Cato Policy Report, November/December 1999
Vol. 21, No. 6
The antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against Microsoft is “the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust crusade of our generation,” writes Robert A. Levy in “Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit” (Policy Analysis no. 352). In examining the DOJ’s twisted logic, Levy points out that we have entered “the postmodern world of high-tech antitrust where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wake-up call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That’s the Orwellian world in which Microsoft finds itself.” The fundamental questions that must be asked in the case against Microsoft, Levy says, are “whether Microsoft has a monopoly, whether it’s misusing its market power, and whether government can find a cure that isn’t worse than the disease. The answers are no, no, no.” Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at Cato, points out that “the market moves faster than antitrust could ever move. The assumption of would-be regulators—that inefficiencies, especially in high-tech markets, can lock a company into a position from which it can’t be unseated—is a complete myth. Consumers rule, not producers.” Microsoft faces stiff competition on many fronts, especially from Web-based software, which has already overlaid, and may eventually displace, major parts of Windows. “Microsoft has zero leverage in a world where applications are written so that any browser can run them and any operating system can access them,” Levy notes.
Workers Should
Welcome Imports
Imports pose little risk to job security for U.S. workers, writes
Dan Griswold in the new Cato Institute study “Trade, Jobs, and Manufacturing:
Why (Almost All) U.S. Workers Should Welcome Imports” (Trade Briefing
Paper no. 6). Griswold, associate director of Cato’s Center for
Trade Policy Studies, debunks claims about how workers are threatened
by trade, pointing out that “the vast majority of Americans work
in sectors of the economy that do not face significant import competition.”
Griswold finds that trade is not the most significant cause of job
displacement. “Technology and other nontrade factors account for
most workers displaced from their jobs each year,” Griswold writes.
He concludes by warning that “presidential and congressional candidates
who talk about ‘saving jobs’ by raising barriers to free trade are
really talking about dragging down the real incomes of the vast
majority of Americans for the temporary benefit of a small fraction
of American workers.”
Chile’s Private
Pension System Turns 18
Chile’s privatized pension system is “an astounding success,” notes
L. Jacobo Rodríguez in “Chile’s Private Pension System at 18: Its
Current State and Future Challenges” (Social Security Paper no.
17). Established in 1981 to replace the government-run pay-as-you-go
retirement program, Chile’s private system “has allowed workers
to retire with better and more secure pensions” and enjoy an average
real rate of return of approximately 11.3 percent per year. More
than 95 percent of Chilean workers have their own pension savings
accounts. The new system has allowed Chile and other Latin American
countries that have followed the Chilean example to defuse the “fiscal
time bomb” that is ticking for countries with pay-as-you-go systems,
as fewer and fewer workers have to pay for the retirement benefits
of more and more retirees. Rodríguez traces the development and
the implementation of the current private system and examines complaints
from some U.S. critics who argue, among other things, that the system’s
administrative costs are high. The study recommends changes that
would improve the performance of Chile’s system, including steps
to liberalize the commission structure, allow banks and other financial
institutions to enter the industry, and let pension fund management
companies manage more than one fund.
Antidumping
Law: Rhetoric versus Reality
The U.S. antidumping law “all too frequently punishes normal marketplace
behavior that has nothing to do with ‘unfair trade’ under any plausible
definition of that term,” according to “The U.S. Antidumping Law:
Rhetoric versus Reality” (Trade Policy Analysis no. 7). Brink Lindsey,
director of Cato’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, argues that
the current law “does not reliably identify either price discrimination
or below-cost sales.” Lindsey reviewed all Department of Commerce
final determinations through the end of 1998 in original antidumping
investigations initiated since January 1, 1995—a total of 141 company-specific
dumping findings in 49 different cases. Lindsey says that the evidence
shows clearly that “there is a disconnect between the rhetoric of
antidumping supporters and the reality of antidumping practice.”
Lindsey proposes specific reforms that would eliminate the worst
abuses under the current law. In its present form, the antidumping
law cannot be justified as ensuring a “level playing field” for
American companies and their foreign competitors. “On the contrary,”
Lindsey concludes, “the law actively discriminates against foreign
goods by subjecting them to requirements not applicable to American
products.”
Feeling a Draft?
Worry about recruitment and retention problems in the military has
led to recent calls for a return to a draft. But Doug Bandow, senior
fellow at the Cato Institute, concludes in a new Cato study that
conscription not only would fail to improve retention of skilled
personnel; it would be “unfair and unjust—sacrificing the very constitutional
liberties that the military is charged to defend.” In “Fixing What
Ain’t Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription” (Policy Analysis
no. 351), Bandow contends that although advocates of conscription
have usually based their arguments for a draft on national survival,
a draft “certainly isn’t needed now. The United States is at peace.
No major war threatens. Washington stands astride the globe as a
colossus—its enemies are pathetic and its allies are secure.” The
military is having trouble retaining skilled soldiers, such as pilots
and computer technicians, but a major reason for retention problems
is that frequent and frivolous deployments are driving skilled personnel
away. If the United States returned to a foreign policy “appropriate
for a republic rather than an empire,” the All-Volunteer Force would
have little difficulty attracting qualified soldiers and would save
taxpayers some money as well, Bandow argues. The AVF “is providing
the best military personnel that America has ever had, [and] for
that reason, few leaders in the armed services would like to return
to conscription,” Bandow explains.
Police or Paramilitaries?
“Over the past 20 years, Congress has encouraged the U.S. military
to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police,”
and the result has been the development of “a culture of militarism
in American law enforcement,” writes Diane Cecilia Weber in “Warrior
Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments”
(Cato Briefing Paper no. 50). Weber notes that Congress opened the
door to “a dramatic expansion of the role of the military in law
enforcement activity” in 1981, when it passed the Military Cooperation
with Law Enforcement Officials Act, which amended a post–Civil War
law designed to keep military forces out of domestic law enforcement
work and for the first time authorized the Pentagon to “assist”
civilian police in enforcement of drug laws. Thus began a “dramatic
expansion of the role of the military in law enforcement activity,”
Weber reports. The Pentagon has been equipping police departments
with M-16s, armored personnel carriers, and grenade launchers. In
all, the Department of Defense issued 1.2 million pieces of military
hardware to police departments between 1995 and 1997. Police paramilitary
units train with active-duty Army Rangers and Navy SEALs. “The sharing
of training and technology is producing a shared mindset,” Weber
observes. “Confusing the police function with the military function
can have dangerous consequences.”
Export Controls
Can’t Stop Cryptography
Encryption technology, which allows people using electronic networks
to ensure that the messages they send remain private, cannot—and
should not—be controlled by government interference, writes Arnold
G. Reinhold in a new Cato paper “Strong Cryptography: The Global
Tide of Change” (Cato Briefing Paper no. 51). Reinhold, coauthor
of the popular books E-Mail for Dummies and The Internet
for Dummies Quick Reference, argues that “it is time to recognize
the inevitability of strong, nonrecoverable cryptography and take
steps to maximize that technology’s benefits to society and deal
realistically with its less desirable attributes.” Reinhold notes
that the government has long tried to control encryption technology
to preserve its ability to intercept criminal communications. “Such
claims usually invoke a troika of evils—drug dealers, terrorists,
and child pornographers—though decades of wiretapping have not halted
those crimes,” he writes. But cryptographic technology simply cannot
be stopped. “If any major governments, terrorist organizations,
or drug cartels are not now using strong cryptography, it is not
because of lack of availability or lack of reliable suppliers. There
are many firms overseas that are willing to provide cryptographic
software.”
Unintended
Consequences of the Fed’s LTCM Bailout
The Federal Reserve’s bailout of Long-Term Capital Management, a
well-known hedge fund, was misguided and unnecessary. The bailout
set the stage for trouble in the future, writes Kevin Dowd in a
Cato study published on the first anniversary of the bailout. In
“Too Big to Fail: Long-Term Capital Management and the Federal Reserve”
(Cato Briefing Paper no. 52), Dowd notes that although the intervention
did prevent LTCM’s demise, there have been many unintended negative
effects: “It implies a major open-ended extension of Federal Reserve
responsibilities, without any congressional mandate; [and] it implies
a return to the discredited doctrine that the Fed should prevent
the failure of large financial firms, which encourages irresponsible
risk taking.” Dowd, professor of economics at the University of
Sheffield and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, argues that
“letting LTCM fail might well have had a salutary effect on financial
markets: it would have sent a strong and convincing signal that
no financial firm—however big—could expect to be bailed out from
the consequences of its own mismanagement.”
Aid to Dependent
Weapons Manufacturers
U.S. weapons suppliers get $7.9 billion a year in federal government
subsidies that are tucked away in the defense and foreign aid budgets,
notes William D. Hartung in a new Cato Institute study, “Corporate
Welfare for Weapons Makers: The Hidden Costs of Spending on Defense
and Foreign Aid” (Policy Analysis no. 350). This corporate welfare
takes many forms, including “taxpayer-backed loans, grants, and
government protocol activities that help U.S. weapons makers sell
their products to foreign customers.” Hartung, a fellow at the World
Policy Institute, argues that both political parties now appear
ready to increase military spending in fiscal year 2000. But who
will benefit? “Will it be the men and women of our armed forces,
as President Clinton and Republican congressional leaders have claimed?
Or will it be such weapons-making conglomerates as Raytheon, Boeing,
and Lockheed Martin?” Corporate welfare for arms makers gets little
public scrutiny because of the way it’s put in the budget, Hartung
writes. “The U.S. government supplies arms export subsidies through
various programs administered by separate agencies. Those subsidies
are frequently listed under innocuous budget titles that don’t seem
to have anything to do with weapons exports: excess defense articles,
emergency drawdowns, and economic support funds, for example. That
budgetary sleight of hand has made it difficult to keep track of
U.S. arms export subsidies, much less reduce them.” In fact, he
adds, of the $7.9 billion in U.S. arms export subsidies, just $1.2
billion comes from the Pentagon.
Bailing Out
Creditors and Debtors Creates Economic Disorder
“A dysfunctional relationship has developed between lenders and
borrowers in international finance,” and the International Monetary
Fund is part of the problem, writes Ian Vásquez, director of the
Cato Project on Global Economic Liberty, in “Repairing the Lender-Borrower
Relationship in International Finance” (Foreign Policy Briefing
no. 54). According to Vásquez, “Governments have gotten their countries
into trouble with their creditors for hundreds of years, and periodic
problems with paying back loans will surely continue to be a feature
of global finance well into the future.” But he adds that current
attempts to shield creditors and debtor nations from economic realities,
largely the result of IMF efforts, create disorder and prolong the
process of crisis resolution. Creditors should take losses during
financial crises, and the IMF should not try to prevent countries
from defaulting. Direct bargaining between creditors and debtors
would reduce moral hazard and lead to faster debt renegotiations.
This article originally appeared in the November/December 1999 edition of Cato Policy Report.