We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Rumsfeld again Here’s another Rumsfeld quote, this one from his talk at the The National Press Club:
My view is — maybe it’s because I’ve been a business man for so many years, but my view is that governments can do relatively little for people, and that investment, outside investment, inside investment, people voting with their dollars that they want to make something work in a given place, is what really is the engine that drives things. Government doesn’t create the jobs, the opportunities, the wealth in our country; it doesn’t create the jobs and opportunities in most countries. Private investment does, human capital does. And that’s ultimately what will have to be the case in Iraq. Although they have the benefit of oil, and with some significant investments in their infrastructure, they could get significant increases in revenue from oil above where they currently are. But there’s no one thing that is the answer, in my view.
It’s rather hard to disagree with.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
This is the sort of conventional, unexceptional view one might expect from a businessman-Republican in contemporary America. Like Dale, I can’t find anything disagreeable here.
So the thing to do is to with this experienced enterpriser — “a business man for so many years” — is to make him Secretary of Commerce, whatever … anything! Just get him out of the Pentagon building before he does to North Korea (or Iran or Syria) what he is in the process of doing to Iraq.
I think we DO need more businessmen (pardon the non-pc word,) involved in the military.
There’s a businesslike trade-off. X allied soldiers killed in Iraq vs Y civilians around the world not killed. Minimize X, Maximize Y.
Solving the “When you got nuttin, you got nuttin to loose” mentality of the Iraqs, NKoreas, etc. by giving them a real economy where they HAVE got something to lose works.
There’s a businesslike trade-off. X allied soldiers killed in Iraq vs Y civilians around the world not killed. Minimize X, Maximize Y.
Frank, you don’t have to be a businessman to do this sort of thing. The field is called “operations research” (operational research in Britain).
The military (not business) has been at the cutting edge in this field since WW II, when it addressed the problem of optimal search patterns for locating U-boats. A decade or so latter, huge mainframe computers were used to determine the optimal mix of strategic bombers, intercontinental missles, and ballistic missle submarines needed to counter the beastly Soviets, while getting the best “bang for the buck”.
For many decades, American military force structure has been determined by, eg, mathematical programming and simulation modeling. The Pentagon didn’t need Donald Rumsfeld to explain this stuff.
However it does sometimes need someone at the top to explain that market capitalism works and government can’t do much of anything right other than supply courts and defense.
It is good to hear people at that level stating what is completely obvious to us: neither an external nor an internal government can fix the Iraqi economy. Only business and enterprise can do that.
I remember my schoolteachers telling us not to be afraid to ask questions. …there is no such thing as a bad question.
After watching Rummy fielding so many inane questions from the elite press corps at Pentagon briefings, I know that my teachers were very much wrong on that score.
So, George Peery, if Rummy were to move to the hum-drum Commerce department, who could answer the pompous inane questions at the Pentagon as well as Rummy?
Dale, I’m as much a fan of market capitalism as the next guy. But not every problem is a matter of economics or business, and so not every solution involves market capitalism.
If Donald Rumsfeld (the subject of this post) were US Secretary of Commerce, we might feel confident that he could apply the principles of market capitalism to some dust-up involving multinational trade in, say, Argentina or Panama.
But Rumsfeld is not Secretary of Commerce: he is Secretary of Defense. He is responsible, not for applying market capitalism, but for (inter alia) advising the American president as to how and at what level the US military establishment can support national policy objectives in some of the world’s most dangerous places. He is responsible for knowing both the capabilities and the limitations of American combat power.
While fulfilling these responsibilities, Donald Rumsfeld turned for advice — not to career military officers who know the Armed Forces first-hand — but to civilians, academic ideologues, who know the military outcomes they seek but whose military knowledge is gleaned (at best) from “the literature”. (I’m giving Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt here. Actually, it’s less than certain that Rumsfeld sought any substantive advice at all. He seems to be one of those people who just has all the answers, and thank you very much.)
By dismissing (sometimes with public scorn) the advice of experienced and knowledgeable military officers, Secretary Rumsfeld has got us in a pickle. He has failed both his president and his country.
Dale says:
I’ll resist the temptation to point out that it’s awfully convenient for Rummy to say that in light of the pathetic lack of good outcomes in Iraq.
Hm. Just? The two things – along with a stable money supply and some attention to “the tragedy of the commons” make it POSSIBLE to have a “market capitalism.”
And little things, commonly expected of a government or government-regulated body, like a safe water supply, sewage treatment and electricity.
I point out that the current admin has absolutely no respect for “market capitalism.” With their avoidance of competitive bidding, their sweetheart deals with Eli Lilly, Enron and Haliburton and their ramming of “Faith Based Initiatives” down our throats, their actual approach seems more like classical facism.
Damn, I sound like a Progressive – but if the shoe fits… Or we could just call it good old fashioned political corruption; that would be both true and a bit more palitable.
Well, yes, but as above, BEFORE that can happen, you need a reliable currency, a solid regulatory burocracy for the irreducable amount of regulation needed; a body of enforced and enforcable contract law and a reliable communications infrastructure.
Oh, and not having to wear a flack vest. That would be good.
Being shot at tends to discourage outside investors.
In other words – it ain’t gonna happen overnight. As anyone with half a brain coulda toldja if you’d ast ’em.
But apparently there’s not half a brain BETWEEN Wolfowitz and Rummie.
So, George Peery, if Rummy were to move to the hum-drum Commerce department, who could answer the pompous inane questions at the Pentagon as well as Rummy?
John, I’m guessing you’re British, where rhetorical eloquence, “Question Time”, etc., are of great important to senior politicians.
Our tradition in America is different. We have bureaucrats (or, sometimes when the military is involved, mid-level officers) answering questions from the press — pompous, inane, or otherwise.
During the recent Iraq war, press conferences from the theatre and viewed in American were conducted by a humble (but exceptionally capable) one-star general: Vincent Brooks. General Tommy Franks, if I recall, appeared at only a single press conference.
Yes, from the Pentagon, Rumsfeld occasionally preempted his press bureaucrat (Victoria Clarke) — but that’s what we’ve come to expect from the haughty “Rummy”. In general, Americans do not pay our cabinet secretaries to conduct press briefings.
Just a different approach to Rummy, our Peace Nobel Price winner
From my comment. it may appear that I’m British, but I’m a native-born yank.
The US military has always had a civilian commander in chief. Bush has chosen Rummy to be his secretary of defense.
If Rummy hasn’t brought Iraq and the Middle East from medieval to 21st century in 6 months, you – and the rest of the world – will have to give him more time. Bush is going to.
It is clear that Rumsfeld is saying that the
“rebuilding” (was it ever built?) of the Iraq
economy is going to happen by free capitalist
enterprise. I don’t think he is saying that all
problems or decisions in the realm of running
the pentagon are market oriented.
I think given the inanity and left-leaning nature
of the national and internation press, it was in our
national interest to have the sec-def give regular
press briefings.
The problem with people like Rumsfeld being in government is that they have too many interests in private investment. What makes those guys do financially better than they’ve ever done before? Bleed the public purse dry and create conflict, that way you can contract your mates in to clean up the mess. They don’t care about the States. They care about their investments and how they can take more of our money.