The Cold War’s mutually-assured destruction has given way to a one-sided assured destruction: Russians are dying off.
Not only are birth rates far below the replacement level, but the living are drinking, smoking, poisoning, and murdering themselves to early graves. While most rich countries have managed to reduce deaths from chronic diseases (heart attacks, cirrhosis, etc.) from already low levels, Russians have managed to increase their deaths from higher levels to yet even higher levels. The average Russian life expectancy today is lower than that of 1950.
Low birth rates and shorter lives are leading Russia to a population decline much faster than those of Germany, Italy, and Japan, which all enjoy long life-expectancies. Yet unlike Germany, Italy, and Japan, Russia is rich in land and resources, making it an attractive option for investors of the next century.
How does a country manage its population decline smartly? As the age distribution places a greater portion of people into retirement, per-capita GDP may decline as there are fewer workers. Additionally, the elderly will require greater care, thus diverting a greater portion of national wealth to their own care. To compensate for this strain, a slowly dying nation might consider the equivalent of a reverse mortgage, selling off parts of itself to foreign powers and corporations interested in its resources.
Global warming will make Siberia a much more attractive buy over the next few decades and Russia might consider selling parts of it to pay for its increasingly elderly and debilitated population. China seems like the natural buyer, desperate as it is for oil resources, but perhaps timber companies will place offers, too.
The more interesting question involves what to do with a nation when its citizens have gone entirely extinct, having died off naturally. The government will have dissolved already, but what will the international community do with the “estate”?
My arguments against a Detroit bailout have finally coalesced into a cohesive letter to my Congressional delegation.
The Honorable [Ben Cardin/Barbara Mikulski/Christopher Van Hollen]
[United States Senate/House of Representatives]
Washington, DC
Dear [Sen. Cardin/Sen. Mikulski/Mr. Van Hollen],
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the use of any public money to bailout Detroit’s ever-ailing automakers. The Detroit automakers have invited their own demise through a series of poor decisions to their own detriment, to the detriment of America’s security and to the detriment of the environment. They must not be rewarded and taxpayers’ money must not be used for the three automakers who have done the most to harm the public good. A government stake in these companies is bound to be politicized and an “auto czar” will thus fail to restructure these companies better than bankruptcy protection could.
First, this crisis in Detroit was foreseeable and of its own making. For decades the Detroit automakers, at the behest of the United Auto Workers union, have paid their employees rates unimaginable elsewhere in the private sector. Their workers have received wages and retirement benefits most Americans could only dream of. Consequently, the Detroit automakers priced themselves into a disadvantaged position compared to foreign manufacturers who set up shop in the United States. It is unfair to expect taxpayers, many of who do not receive the lavish pay and benefits of autoworkers, to bailout an overpaid industry.
Second, over the past fifteen years, the Detroit automakers have put much of their design, marketing, and sales focus into the production of SUVs and trucks, whose popularity was predicated on the low price of a volatile global commodity. While Honda and Toyota were developing fuel-sipping hybrids, the Detroit automakers kept producing bigger and bigger vehicles. Suddenly the price of oil jumped, public tastes turned away from fuel profligacy, and the Detroit business model crashed. This was all foreseeable years ago.
Not only was Detroit’s focus on gas-guzzlers a careless business decision, but it hurt the public welfare in three ways:
- By Burdening our Infrastructure: Detroit’s promotion of gas-guzzlers needlessly increased the weight and size of vehicles and thus their impact on the public roadways.
- By Emboldening our Enemies: Detroit’s dreadful decline into fuel inefficiency increased America’s dependence on imported oil, much of which comes from countries hostile to the United States. The auto industry had encouraged the transfer of America’s wealth to some of the nastiest regimes on earth, showering our enemies with petrodollars. There is little doubt that our insatiable demand for oil—a demand Detroit enabled and encouraged—has emboldened Messrs. Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chávez, who have challenged our security while accepting our money. Detroit has encouraged the American public to finance unwittingly the schemes of these global despots.
- By Maximizing Environmental Harm: Detroit’s peddling of gas-guzzlers has maximized the burden on the environment by promoting the most inefficient passenger vehicles available. Detroit and the UAW have consistently lobbied Congress for the reduction of efficiency and emissions standards.
An industry that has consistently maximized public harm has minimized its claim to public support.
Furthermore, I have little confidence that a bailout would adequately protect the public investment, as any government control is bound to be politicized for every reason other than minimizing taxpayer losses. Politically powerful delegations (e.g. from Michigan and Ohio) would find every way to force the rest of the nation to subsidize unnecessary jobs. I would find it particularly offensive if the industry were to receive public money and continue to spend more money lobbying Congress for even more handouts.
A government bailout, by political circumstance, will end up throwing good money after bad. These companies should, like every other careless company, face the consequences and file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which will allow them to reorganize under established court procedures, not under political expediency.
It is fair for public money to be spent retraining laid-off workers and to help soften the blow to towns dependent on soon-to-be-shut factories, but it is not fair to finance boondoggles to assemble cars that people don’t want to buy.
I am eager to hear your response and will keep an eye on this issue if it makes it to the floor.
Sincerely,
/s/
E. J. Dionne in the Post, like nearly every other professional talking-head on a deadline, is advancing his own theory about the Keystone State’s primary: the election is really about religion. And race. And gender. And age. And class.
Wow, that’s enlightening.
Anyway, Dionne sees a racist plot afoot by the North Carolina Republican Party:
On Wednesday, the North Carolina Republican Party released a television ad showing Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, giving his now-famous sermon in which he declared, “God damn America.”
Of course Wright’s comments were offensive, but to pretend that the ad does not have racial undertones would be to deny the obvious. After all, why didn’t North Carolina Republicans focus instead on attacking Obama’s alleged “elitism” or his foreign policy views?
Perhaps because Sen. Obama is spiritually close to a man whose vitriolic rhetoric could be easily mistaken for the rambling tirade of the latest Osama bin Laden video.
