Power and Happiness (President Obama in India)

There is widespread confusion around between two ideas that should be easy to separate from each other. I keep bumping into it. I had several lengthy discussions of it with strangers on Facebook. Some were of the left, some of the right. I found it in my morning paper under the pen of no less than columnist David Brooks of the New York Times (“ Midwest at Dusk”11/7/1)).

I refer to the confusion between the happiness of a country’s citizens and the country’s standing in the world. David Brooks wrote:

“ If America can figure out how to build a decent future for the working- class people in this (mid-Atlantic) region, then the US will remain a predominant power. It it can’t, it won’t.”

Like this.

President Obama’s post-” shellacking” visit to India is a good time to clear the confusion.

It may be that there is some sort of connection between the happiness of a country’s citizens (or some) and being a “predominant power.” It may be but it’s far from obvious. You would have to demonstrate it. It would be hard; casual evidence does not support the idea. Deeper research does not either.

Norway had a Gross Domestic Product per capita of $52,000 in 2009.
Switzerland had only $41,000. Singapore had $50,000. The GDP per capita of the US for 2009 was $46,000. So, on the average, Norwegians and Singaporeans earn more money than Americans. Subjectively, I don’t believe it’s a very big difference but I think the direction of this difference is certain. More of what GDP measures is better than less.

Short tech notes:

1 Those GDP figures are “Purchasing Power Parity” (PPP). It means that they are adjusted for different costs of living in different countries. One dollar in the US buys more than one dollar in Norway. This fact is minutely taken into account to make the figures truly comparable.

2 In spite of many criticisms, GDP per capita PPP (see note 1 above) reflects real average individual income for the countries I use as examples, except as noted. We don’t need to go into a more technical discussion here although it would be interesting. I ask you to trust me on this because I am a specialist and because I don’t lie or stretch the truth.

I have personal knowledge of Switzerland and I am well informed about Singapore and about Norway. People in all three countries live very well, I am certain. They are free from gross want. They enjoy long lives that don’t lack for dignity. The life expectancy at birth is higher in each of these countries than it is in the US. (I don’t make a fetish of this for several reasons both technical and substantive. Yet, here also, higher is usually better than lower.) If you spent a little time in any of these three countries, you would find that your impressions correspond well with those abstract numbers. Their people have good lives.

Where their lives are less than satisfactory, its because of factors not readily amenable to political or economic change. The Norwegians seem lonely to many observers. Why shouldn’t they? There is only handful of them in a vast country and no one understands their language. Moreover Norwegian skies are overcast much of the year which makes for melancholy. The Singaporeans are too crowded with each other and it’s too hot in Singapore much of the year. (I am only repeating what I have heard them say). The Swiss seem satisfied to me in spite of a certain dourness. Secretly, many envy the French next door who are less rich than they are because the French seem to have more fun in their comparatively ill-run country. And also, the French have plenty of ocean shorelines.

It’s true that I think Americans lead more satisfying lives than just about anyone else. This is due, I believe, to historical facts no one could duplicate. First, cumulatively, immigration ensured for centuries that only the most optimistic came and stayed. It all ads up. Second, Americans are more creative overall than anyone else. In particular, they make more good music and they produce more good movies. This makes for satisfaction but it’s less than obvious that it has anything to do with being a great power.

This is my main point: Norway, Singapore, Switzerland are not major powers by any conceivable standard yet their people are happy.

Now, let’s look at some great powers. China is no doubt a great power by virtue of the weight of its economy. (It’s either the second or the third largest in the world.) It’s also a great power through its Communist government’s control of much of world finance indirectly via the American obligations it holds, Its armed forces are the largest or the second largest in the world. Yet, the official GDP capita of China is only about $7,000 PPP. That would be seven or eight times smaller than Norway’s, seven times smaller than Singapore’s, next door. Take a second to reflect on the difference between living on $7.000 per year and on $50,000. I don’t want to go much beyond this because GDP per capita is a less adequate measure of well-being for China that it is for the other countries mentioned. To put it briefly, there are greater disparities in China between rich and poor categories of the population. I have not been to China but the numerous reports in the media lead me to believe that the standard of living in coastal China is similar to that of the US in the 1920s while in the underdeveloped interior, it’s more like US 1860. One major exception to these statements: Even in interior China, the life expectancy is much higher than it was anywhere in 1860. (Joint miracle of vaccination and of relatively clean water.)

India is a big power in the making although almost be default. It wins all the wars with neighbors that dare to threaten it and most neighbors wouldn’t think of doing such a thing. (Its military differences with China are minor, fortunately.) It’s fast developing a large Navy capable of projecting its power throughout the India Ocean and the Arabian sea. Furthermore, the fact that India is a genuine if tumultuous democracy gives it moral suasion among the powerful western democracies. As a symbolic exercise: If a vote were taken in the General Assembly today to remove France from it seat in the Security Council to give it to India, India would probably win. If the vote were restricted to full democracies, France might still be unseated.

Yet, the GDP per capita of India is only around $3,000. This number is subject to the same restrictions of interpretation as the Chinese figure and much for the same reasons. In fact, the figure overstates the standard of living of most Indians. I know India fairly well. I am saying that what you see casually in India, in the countryside but also in the main cities, suggest that Indians general live more badly than you would if you had $12,000 for a family of four, ($3,000 per capita multiplied by four family members) in say, Arkansas. Correspondingly, its life expectancy at birth is only about 70, ten years shorter than Norway’s or Switzerland’s. It’s even four years shorter than life expectancy in Mauritius, an independent tropical island with a population
90 % of Indian origin.

It’s true that there is much optimism in India today. Two reasons. First, few Indians have been anywhere to compare. In spite of movies and in spite of the stories of returned expatriates, Indians are not aware of the low quality of their lives, low by any standards whatsoever. Second, today’s young Indians see their opportunities grow much faster than their parents and grandparents could have imagined. That’s not because they are rich but because the Indian economy was almost stagnant for two generations. In spite of frequent exuberant pronouncements in the Indian media, mindlessly repeated in the American media, the new Indian “middle-class” isn’t much to write about. To be “middle-class” in India today may not mean much more than owning two pairs of good shoes and saving for a first payment on a moped.

So, there you have it. There is no obvious connection between a nation being a power, any sort of power, and the quality of life of its citizens. Americans are often confused about this simple fact because the United States is a great power where life also happens to be good. The link is probably fortuitous (except see below).

I am aware of the fact that being a citizen of a great power may contribute, subjectively to quality of life. For some people, it’s a kind of psychic income or bonus. This attitude is fairly widespread among the French, and, of all people, the Turks. These two examples should be enough to suggest that this psychic bonus is compatible with a fair amount of self-delusion. Incidentally, the French have no excuse for they have a saying everyone knows: “Happy people have no history.”

I stated above that there is no link between the power of a nation and the quality of its citizens’ life. I must now undermine slightly this pronouncement because that’s the honest thing to do. It may be possible to argue that the happiness of everyone in the world, Norwegians, Swiss, Singaporeans, Chinese, Indians, and all others alike, depends entirely on the joint power of a small number of great powers. The good lives according to this argument only develops under the umbrella of the pax americana, supplemented by the contribution of other, middling, powers. In this view, there is a very indirect link between power and happiness. I don’t think that’s what people have in mind who confuse great power and great happiness. I just believe they have not thought it through.

A final word to keep you thinking. It’s about a separate but closely associated misconception. Contrary to the routine statements of politicians of all sides (Democrats only a little more guilty than Republicans) countries don’t, on the whole “compete” with each other economically. Prosperous Canadians are better for my selfish needs than are poor Mexicans; the richer the Chinese become, the better I live, by and large.

Sixtieth Anniversary of the People’s Republic; Obama’s String of Victories.

To celebrate our country’s birthday, we fly the flag, we put on fireworks (only in some places, not in my town of Santa Cruz where the authorities are afraid the sand of the beach might catch on fire!) Mostly, we eat grilled meat saturated with saturated fat to mark this anniversary. The red Chinese also do fireworks (really good ones). They also march 10,000 people under arms. That’s a basic difference.

The parade of heavy weapons and tanks took place on Tienanmen Square, the same place where brave unarmed young people were crushed by tanks twenty years ago.

The Chinese Communist Party is the most successful mafia in the history of the world. It has succeeded in raising the Chinese from abject poverty to moderate poverty while maintaining its corrupt, totalitarian rule. It now ranks 133 out of 229 countries in GDP per capita, right behind Albania. Its GDP/capita of $6,000 is almost one fifth that of Taiwan, all Chinese, and less than one eighth that of Singapore, which is 90% Chinese. You might say, the Chinese are prosperous everywhere in the world except under Communist rule.

(Figures from CIA World Factbook on-line 10/1/09.)

What corrupt rule? I don’t mean small time business grease like la mordita in Mexico, or other small bribes. I mean real horrors. The Weekly Standard published a long article several month ago about the execution of imprisoned regime opponents for the purpose of selling their organs. Normally, I don’t pay attention to this sort of stories. I think of them as urban legends. One thing caught my attention in this case: Several reports of thorough medical examinations given to young healthy prisoners and never followed by treatment of any sort, a sort of blood-curdling inventory. Furthermore, I don’t discount the Weekly Standard. It’s a very serious periodicals that checks its facts thoroughly. (Report is in the Nov. 24^th 2008 issue).

The UN urged the Chinese government to look into it. You bet!

Speaking of inventory: Almost nine months since the inauguration. Soon the Obama presidency gestation will be over. Here is an informal inventory. Tell me where I am wrong.

Here is his most successful initiative: “Cash for Clunkers.” It’s successful because the money allocated was actually spent and spent quickly. Let me give you the ethical summary of this achievement:

The President took money from my wife, who cannot afford a new car of any sort, to give it to people who could afford to put down $20,000, but maybe not $25,000. Those are very happy with the transaction; no kidding? Also fairly happy are car dealers, whose function is increasingly questionable because of the Internet. (Sorry, I call them as I see them.)

Even happier are GM workers, high-school graduates with 1940 skills, who earn $ 30 an hour (according to UAW, $75 according to Republican Congressional critics) and large fringe benefits, making cars Americans don’t want in large numbers. Unhappy, are the people who would have bought the used cars sent to be destroyed. Many of those people are undoubtedly among the poorest Americans. I wonder how many lost their jobs because they couldn’t find a used car in their price range.

“Cash for clunkers” was clearly a transfer of income. It transferred income from the poor to the moderately well-off.

I don’t hate liberals because of their misguided economic ideas; I only deplore those and I try to combat them. Hypocrisy is hard to forgive though, even if it’s rooted only in stubborn disregard for basic facts and for elementary logic.

On the domestic economic front, three things did not happen:

The stimulus package did not work. It wasn’t supposed to. You can’t reduce unemployment next month by building a rail line between Disneyland and Las Vegas the permits for which will take five, six, or five years. Federal employment is growing though.

Foreclosures have hardly slowed down.

The so-called “public option” on health care reform has vanished, for practical purposes. The final bill will have something called “public option,” no doubt. It will have nothing in common with the program the President wanted as a Trojan Horse to turn American health care into a single payer.

Digression: A couple of days ago, the French Ministry of Health announced the size of the unfunded cost of the French single-payer system. It’s expected to be about $700 per man, woman and child. (Le Figaro10/02/09.) That’s not the total cost but the amount for which money will have to be found elsewhere. Look at it this way: on the average, in 2010, a French family of four will spending $2,800 more on health care than the national budget allows.

In foreign affairs, same progress. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the President is pausing to ruminate about the strategy he chose himself by appointing a general who is its foremost exponent. That’s about the “war of necessity” he said we had to win.

He wants to revert to waging war with long range missiles. It’s the unworkable wimp’s option of course. That’s the opinion of all who study counterinsurgency.

On October 1^st, the President made a moving speech on the result of negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its unlawful nuclear program. He said he told Iran, “Allow inspection, or else.” The “else” was left to the mullahs’ imagination. They must be crapping their pants. Those are the same mullahs who smile benignly when the president they hand-picked tells the world he wants to annihilate a neighbor.

Oops! I almost forgot: “Cap and Trade” is dormant and Guantanamo will stay open. I like the latter; it’s he best solution but that’s not what he told those who voted or him.

Some of the President’s supporters are beginning to say, “Give him time.” Point well taken but the Republicans were not the ones who told him to rush, to triple the federal deficit in nine months, nor to direct the largest tax increase since the Korean War (Boston.com – The Boston Globe 9/2/09). No conservative demanded that he cram a 1,000-page plan to recast 15% of the economy in a couple of weeks (health care reform). (Data: The NYT on June 19^th said 885 pages. I am just guessing it had grown to more than 1,000 by August.)

It’s also true that the President inherited a big economic crisis, that the bulk o the crisis was not of his making. Well, we hired him to drive the truck, not to change the wheels. When your motor starts burning, you don’t rush to take out the jack. Rigidity of purpose is nearly a crime for a senior executive. Don’t implement costly programs when the economy is much worse than you expected. Got it?

I think it’s fair to take people at their word. When I tell my wife I will paint the living room, that’s how she judges me. That’s one reason I am careful not to announce that I will paint the whole house in one day. President Obama declared he would do X,Y, and Z. He has not done any, has not even come close. If I had voted for him, I would be displeased.

With all this, I still don’t think the man is evil though I am more and more inclined to see him as a puppet. Conservatives who describe the President as evil are losing track of the obvious. He is a handsome man with a good diction who had never achieved anything in his life besides get elected. He can’t even select literate speech-writers. Here is what he said recently disdainfully a propos of his critics on Iran:

“Some invoked the picture of Hiro Ito signing the articles of capitulation.”

Mr President: It’s not “invoke” it’s “evoke,” and Emperor Hiro Hito did not sign the articles of capitulation. He was cowering in his palace.

That’s two mistakes in one sentence, worse than George Bush!

The President shows himself to be a fool. He will fall. I fear what comes next. Some of his followers are fascists, the real thing. Who will come after they throw him under the bus because he is unable to deliver even with majorities in both houses?

I have an exit plan for the President though. Actually, he found it himself in Copenhagen.

It’s true that he did not get the Olympics Games for Chicago. That’s the easiest failure to excuse. One, Rio was hard to beat. Brazilians are more fun than Chicagoans anytime. (I, for one, don’t want to see any Chicagoans in a string bathing suit.) Two, he was up against another political machine, the International Olympic Committee. It’s a machine as corrupt as Chicago’s but he had not had time to learn its ways.

In spite of this failure, I think President Obama would make a good international relations representative for the Greater Chicago Chamber of Commerce. He speaks well from a text if the text is well written. He looks better in a suit than just about any other public figures. He looks “multicultural.” I don’t know what that means but I know it’s a good thing.