NOTE: Please read the About page for important information about this web site.
Apparently not, per the Freakonomics blog site. In this hypothetical scenario, giving the formula to the public (to weaken Coca Cola) or replicating their beverage would be bad (economically) for both companies. Read the blog for the full explanation.
After reading this commentary, it got me thinkin’. Foreign policy interventionism is much, much less popular now that US and British troops are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the high level of military success in both countries in the initial combat phase, the post-war reconstruction phase (where we “win the peace”) isn’t going well. Rather than evaluate this situation for what it is, demagogues on both the left & the right become internationally withdrawn. The result: foreign interventionism (Bush-style for the Right and Blair-style for the Left) has taken a beating; no one on either side wants it. “Bring the troops home” seems to be the message.
In my humble personal experience, foreign policy inactivity is justified in a number of ways. Off the top of my head:
It’s possible, even likely, that we can and will build up our capacity to re-build nations with more efficacy than what we’ve done in Iraq. To do so, we need more international cooperation; not on the initial “take down the bad regime” side, but on the “post-conflict need-to-rebuild-the-country” portion (Barnett differentiates this in the following way: the Leviathan force is the Thor’s hammer military; the System Administrator force is the military-civilian force that is engaged on the reconstruction side). We definitely have the capacity to take down bad international actors. But rebuilding countries (or building them, in Afghanistan’s case), requires more people, more diverse skillsets, and greater internationalization. What would Iraq look like if we had done this? What would it look like to have 20,000 Indians and Chinese in that country right now?
An international organization like the IMF, but for nation re-building, could be built up and leveraged in post-conflict situations. After all, why should the US/UK be burdened with this cost to our troops and our treasury? Other nations are logical stakeholders in this and not only can participate, but would bad happy to do so. An IMF-like mechanism would be a perfect opportunity for them.
The Kim family has led to the intentional deaths of millions of North Koreans, not to mention the mayhem that they bring about as a result of their drug and arms-dealing. Trading nuclear material could become their next shameful act to add to their list. Saddam no doubt had similar ambitions, though they were set back quite a bit more than most experts anticipated (with regard to their nuke program). How many senseless deaths by African warlords are needed to convince skeptics that foreign interventionism is sometimes a moral necessity?
And an argument to the “I still don’t care ’cause I’m amoral” crowd: imagine if we had flipped Afghanistan before al Qaeda launched their dreaded and unprovoked assault? What happens over there does indeed affect us over here. Thousands died and millions, if not billions, were indirectly affected due to the vile, hateful Salafist doctrine of al Qaeda’s followers. Millions in Afghanistan have since been liberated by coalition forces, not that the non-interventionists seem to care.
I’ve heard considerate people argue against intervening in the affairs of other countries. We need a more efficient mechanism for “flipping” countries from dictatorship to open, free societies. We need a mechanism for nation-state creation in the case of “fake states”–countries that lack sufficient central governance and are breeding grounds of anti-Western hate (Africa is the next logical stomping ground for al Qaeda, for example). This is a do-able task, and the aforementioned constructs would be more effective and cheaper than what we current employ. The case for foreign interventionism has never been stronger, and the arguments on the contrary are as hollow as they’ve always been.
That’s apparently the nickname for the book that Chavez shoved in Obama’s face. It’s a left-wing book that presents ideas of the sort that has kept much of Latin America back economically (that “caplitalism is bad,” and that Europe/US are prosperous on the backs of Latin Americans, etc).
Americans seemed to be curious about Mr. Chávez’s reading tastes. But in Latin America, “Open Veins” is a well-known rant by Uruguayan Marxist Eduardo Galeano. And it also has another distinction that Mr. Chávez may be less inclined to publicize: It is widely regarded in free-market circles as “the idiot’s bible.”
The flu strain in Mexico could lead to a flu pandemic.
What to do? International cooperation and trans-national disease control mechanisms are helpful.
Newsweek has an interesting commentary on the US base in Cuba: convert it to a free-trade zone! Check it out:
The way to bring radical change to Cuba is to return Guantánamo Bay to the Cubans—but not to the Castros. The Miami-based diaspora of some 1.6 million Cuban-born people and their offspring could turn the base into something many of them love dearly: a business opportunity. As a tax-free, duty-free, open-trade zone run by Cuban-Americans for the benefit of their brethren on the island, Guantánamo Bay could become a model for a new Cuba, a place where fair dealing, the rule of law and free speech are the norm. By starting businesses catering to Cubans, and later opening factories to employ them, Cuban-Americans would bring normal rights onto Cuban soil. Open the border at Gitmo, initiate trade and the Castro regime’s stranglehold would start to crumble.
Economic connectivity with the rest of the world will non-violently challenge the idiotic marxist ideology that is so ingrained in Cuba (though I’m sure most Cubans know it’s bullshit by now… it still might be perceived as “too American” for them, unless it’s being driven by their Cuban-American counterparts).
This is a great idea that should have literally transpired decades ago. For some reason, the morons in Congress think that the Cuban embargo has been successful (rather than the total failure that it is). Connecting directly to the people and establishing economic connectivity opens the door for eventual normalized relations, a more democratic form of government for Cubans, greater Cuban prosperity, and maybe even a more formal connection to the US–Cuba as a US territory or even, eventually, America’s 51st state.
HT to Tom Barnett’s blog.
Apparently, conservative “fly over” states are more tolerant than their east coast counterparts, per Tom Barnett’s blog site. His reasoning:
[...] whatever the minority, there’s more of them on the coasts, so questions of diversity seem more threatening in terms of actual power sharing. In fly-over states, the numbers tend to be smaller, or at least perceived to be smaller, and because the local culture is more confidently established…
FP’s blog site reports on Ron Paul’s idea of privatizing maritime security. Fascinating idea. The gist:
It’s the ships themselves who choose to go into those dangerous waters; why not let them take on the cost of providing security? Let them carry guns and fight back. The U.S. government for its part, Paul suggests, would “arm” the private ships with a different kind of ammunition in the form of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
The long-dead U.S. foreign policy tool, allows the government to write letters granting private citizens the authority to go after fugitives or others who do them offense. If applicable, the citizens could then collect government-issued bounty for their good work. In short, the letters would put the fight on piracy in the hands of the people. Or sailors.
I wouldn’t say this replaces the Navy; it supplements it. It asserts the idea that we’re allowed to defend our lives, liberty, and property from bad actors, be they here or abroad. Sounds like it’s consistent with the vision of our Founding Fathers.
Enjoyable read from tdaxp.com.
On pirates, he writes:
Currently, insurance companies reward pirates, and punish crews that want to protect themselves from pirates.
Insurance companies reward pirates by paying ransom. When a pirate receives ransom, he and all his friend know a way to get more money: take more ships hostage.
Insurance companires punish crews who try to defend themselves. Premiums go up if ships are armed….
On politics:
Under Geithner, the only way a politically powerful company loses money is by not having enough friends in Washington. Likewise, the best way for a politically powerful company to make money is by having friends in Washington. [He goes on to cite Lehman Brothers, Citi, and Goldman Sachs.]
And now the tie-in (of Geithner and piracy):
As long as Geithner is Treasury Secretary, insurance companies would be foolish for looking at the actual profit-and-loss actions of their consequences. Far more important, under Geithner’s watch, is doing the politically popular thing.
Tim Geithner is so bad at his job, that he is a national security threat… when it comes to pirates, at least.
It’s a stretch, methinks. But still an enjoyable read.
FYI – per the FP blog site:
Most interesting of all, though, is Feingold’s reference to the last time that piracy was notably halted in Somalia — under the Islamic Courts Union in 2006. That regime, later ousted by Ethiopian troops (with U.S. support…) brought the only calm to the seas that the country has seen in recent years.
Protectionist legislation is harming America, bemoans an avid blogger (& I agree with him). The gist:
In yet another move seemingly designed to harm free trade, alienate us from our trading partners, and hurt the global economy, the government front corporation of Sallie Mae is firing foreigners are making those jobs “American”…
[...]
Stabbing our trading partners in the back harms the ability of countries to work together, because every other country will naturally assume that America would rather have a bigger slice of a smaller pie tomorrow, than help grow the global economy for everyone.
If the world’s economy goes from a recession into a depression, Obama’s “Buy American” policies will be to blame.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus pandered to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in a move evidently meant to convince people around the world that they’re total morons.
Like the FP blog post (see URL above), I also disagree with the US’s policy of isolationism (which, empirically-speaking, isn’t working very well). But the CBC’s pandering is beyond unacceptable.
UPDATE 4.10.09: I should point out that, technically, Raul Castro is the dictator of Cuba now, not Fidel.
New York’s largest union says it won’t accept an offer floated this week by Gov. David Paterson’s administration to avoid mass layoffs by accepting smaller raises and a no-layoff guarantee for two years.
Civil Service Employees Association spokesman Stephen Madarasz says the union can’t reopen its contract because it would set a debilitating precedent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932185405207065.html
Well, at least they’re not arguing in favor of a GM-style “jobs bank”–yet.
A well-known security guru comments that SCADA is woefully insecure (definition of SCADA).
The WSJ claims that state-sponsored hackers have penetrated the US’s electrical grid (though Bruce Schneier, a security guru, seems to doubt the claim).
An NY Times editorial by Ramesh Ponnuru argues against so-called “universal healthcare.”
After getting over the initial shock of an editorial against universal healthcare in the editorial section of the NY Times, I read the commentary.
First para:
AMERICA’S dysfunctional health care financing system needs to be reformed. But the goal should not be universal coverage. Reform should simply aim to make health insurancemore affordable and portable.
The crux of what he’s proposing is here:
An alternative approach would be to make it easier for people to buy insurance that isn’t tied to their employment. The existing tax break for employer-provided insurance could bereplaced with a tax credit that applies to insurance purchased either inside or outside the workplace. At the same time, state mandates that require insurers to cover certain conditions, which make it expensive to offer individual policies, could be removed.
Ponnuru makes some of the best points I’ve seen against universal healthcare, so be sure you RTA.
Per the WSJ. This is a good move. We already have a powerful nuclear deterrent against the Chinese boogeyman (you know, those “Commies”). We can save billions per year–or at least better spend billions per year–by purchasing stuff that helps our troops rather than blowing billions on exotic weapons systems (that, again, are much less scary to adversaries than nuclear warheads, which actually have a good track record for deterring head-to-head conflict).
Of course, Gates will have to please the idiots in Congress who will lose out in bribes campaign contributions from big government contractors.
UPDATE: Geo-political visionary Thomas Barnett weighs in on Gates’s decision.
An editorial in The Nation predictably promotes socialism as an alternative to capitalism (capitalism being “bad,” apparently).
The commentary uses eloquent phrasing to make it all seem like a good idea. But in the end, the presciption is as follows (last para):
To build on them, we need to organize, with an emphasis on inquiry as part of the practical meaning of solidarity, and engage in conscious collective reflection about the lessons of experiments driven by socialist values–however micro they are and whether or not those involved would call themselves socialists. We should work as if we are part of a global laboratory seeking to produce a grounded theoretical breakthrough, a hybrid new political paradigm.
A concious collective reflection? What the hell are they talking about?
The 20th century is full of efforts at this sort of “grand experiment.” More recently, Venezuela is trying the socialist experiment–and it’ll be lucky for them if Chavez isn’t dictator-for-life of that country. Cuba, the USSR, N Korea, and China tried similar experiments. (The results are in: while China and Russia are still in transition, their living standards have gone up. Cuba and N Korea have awful living standards, despite subsidies/remittances.)
Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries are trying a more mild version of socialism called democratic socialism. Rather than a totalitarian regime and a crappy, inefficient economy, you have a stable democracy, capitalism, and well-funded (but terribly inefficient) social services. Many people–me included–believe that democratic socialist states go way too far. Any service government provides comes with strings attached, be it criminal justice or medical care.
Where to draw the line is up for society to decide. Venezuelan voters decided on socialism (in a rigged election) and could very well lose their freedom and prosperity (though falling oil prices will help them in the long run). In economically advanced countries like the US, the “liberal” voices promoting “managed capitalism” compete with the more conserative voices which, lately, have argued in tandem with libertarians (very minimal government interference).
The right balance isn’t the same in all situations. Russia and China underwent economic reforms, meaning that big state-run institutions were turned over to private hands (Russia did this terribly, China did it OK). Countries like the US built their economies from the ground up, where the idea of small shops turned into shopping malls.
Fundamental to all this is freedom. In a free market system, people are free to charge what they want for the services they provide; they’re free to start a business if they want, quit their job or be fired, etc. It sounds cruel, but it’s the fairest and freest model we have. No government big brother involvement is needed in this model, except minimally and absent micro-management.
But the train can’t move as fast as the caboose, to borrow a Thomas Barnett metaphor. From a US-centric point of view, there are people who can’t (or won’t) adapt to a globalized world. In such a world, people have to be creative, think outside the box, keep their skills sharp, and all those other dot-com punch lines (which turned out to be true). Absent that, you need either political clout (General Motors, most big banks) or you need to be a part of a big voting block (“Joe the skilled tradesman,” union members, etc). Then, you can get away with sloth, stupidity, and mis-management.