power, Trotsky advocated show trials and the execution of political prisoners; he suppressed other socialist parties and independent trade unions; he pushed for the censorship of art that did not support the revolution; and he created the institutions of repression that were later turned against him and his followers.

On November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall came crashing down. Today marks the twentieth anniversary of that great day – one of the greatest in the history of human freedom. Communism in Germany finally collapsed, setting off a domino effect that would reach Moscow within two years. Families torn apart for nearly three decades came together in tearful, happy reunions as the world watched. The Cold War was finally, mercifully, ending.

Many historians cite World War I as the twentieth century’s opening act. Sixteen million souls died in that war over nothing. Two of the nations it toppled became the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Communist and fascist governments would combine to kill more than one hundred million people over the next seven decades. Those needless deaths are the twentieth century’s legacy, every bit as much as the transistor or rock ‘n roll.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was that short, bloody century’s coda.

November 9, 1989 was also the start of something better. It was a nation’s way of saying that it was ready to move on to better times. To a new world defined not by oppression, ideology, and servitude, but by freedom. Sweet, precious, fragile freedom. Seeing the footage on the news was like witnessing something being born. The hope and potential that surround every birth were glimmering in people’s eyes. It was beautiful.

What Berlin’s people did on that day also inspired half a continent to send the same message to their leaders. What a noble achievement. How worthy of commemoration, now that twenty years have passed.

What a shame, then, that this milestone has been treated more like a millstone by the media. Reporters more concerned with today’s news cycle are giving at best perfunctory attention to a day that showed us all that is good about humanity.

To partially right that wrong, CEI has produced a short video commemorating what the Berlin Wall’s fall symbolizes. I hope you will watch it and enjoy it. Of course, it is hard to convey in a few short minutes what the people living in that Wall’s shadow went through for 29 long years.

So put yourself in their shoes. Think what they thought. Look right in the eyes of those separated families as they try to catch glimpses of each other over that wall. And the people who risked their lives escaping. And the soldier carrying back the body of someone who didn’t make it. What was going through his mind as he carried out his grisly task? That might give you an idea of what the Berlin Wall meant.

We all need to remember the Berlin Wall. We need to say to each other, “Never again.” And we have to mean it.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJReAunlOw0 285 234]

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEkpVXv0SYs 285 234]