A Chinese friend of mine said that if you are at a high level in the Chinese government, you have a great deal of freedom. Below that level, however, you have very little freedom: You spend all your time doing exactly what your bosses want. And you have no idea how long the slavery will last. American government is different, she said. High American officials have less freedom than those outside government. I agree.
My friend disliked Obama because he constantly spoke about big ideals (“liberty” and so on) that my friend thought were very difficult to achieve. In other words, he constantly made promises that he was not going to be able to keep. She noted Obama’s inexperience and said that people in other areas of government are very smart and would outmaneuver him. (Exhibit 1: Goldman Sachs.) This doesn’t happen in the Chinese government because the people at the top are very old and have come up through the ranks, all the way from the bottom. Because of that long experience, they better understand how to get the rest of the government to do what they want.
In China, rich people fear the government. They must do what the government wants or they will be squashed. In America, she said, rich people do not fear the government. If anything, they tell the government what to do. I agree. Many people, such as Hayek and Milton Friedman, want less government. But I have yet to hear one of them answer the point that if government becomes too weak, rich people will control it.
I don’t see how your claim relates to those of Hayek and Friedman. Maybe the point of difference is this: a *small* government does not necessarily entail a *weak* one. Indeed, being smaller is a sign of strength. Small, nimble, flexible versus big, bloated, stodgy. Small startups can get things done in a way IBM can’t. Small companies can’t get into as much trouble as big ones and can “pivot” more easily when their current strategies aren’t working.
So a counterargument to your position is that a government which tries to do too many things is unlikely to do any of them particularly well, whereas a government that tries to do just a few things might be able to do those few things much more competently. A small government is easier to watch, easier to check up on and measure how it’s doing. A small government wouldn’t have such vast resources to give away in the form of secret contracts for TSA scanners or Blackwater security groups or what-have-you so it’s less *worth* controlling than the current one.
So: why do you think “smaller” implies “weaker” when it comes to governments? Weaker in what sense?
A trenchant analysis from the Chinese! Not really surprising. Those who are intellectuals and internet savvy approach events with a historical jadedness and lack of western shibboleths that more than makes up for the brainwashing.
As for less government versus strong government, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The ideal government, in my opinion, is rule by a wealthy, heavily armed middle class, with the aristocracy, villeins, and king playing a secondary role.
More on this here: https://jim.com/rights.html
Hey Seth
There is two things that must be seperated when talking of the government as weak or small.
Hayek and Friedman talk about a society with a small government, not nescessarily a weak one. However the weak/strong-distinction could apply to the government as well as the administration.
If the administration is weak people in generel (amongst them rich people) will try to game it if they can get away with it. If government itself is weak (as in it can’t enforce its laws) rich people (and people in generel) will generally fare better just paying a bribe and not be affected by it.
When Hayek and Friedman talk about a small government they are in a way also talking about a strong cabinet (and parliament) that don’t just give out perks to every interest group around. However I think this will rarely be the case — being strong might be a good image when campaigning but utterly bad staying in power. The problem is it will always be of value to some group to “install one of the boys” to be in charge espacially if the government is big.
In the end the question might be if it is a problem if we are happy with the way government runs. Many fans of free markets look to Hong Kong and Singapore where the governments are small and strong for a examples of good governments that aren’t overrun by special interests.
I hope it makes sense
Magnus
“American government is different, she said. High American officials have less freedom than those outside government. I agree.”
Ultimately I think it’s a feature of an English structured democratic government like in America. There are lots of checks and balances.
I know that some American’s (most notably Tom Friedman) admire the Chinese government’s ability to move quickly on projects. But restricting government also has its features, like protecting human rights.
Glen, by “bigger government” I meant a government that is involved in more activities. The bigger the government, the more ways it can harm you if you don’t do what it wants. This makes it stronger — harder to oppose.
I think of strong/weak and competent/incompetent as separate dimensions. A weak government can be competent or incompetent.
If fans of free markets have to use Hong Kong or Singapore as examples, I would say that proves my point — that in practice, as a country gets wealthy, you really do have to choose between rich people running things (America, to a large extent) or the government running things (China).
thehova, yes, I think great constraints on high government officials also exist in England, as shown by the many scandals that cause people to lose power.
Seth, you have it backwards. If the government has no power than rich people will not try to control it as there is no point. Power corrupts. Remove the power and the corruption disappears.
Jake has it right, a weak central authority is not worth exploiting. But Seth, you too miss the point. Hayek and Friedman should not be the posts by which you judge the field. Our nation is founded upon Lockean ideals and there is no higher calling in all of governance than to honor those ideals. Hayek and Friedman, as interesting as they may be, convolute the simple. Man deserves to be free and the role of government is to protect his person and his property. From that simple view, governments role is clear.
But I have yet to hear one of them answer the point that if government becomes too weak, rich people will control it.
And they do, so your hypothesis is that the current American government is too weak?
What Jake said. The incentive for rich people to influence/control the government, or even to take any interest in it at all, is in proportion to how big and powerful the government is. A small(er), limited government cannot and will not be as easily harnessed or captured by rent-seekers simply because it doesn’t spin off that much ‘rent’ to be seeking in the first place.
It’s way, way too late for that. Rich people already control government. If not, what was that last tax cut extension “compromise” about? Or the no-strings bank bailouts?
It’s not the first time. It happened before, in the 1890s, and again in the 1920s. Each time it was wrested back, partway. What’s different today is that now the Koch brothers have Edward Bernays’s successors.
Zubon, yes, my hypothesis is that the realistic choice is between a government like the one we have now (in the US) or a stronger government (as in China). An example is financial regulation. Brooksley Born argued for stronger regulation; she was dismissed by people, such as Larry Summers, who gave free-market arguments. Summers pointed out the number of wealthy bankers that agreed with him (“there are thirteen bankers in my office…”). That is a specific example where a stronger government would have been less controllable by rich people. On the other hand, the reason I raise this issue at all is not to preach about it — I don’t have strong opinions — but to ask . . . I really do wonder what people who believe in smaller government say to the problem of control by rich people.
“A weak central authority is not worth exploiting.” What did Hammurabi and Moses have in common? Both offered protection. This is why people supported them, I surmise. The weaker the central authority, the less it can protect people. The financial crisis is one sign of how much protection we need. Another is the obesity epidemic, if it is due to the growth of the processed food industry. Perhaps China will have both — a financial crisis and an obesity epidemic — in which case it will be clear that a strong government is not the answer. Perhaps China can avoid a financial crisis but it is less clear it can avoid an obesity epidemic, a diabetes epidemic, a lung-cancer epidemic, and so on.
The comparison seems to me to be a strange one. While there are rich people in China who aren’t officially members of the CCCP, aren’t almost all high ranking members of the CCCP rich? As well, didn’t most of the non party wealthy in China obtain their wealth through their guanxin? I thought that the story of China was more or the less the same as the story of Russia. The state privatizes the assets of public companies, but sells them at a favorable price to those who are politically well connected, who in turn funnel large amounts of cash and other resources to party member. The same thing happens in real estate development, and basically with anything that needs approval from the government, which, from what I understand, is most anything that would stand to make you wealthy. So, I don’t really see how this is preferable to the way the U.S. does things. I think that it is correct to infer from Hong Kong and Singapore that governments must be actively involved in an economy if it is to be productive. However, Hong Kong and Signapore have not been governed in the same manner that China has, and hence they are notably much less corrupt. Lee Kwan Yeu may want to believe that leaders of the CCCP wish to emulate him, and some may want that, but I have a suspicion that even more want to emulate Putin.
Paul, I’m not saying China’s way is preferable to America’s way. I am saying it is different. Both countries have government enterprises (a minority of people) and non-government enterprises (most people). In both countries, people outside government are wealthy. In America, wealthy people outside government do not fear government officials. In China, they do. The financial crisis — in which a large number of wealthy Americans gambled using taxpayer money and caused great unemployment — suggests that there is a problem with American governance. Obviously there is a problem with Chinese governance — the vast corruption, for example.
I don’t understand: If government is weak, how do rich people control me? Government has a monopoly on force and thereby can tell me what to do, or else. Without that they can’t. So how do rich people exercise control over me without co-opting government?
I can only see how the rich exercise control over me via government. Perhaps there are other ways I don’t see?
How the rich can control you without government: By degrading your education (e.g., bribing teachers). By ruining your local economy (so you must move away to get a job). By threatening to fire you if you don’t do X or Y. By making your workplace less safe. By lowering your salary. By selling crummy products. By cheating you in a business transaction. By lending you so much money at such bad terms that you spend the rest of your life doing payback. By polluting a river from which you drink. By polluting air you breathe. To give just a few examples.
Since you people compare governments, you may want to learn that the current (de facto) federal US government is a corporation, and not the de jure government most expect it to be:
https://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
It needs time to let that sink in if it is new for you. I suggest you take that time and maybe research some more yourself.
Actually, when governments are weak, the powerful tend to control them to use them to exploit the processes governments have. That only ceases when the governments cease all together.
Gunnar — the essay is skewed because the author doesn’t understand the concept of entities and that of function. /Sigh
The first thing missing from this discussion is a definition of strong central government. If you agree that a central government can be small but effective, then its court system is what must be strong. With a monopoly on force and an effective judicial system, then you have an ideal scenario. Moreover, the debate between strong and weak central authorities overlooks many important factors such as state and local governments which provide regional protections of property. Beyond the system of organization, there is the human population and population genetics. There can be little doubt that people of British descent possess a positive combination of behaviors that leads to greater individuality and acceptance of freedom while also respecting the property rights of others. Taken together, it makes any comparison far more difficult.
In any case, your suggestions that big corporations can degrade education through bribes or cheating other people are behaviors that were long ago forbidden in the English system. Having a government serve as protector of life and property is not new and does not mean that it has to be large. The remainder of the methods you suggest corporations could control the rest of us, are specious. If a firm sells bad products, then people won’t buy. There is nothing for which there is not a realistic substitute, so if a firm invents something and achieves 20 year monopoly control, the public can likely just buy something else. Moreover, people are not going to buy the item if it is not good, when they have unlimited alternatives for spending their cash. The issues of pollution and libertarianism are more difficult to solve, no doubt.
If the government becomes weak enough, the rich will have no reason to control it. Why would they control a goverment that did not subsidize them, regulate them or grant them extra favors? The powers of government that Hayek and Freidman advocated would not have lent themselves for being targets of the rich.
Seth, Taleb’s recent conversation with Ralph Nader is somewhat relevant to what you’re considering here: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/taleb010311.htm
I dunno – there are just wrong assumptions in every line of this post.
First off: I’ll never get why people believe in what their politicians say. Shouldn’t history taught us by now? Well I guess the Chinese don’t – they know the system is rigged.
But why on earth believe Obama’s words? Look as his actions: He has done nothing he promised. But he is not weak (just look at what Bush did with less political power) – he just never intended to. That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
Rich people in China do pretty well. I doubt most of them fear the government – because … I mean, I’m no expert, but I bet that the most of the rich ARE the government.
And about the idea that “if government becomes too weak, rich people will control it” … well: then it wouldn’t matter, right? The problem is that companies in the US love big government – and want big government (despite saying otherwise). Just not for the people – only for themselves. So they get constant subsidies and bails if in trouble.
I am with Thomas. it is very true. I mean “THE RICH” would so be the government plus if you see pictures of china they don’t maintain it like cuba but cuba is much worse. because in china the place that the tourist see is very nice but behind it it is very messy. Like cuba.
Tahnks for reading!
Krysal
>
For the most part, rich people DO control it. Who has the money to pay lobbyists? Not Jimmy, the Factory Worker or Seth, the Berkeley Professor!
The rich in China are just as much in bed with the Chinese government as their American counterparts. The Chinese government combines the worst features of Laissez-Faire capitalism with (some) of the worst features of Stalinism. True that at least now there is some freedom of information and travel.
Hi Seth
If you think that a Strong Government is one that can do what the hell it pleases, and conversely a Weak Government is one which cannot necessarily do so, you have comingled as weak both the government which is constrained by constitutional checks and balances, within which it can indeed get done what it pleases (Hayek, Friedman); and the government which may be less constrained in priciple, but due to corruption or special-interest-group influence or exaggerated ambition, fails to enforce the law, fails to put its policies into effect, and / or cannot sequester the resources to fulfill its plans. Of course special interests (including ‘the rich’) will try to overthrow the constraints on the first type, bringing about the second type. The answer is to defend the pinciple and actuality of constitutional constraints on government.
In terms of how ‘the rich’ can control you without government, it simply comes down to they can offer you money to do something you wouldn’t otherwise do. They can’t make you do it, not in the way the government can, with its legislation, policemen, judges, jails and executioners.
Actually your list applies pretty well to government too:
Bribe teachers – don’t need to, just control what they teach and how
Ruin your local economy – actually with misguided policy they can ruin the whole economy, not just the local one
Threaten to fire if you don’t do X or Y – Yes for government employees and through extensive regulation for many many others
Cheating you in business – No need to cheat, just take your money in taxes
Pollution – Does the government police its own pollution as rigourously as everyone else’s?
Seth, I’m with you here. You say: “The financial crisis — in which a large number of wealthy Americans gambled using taxpayer money and caused great unemployment — suggests that there is a problem with American governance.” That’s absolutely correct.
Absent a strong democratic government, the rich mutate into feudal lords. That is, they set up their own non-democratic government, and they oppress their subjects far worse than under our current society. The subjects can’t leave because there is always a hierarchy of slaves, guards and boss at the top, such that the boss treats the guards well in exchange for controlling the slaves. This is how things were in Latin America or the American south for that matter back in the good old days that the libertarians pine for. These libertarians better make sure they’ve arranged to fall into the guard or boss group before exchanging our current flawed democracy for feudalism.
Seth, you need to get out more. The field is called “Public Choice Economics” and is now 40 years old. Its dedicated to answering precisely how BIG government is controlled by “rich people.” Whatever happened to criticizing the nexus between Wall St and the government? Or Big Agriculture n Govt? Or Big Pharma and FDA? I mean, are you kidding or this argument for real? Unless you are claiming that we currently have laissez-faire, all these instances are strikes AGAINST big government.
The libertarian argument is that regulation does not control “rich people” or corporations but gives them more levers to loot the common man. The most effective controller or regulator of corporations is OTHER corporations that compete with them. The key thing to focus on is keeping dynamic, open markets with as low cost-of-entry as possible.
revelo, I agree completely.
Contemplationist, yes, expensive regulation is a wonderfully effective tool that benefits large corporations at the expense of small ones. Food safety laws, for example, require an office for a food safety inspector in certain cases. Small companies cannot afford this, big companies can. But that does not change the overall point that, as the examples given by revelo suggest, governments really do make it harder for the strong to exploit the weak. You may not have heard of the Wallenbergs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family
They are an incredibly wealthy and powerful Swedish family. I asked my Swedish uncle how they compare to the Swedish government. “They act as a brake on each other,” he said.
i think chinese government is like a familiy(the family is not the one in western)the father or mother is the government,and the people are the childrens