recent Presidents do not receive.nAfter flying over Nevada inn1955, he grumbled that it wasna “great gambling and marriagendestruction hell,” and that itnIN FOCUSnshould never have become anstate, as it was a “hell-hole ofniniquity.” He would probablynhave been a great hero of commonnsense in our day. (AJL) DnEconomics of Elitist Fine-TuningnRonald E. Mtiller: RevitalizingnAmerica: Politics fornProsperity; Simon & Schuster;nNew York.nby Michael W. HodinnIn 1974, Richard Barnett andnRonald Miiller wrote a bookncalled Global Reach, in whichnthey meant to describe the basicnimmorality of the American corporatensystem as it stretchednaround the world raping environments,nexploiting people andnextending its own power. Morenrecently these arguments havenfallen on hard times as a resultnof overwhelming evidence thatnthe most prosperous and freestncountries of the developingnworld are those which have associatednthemselves with thenUnited States. It turns out thatnthe U.S.-based multinationalncorporations are not nearly asnpowerful as the rhetoric ofnGlobal Reach and the speechesnof Third World leaders haventried to suggest. Nor, by the way,nare they as evil as depicted. Companiesnthat appear large in thenaggregate wield precious littleninfluence in individual countriesnaround the globe, where theynoperate at the whims of ThirdnWorld governments. Moreover,nthe benefits to the United Statesnfrom its companies’ foreign investmentsnoffer a bright spot innDr. Hodin is a public affairsnassociate for Pfizer, Inc.n38inChronicles of Culturenan otherwise-gloomy internationalntrade picture.nWith the publication of RevitalizingnAmerica: Politics fornProsperity, Ronald Miiller nowndirects his attention to issuesnwhich are in the mainstream ofnAmerica’s economic-policy debate:nHow can we reverse thentrend toward decline in productivity,nhigh rates of unemploymentnand inflation, loss of competitivenessnin internationalnmarkets, etc., etc., etc’ LikenBarnett’s Lean Years, Miiller’snapproach to solving America’sneconomic problems is not at allnin the mainstream of the policyndebate. Indeed, he draws heavilynon development economics appliednin Third World countries,nan approach based on the premisenthat we are operating in whatnhe calls a “post-market economy,”nwhich clearly places Mr.nMiiller on the left perimeter ofnthe debate which sees the freenmarket as unworkable and capitalismnas, at best, undesirable.nThe market system is outdatednand new programs and policiesnare required to conform to hisnvision of the “post-market economy,”none where the “machinerynfor making economic policy andndecisions” would be based onnsomething other than the market.nThis, according to Miiller,nis because “the economicnmachinery that was supposed tonproduce prosperity has stalled.”nWhat he cannot bring himselfnto admit, however (if he under­nstands it at all), is that the “stallnin prosperity” has been wroughtnnot by a “post-market economy”nbut by antimarket approaches. Itnis Miiller’s guarded endorsementnof “supply-side economics,” however,nwhich can be deceiving, andnof which one has to be especiallynwary. For his approach, howeverndisguised by semantics, is to continuento play with the marketfine-tuning,nas it were. And thisnpolitical control, even if it isnmixed into the rhetoric of supplysideneconomics, even if it is implementednby Mtiller’s task forcesnor quasi-government agencies,nis still statism, which will leadnto restrictions on individual freedomnand liberties.nMiiller’s brand of “nationalnplanning” is the alleged solutionnto the problems of “market imperfections,”nwhich, he argues,nhave led to the continuing conditionnof stagflation. His basicnflaw, of course, is that thesen”market imperfections” werencaused by what can only be describednas antimarket forces—nof which he ultimately wantsnmore. For example, institutionalizednregulation in this countrynand abroad—the multinationalsnare to be used as vehicles to leadna U.S. effort at “global harmonizationnof . . . social, environmental,nhealth and safety, andnother regulation …” There isnalso to be more direct politicalncontrol of supply and demand,n”fine-tuning” both. And, finally,na continuation of the misguidednand misdirected U.S. foreignneconomic policy which contributesnto uneconomically inspirednindustrial development and conditionsnof surplus capacity innmajor sectors throughout thenindustrial world.nBut perhaps the most drama­nnntic illustration of the adverseneffects poUtical control of thenmarket can have is OPEC. Herenis a case in which the marketnsystem was abandoned, thus itnis the ultimate success story fornthe brand of development economicsnwhich Miiller wants tonapply with a vengeance. Indeed,nhe spends more than a chapternon what is touted as a new MarshallnPlan which, through thenWorld Bank or some such institution,nwill redistribute OPEC’snbillions to developing economiesnthat currently suffer most fromnthe cartel’s control of the market.nTrue, the internationalneconomy and many nationalneconomies are overburdenednby OPEC’s effects: market dominationnamong the OECD countries,nseemingly unending debtnin the developing countries, andndistortions of the market whichnlead to high rates of stagflationnand conditions of instability. Itnwould seem, however, that thensolution one would not wantnwould be a political arrangementnamong OPEC, the industrialnworld and the non-OPEC developingnworld that would furtherninstitutionalize and legitimizenOPEC’s intervention in thenmarket and its control of thenWest’s oil supply. More marketninterference is precisely whatnwe do not need.nkn