by Chris James
A refresher. The thesis of my previous, apologetically,
rather long column (Moving Forward By Going Backward) was that, taken together,
enough of Donald Trump's major mutterings were strongly suggestive of an
isolationist mind-set or, possibly, of an actual strategy. Campaign static
though it may have been, this political concept of circling the wagons is
decidedly retro, and is putatively dismissible, based on world-wide historical
evidence. I suggested that the true way forward was to be expansive on
the global stage, via the driving force of future-focused, always-superior,
proprietary, technological advances.
Of course, there may be situations when bringing jobs, based on
yesterday's technology, back to the U.S. may make sense. Having stuck my
neck out with my previous column, a few days later the newspaper carried a
story that seemed to confirm the existence of exceptions. On closer
inspection, a large percentage of the 8000 jobs hypothesized to be
"brought back" was found to be in the phantasmagoric category.
There were many qualifications appended to the revivalist claims.
Examples: Many new - not existing - jobs will be located at a Florida
plant not yet planned, let alone built; some jobs will go to undefined
"outside contractors"; while federal, state or local government
"incentives" are allegedly not involved, discussions will be held
"with business partners, states, and cities about where to create these
jobs." Well, this little potpourri of weasel-words does little, if
anything, to make the case for exceptions.
Then, as if on cue, a column appeared in the newspaper a few days
later presenting the other side of the technology coin. Every three
years, the 35 members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) - a group of major (with the exception of big guns China, Russia,
and India) and smaller economies - conducts an international study of
15-year-old students' competencies in reading, math and science. In 2015,
72 countries participated, with about 540,000 students completing the
assessment, representing about 27 million 15-year-olds in schools. In
this latest assessment, the U.S. cohort ranked 20th in reading, down from 14th
in 2009; 31st in math, down from 25th in 2009; 19th in science, down from 17th
in 2009.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what these data
mean in terms of future global leadership through technology. My reaction
is Blecccch! If you thirst for details, then Google PISA (the 2015
Program for International Student Assessment). You may be tempted, as
some have done already, to throw rocks at the study. For example, by
arguing that the study is not statistically significant, or that the sampling
is meaningless, etc. In contrast to that kind of criticism, the U.S.
Education Secretary understatedly called the PISA results "sobering
news" - not just in an absolute sense, but also in comparison to the
superior test results from competing economies around the globe, as well as the
disturbing downward trend of U.S. results.
Probably because of my stringent,
possibly strident, views on this subject, I have been taking some flak in the
form of counter-arguments from those (O.K., the few) who have heard my message.
However, I am protected from such assaults by my self-indulgent comfort in the
knowledge that I am impregnably right. Thus, by the Laws of Nature, the
President is horribly wrong - or, as we nature-lovers appropriately say,
"up a tree". The following paragraph is an example of the
stand-off.
Main counter-argument: We can do both. That is to say, gorge
on well-used technologies, miraculously resurrected from goodness-knows-where,
AND gun the new technology engine. Sorry, but no can do. Resources are
finite, including the planet-sized pile of $$ to make it all happen (although,
maybe not the latter, if the sight of the National Debt crashing crazily upward
through Obama's distant ceiling doesn't bother us). Choices between
strategies of the, now burgeoning, older technologies and the emergent new
would have to be made.
With yet another miracle piled on the first one, let us assume
that all the right strategic choices are made. The capacity of the system
to retch up products will then become monumental. All that is then required to make life
complete is market outlets for this cornucopia. But since the domestic
market will soon be overwhelmed, then the saving grace is, of course, global
markets. Mostly, those of the same
economies that were not too pleased when the U.S. ran for cover, and who, by
this time, will have adjusted their global business strategies to exclude the
now untrustworthy U.S. Well, good luck with that. It's a bit like
Brexit proponents wanting to have all the advantages of EEC markets without
having to formally join the bloc and obey its rules. Dream on, baby.
I'll leave readers to their imaginations to visualize the kind of
results from this potential chaos in the U.S. I'm not going to spell them
out, except to say that the U.S. government interfering with global business,
upon which the U.S. so desperately depends, by gaily festooning the U.S.
position with "remedial" targeted penalties, taxes, fees and tariffs
in order to bring a fatally ephemeral sanity to the inevitable chaos, is hardly
the image of a "free market" - let alone to wonder who ultimately
pays for this burdensome bureaucratic cascade. Such mad, blatant,
government intervention into U.S. business has all the rancid stink of pathetic
socialism. And, as such, the eventual bottom line results will be.......?
Finally, I would like to vigorously reiterate that I am still
standing on the side-lines waiting to see what actually happens.
Nervously, yes. And not just because of what you may have read in
the above text. I am bothered by the phrase "make America great
again." There are two ways to interpret that. One is that, we
the people are joyous over what is, to all intents and purposes, an
isolationist strategy. We are supremely happy to be safely encased inside
our own little cocoon. This is a narcissistic, egotistic ethos. The
other perspective is the opposite of such self-serving introspection, namely
that much of the world sees us as great again. After our eight wearisome
years in the global garbage can, this latter perspective is much, much tougher
to achieve, requiring exceptional leadership and statesmanship. Dear
reader, you choose.
