What’s Good for American Avarice Is Good for Asian Students

It does not take a political analyst to understand why Bernie Sanders is such a popular presidential candidate among students across America. In the spring of our lives, we are all drawn to radicalism in some way or another. And Sanders is indeed a radical. To many, he is a champion of liberalism, perhaps the 21st-century equivalent of Tiberius Gracchus, the Roman Popularis who proposed agrarian reforms for the benefit of the plebeians. For this Gracchus was assassinated by his more affluent peers, an unfortunate historical footnote, but his legacy survives to forever join the People against a wealthy and powerful elite. Today, the people rally behind Sanders, his youthful coalition demanding the reduction of both wealth inequality and college tuitions. In their enthusiasm to birth a movement, I have found Sanders’ supporters insisting upon themselves. So in the interest of political mindfulness, I offer my contrarian views as an Asian student studying in the United States. And to the young democrats of Exeter, who may find themselves encouraged to dismiss my argument in favor of a like-minded consensus, I quote Nietzsche, “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”Simply put, no international student hailing from Asia should support men the likes of Sanders. Admittedly, he may well be the “best” politician for the presidency, an office which so demands the ethical and popular considerations that Sanders seems to advocate. And yet, in speaking against Sanders and others like him, I am willing to prioritize my self-interests over those of some 300 million Americans. I will not apologize for this; the crux of free speech is not to agree with the general will, but to add to it. I am against Sanders because his rise to power will lead to market speculations unconducive to my tuition. The implementation of Sanders’ regulatory economic policies, or even the prospect thereof, is sure to culminate in the increased valuation of the dollar. At a time when my family, as well as millions of other Asian households are trying to send their children to U.S. schools, the notion of an America less reliant on Asian goods and workers is frightening.Hitherto, Sanders, a self-professed democratic socialist, has made it clear that he espouses government intervention in the market. He proposes policies with three functions in mind. First, to reduce unemployment by investing in domestic industry, particularly infrastructure. Second, to protect American manufacturing by “reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA and PNTR.” In effect, this should reduce the number of commodities imported from China. Third, Sanders wants to enforce more stringent taxes on corporations, namely implementing regulations to prevent the offshoring, or “outsourcing” of jobs to cheaper competition abroad.Market regulation and socialist reform are by no means outright enemies of the Asian scholar studying in the States but are themes that invoke a certain level of wariness and unease. And on this issue, Asian and libertarian opinions tend to gravitate towards one another, in effect forming an alliance against forms of market control. Libertarians, at least in the fiscal sense, are proponents of laissez-faire capitalism. They believe that unimpeded transactions on a micro scale, assuming agents guided by logic and reason, will ultimately lead to a self-regulating and prosperous economy. Furthermore, they claim that any government intervention in the market is anathema to the liberty of all men to buy and sell goods as they want.Asian students have good reason to approve of and support American libertarianism. This sentiment is not borne of some admiration for Adam Smith and his staunch defense of state-free enterprise as the most natural and effective form of wealth distribution. On the contrary, American libertarianism is likeable because it fails, because historical precedent has demonstrated time and time again that deregulated, anarchic markets are prone to abuse by ever more dominant capitalists. An economy is formed by individuals pursuing their separate interests and getting rewarded for these endeavors. Increased incentives and decreased rules allows greed to thrive and manifest itself in the form of the Rockefellers, the Morgans and the Kochs. The beauty of this American avarice, often depraved and always exploitative, is that it plays into the hands of those on the sidelines. After all, a fractious, cannibalistic economy presents far easier game for the foreigner than one with a cohesive and nationally-functional identity.Sanders has proposed policies meant to turn the economy on its head. It is no longer to reap the labors of the American people but instead to provide for the nation. The end goal is to create jobs and the presidential candidate’s three-pronged approach consists of first establishing domestic industries through heavy investment, then increasing the value of these industries’ manufactured goods by mitigating trade imbalances with Asia, and then finally protecting these new markets by levying strict restrictions against the outsourcing of jobs to cheaper workers overseas. Commendably, Sanders is acting to curb American avarice. For with these regulations in place, American corporations can no longer use Asia as a razor with which to undercut domestic industries. Cheap, Asian-manufactured products can no longer flood the U.S. market, and companies must employ greater numbers of Americans instead of basing their operations on foreign workforces.The result of such radical, possibly mercantilist reforms can be predicted to a certain extent, although the following cursory analysis must be expected to rely on profound generalizations and assumptions. Foremost, the expansion of American home industry, coupled with the assurance of several million jobs exclusively for Americans, are sure to increase the gross productive capacity of the United States. Hence the country will find itself exporting a larger amount of commodities abroad. Second, reduced investment in overseas industries, as well as restrictions on trade with China, can be expected to induce a net drop in imported Asian goods. It so happens that the evaluation of a floating currency takes into consideration the ratio of values exported and imported by the respective country. Should America start exporting more and importing less, the worth of a dollar will rise relative to that of the renminbi and other Asian currencies. Accordingly, we realize a cynical phenomenon. The more self-reliant and internally beneficial the U.S. economy becomes, the harder it will be for Asian students to pay for American tuitions. We international students are, for lack of a better word, reliant on the unrestricted greed of American companies that are so enfranchised by the lucrative allure of Asia.Reality is, of course, far more obfuscated, and would reflect a prediction much more Delphic in nature than the overview above. Perhaps we may have exaggerated the pendular effect of market regulation on the U.S. dollar. Perhaps there is some kind of stabilizing mechanism between the dollar and the renminbi, artificial or otherwise. Perhaps Exeter would adjust its tuition to a certain extent to accommodate the rising value of the currency. We have certainly been over-optimistic about the degree to which Sanders’ policies would be implemented, if he were to ever actually become the President. It is no great intellectual feat to predict that given today’s American oligarchy, Sanders would be torn apart and thrown to the dogs before achieving even a fraction of his intended reforms.Despite all this, one factor remains a constant and is enough to justify some consideration upon this paper. Floating currencies are speculative. That is, as currencies are offered, bid on, and sold in real time, the values of these currencies acquire optimisms and pessimisms, predictions and corrections, such that these evaluations end up being directly manipulated by the market hivemind. And so exchange rates need not be swayed by actual government policies, but only by the mere prospect of their implementation. That is why growing rapport around Sanders and other economic reformists has the potential to itself influence the dollar, as buyers and sellers attempt to predict and act on future trends.I end this article not with a plea for voters to sympathize with my concerns. I am not a citizen of the United States; I have earned no part in this country’s future policies. My only wish is to illustrate to those already belonging to this most powerful of nations, that life is rarely a zero-sum game. It is quite possible, as argued in this paper, that “Youth From Every Quarter” is easier done when some Americans lose their jobs, so that other Americans may become richer, in turn investing in foreign markets, resulting in increased purchasing power for families hoping to send their children to Exeter. And these children may be end up enriching the lives of young Americans who will eventually inherit the country. The reader should take away, if anything from this article, that it remains a duty for all citizens to deeply ponder and question the ramifications of their political activism.