Comments (9)

• George Gaskell

• "Ah," they say, "but OUR socialist construction projects are going to be more successful than THEIR socialist construction projects. Because we're better people! Our hearts are in the right place!"

  Please. This nation-building misadventure is basically the Big Dig on a slightly larger scale.

  And it will end with similar results.

• Published: July 13, 2006 9:11 AM

• Bill, Former Conservative

• Yes. The funny part is that during the presidential campaign, Mr. Bush stated that he would not go around nation building.

  Since Bush hasn't lied about Iraq then I think he meant that he would not build "small" nations like Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo and instead would build bigger nations with tens of millions of folks. That way there is more room for error nation building in a place the size of California versus a place the size of Orange County. It is like the fisherman who tires catching carp in his pond and instead goes for the sailfish off the coast of Spain. He is still a fisherman no matter the size of the fish.

• Published: July 13, 2006 9:17 AM

• Chris

• Internet access?

  How do they know that "this" is how resources should be allocated?

  Were there market surveys? Questionnaires? Focus Groups?

  Did they talk to consumers one-on-one?

• Published: July 13, 2006 10:35 AM

• George Gaskell

• Were there market surveys? Questionnaires? Focus Groups?

  The only true indicator of preference is what people are willing to pay for. Only a free market can reveal these preferences. Surveys and focus groups are not a substitute.

• Published: July 13, 2006 10:46 AM

• Chris

• The ultimate indicators are Profit & Loss.

  I never said that surveys, questionnaires, and focus groups were a substitute. They are not. They do exist within a free market though, and are tools used by entrepreneurs all the time.

  Ideal for Iraq would be Private Property > Exchange > Prices > Profit & Loss.

  I was merely trying to point out that consumers were in no way involved in the decision making process.

  Perhaps I was too brief.

• Published: July 13, 2006 11:20 AM

• George Gaskell

• I get you. Sorry for being curt.

  What I'm getting at is that people don't seem to understand Mises's unique contribution -- socialist systems aren't just inefficient. Prices are more than just useful information. When he said that socialists can't calculate, he meant it literally -- it's impossible. Without prices on a free market, there can be no economic decision-making.

  But if the military let entrepreneurs and existing companies expand into Iraq, even though they'd be heroes and saviors for bringing material wealth and improving people's lives, they'd be portrayed as parasites and "profiteers," whatever the hell that is.

• Published: July 13, 2006 11:31 AM

• Chris

• No disagreement here.

  Without the "profiteers," to supply what is demanded MOST, you end up with the mess that Mr. Rockwell described:

  YouTube, but no water.

• Published: July 13, 2006 12:17 PM

• Roger M

• The Iraqi economy as a whole, not just the US reconstruction efforts, is literally a Stalinist model. The Baath party modeled itself after Stalinist USSR. By the invasion, almost everyone worked for the Iraqi government. Not much has changed in the Iraqi economy since the invasion. They're still trying to make the old Stalinist economy work, which never will.

  How the new government decides to deal with oil resources will determine Iraq's future. If they sell the rights to private companies, the country will progress toward capitalism and freedom. If they keep them under government ownership, Iraq will never be more than another banana republic.

• Published: July 13, 2006 12:44 PM

• Curt Howland

• "I get you. Sorry for being curt."
  

  Hey! I resemble that remark!
  

  So long as someone is telling the Iraqui people what they want, it might as well be Stalin rather than Bush. There's no difference.

• Published: July 14, 2006 1:36 PM