Bill Clinton says we need a national "economic strategy" to revitalize the U.S. economy. Ross Perot speaks with admiration of the "coordinated" way the Japanese seem to run their economy and advocates a similar approach to "reindustrialize" America. Favorable stories on "industrial policy" have been given prominent attention by the national media.
Whatever you call it, the idea that the federal government should pick winners and losers in our economy is becoming fashionable again. Our flirtation with the federal government guiding, rather than just enabling, the nation's economic development seems to increase a s economic competition between nations replaces the Cold War's emphasis on military competition. Before we get carried away with the idea of industrial policy, we should soberly review the record.
EC planners now focus on "local content" in everything from aircraft to television programs. These efforts to "save" inefficient industries such as agriculture or to create new companies such as Airbus to compete with the likes of Boeing, are extremely costly to taxpayers. They also lead to protectionism as bureaucrats join forces with industry leaders in so-called public-private partnerships to inoculate their investments from competition.
History shows that protectionism in one sector, such as agriculture, easily slops over into others. For example, EC subsidies of agriculture are now the major obstacle to expanding free trade globally
At the same time, some of Japan's most troubled industries, such as shipbuilding and textiles, are the products of "successful" industrial policy.
So, let's hope our renewed interest in industrial policy will keep things in perspective. Certainly government investments in some areas, such as railroads, highways and other infrastructure, are critical to economic growth. But government "guidance" and "coordination" of private investment decisions through a public-private partnership dominated by large institutions is a formula for economic disaster.

It’s better to wear out than rust out.” That is the message of Reboot! While American culture glamorizes the “Golden Years” of endless leisure and amusement, Phil Burgess rejects retirement, as he makes the case for returning to work in the post-career years, a time he calls later life.