More than 50 years ago, in the midst of the cold war, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev said, in speaking of capitalism, “We will bury you.” What he meant was that time was on the side of Communism and that the socialist system of government control of the economy would outlast the capitalist, free market approach. While Communism has faded as a military threat, it appears that Khrushchev’s vision of the inevitability of Socialism may have been accurate. Certainly, the world-wide political response of near hysteria about the credit “crisis” shows how insecure is freedom’s hold on men’s minds.
When faced with the fact that a number of privately owned banks and other financial institutions had made imprudent investments and were about to fail, our government decided that the ramifications of such failure would be intolerable. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve proclaimed a crisis and called for immediate legislative action to allow them to stave off that failure.
Even those most ardent supporters of government control of economic decisions recognize that action taken to deal with a “crisis” is likely to be misguided and surely that has been the result. First came an attempt to inject liquidity into the system so that banks would lend to each other. That failed to build confidence among those with deposits in shaky banks, so deposit “insurance” was increased and expanded to cover previously uncovered deposits. That favored banks at the expense of other institutions so money market funds had to be guaranteed. Then, insurers who had invested unwisely in risky securities came in for a handout. Now, mortgage borrowers at risk of default are hoping for a bailout along with automobile manufacturers and any other group that can squeeze in line for a government handout.
Now, essentially all financial institutions in the U.S. are being supported and are under the control of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve; public officials have to decide on a case-by-case basis who is worthy of government support and who is not. Khrushchev’s prediction is on its way to being fully borne out.
The freedoms we tout so avidly as the hallmark of our country are often thought of as relating to those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights enumerated in the Constitution. Although not enumerated, perhaps because it was never considered necessary, another important freedom is the freedom to fail – to bear the consequences of one’s own mistakes. In a system in which government controls the economy – Khrushchev’s model – economic failure is traceable to the controlling politicians and it is not allowed.
People can argue forever about what might have happened had the government not stepped in, but what has been done has been done. The issue now is what can be done to undo the damage. It is not enough to let the politicians fail by throwing them out of office because the damage they have done will live on after them, like rent control in New York City. What should be occupying the minds of economists and political scientists everywhere is how to bring to an end the disastrous policies we are adopting in the name of preventing failure.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The Bush Administration Should Attack Iran's Nuclear Capability Now
The Bush administration should act to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability before it leaves office.
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is the greatest geo-political risk the United States now faces. The Obama administration is not likely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does, so time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability: "I was not aware of this before-hand, and if I had been I would have advised against it."
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate by attacking our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive response, since Iran would know that it would make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is the greatest geo-political risk the United States now faces. The Obama administration is not likely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does, so time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability: "I was not aware of this before-hand, and if I had been I would have advised against it."
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate by attacking our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive response, since Iran would know that it would make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
The Bush Administration Should Attack Iran's Nuclear Capability Now
The Bush administration should act to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability before it leaves office.
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is the most serious geo-political risk the United States now faces. The Obama administration seems unlikely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does, so time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability: He can say, "I was not aware of this before-hand, and if I had been I would have advised against it.
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate against our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive Iranian response, since it would likely make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
Pre-empt now!
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is the most serious geo-political risk the United States now faces. The Obama administration seems unlikely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does, so time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability: He can say, "I was not aware of this before-hand, and if I had been I would have advised against it.
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate against our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive Iranian response, since it would likely make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
Pre-empt now!
The U.S. Should Attack Iran Now
The Bush administration should act to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability before it leaves office.
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is one of the great geo-political risks faced by the United States. The Obama administration seems unlikely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does. So time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability. He could say, "I was not aware of this, and if I had been I would have advised against it."
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate on our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive Iranian response, since retaliation would likely make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
Now is the perfect time. The prospect of Iranian nukes being funneled to the terrorist delivery system influenced by Iran is one of the great geo-political risks faced by the United States. The Obama administration seems unlikely to view this risk as seriously as the Bush administration does. So time is running out.
President-elect Obama would have credible deniability. He could say, "I was not aware of this, and if I had been I would have advised against it."
Some say that our hand has been stayed by fear that Iran would retaliate on our forces in Iraq. But the coming change in administration makes that a less attractive Iranian response, since retaliation would likely make the Obama administration less inclined to deal favorably with Tehran.
Iran probably views Obama as its best shot in decades at resuming relations with the US on something close to its terms. The loss of its imminent nuclear arsenal would do nothing to change that. A response that involved them in a war with American troops in Iraq might. Even if they did respond in Iraq, or in Israel, Obama could rise to the occasion and negotiate a settlement that still left Iran without its nuclear capability. It would be well worth a month or two of problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)