Mark Mallokent
04.02.2006, 08:38
Diesen ebenso interessanten wie bedenkenswerten Text fand ich bei "Medienkritik Online".
The President is a dolt - so how can America be such a success story?
(...) For the past five years, America has been led by a president who is clearly not up to the job — a man who is not just inarticulate, but lacking in judgment, intelligence, integrity, charisma or staying power. Yet America as a nation seems to be stronger, more prosperous and self-confident than ever. (...)
Why does America’s prosperity and self-confidence seem to bear so little relationship to the competence of its government? The obvious answer is that America, founded on a libertarian theory of minimal government, has always had low expectations of politicians. In America, it is not just business that thrives independently of government, perhaps even in spite of government. The same is also true of other areas of excellence which in Britain are considered quintessentially in the public domain — higher education, leading-edge science, culture and academic research. Because Americans expect so little of their government, they are rarely disappointed. They do not slump into German-style angst when their governments fail to find solutions to the nation’s problems.
This anarchic spirit was summed up by Ronald Reagan: “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you’.” In Europe, by contrast, the public expect government to solve all problems, and the media try to hold politicians accountable for everything. The result is a culture of dependency that extends far beyond the welfare state, to business and to the worlds of education, medicine, arts and science.
The American approach has a powerful advantage rooted in human nature: private sector activity is powered by economic incentives, while the State must operate by rules and sanctions. Since incentives, as Adam Smith observed, are much more likely to stimulate creativity and effort than sanctions, private
enterprise tends to achieve ambitious objectives, while government often fails. (...)
The American system recognises that a capitalist economy has areas of market failure where incentives alone will not produce socially desirable results. But American public institutions try to maximise private activity and incentives, rather than rein them in, within their realms — whether it is universities encouraging professors to start businesses, or health administrators creating incentives for drugs companies to do medical research. It is in this respect that Mr Greenspan most clearly represented the genius of the American system.
Mr Greenspan realised that his job at the Fed was not just to control inflation, the goal that other central bankers recognise. His real task, he explained last year, was “to achieve the maximum sustainable economic growth, with price stability pursued as a necessary condition to promote that goal”. Although a passionate advocate of small government, he realised that well-judged public intervention was necessary, not just to maintain stable prices but also to create the incentives for private enterprise to accelerate economic growth. He also understood that the best way to deal with the imbalances in the changing world economy was by supporting growth and allowing the greatest possible freedom for financial markets. Private investors, he believed, were more likely to find solutions to the complex challenges created by globalisation than central bankers or politicians.
But while Mr Greenspan believed that private incentives solve economic problems more successfully than government diktats, he also understood that capitalism works at its best if it operates in a sound, simple framework of ambitiously pro-growth monetary policy. His genius was to understand that public policy could be simultaneously minimalist and ambitious. In a sense, this is the genius of the American system. And this is why America does not need a genius in the White House.
The President is a dolt - so how can America be such a success story?
(...) For the past five years, America has been led by a president who is clearly not up to the job — a man who is not just inarticulate, but lacking in judgment, intelligence, integrity, charisma or staying power. Yet America as a nation seems to be stronger, more prosperous and self-confident than ever. (...)
Why does America’s prosperity and self-confidence seem to bear so little relationship to the competence of its government? The obvious answer is that America, founded on a libertarian theory of minimal government, has always had low expectations of politicians. In America, it is not just business that thrives independently of government, perhaps even in spite of government. The same is also true of other areas of excellence which in Britain are considered quintessentially in the public domain — higher education, leading-edge science, culture and academic research. Because Americans expect so little of their government, they are rarely disappointed. They do not slump into German-style angst when their governments fail to find solutions to the nation’s problems.
This anarchic spirit was summed up by Ronald Reagan: “The ten most dangerous words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you’.” In Europe, by contrast, the public expect government to solve all problems, and the media try to hold politicians accountable for everything. The result is a culture of dependency that extends far beyond the welfare state, to business and to the worlds of education, medicine, arts and science.
The American approach has a powerful advantage rooted in human nature: private sector activity is powered by economic incentives, while the State must operate by rules and sanctions. Since incentives, as Adam Smith observed, are much more likely to stimulate creativity and effort than sanctions, private
enterprise tends to achieve ambitious objectives, while government often fails. (...)
The American system recognises that a capitalist economy has areas of market failure where incentives alone will not produce socially desirable results. But American public institutions try to maximise private activity and incentives, rather than rein them in, within their realms — whether it is universities encouraging professors to start businesses, or health administrators creating incentives for drugs companies to do medical research. It is in this respect that Mr Greenspan most clearly represented the genius of the American system.
Mr Greenspan realised that his job at the Fed was not just to control inflation, the goal that other central bankers recognise. His real task, he explained last year, was “to achieve the maximum sustainable economic growth, with price stability pursued as a necessary condition to promote that goal”. Although a passionate advocate of small government, he realised that well-judged public intervention was necessary, not just to maintain stable prices but also to create the incentives for private enterprise to accelerate economic growth. He also understood that the best way to deal with the imbalances in the changing world economy was by supporting growth and allowing the greatest possible freedom for financial markets. Private investors, he believed, were more likely to find solutions to the complex challenges created by globalisation than central bankers or politicians.
But while Mr Greenspan believed that private incentives solve economic problems more successfully than government diktats, he also understood that capitalism works at its best if it operates in a sound, simple framework of ambitiously pro-growth monetary policy. His genius was to understand that public policy could be simultaneously minimalist and ambitious. In a sense, this is the genius of the American system. And this is why America does not need a genius in the White House.