As a general rule, don’t believe a word you read in the popular press about the oil market. With the exception of Matthew Wald at the New York Times, reporting on oil‐related matters is so badly underinformed that it’s worse than useless to pay any attention to what the major newspapers and magazines are telling us.
That’s why it’s worth stopping for a moment and flagging one of the rare intelligent pieces on oil‐related issues. Stop, right now, and go read Leonardo Maugeri’s “What Lies Below?” at Newsweek.
Johnny Hallyday, the French singer and actor, has had enough of high taxes in France and decided to move to Switzerland.
According to Hallyday, “Like many people in France, I have had enough of paying these ridiculous taxes we are forced today. That’s it, I’ve made my decision.”
French politicians are reported to be shocked. Jean‐François Copé, the Budget Minister, has even said that “Johnny Hallyday was not carrying out his patriotic duty of paying his taxes to his own country.” It appears that no prominent politician in France has even considered the possibility that Hallyday may be right to want to keep more of the money he has earned!
Of course this is not the first time that a French celebrity has opted to live in a country with lower income tax. Some years ago, Laetitia Casta, a French supermodel, got upset over high taxes in her home country and left for London.
There she joined tens of thousands of her compatriots, who find the French taxes too burdensome and job opportunities too scarce. Casta’s flight would have been unremarkable had it not been for the fact that she was cast as the model for the bust of Marianne, symbol of the French Republic, an honor formerly held by Bridgitte Bardot and Catherine Deneuve.
The above stories personify the conflict between the image of France purveyed by the governing elite and the reality. On the one hand, France is portrayed as a strong and confident country, whose people, unlike the Americans, are committed to “social solidarity.” On the other hand, there is the reality of high taxes, high unemployment, uncertainty, and a general feeling of malaise. As more of the young, educated, and successful French move abroad, the welfare state will grow more unsustainable.
The question is, do Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal recognize the need for deep reforms, or will the victor of this year’s presidential elections turn out to be the younger version of Jacques Chirac?
Any scan of the business pages will reveal anecdotally that foreign‐born scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs are playing an important role in our high‐technology economy. A Duke University study released yesterday on “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs” confirms that fact.
Conducted by a team of researchers at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering, the study surveyed thousands of U.S. high‐tech companies and examined a decade of patent records. The study found that:
- One‐quarter of all engineering and technology companies launched between 1995 and 2005 had at least one key founder who was foreign‐born. Those companies with at least one immigrant co‐founder produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005.
India was the most common home country among the foreign‐born entrepreneurs, followed by the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan, and Japan. Most of the immigrant‐founded companies were in the software and innovation/manufacturing services sectors.
Foreign nationals living in the United States were listed as inventors or co‐inventors on almost a quarter of the patents filed from the United States in 2005.
Many members of Congress worry that the United States may be losing its edge in high technology industries. Yet the same Congress maintains a cap of 65,000 on H1-B visas that allow highly skilled immigrants to live and work in the United States, a cap that falls far below the actual needs of our nation’s resurgent high‐tech sector.
The Duke study shows clearly why Congress should raise the cap — unless congressional leaders believe America already has too many high‐tech companies and patents too many new inventions.
For a very interesting exchange of views on the tension between limited government and the idea of spreading democracy abroad, go here and listen to a panel discussion from a Federalist Society conference.
My colleague Tom Palmer takes on Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, who has argued that American troops should occupy Iraq until democracy is in place there, and perhaps beyond.
This panel discussion was actually held last November, but the audio has just recently been made available for web surfers. Mr. Francois‐Henri Briard of the Federalist Society’s Paris Chapter is also on the panel and starts it off. Federal Judge Raymond Randolph moderates. Good stuff here.
Oprah Winfrey has plunked down $40 million on a private school in South Africa to offer poor kids there a better education than can be had in their local government schools. When asked why she was investing in students from South Africa rather than, say, South Chicago, Oprah shot back that:
I became so frustrated with visiting inner‐city [U.S.] schools that I just stopped going.… The sense that you need to learn just isn’t there. If you ask the kids what they want or need, they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don’t ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school.
Clearly, Oprah has not been visiting the Milwaukee private schools serving low income black and Hispanic students. Having done so recently myself, I can report first hand that those students are so ambitious, motivated, curious, and hungry for learning that they bring joy to the hardest heart and water to the driest eye.
The modern belief that poor urban kids don’t want to learn completely misunderstands the problem. It isn’t the kids. It’s the schools.
Visit independent, parent‐chosen schools in America’s inner cities and you will seldom find the disaffection Oprah has apparently seen so often in (presumably) government‐run schools.
And when I say the it’s the schools, what I really mean is: “it’s us.” It’s our fault. If we would only realize that the ideals of public education can best be advanced by a system of universal parental choice, rather than a centrally planned government factory system, we’d see a lot more engaged, energized kids who not only want to go on to college and successful jobs and lives, but who have the educational foundation to do it.
I’ve collected some of the evidence on this point here, for those unfamiliar with it.
There’s a mini‐buzz in the blogosphere over the concept of isolationism today, since Jonah Goldberg is using the term in the LA Times and Jacob Weisberg is at Slate.
When the President kept referring to the specter of isolationism around this time last year, I wrote this piece in response, noting that
The term “isolationist” didn’t arise until the late nineteenth century, when it was made popular by Alfred Thayer Mahan, an ardent militarist, who used the term to slur opponents of American imperialism. As historian Walter McDougall has pointed out, America’s “vaunted tradition of ‘isolationism’ is no tradition at all, but a dirty word that interventionists, especially since Pearl Harbor, hurl at anyone who questions their policies.”
Bizarrely, libertarians, even given our support for unrestricted trade and extremely liberal immigration policies, have been victimized by the epithet. So in some ways I think Jim Henley put it best when he pointed out that in many contexts today,
“isolationism” means a reluctance to travel a long distance to kill foreigners at great expense. I say, let’s have some of that.
“We’ve done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending.…By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012.”
–President Bush in the Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2007