One of the
more persistent myths of our modern era on the right is the idea that for
industry and trade to flourish, you just need government to step out of the
way. Government should just go and stay out of all of it and let the private sector do its thing. It has been some time since I listened to the right-wing TV talk shows I used
to listen to regularly many years ago, but this claim was made again and again, and I still see some people making it in other contexts today. It is a persistent idea in libertarian and right leaning circles. Just cut
regulations and people will build a better economy and better opportunities than any government
investment could ever create.
The problem
with this view is how easy it is to prove wrong, or at least overly simplistic, by just reading how nations
began to truly flourish economically. When you read the actual histories you
will see that government investment in infrastructure, industry and other
capital endeavours was vital for the success of many nations.
For
instance, this example, from A History of France by William Stearn Davis, which
shows how Jean-Baptiste Colbert, one of the ministers of Louis the 14th’s reign, helped build towards modern France an lay the foundation for a flourishing economy in that Ancient Regime:
“His real achievement was in developing the manufactures of
France in a way which made her a great industrial power – a position from which
she has never permanently declined. He took up the lines of development dropped
too long since the days of Henry IV. Thus he put the energies of the Government
behind the older industries which already existed – cloths, tapestries, and
silks; and then went on to introduce and promote industries hitherto almost
unknown in France, such as glass, porcelain, laces, and iron-work. It is from
his day that dates, for example, the steady output of admirable silks from
Lyons, porcelain from Sèvres, lace from Chantilly, etc. – articles or objects
of elegance which made the name of France honorably famous wherever there were
persons of taste. Colbert secured this progress partly by means of large money
prizes to successful artisans, partly by granting privileges to foreign
craftsmen who would settle in France, but especially by advancing funds for the
purchase of raw material and for the erection of factories of a size remarkable
for that age. In place of the "family work-room" where a
master-craftsman and a few apprentices labored on a very small scale, there
were developed really large manufacturing plants such as are familiar to the
present age. Thus certain of Colbert's industrial foundations employed hundreds
of workers each, and at least one – a cloth-works at Abbéville, in Picardy –
employed sixty-five hundred "hands" – a number not unworthy to be
ranked with the largest type of factories of the present day. Colbert was,
therefore, not remotely, one of the fathers of the modern factory system.”[1]
This French
political minister was largely responsible for the wealth that France came to
enjoy under the Sun King’s reign. Because of his good governance. And this is
the key, it is true that government can get in the way of industry and
commerce, but it can also advance it. In fact, the myth of America succeeding
purely because of its capitalistic enterprise to become the leader of the
world’s economies is just that, a myth. Yes that nation encouraged commerce and
independent enterprise, but it shot ahead of the rest of the world because none
of its factories were bombed in World War 2 and almost every other major
developed nation had to rebuild their entire industry bases. That is one sure
example of government intervention, because many of those bombs that destroyed
American competitors in industry in the war were made in America and shipped to
the old world. You can read historians who suggest that this is what FDR wanted to happen, either way, American capital flourished because of deliberate policy choices of the ruling power in the United States to support war in Europe.
You can go back to the early years of Australia as a nation when our car manufacturing
industry took off, because the Australian government invested in it to help Holden, a company founded in Australia and General Motors, an American company, combine to create a solid base for car manufacturing in
Australia. Government money was smartly applied in a valuable way that created
an industry that flourished for decades. That same industry died when the
government stopped subsidizing it, something which most powerful nations do for their current car industries, because they understand how important they are for their economies and their national security.
So, the myth
that government should just get out of the way, is just that, a myth. The
question is really how is the government intervening and is it helping or hurting? You can show historical examples of both positive and negative impacts of government investment. Which is why Michael Hudson's distinction between Industrial Capitalism, where government helps build the infrastructure and invests in its nation's industry (like modern China, modern Russia, and America a couple of generations ago), and financial capitalism, where the economy is driven by the stock market and stock trading, is important. The modern right has been trained to defend a highly financialized society which cannibalizes every other aspect of the economy and call this capitalism, and to condemn any government investment as "socialism". But socialism did not even exist when Colbert was using government wealth to increase the wealth of the French nation. We need to re-examine our categories.
Anyway, the
next time you hear someone repeat this erroneous dogma that government should just stay out of the way, you will be able to
question them, and ask them how they know that to be true, and then provide
examples of why it is a false assumption. Government serves an important
service purpose in society, including helping to bolster industry. The problem
is that it often forgets its real purpose is to serve its society and gets
overtaken by all sorts of wicked agendas and goals, and decline sets in. But when society is getting things right, the government is also getting behind its industry to make its nation great. May those days return to this land.
List of References
[1] Davis,
William Stearns. A History of France from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of
Versailles (pp. 140-141). Lecturable. Kindle Edition.
Continuing ahead on your post titled, "A Necessary Pillar" (Jan. 12), I can see that one of the reasons for Australia's decline is because the government is "overtaken by all sorts of wicked agendas and goals". Maybe it's time to individually relearn from a "monkhood".
ReplyDelete