unexpected results

Since Mitt Romney asked the question, here are the countries that have a higher GDP per capita than the US (plus a few that are close.)

Monaco 186,175

Liechtenstein 134,392

Luxembourg 108,706

Bermuda 101,346

Norway 78,674

Qatar 2009 69,754

Switzerland 65,003

British Virgin Islands 57,626

Denmark 2009 56,687

Cayman Islands 54,827

United Arab Emirates 54,138

San Marino 2009 54,104

Ireland 49,115

Netherlands 47,889

Australia 47,615

Austria 45,563

United States 44,872 

Finland 44,688

Belgium 44,254

Sweden 43,903

Andorra 43,770

France 41,226

Germany 40,528

Japan 39,864

Canada 39,795

Source: United Nations Statistics Division

The problem with statistics and polling in politics is that people put too much faith in small samples.

One of the more peculiar arguments in the United States and other developed nations is the conflict between free market economics and immigration policy.  The people who advocate for deregulating markets and free trade agreements are often the same people who argue for strict immigration policies and tight border controls.  The problem here is that the two ideas are in opposition to one another.

Free trade can really be broken down into three distinct categories: free movement of goods (trade), free movement of capital (means of production), and free movement of labor (producers).  For the last 60 years, the world has focused on both the movement of goods and the movement of capital across borders.  As a result, the global economy has grown exponentially.  States that were struggling are now developing rapidly and experiencing the social and cultural benefits the West has seen for generations.

Missing from this discussion is the free movement of labor.  In much the same way that free movement of goods lowers prices, the free movement of labor, by increasing the available supply of labor, will depress wages, at least initially.  As labor can freely move the globe, demand for certain skills or jobs in one area will be filled more efficiently.  Having more ready access to labor will also permit the creation of new jobs that would otherwise be inhibited from forming due to cost concerns.  Ultimately, the free market will be able to operate more efficiently across what would become borders that are increasingly less significant.

While there are a number of basic humanitarian reasons for opening borders to the movement of people, the economic arguments should not be ignored.  The free markets cannot truly function if there are significant distortions to the model.  By not allowing labor to balance out the movement of capital and goods, inefficiencies grow in the market until, ultimately, they collapse.

The idea of the movement of labor, however, is strongly at odds with the xenophobia that has pervaded civilization for millennia.  The drive to keep out immigrants in the developed world is as much a racial issue as anything else.  Perhaps it is the influx of new ideas and of an unfamiliar culture, or perhaps it is the increase in language diversity.  Whatever the source of conflict, fear of outsiders stokes anger, desire and other hostility towards foreigners, especially from those on the right side of the spectrum.  Whatever the source, the result is the same: preventing the movement of labor creates bad economic policy. 

As we have seen, businesses will move to where the labor is.  Not allowing labor to move to here, where business is, only hurts the economic growth of the United States.

This entire debt ceiling argument — the current political theater doesn’t quite rise to the level of being a debate — highlights just how dysfunctional both the White House and Capitol Hill Class of 2010 has become.  

In the corridors of power, a house dividend is showing that it cannot stand.  The Senate, who was summarily disregarded last week, has come up with a plan that gives the Republicans everything they wanted earlier but still somehow fails to gain any Republican support.  Meanwhile, over in the House, demagogy has replaced discussion and ideology has replaced ideas.  As the clock ticks ever closer to default, the actors are moving not closer to compromise but further away.

The debt limit, as I have previously noted, is not a political issue.  Even that most leftist of publications, the Economist, has chastised the Republicans for their brinksmanship.  “There is no good economic reason why [the debt crisis] should be happening.”  Fiscal irresponsibility is a serious concern, but it’s not worth risking the credit of the United States in order to win an argument.

At the west end of Pennsylvania Avenue, President Obama has undertaken his usual style of “hands-off” leadership.  Just as in the healthcare reform debate, Obama has set a grand goal, told the parties in broad terms what he wants to accomplish, tasked the Congress to execute his plan, and simply walked away.  As the de facto leader of his party and the de jure leader of this nation, Obama needs to take ownership of is plan, especially when the Congress has shown its inability to act.  Rather than complaining about how the parties are not able to reach .  The Congress does not work for the President; if Obama wants a bill, he’s going to have to write one himself.  This can be the starting point for compromise, not the thin air from which we are currently working.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a considerable silence from the political candidates.  At least when it comes to constructive ideas.  Candidates like Michele Bachmann, who has spent considerable time not doing the job she was elected to do, has taken an absolutist stand opposes any increase in the debt limit, instead taking the perfectly rational absurd position that this is a “day of reckoning and Washington refuses to deal with the day of reckoning.”  Mitt Romney, taking the strongest leadership position of all, has simply avoided taking a stand on the issue entirely.

Future leaders of this nation, at least of the parts that we haven’t had to sell off, should remember that they serve one constituency — the People.  As it stands, no one deserves any sort of praise for the work they are doing.  Rather, they will be the luckiest political hacks in history if they somehow avoid destroying whatever credit the United States still has.