Putin’s New Deal

According to David Ignatius of the Washington Post,

To explain the Putin phenomenon, the Kremlin’s chief ideologue, Vladislav Surkov, recently compared him to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another president who brought his country back from economic disaster and restored its pride. Like FDR, Putin is using “presidential power to the maximum degree for the sake of overcoming the crisis,” Surkov said.

Inasmuch as FDR’s economic policies were a failure until after World War II, let’s hope that Putin and Surkov aren’t planning to emulate him too closely.

U.S. to Comply with WTO Ruling on Zeroing

I have been warning on this blog that U.S. failure to comply with the latest WTO ruling against the antidumping calculation technique known as zeroing could open a Pandora’s box that could undermine and eventually destroy the rules-based trading system.  Well, in the words of the old Gilda Radner character from SNL, Emily Litella, “Nevermind!”

The U.S. mission in Geneva announced yesterday that, despite its view that the Appellate Body’s decision was intrusive and wrongheaded, the United States intends to comply.  That is very good news, for at least two reasons. 

First, zeroing severely and unjustly inflates antidumping duty assessments and collections, creating bigger trade barriers.  Depriving the Commerce Department of that methodological trick will undoubtedly lead to lower dumping margins overall.

Second, it is important that the United States show some respect for the outcomes of dispute settlement.  Berating and disregarding those outcomes only serves to erode support for the system.  And if the United States expects to get some mileage as a complainant out of its likely string of cases before the WTO (a subsidy case against China was filed two weeks ago, and the Democratic congress is at least rhetorically fixated on enforcement, enforcement, enforcement), it should show some deference to the rules.

Compliance with the zeroing ruling will likely take at least one year (and probably more), so it’s not entirely out of the question that sentiments could change in Congress or the administration before then. 

On the broader question of whether the WTO dispute settlement system is fair, please check out the online debate between Robert Lighthizer and myself, hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations.

European Union Wants One-Size-Fits-All Regulation

European bureaucracies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission are infamous for their anti-tax competition campaigns, but the zeal to harmonize is not limited to fiscal policy. The European Commission has set an explicit goal of exporting EU regulation to the rest of the world. If successful, this would be an unfortunate development. Competition among regulatory regimes helps control excessive government. But if an international bureaucracy succeeds in becoming a global “standard setter,” then politicians will exploit that monopoly position to impose more onerous regulatory burdens. That certainly will be the case if the bureaucrats in Brussels succeed in this latest push for regulatory harmonization. As the Financial Times indirectly notes, the Euro-crats are not very sympathetic to markets:

Brussels wants the rest of the world to adopt the European Union’s regulations, the European Commission will say this week. A Commission policy paper that examines the future of the Union’s single market says European single market rules have inspired global standard-setting in areas such as product safety, the environment, securities and corporate governance. …The paper calls on the EU to encourage other jurisdictions to follow suit – for example by “promoting European standards internationally through international organisation and bilateral agreements”. …The EU’s drive to establish itself as the pacesetter for worldwide business regulation could well lead the bloc into conflict with the US and other trading partners. US officials have often voiced concern about the Union’s growing clout as a global standard-setter, and the two sides have clashed over issues such as rules for the chemicals industry and the EU’s stance on genetically modified foods. …The two sides have very different regulatory philosophies, with the EU placing a heavy emphasis on consumer protection and environmental legislation while the US tends to promote a more market-based approach. Some critics of the European approach argue that the Union’s stance on issues such as GM foods may also reflect a desire to protect the region’s commercial interests.

Kapuscinski Encounters Capitalism

The Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski, who died in January, published an article in the February 5 New Yorker on his first trip outside Poland. Kapuscinski became a legendary foreign correspondent and travel writer, but this was his first international trip, in 1955 at the age of 23. His reminiscences are a useful reminder of the differences between capitalism and communism. Flying into Rome, he recalls:

I was dumbstruck.

The entire length and breadth of the blackness over which we had been flying was now filled with light. It was an intense light, blinding, quivering, flickering. I had the impression of a liquid substance, like molten lava, glimmering down below, a sparkling surface that pulsated with brightness, expanding and contracting. The entire shining apparition was alive, full of movement, vibration, energy.

It was the first time in my life that I had seen an illuminated city. What few cities and towns I had known until then were depressingly dark. Shop windows never shone, there were no colorful advertisements, the street lamps had weak bulbs. Who needed lights, anyway? In the evenings, the streets were deserted, and one encountered few cars.

The next day his seatmate from the airplane took him shopping in Rome.

We started making the rounds of the shops, accompanied by Mario’s wife. For me, these were expeditions of discovery. Three things dazzled me in particular. First, that the stores were brimming with merchandise, the goods weighing down shelves and counters, spilling out in colorful streams onto sidewalks, streets, and squares. Second, that the salesladies did not sit, but stood looking at the entrance; it was strange that they stood in silence, rather than sitting and talking to one another. The third shock was that they answered the questions you asked them. They responded in complete sentences and then added, Grazie! Mario’s wife would ask about something and they would listen with sympathy and attention, inclining forward with such focus that it looked as if they were about to start a race.

Now remember, this is Italy in 1955, only 10 years after its military defeat. Apparently it took only a decade for communism to produce shortages, indolence, and poor customer relations in Poland, while capitalism produced abundance and customer service in post-Mussolini Italy. Not to mention the difference in nighttime lights that anticipated today’s famous image of the two Koreas at night.

More Fallout from Switzerland’s Tax Fight with Brussels

This site has closely followed the European Commission’s attempt to undermine Swiss tax sovereignty - an effort that has implications for the US since high-tax nations like France and Germany could use the same argument (that low taxes somehow are contrary to free trade) against America at the WTO if the anti-Swiss campaign proves successful. Fortunately, that is not likely to happen. The European Commission ultimately has only one weapon, which is the ability to impose protectionist sanctions against Swiss goods and services. But as Euractiv.com notes, there are EU member states that support tax competition and presumably would not approve an effort to punish Switzerland for the supposed sin of good tax law:

The Commission, on 13 February, accused Switzerland of offering unfair company-tax advantages that it says amounts to illegal state aid, in order to lure multinationals away from the EU. …Member states are likely to give strong backing to the Commission, as frustration has grown with the increasing number of multinationals, including General Motors, Kraft Foods and Procter & Gamble, deserting their EU headquarters to set up in Switzerland. Tax competition is also a problem within the EU, with countries like Ireland and Luxembourg luring companies away from high-tax France and Germany thanks to their low business tax rates. But, a Commission move to harmonise tax systems across the EU is being fiercely resisted by low-tax member states.

Needless to say, the Swiss-EC fight has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with tax competition. Politicians from high-tax nations despise fiscal rivalry since it forces them to lower tax rates (or at least not to raise rates even further) in an effort to prevent the loss of jobs and capital. Switzerland is a beneficiary of this liberalizing process, both because its overall tax burden is low compared to the rest of Europe, but also because the nation has a genuine federal system, meaning that regional (cantonal) and local governments must compete to offer the most attractive fiscal policies. A recent paper published by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains the role of intra-national tax competition, and a report from Euro2day.gr shows that Swiss leaders understand the valuable role of their federal structure:

Zug has been particularly exposed. “We don’t understand why the Commission has made these accusations now,” says Peter Hegglin, the cantonal finance minister. …Like most Swiss, Mr Hegglin emphasises the role of tax competition as a cornerstone of Switzerland’s extreme form of devolution, where individual cantons and communities set their own levies, and as an instrument to ensure lean, efficient government. “Tax competition is something that is so deeply ingrained in Switzerland internally that the government has little leeway to negotiate anything,” says Walter Kielholz, chairman of Credit Suisse. …Zug is now the hub for companies from global commodities traders, such as Glencore, to the regional headquarters of leading pharmaceuticals groups. Nord Stream, the Russian dominated consortium planning a new gas pipeline under the Baltic, is the latest of many arrivals. Zug’s appeal lies in its proximity to Zurich, its lawyers, accountants and consultants – and its modest taxes. All companies must pay Switzerland’s nationwide 8.5 per cent federal profits tax. Some others also face cantonal and municipal levies, taking the total to 16-16.5 per cent.

Last but not least, a letter-to-the-editor of the Financial Times mockingly asks whether the bureaucrats in Brussels will extend their complaint about Switzerland’s tax laws to other policies:

The Swiss know many more ways of unfair competition to lure successful businesses to settle there. Take my own typical recent travel experience: Queueing for check-in and security control at Kastrup airport, Copenhagen: 2hr 15min. Queueing at Birmingham international airport: 1hr 45min. I always avoid using Heathrow and BA because it is even worse. No queueing at Geneva airport, check-in and security control completed in less than 20 minutes. …In the UK or Sweden the whole rail system breaks down if 5cm of snow falls. The Swiss trains run 90 per cent on time, even if it is snowing! Another example of unfair efficiency. The political system with its direct democracy is less corrupt in Switzerland than in the UK, Germany and Sweden. Is this not an outrageous example of unfair competition? Because of low taxes the Swiss public services must be well organised and more efficient than in Scandinavia and the UK. The efficiency of public services together with reasonable taxes is Switzerland’s most important advantage.

Senators Introduce Bill Attacking Low-Tax Jurisdictions

Politicians from France and Germany are infamous for whining about “unfair” competition from low-tax jurisdictions. It is embarrassing to note that there are politicians in the United States with the same sore-loser attitude. With Senator Levin of Michigan as the ringleader, three senators have introduced an anti-tax haven bill that would impose onerous new burdens on taxpayers while dramatically increasing the power of the Internal Revenue Service. The sponsors make a number of completely inaccurate assertions, including a claim that so-called tax havens account for $100 billion of lost tax revenue. Even a cursory review of IRS data, however, show that the vast majority of the “tax gap” is from small business taxpayers. But Levin’s attitude apparently is that facts should not get in the way of good press release. The legislation has numerous other problems, most notably the fact that is almost certainly would put the US in violation of World Trade Organization obligations and that it would make foreign-managed hedge funds more competitive by imposing onerous regulatory burdens on US funds (much as Sarbanes-Oxley helped Hong Kong and London become much more attractive places for venture capital business such as IPOs). The Washington Post reports on the bill’s introduction: 

Three senators proposed legislation that would target what they say is $100 billion a year in tax revenue lost each year because of overseas tax havens, in part by forcing hedge funds to track their foreign investors. The measure would impose tougher requirements on U.S. taxpayers using offshore secrecy jurisdictions, give the U.S. Treasury the authority to take action against foreign jurisdictions that impede tax enforcement, stiffen penalties against abusers and close offshore trust loopholes, according to a summary of the bill released by Michigan Democrat Carl M. Levin. …”We cannot tolerate tax cheats offloading their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers,” Levin said in a joint statement with co-sponsors Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). “Offshore tax havens have declared economic war on honest taxpayers by helping tax cheats hide income and assets that should be taxed in the same way as other Americans.” The Treasury Department and top lawmakers in both houses of Congress have made a priority this year reducing the so-called tax gap, the difference between what individuals and companies owe and what they pay. The IRS said a study of 2001 tax returns shows the tax gap is about $345 billion a year, only $55 billion of which is recovered.

The Economist or The Statist?

A blogger at The Economist has been furiously scratching his head in response to my earlier posts on evolution, trying to understand how an evolutionist such as myself could oppose government mandated instruction in this (and every other) field. I’d like to offer some answers, and at least one factual correction.

First, the correction. The anonymous Economist blogger writes: “We live in a democracy, and most people want their children to be taught scientific truth, or more properly, scientific method.”

In some areas, like elementary physics, that’s undoubtedly true. And I’d be delighted if it were true across the board. It is not. As the polling data I have previously cited demonstrate, either a plurality or an outright majority of Americans (depending on the poll) believe human beings were created by God, in their current form. Most of the rest believe we evolved under God’s guidance. Furthermore, a strong majority of Americans would like to see, at the very least, creationism taught alongside evolution (many probably do not want evolution taught at all – but that option wasn’t offered in the poll question). These beliefs and preferences are not consistent with the teaching of evolutionary theory as understood by the overwhelming majority of biologists.

So the first of my earlier points remains: instruction in a purely naturalistic view of evolution is NOT desired by the majority of the American public, and because the majority has considerable influence over school policy, the teaching of evolution has been hobbled and sidelined in many public schools for generations.

Next, The Economist blogger devises an imaginative but mistaken explanation for my position:

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Coulson’s position is as a form of surrender to fundamentalist Christians: “I don’t agree with you, but I don’t want to upset you, so here’s a compromise whereby I contort my views to support your position.”

The Economist confuses respect for liberty with “surrender.” Recognizing the right of our fellow citizens to disagree with us is a pillar of free societies. That is the insight behind Voltaire’s famous line: ”I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To anyone who grasps the importance of that principle, no ideological “contortions” are necessary to defend the right of families to make their own educational decisions.

It is troubling that so much of today’s intellectual elite seems to have forgotten the crucial role of individual liberty.

There is also a gross contradiction between the lip service given to the limits of scientific knowledge and the desire to see such knowledge established like a state religion.

While the blogger catches himself in the quote above, moderating the term “scientific truth” with “or more properly, scientific method,” he slips later on, rhetorically asking: “Should the teaching of the truth not be compulsory in education?” [emphasis added]

Here he leaves “the truth” unmodified. We KNOW what the truth is, he seems to say, why SHOULDN’T we force everyone to listen to the Good Word?

But anyone serious about science understands that scientific knowledge is provisional. Induction, on which science rests, is incapable of identifying Truth with a capital ‘T’. Science is by far the best tool we have for making sense of the world, but it isn’t a Truth machine. The rational thing to do is to treat what we learn through science as useful working assumptions – as the best approximation to Truth that we can find. Science, well practiced, is humble.

Statist rationalists are not. They want to compel everyone to be taught the methods and provisional conclusions of science, and that is precisely the opposite of what scientist and philosopher Jacob Bronowski so wisely encouraged us to do. Bronowski exhorted us to imbue politics with the empiricism – and more importantly, the humility – of science. He felt that by keeping in mind the imperfection of all human knowledge we could avoid the absolutism and totalitarianism that brought so much death and suffering in the mid-20th century.

But instead of moderating governments by injecting them with the circumspection of science, rationalist statists seek to inject the absolutism and compulsion of government mandates into the teaching of science.

Before continuing down that unsavory road, I hope that The Economist will pause to consider how a free market in education could advance quality science instruction, show greater respect for the limits of scientific knowledge, and comport better with the founding principles of the United States.

And if they’d like someone to do that, or to debate Dawkins on the merits of compulsory instruction in evolution, I’ll be happy to help. There are areas in which the state must demand conformity, such as adherence to a body of basic laws, but uniformity in the teaching of human origins serves no such essential role in the perpetuation of a free society. On the contrary, granting the state the power to decide and proselytize the “Truth” is a danger to free societies.