Fifty-two years ago, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev famously announced at the United Nations, “We will bury you.” The quote, directed at the United States, was originally mistranslated, and actually should have read, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in.” Looking back on this Cold War moment from the 21st century—with Cuba and North Korea serving as the only two remaining examples of the revolution of the proletariat—one must take a moment to appreciate the irony of Khrushchev’s words. What is disturbing, however, is the fact that after basking in the glow of its undisputed hegemony for the past 17 years, America seems to be forgetting that central part of its own ethos, the part responsible for the defeat of communism. That principle, economic freedom, is what made America into the great power it is and is ultimately humanity’s last best hope for the future.
At the dawn of the 21st century, we find ourselves in a world where America is beleaguered by economic turmoil and in which nations such as China, India, and Brazil are laying the foundations of strong economies that will one day compete on par with that of the United States. In the face of these remarkable changes, many are beginning to question whether the market can maintain prosperity in America, while others take issue with America’s dominant role in international affairs. I, on the other hand, want to see the United States remain the world’s most powerful nation because I believe that the existence of this country has helped foster an era of peace, prosperity, and freedom that has never before been seen in human history. However, I do not believe that progress will come by shutting ourselves off from the world, or by dethroning the capitalist system as we know it. Both ideas—isolationism and socialism—have been tried in the past, only to bring immense hardship and oppression upon those subjected to them. Rather, the way forward for this country is through a belief in the libertarian mantra of “free markets and free people.”
Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, it is impossible to ignore the empirical data showing that market-based democracies have considerably outperformed any other system of resource allocation and governance in their ability to materially provide for their own people. Viewed in the long term, markets are a more beneficial strategy—compare Americans of the 17th century (most of whom lived on the brink of starvation) with those of the present day, for whom extreme poverty is nonexistent. Unfortunately, this situation does not necessarily prevail outside of the Western world, where the World Bank estimates that 2.7 billion people live on less than the American equivalent $2 per day, or $730 per year.
I consider this statistic to be critical when confronting the most frequent attack on capitalism in America, which is that the inequality created by the free market is unacceptable, even if everyone is better off in absolute terms. We must consider the point that even though many Americans may suffer hardship and deprivation, the poorest people in this country are still better off than most of humanity. Does these mean we should have no sympathy for the poor and stop in our attempts to increase the nation’s wealth? Absolutely not. What it does mean, however, is that we need to look at these issues with a sense of perspective, to think more than one year into the future. For instance, instead of attempting to stem the inevitable flow of unskilled jobs from America to the developing world, this country should be focusing on educating its workers to compete in the globalized world of the 21st century. On virtually every important issue, be it poverty, the national debt, or this country’s security, I believe that what is most sorely lacking from conventional discourse is a long-term view. That is, people must eventually accept realities such as that increasing indebtedness to foreigners is economically unsustainable and that individuals may not become wealthier at the same rate. Ultimately, the longer we take to come to these realizations, the more dire the consequences of these omissions will be.
When considering capitalism’s place in human development, I would claim that history was ultimately on our side. In the end, the principles of economic dynamism and individual freedom were able to beat the Soviet ideals of collectivization and central planning, and the world is better for it. I ask readers keep this point in mind when they think about my proposals, and take to heart the facts that I present in my column. I hope that in this exercise, I may be able to convince some of you that when it comes to important issues affecting our campus and our country, I am reasonably right.
Jon Hollander is a Columbia college junior majoring in economics. Reasonably Right runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com