It is always amusing to come upon the work of a
one-dimensional academic because these people are supposed to be the
multi-dimensional gods who look at the world from their ivory towers as they
think of ways to make round all the intellectual flat-landers they see below –
those creatures that exist in a one-dimensional world, and are unable to
imagine what a surface area feels like, much less grasp what a volumetric space
would look like. But then, politics has the ability to play tricks not just on
ordinary mortals but on the gods themselves as they sit in their ivory towers
not realizing how simple minded they are.
We have a stark example of this paradox in the article that
was published on August 15, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal under the title:
“Ryan and the Fundamental Economic Debate” and the subtitle: “It's time to get
back to first principles. A general increase in socialistic policies tends to
lower economic growth.” The article was written by Robert J. Barro who is
professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University
If you define being a one dimensional man he who draws two
columns to list all the good things inside of one, and all the bad things
inside of the other, you will see why Robert Barro ought to be regarded as a
one dimensional man from this paragraph: “Outsourcing is essentially the same
as importing a good from a foreign country. In the former, a company buys
foreign labor services. In the latter, a company buys the good that embodies
foreign inputs, particularly labor services. So, it makes no sense to be a free
trader with respect to imports and exports of goods while opposing outsourcing.
Opposing either is protectionism.”
Obviously, one of Barro's fictitious columns is labeled
“free trade” which means good things to him. And the other column is labeled
“protectionism” which means bad things to him. And so, he lists the outsourcing
of jobs as well as the importing of products inside the good things column. He
does not only say there is an equivalence between the two; he says they are
essentially the same. Because he looks at the matter in this fashion, we must
conclude that he either fails to see the difference between the two, or he
deliberately ignores the difference because he has a more important axe to
grind. In fact, it may be that he is both at the same time.
Barro goes on to explain why the things which he listed in
the good things column are good for the country. But look here, what he says
actually does make sense! Yes, it does make sense but only – yes it is only --
if you look at the subject matter from the one dimensional point of view which
he has adopted for whatever the reason. It could be a deliberate reason or it
could be that he knows not any better. So now we look at the same subject from
the multi-dimensional point of view to see the difference. And the best way to
do this is to take examples.
Example one: The Japanese outsource a great deal of their
manufacturing because they have a shrinking population, and they do not accept
immigrants. To remain a viable economy, they must build manufacturing plants
outside of Japan ,
or their economy will die a slow death. By contrast, America welcomes immigration even
though it has a growing population of its own. It does not really need to
outsource, especially that it remains the largest market where everybody wants
to sell their products, and it has the highest purchasing power in the world.
Thus, Japan is doing what is
good for Japan whereas America is
doing what is good for the outsourcers. The Japanese are multi-dimensional
thinkers, America
is not.
Example two: Saudi
Arabia also takes in people from other
countries, yet it has outsourced a number of enterprises to other countries.
Yes, Saudi Arabia
did that. But look closely what it is that it did. It took people in from other
countries but considered them guest workers who are routinely let go when they
are no longer needed. This happens when someone local has been trained well
enough to occupy the position that the foreigner used to fill. As to the
outsourcing of its enterprises, these are agricultural companies that grow food
in the fertile lands of Africa and South Asia to be shipped to Saudi Arabia
where very little is grown given that it is an arid desert. But believe you me,
if the Saudis could transfer the water or the soil to their country, they would
have done it. Thus, unlike America ,
the Saudis are doing what is good for Saudi Arabia . The Saudis are
multi-dimensional thinkers, America
is not.
Example three: The Chinese welcome insourcing, and they
insist that technology, industrial processes and know how be transferred to
them -- brought in by those who respond to the invitation. In the meantime, the
only outsourcing they do is that they buy mines of base metals, and buy fields
of energy such as coal, oil, natural gas and uranium to exploit them, and send
the raw material home. And believe you me, if they could transfer the mines or
the fields to China ,
they would have done it. Thus, unlike the Americans, the Chinese are doing what
is good for China .
The Chinese are multi-dimensional thinkers, America is not.
And so we ask, what do the Japanese, the Saudis and the
Chinese know that Robert Barro and the other occupants of the ivory towers are
ignorant of? They know that when you grow your own food, and you produce your
own goods and services, you have some control over them, therefore have control
over your own destiny. In fact, America
uses the energy equivalent of something like 45 million barrels of oil a day,
most of which is produced from local sources. And yet, because it imports one
million barrels of oil a day – this is only one million barrels a day -- from Saudi Arabia ,
you hear from a million pundits as they express their apoplectic disposition at
the phenomenon. Why is that? you ask. And they respond that to rely on the
importation of oil is to be subjected to a national security threat.
Did you say national security? What about the weapon systems
which are produced by the American military industrial complex, made with
sophisticated high technology Chinese components? Is this not a bigger threat
to American national security? Whoa! Didn't think of it.
The trouble is that you're talking to one dimensional
characters who believe they are multi-dimensional gods who wish to turn the
world into carbon copies of themselves. Mind boggling.
Robert Barro ends the article this way: “With the addition of conservative thinker and
budget expert Rep. Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket, we can hope
that the economic dialogue will become more serious. And perhaps this added
substance will extend beyond the important issue of long-term fiscal reform to
encompass the enduring but still crucial debate about socialism versus capitalism.”
No Sir, it will not happen if Paul Ryan turns out to be as one
dimensional as Robert Barro. What is needed at a time like this is someone that
can look at a question from all the angles, and address the many possible
implications, not just speak to the one dogma that is dictated by the political
cry of the day.