Golden Age, Gone?

Francis Fukuyama writes in "The Fall of America, Inc." that "it is hard to fathom just how badly these signature features of the American brand have been discredited." The American brand is much bigger than any person or policy—bigger and more profound than Ronald Reagan's policies, bigger than left-wing or right-wing tendencies prevailing at any one time. Today's crisis is another of those unavoidable events that occur under freedom, which allows for excesses both good and bad. The American brand is associated with the country where more people enjoy freedom, equal opportunity, rewards for excellence, political stability, separation of powers, an open political process and control by the voters than in any other country on earth.
Victor Lopez
Seville, Spain

In "The Fall of America, Inc.," Francis Fukuyama states that the "Reagan era should have ended some time ago" and did not, partly because the Democratic Party had "no convincing candidates or arguments" to counter the Republican Party. Furthermore, he claims that this prolongation of the Reagan model occurred because of differences among those who vote for the left, which he considers akin to socialism and communism, in the United States and Europe. He does not enlighten us about the American party or parties of the left that could present electable candidates. Europe's consistently left-wing voters are labeled as "less educated" and "working class"; their American counterparts are less consistent and have swayed between the Republicans, the Democrats and other, smaller parties in recent elections. Therefore, could it be assumed that the American left is an oxymoron? Fukuyama, despite his previous criticism of the endurance of Reaganism, suggests that many non-Americans "would still benefit from emulating certain aspects of the Reagan model." He proposes some of these for continental Europe, where longer vacations, fewer working hours per week and employment security are not sustainable. Fukuyama is personally used to some of these privileges, and others should have access to similar conditions, depending on their economic sector.
Aidan O'Connor
Poitiers, France

"The Fall of America, Inc." Is the most clear and comprehensive analysis that I have read in any media outlet. As an economist myself with more than 30 years of Wall Street and Paris experience in financial markets, I have to say that the mantras of deregulation and of tax cuts for corporations or the top 5 percent of taxpayers are completely false and the cause of our present situation. The real-estate-market follies of 2000–05 and the absence of regulation and supervision, the run for ever-higher profits without any regard for common sense, the race to create more and more exotic financial instruments and the abandonment of any supervision, as well as weakened government regulatory enforcement of the meager existing laws, have ended up producing an environment where no asset can be clearly assessed for value, and a world in recession. The nonending creation of debt in the United States may prove a bitter pill to swallow by the rest of the world and may end up in stagflation by 2009. Fukuyama's article is a clear warning to control a runaway and rudderless Wall Street. As a society requires laws, an economy requires regulation and government oversight—not to constrain it but to control the excesses.
Francois de la Begassiere
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

I categorically reject Francis Fukuyama's notion that America's best days are behind it and that the Chinese and Russian models are more attractive than capitalist democracy—even in the current situation in which we find ourselves. To what could Fukuyama possibly be referring? Certainly it is not the treatment of dissenters, double-digit unemployment or stifling pollution in China. And surely the author does not yearn for the crime and corruption or recent retreat from democracy that plague Russia. Rather than use these post-communist countries as a model, I prefer to think that America's best days lie ahead.
Dipak Rajhansa
Oviedo, Florida

Deregulation done in the name of innovation is not a bad thing. One example would be when Muhammad Yunus broke all the rules and came up with microcredit loans for the poorest of the poor without need for collateral. Counter to expectations, those poor Bangladeshi women paid off their loans and went on to build small businesses. For his effort, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. The difference between the streets of Dhaka and Wall Street is that while one deregulates to do good, the other sees it as an opportunity to disregard scruples for the sake of quick wealth. The big banks should learn the four principal virtues of Yunus's Dhaka-based Grameen Bank: discipline, unity, courage and hard work.
Chan Chee Leong
Singapore

I must add something to Francis Fukayama's fascinating essay about the economic and political philosophy of Ronald Reagan and its downfall. I don't believe that deregulation and tax relief alone saved the American economy in the 1980s. Nor did reduced taxes alone create the Reagan deficit. Reagan may have repudiated the era of "big government," but in fact, he borrowed a chapter from Franklin D. Roosevelt's strategy. Like FDR, he turned the government into America's largest consumer. FDR purchased infrastructure and farm commodities. Reagan purchased airplanes, bombs and missiles. The government's willingness to invest in engineering and technology was the beginning of the tech boom that saved our economy when Reagan's successor, the first President Bush, stopped investing in fancy artillery. Now our government is again willing to become a consumer in order to save our economy. Only this time it's investing in bad debt. That is madness. What will the return on this investment be for the American people?
Kathryn Wickward
Seattle, Washington