Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

As an issue, it will not be discussed at all by the folks in favor of the invasion. Or, if it is discussed, it will involve Cheney using more 4-letter words to shout down any questions. I believe that this war will be a perfect example of cronyism for future historians. Just like, say, Aristide and Haiti, or any number of banana republics.

You know, Halliburton might really be the best contractor to build the prisons in gitmo and rebuild Iraq. But since they are still sending the VP a paycheck, it will always appear to be bribery or cronyism. Instead we have cover up after cover up while the faithful chant "Oh yes the emperor DOES have new clothes on!"

(1) Good sequence for a Michael Moore movie: get hold of the secret White House script for the Glorious Ceremonial Iraqi Handover, and enact it on a huge soundstage with goofy actors...

You have to wonder how bad the situation is in Iraq, that Bush would give up his best opportunity for a magnificent campaign foto-op! "I'm sorry, sir--you'll have to do next-best speechifyin' in Turkey, instead."

(2) I hope that someone will present a detailed analysis of the wing-right economic theorists, their intellectual achievements and institutional affiliations, and their prescriptions for Iraq. I think it's time to mount an intellectual history of the free-market panacea and its machinations.

Liberal democracy can not be exported by illiberal men. America needs to recommit itself to the liberal ideals of the founding fathers, from which it has been drifting. America's greatness will not survive abadonment of such ideals, nor should it. America was meant to be the great Enlightenment experiment, yet every policy ever suggested by the second Bush Administration has been in some way an attack on our Enlightenment heritage. For more than 200 years America was the great progressive force in the world, fighting to spread liberty and democracy to the farthest corners of the globe. Recently we've drifted from everything that made us great, and it will ruin us.

Liberal democracy can not be exported by illiberal men. America needs to recommit itself to the liberal ideals of the founding fathers, from which it has been drifting. America's greatness will not survive abadonment of such ideals, nor should it. America was meant to be the great Enlightenment experiment, yet every policy ever suggested by the second Bush Administration has been in some way an attack on our Enlightenment heritage. For more than 200 years America was the great progressive force in the world, fighting to spread liberty and democracy to the farthest corners of the globe. Recently we've drifted from everything that made us great, and it will ruin us.

The more I see the results of right wing economics, the more I think that Keynes was a Genius, and the less I see Marx as an idiot.

Krugman took money from Enron, and he talks about other people's corruption? He also slandered Thomas White, and yes, George Bush, and he has never retracted or apologized. He is unworthy of the attention of anyone with any intelligence.

This is to say nothing about Bill Clinton's most recent book, in which he fails once more to deal honestly with his Monica Lewinsky episode. What an embarrassment for the American people!

Michael Moore is as bad as Rush Limbaugh and much fatter, yet since he's a liberal, everything's OK. Just another indication of the corruption of the Stalinist left.

(Patrick R. Sullivan asked me to tell you that he won't be in today, but wanted to say a few things.)

>You have to wonder how bad the situation is in >Iraq, that Bush would give up his best opportunity >for a magnificent campaign foto-op!

See today's TomDispatch for the image of Bush in a contracting bubble of emptiness...

zika -- would not have been able to tell the difference between you and AS as neither one of you use facts to support your positions.

Remember the other old days when Krugman was shrill? Now, with Anonymous and Moore making Bush-is-an-idiot headlines, along with half the uniformed military, I read PK and think why all the gentle words? Soon we'll be reading in the St. Petersburg Times (and later CJR) about that nice mild-mannered reticent Princeton economist who has a few words of constructive criticism for Republicans.

I'm not a huge fan of the fickle middle, but if a steamrolling bandwagon is what they want then I'm glad Moore has arrived to give it to them. However, PK's lone voice from many months back is still the one that gets my vote for being there when we needed it most.

This is what Michael Ledeen has to say about Krugman's column (from NRO's Corner):

It's a new low even for him. He never bothered to ask what Simone's qualifications were (she has an MBA), or even what she did (which included driving around the country, sometimes with vehicles filled with cash so that Iraqi security people could get paid).

Then, does he think that Barbara and I lobbied in order to put our daughter's life in danger? Doesn't he have children? In fact we didn't know she had volunteered until she was ready for her shots...

Neocon governance fails in Iraq, for the same reason it fails here.

Public goods and public services are simply not dreamt of in their philosophy.

In a recent appearance at Ft. Lewis, WA, Bush acknowledged varioius officials in attendance, then mouthed off "If any mayor is here, make sure ya fill the potholes!" -- delivered with the jutting chin, swaggering body language, belligerent smirk and derisive tone of the bully challenging a smaller man to a bar fight.

Here is Bush at his most elemental ... expressing simple contempt for those who fill the potholes and see to other vital public services, and inviting his audience to join in that contempt.

Potholes? Sewers? Public safety? That stuff is for losers, right?

RonK -- No, that stuff is for servants.

A Boston public television station ran a series entitled "Commanding Heights" -- it was sorta about economics. Some of you fans of the subject may have seen it. (Those of you who care more about politics than economics, and you know who you are, can skip the rest of this note.)

Among other topics, the documentary discusses bringing modern (US/Chicago) economic theory to Chile during the period immediately following the violent overthrow of the Allende regime.

It seems quite arguable that the economic theory was more important to keeping body and soul togehter in Chile than other, more official, and certainly more material military and diplomatic support that official U.S. policy provided to the Pinochet government.

If that is the case, then application of the lesson of the Post-Allende Chilean era to the Post-Saddam Iraqi era is appropriate, and it would be criminally negligent NOT to develop such economic institutions -- even alongside military and police and infrastructural development.

However, if Friedman, the Chicago Boys, free trade, sound money and all that jazz are mere figments of the propaganda machine, then of course the CPA is criminally negligent for attempting to foist such junk off on the naive Iraqis.

Paul Krugman and our host are in a privileged position to know, and to comment, on the matter. That they choose to inform us that economic theory is bogus, compared to, say, how many divisions of heavy artillery are, or should have been, available to the CPA to impose curfews and rationing ... is an interesting indictment not only of right-wing economics, but the entire discipline.

Or, do they mean to suggest that a Gore administration-appointed occupation force would have brought to the rebuilding of Iraq a more socially-conscious, public-welfare oriented, and thereby more successful economic theory? If so, perhaps the outlines of such theory could be explained in a later NYT column.

Nice try, Pouncer, but no cigar.

There never would have been a Gore-led occupation force in Iraq. He would not have tried to invade Iraq. He'd have spent his efforts on Al-Qaida, as the Shrub should have.

[The idea of] Public goods/services become irrelevant when one can simple opt out of the system altogether: no payments in (taxes), no outlays for labor (gov't employees), and no services out (police, fire, roads, schools, etc.). Neoconservativism is simply nihilism repackeaged with an economic slant. The current administration and their supporters neither need nor want ANY public sphere activities, save those that: 1) they can control directly, and 2) that directly benefit the aformentioned parties via creating profits.

I read the Ledeen bit on NRO, and while it is understandable that he jumps to the defense of his daughter, he and the other whiners on the Corner offer little to refute the cronyism charges.

Preferential treatment does not require explicit "lobbying" efforts by a crony towards a benefactor in order for a beneficiary to receive preferences. I believe that the point is that it was simply because of the existence of the connection to her father that the treatment was given. Lots of people have MBAs. Having a dangerous position in the CPA is irrelevant to how one acquires such a position.

The sheer volume of examples like Ledeen, Fleischer, and Powell are difficult to ignore, particularly in light of the contracts and policies that corroborate the charges of cronyism. It is amazing, however, how self-righteously dismissive and unwaveringly confident the folks at NRO are in their "reasoning".

I also never realized just how bad the crybabies whine over at NRO.

The sad part of Krugman commentary is it addresses a problem that still has not been corrected. Why is Halliburton being paid anything to do anything in Iraq? Why are the Iraqis not being paid everything to do everything in Iraq? We hear complaints all the time about Mexican truckers taking jobs from Americans, etc. What about US truck drivers taking jobs from Iraqis? American phone companies taking business away from Iraqis? American electrical companies taking business away from Iraqis. American electricians taking jobs away from Iraqis. American workers need 2 guards for every worker. We need to hand over the Iraqi economy to the Iraqis and not just the government. What precentage of the Iraq reconstrutcion money is yet unspent and could be used to put idle Iraqis to work rebuilding their own country?

If Iraqi teenagers are working, even if it is manual labor, they won't be throwing rocks at soldiers or recruited by the militia. Unfortunately providing Iraqis with jobs violates the GOP mantra: "A government job is worse than no job at all."

Pouncer wrote,

"(Those of you who care more about politics than economics, and you know who you are, can skip the rest of this note.)"

?? The choice implementation of any particular economic system is a political one.

And the notion that *you* care more about economics than politics is laughable.

"Among other topics, the documentary discusses bringing modern (US/Chicago) economic theory to Chile during the period immediately following the violent overthrow of the Allende regime."

What's that mean? There's lots of problems with "Chicago" economics.

"It seems quite arguable that the economic theory was more important to keeping body and soul togehter in Chile than other, more official, and certainly more material military and diplomatic support that official U.S. policy provided to the Pinochet government."

You're implicitly assuming that (i) the "Chicago" policy was a success in Chile and that (ii) the policy was true to the theory. Both claims are false.

"If that is the case, then application of the lesson of the Post-Allende Chilean era to the Post-Saddam Iraqi era is appropriate, and it would be criminally negligent NOT to develop ***such*** economic institutions -- even alongside military and police and infrastructural development." [emphasis added]

Even granting your claims, this doesn't follow at all; you'd have to show that ***such*** economic institutions were the only reliable path to success.

Ah yes, Paul Krugman following a direct intellectual line from Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes...Michael Moore.

Right. And Cheney wasn't dissing Leahy and violating Senate rules. He just thought he was auditioning for a cameo on Deadwood.

See ya at the callbacks, babe.

Abhishiktananda,

Regardless of whether they did a good job over there in Iraq, I don't see cronyism here as much as reliance on people at least somewhat sympathetic to the administration. Do you expect these jobs to go to people who vehemently disagree with the direction of the policy? Do you think Krugman should have been offered Bremer's job? Get a grip. Should Clinton have appointed Phil Gramm to lead the health-care task force?

"LONDON - Billions of dollars belonging to Iraq is not accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was given responsibility by the United Nations for the country's finances, British lawmakers and aid activists said Monday."

http://tinyurl.com/2mfhv

it must be so difficult to write a column in the nytimes and deal with all the crap paul krugman deals with. when krugman questions whether the top aide for private-sector development is an appropriate choice he gets two responses from national review's whiners corner.
1. response one: well...she has an MBA. we're rebuilding a country for christ sakes, good thing we have an MBA over seeing private sector development. i mean, there are probably some world famous economists who would have at least agreed to submit a report or to consult, but no we have an MBA doing it.
2. response two: but krugman doesnt understand that it was really really dangerous. ok well thats a different issue. but it doesnt have anything to do with the fact that she wasnt qualified for her position. its really dangerous if i iceskate on my roof but that doesnt mean i should be in charge of private sector development in iraq.
*sigh*
i dont know how that guy puts up with it.

I thought zizka's version of PRS was funnier, and only slightly more predictable.

"America needs to recommit itself to the liberal ideals of the founding fathers, from which it has been drifting."

So I assume you're going to be voting for (Libertarian) Michael Badnarik for President in 2004?

http://www.badnarik.org

Or by liberal, do you mean faux-liberal, of the type that the Founding Fathers (except possibly Hamilton) would have nothing but contempt?

JR -PRS was upstaged. (merci z for the that and the 'Cheney chat' the other day)

Walons-

Bush has a State Department full of professionals and patriots that serve the US and promote its interests in the world. Those professionals have experience with nation building in Bosnia and elsewhere. These are not people who are trying to undermine Bush policies. These are people who want to see policies that work. Mr. Bush chose to bypass and ignore the most qualified nation-builders in his administration and go it alone.

It is almost impossible for anyone to support Bush unless they are in denial about the cronyism of his administration.

Mark Bahner wrote, "Or by liberal, do you mean faux-liberal, of the type that the Founding Fathers (except possibly Hamilton) would have nothing but contempt?"

LOL!

As if modern "let's-hand-everything-to-the-wealthy" (so-called) "libertarianism" is the legitimate heir to classical liberalism.

walons wrote, "Regardless of whether they did a good job over there in Iraq, I don't see cronyism here as much as reliance on people at least somewhat sympathetic to the administration. Do you expect these jobs to go to people who vehemently disagree with the direction of the policy? Do you think Krugman should have been offered Bremer's job? Get a grip."

Get a list of logical fallacies. There were presumably plenty of people who were "somewhat sympathetic" to the administration who were experienced and competent.

Thank you bakho for that. Another example: the recent book by Anonymous, the CIA station lead on bin Laden. But Dr. Condi doesn't know who he is, so she's not able to answer any of the questions he raises.

"There were presumably plenty of people who were 'somewhat sympathetic' to the administration who were experienced and competent."

I suspect not--but when you're having trouble finding people "experienced and competent" who are even "somewat sympathetic" to your plans, perhaps it's time to rethink your plans.

"Do you expect these jobs to go to people who vehemently disagree with the direction of the policy? Do you think Krugman should have been offered Bremer's job? Get a grip. Should Clinton have appointed Phil Gramm to lead the health-care task force?"

How stupid. The correct choice between competence and ideological purity should be an easy one, yet the Bush administration eschewed the diplomats, regional experts, nation-builders, and NGOs in favor of a bunch of kids from the Heritage Foundation. The implication that the State Department and the World Food Program would have deliberately sabotaged the reconstruction is absurd.

Perhaps Bremer's job should have gone to someone who would have prioritized security and jobs over privatizing parts of the government.

I tried to abstract from the quality of the job they're doing in Iraq, but if you want to have that discussion: Think Spain, think Israel. Competent armies at home, plus trained local police. Still not enough. So Krugman is trying to pin the explosions on Bremer given what he had to deal with? Come on. Electricity? Check Moldova, a peaceful place, or big swaths of Russia. Maybe they did screw up in Iraq, relative to what was possible, but you need to come up with a better argument than the worn out Halliburton/Cheney/Neocons gripes that Krugman recycles. If it's really that bad, how is it that Iraqi expatriates are returning to their country rather than fleeing it?

It was clear going into this war with Iraq that there was not the planning in depth required, especially after they chose to throw away the plans the State dept. had spent years on for an occupation. Keep in mind that once they did that, they took the responsibility of having alternate plans available to deal with what was expected by all other than the most faith based to be a difficult and complex situation to manage. One of the early signs that this gamble was likely to fail was the lack of anything resembling post miltary victory planning, and when I saw the looting for the first three weeks in Baghdad, I knew it was almost certain to go horribly wrong. Did I like seeing these things? Of course not. Did I like saying these things? Of course not. Did I say them back then? Of course. It was the lack of anything resembling competent planning that really doomed this idocy, even granting the existence of a time sensitive threat posed by Saddam at the time of this war, which I don't.

I like to think that it was the excessive fervour left over from 9/11/01 that allowed GWB to manage to slip this lack of foresight by without serious challenge. I remember screaming at the TV screen when ever I heard the "we can do it alone, we don't need anyone" bit from a hawk on Iraq, " Who's this we? Are you going to be fighting there, is someone close to you going to be at risk from this?" There was a reason most of the population of the world, including those of virtually every government in the so called COW were opposed to this from the start. There was a reason why unlike Afghanistan Iraq was not seen as anything resembling a legitmate focus on the WoT, and I really don't think the extreme xenophobia that manifested itself as French bashing went unnoticed by those populations either. This war has done far more damage than I think is visible even now, and the repercussions extremely negative not just for the USA, but the "free" world as well.

Bahko: [Stete Department} professionals have experience with nation building in Bosnia and elsewhere."

And they're doing a great job? In and out before Christmas, Mission Accomplished, and peace, prosperity, liberty, fraternity, and equality all secure?

If not, are the shortcomings military? Not enough boots on the ground? How can that be, with NATO right there with us?

If liberty, etc, are not yet established in Bosnia, yet NATO has in fact provided sufficient military "Hard" power, perhaps the political institutions are not well established? But how can THAT be, when the State department is so accomplished?

If liberty, etc, are not established in Bosnia, in Kosovo, (in Haiti (so mal-established the UN (meaning the US) has had to invade AGAIN, recently) ) (donch'a love nested parenthesis?) in the Balkins, generally, and it is not a failure of NATO's military or the Corps Diplomatique, what is left?

Has the Church failed?

Or, possibly, have the economic institutions of the West somehow been badly instituted? Perhaps a central bank is not attempting to fight inflation? Perhaps a clear system to convey title to land and property generally is not established? Perhaps contract and corporate and security exchange law is ill-defined?

It's just that, you know, there are forums where the military and religious, and diplomatic issues are addressed by experts. But this is the playground of a gifted professor of ECONOMICS. This thread is disscussing the recent national essay of another ECONOMIST. While I have many other interests beyond a layman's regard for economics, in this venue I rather expect some discussion of what is right or wrong with ECONOMIC policy in the contemporary world -- discussion informed by actual history.

I'm generally disappointed.

We get laments about journalists, which I share; though I consider the problem insoluable.

We get warnings about racism and religosity, which I appreciate for all they're worth. (The paper they're written on, mainly...)

We get book reviews and televsion program reviews, which I enjoy.

We get armchair generalship about how many artillery divisions it should have taken to protect museums, secure borders in the open desert, translate interrogations, and accomplish other worthwhile tasks I had never previously contemplated assigning to artillerymen ...

And once in a great while, we get a bit of economic theory.

Now there are any number of interesting things going on in Iraq that seem to me to fall within the purview of economists.

The price of gasoline is still controlled at about 5 cents a gallon. Auto sales are skyrocketing. An economist -- hell, even a layman -- might predict that combination is condusive to shortages. And, *surprise*, such shortages there indeed are. So, how should the problem be addressed, in a professional's opinion. Instant decontrol of pricing? Some phased in price increases? Rationing? Restrictioins on auto sales? Who knows?

It was 1948, three years after occupation, that the German central bank -- illicitly, on a Saturday night while the American consul general was on home leave -- replaced the American occupation scrip with a new German currency. The CPA got a new Iraqi currency up within the first year. Are there advantages to the speed of this? Would scrip have been a better choice for an "interim" authority? How does this compare to the Krugman "baby-sitters co-op coupons" he often uses as a model for discussing the money supply. Who knows? Who can be bothered to discuss MONEY when BUSH LIED?

I come here fairly frequently because I admire Brad's brain. But I confess I'm disappointed in the topics he chooses to exercise it upon. I rather expect that the sort of economic question I'm interested in occupies his WORKING thought, and he chooses to RELAX by -- thoughtlessly, I sometimes feel -- addressing NON-Economic matters.

Krugman doesn't have that excuse. He's being paid to, and his claim to fame arises from his ability to, ANALYSE ECONOMICS. It's as much a waste of money and time to read his opinion about other matters as it would be to read about his thoughts on diet, horticulture, and scuba diving...

Pouncer( Brad brain admirer)
Thanks for your lengthy post ( don't let Mike see this) and your candid remarks about ECONOMICS ( don't let greg -CAPS-LOCK-is-me see THIS ).
'What is philosophy?' is a philosophical question in a way that most branches of scientific enquiry is not. I am reminded of an incident in my first class in economics of a student standing up and pounding the rest of us with a very articulate Marxist scolding about the irrelevant bleatings of the demand/supply lecture we were trying to digest. He was allowed his piece and most of us thought 'Yeah he should shave.'. He left the class -to our loss I think in hindsight. We learned the demand/supply stuff and kept the focus on the straight and narrow: no political stuff ( esp the Marxist variety). I learned that 'What is economics?' is a legislative issue and that if I wanted to say something about it that was not in the curriculum, I'd have to leave.
It may be possible to study economics in a political vacuum (and there is the view that a version of that is happening now with the disconnect between WH decisions and policy formation) but that is not only an academic exercise but, as O'Neill tells us, an exercise in frustration.
I used to think this forum was way too heavy on the political side --the core of your complaint, no? Now I'm thinking that it is not political enough --that the crew here is timid, sometimes even shy about their adventures into political science.

"liberal" writes, "As if modern 'let's-hand-everything-to-the-wealthy' (so-called) 'libertarianism' is the legitimate heir to classical liberalism."

There is nothing in the Libertarian Party platform that could even remotely be classified as "let's-hand-everything-to-the-wealthy."

And "liberal," yes, there is simply NO DOUBT that the Libertarian Party is THE legitimate heir to classical liberalism.

Tell you what: you name 5 people you consider "classical liberals," and we'll see if I agree. If I don't agree with 1 or more of your picks, I'll propose alternatives to those people. We'll go back and forth until we agree on 5 "classical liberals."

Then, we'll find 5 university professors of history or political science to be judges. (We have to agree on all of them...plus, the professors have to agree to be judges.)

After we get those 5 professors, you make your case that some party other than the Libertarian Party is the legitimate heir to those 5 people. You have to NAME the other party! (Just so I can get in my good laugh for today...which modern party were you thinking of?)

Then I'll make my case that it is NOT the party that you name, and point out why it is the Libertarian Party.

We'll see whether a majority of those 5 professors agree with you or with me. If a majority agree with you, I'll send you $50, and post either here or on my own blog what the results were. If (when) the majority agrees with me, you don't have to do anything.

Mark Bahner (Libertarian Party...THE legitimate heirs of classical liberals)

P.S. This website seems to be able to identify classical liberals:

http://classicliberal.tripod.com/writings.html

...though it is otherwise totally clueless:

http://classicliberal.tripod.com/radical/libs.html

...I notice however that it DOES have the good sense--and lack of honesty--to refuse to name the party that it DOES consider to be legitimate heirs to classical liberals.

Back when I was an undergraduate, I was considering majoring in Economics. I went to the fraternity back test files to see what the degree would be like. I reviewed several years. I found out the professors never did change the questions, they just changed the answers.

I have batchelor degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Business Administration, and Theology. I have a Masters in Teleology, but I am still struggling with Economics. In my Assumption Generator, one of the seven prime Influences is Economics.

That's too many credentials cc. Bury some.
If they resurface scrub them up/down with phoney or disreputable origins.
Save this one: Theology. It's the one that will stun any assailants you may meet.

Cassandra, if you can master theology you ought to do just fine with economics. The big new skill you'll need is to put your arguments in mathematical notation.

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Lectio brevior lectio potior - The shortest reading is the more probable reading

Vinum bellum iucunumque est, sed animo corporeque caret - It's a nice little wine, but it lacks character and depth

Get it up mate, it's fun!

Caro putridas es! - You're dead meat

Unum necessarium - The one necessary

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Muppets love Viagra!

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Hire a car to feel higher!

Keep this info up!