COLUMN: Mocking the political process

From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96 From Shiraz Allidina's, "Asian Hil Lizard," Fall '96 I can't begin to describe the sheer, rapturous delight I felt upon learning that Ross Perot would visit the University yesterday. I am a huge fan of Ross the Boss. As I am writing this, my fingers can scarcely find the correct keys since I am gibbering in anticipation at the thought of hearing him speak. . . live! After all, we must never forget that this awful mess we call democracy is an absurd institution that just happens to be not quite as bad as the alternatives. The whole rigmarole of horse-trading, log-rolling, packaging and repackaging that goes into creating a political platform is positively sane when compared with the next step in the electoral process. I am, of course, alluding to the skill and vigor with which candidates spit out half-truths, mendacities and even outright statistics to support their hastily-assembled policy initiatives. Which brings us to our old friend Perot, a man who mixes his metaphors so frequently that he actually brings a blender to speeches to avoid over-exertion. I love old Ross, but sometimes he tends to get a bit muddled selling his snake oil. Whenever a politician starts yapping about economics, I begin to feel light-headed and dizzy. Ross is not the only one guilty of spreading economic falsehood, but he is one of the most vocal. Here are a few economic myths he and others have spread in the past: Myth #1: Government is like a large business. Government is not a business, which provides a product to customers for the benefit of shareholders. Government is designed to productively use coercive power. It is a mandated bully that forces us to do things we would not normally do individually, like provide for the national defense or redistribute income. If government's role really was analogous to a business, then we wouldn't need government. Myth #2: America is locked in a competitive battle with other countries. Countries do not compete with each other, corporations do. It is absurd to think of the U.S. as locked in a heated battle with other countries to produce and export goods. Granted, the higher America's productivity, the higher its citizens' standard of living. However, an increase in Japan's productivity will also raise America's standard of living. Through trade, we as a whole benefit from improvements in manufacturing methods the world over. Also, if the U.S. has an export surplus, it is on balance producing goods for foreigners in exchange for pieces of paper. This paper -- foreign currency -- is only of use to us if we can eventually exchange it for real goods and services. We as a society are not trying to maximize trade surplus as a corporation maximizes profit. Similarly, bilateral trade deficits are not necessarily a cause for concern. I personally run a huge trade deficit with the University, Walsh's Tavern and Koch's Deli. This is alright, though, since next year I hope to run a massive trade surplus with my employer. Myth #3: In the new global economy, low-paid foreigners are taking Americans' jobs. First of all, the birth of the global economy has been greatly exaggerated. Global trade as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was more prevalent in the 1880s than it is today. Furthermore, most of this trade continues to follow an east-west pattern -- that is, it is between industrialized countries. There is relatively little trade today with developing "cheap labor" countries. However, as such trade grows, these countries will need foreign investment. It is a simple fact of accounting that those countries benefitting from foreign investment must simultaneously run trade deficits, since, for example, they use the dollars to buy American capital goods. Consequently, trade with developing countries tends to create more jobs in America than are lost. So, with all these inaccuracies in his economic theories, is Ross a bad guy? No. At one time or another, the two major parties have voiced the same arguments. If I could, I would vote for Ross (I'm Canadian, eh). I would do so mainly because he doesn't have a ghost of a chance of winning, and I like to encourage anybody who makes a mockery of the political process. The other thing I like about him is that he's shorter than I. I'm not quite 5' 5'', and like all short people, I'm a Bonapartiste at heart. There's something appealing about a loud, crazy, short guy who wants to rule millions of people. If I can't have Napoleon, I'll take Perot in '96.