Billions,
Trillions, Who Cares?
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
For
those of us who balance our checkbooks to the penny, government
finance exists on another planet. Thanks to the institution of central
banking, and the ability of the economy to generate unfathomable
amounts of money for the tax state, we read daily headlines announcing
figures in the billions and trillions. To us mere mortals with mortgages
and electrical bills, these figures are darn near meaningless.
They
are meaningless in another sense too. There are some things that
government money can't buy. Peace, order, prosperity, and freedom
in Iraq are among them. Iraqi military dictator Paul Bremer, in
a fit of something approaching honesty, has admitted that "several
tens of billions" are necessary in order to rebuild what the US
destroyed. We aren't talking here about setting up shopping centers
and stock exchanges. This is only to get the power back on and clean
water flowing again.
"The
UN estimates that to get a more or less satisfactory potable water
system in the country will cost $16 billion over four years. The
2,000 megawatts we need to add now just to meet current demand will
cost $2 billion, and the engineers tell me we probably should spend
about $13 billion over the next five years to get the power system"
back in shape he told the Washington Post. It is "almost
impossible to exaggerate" the country's economic needs.
Spoken
like a true central planner with an unlimited budget. He bears no
personal liability for the success or failure of his plan. He need
only assist in bamboozling Congress to continue to authorize money
for the ghastly "reconstruction" effort.
So
long as the government is spending the money, what incentive does
it have to economize on resources? At least an elected government
could face some reprisal from the voting population. But a foreign
military dictatorship is radically detached from the interests of
the population it rules. In fact, the occupying military regards
the Iraqi population as divided between good guys (compliant and
passive) and bad guys (people who visibly resent US presence and
are seen therefore as potential threats).
Any
Iraqi who resents the US presence is decried as a "Saddam loyalist,"
as if the only two choices Iraq faces are between two forms of dictatorship.
More absurdly, any Iraqi who attempts to do anything about the US
presence is seen as a "terrorist." On September 11, we learned that
people who come from foreign nations and use sneaky tricks to destroy
our infrastructure and people are terrorists. But now we are being
told that the people who resist foreigners who destroy infrastructure
and people are the terrorists.
In
any case, these are no conditions under which to rebuild anything.
But they are the perfect conditions to spend vast amounts of money
with nothing to show for it in the end. As a wildly imperfect analogy,
think of how Mike Tyson blew through $300 million before declaring
bankruptcy. He was no financial whiz. He was just a guy who drew
crowds of paying customers to see him beat up on others, and suddenly
found himself earning 8 digits. His fortune didn't last because
his temperament is disinclined to long-term investment.
We
laugh at Tyson's mismanagement but at least he earned his money
by providing something others want. The same cannot be said for
the US government. It takes all the money it has by force, and goes
through a Tyson-level fortune in less than two hours, 12 times a
day, every day of the year. Nor do the people the government beats
up on enter the ring voluntarily. What the US is doing in Iraq makes
Tyson seem like a model of humanitarianism and financial prudence.
But
let's block that metaphor and move on to the fundamental economic
problem: even with the best of intentions, government has no way
of knowing the correct production priorities or best means of achieving
them. It's the socialist calculation problem, identified by Mises
in 1920, all over again. The US decided early on that it would not
allow the country to be managed privately. It has kicked out cell
phone companies, airlines, and oil field operators it has not specifically
approved. What this means is that the US is attempting to rebuild
the country socialistically in both means and ends which cannot
work.
Meanwhile,
even large cities are denied electricity most of the day. Oil is
smuggled out every day, even as oil infrastructure is blown up to
keep the US from taking what it does not own. Kidnapping for ransom
and other forms of crime are rampant. Car theft is routine. Collaborators
are killed daily, as are US troops. And in the midst of this, President
Bush vows to "stay on the offensive." If this is offense, God protect
us from defense.
The
presumption from the beginning of this war has been that any country
can be brought to its knees with a strong enough show of force.
This seems to be the only model the Bush administration knows. Once
having embarked on a blood and awe path in the name of freedom,
it is on the verge of being the last holdout in the world to claim
its policy as a success. "The more progress we make in Iraq, the
more desperate the terrorists will become," says Bush, when the
truth is that the more of a mess the Bush administration makes of
Iraq, the more desperate the Bush administration becomes.
The
symbols of failure are all around us. Pick your favorite: the UN
headquarters and the Jordanian embassy in Iraq being bombed, soldiers
being killed every day, the skyrocketing oil price, the widespread
assumption that Bush lied us into this war, the growing popularity
of Saddam and Osama in the Muslim world, the growing radicalism
of Muslim youth worldwide, the rising anger of families of US servicemen
and women. Any one of these means failure of the Bush policy, and
no amount of protest from paid spokesmen is going to change that.
The
US started this mission with the assumption that there is nothing
that bombs cannot accomplish. We were told of the amazing, wonderful
success of this war on Iraq, and how it liberated the people of
Iraq. All this time later, with Iraq in ruins and worse, they are
still defending the disaster, and they will continue to do so. Now
they tell us that there is nothing that dollars cannot accomplish
if they are spent on the right things. Who believes them?
Whatever
the results of an immediate US pullout from Iraq, it would be better
than the continuing military occupation. Bremer and his henchmen
shouldn't get one thin dime.
August
28, 2003
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Copyright
© 2003 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|