Comments (6)

• Bill, End the embargo on Cuba

• I agree completely. Sanctions never stop a dictator. The dictator uses their evil effects to rally his followers and to get outside assistance.

  The only killer of dictatorship is father time. The dictator must use violence to change the prices of goods charged to a select few. This process over time ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will lead to poverty. Then either the citizens rise up and take over, the dictator dies leaving a power struggle or another invador takes over.

  The real problem is that the western world in general and the US in particular are impatient and want the dictator out now.

• Published: August 4, 2006 4:00 PM

• quincunx

• "The real problem is that the western world in general and the US in particular are impatient and want the dictator out now."

  Or they don't want them out at all. Perpetual war for perpetual peace is very profitable for some.

• Published: August 4, 2006 5:54 PM

• TGGP

• I agree. Trading with China made Marx look rather silly. Autarchies that shut themselves off from the world can stay in power indefinitely (see North Korea and this Bryan Caplan piece)

• Published: August 5, 2006 12:13 AM

• TGGP

• I forgot to add that I don't think the implementors of sanctions intend for them to prop up regimes. I never ascribe to malevolence what I can to ignorance!

  That reminds me of Caplan's renewal of the socialist calculation debate...

• Published: August 5, 2006 12:40 AM

• Ohhh Henry

• "Autarchies that shut themselves off from the world can stay in power indefinitely (see North Korea and this Bryan Caplan piece)"

  I'm not so sure about this. North Korea is not entirely isolated ... I believe that the PRC supplies them with petroleum and other necessities. I view NK as a kind of mangy, rabid dog which China has chained in front of its house in order to scare its neighbors.

  Cuba is also an interesting case ... viewed one way, it is like a storehouse/prison in which the US sugar industry has locked up their nearest and largest competitor in order to keep prices high.

  Iraq in the sanctions era was similar - an excuse to tie down a large amount of oil production for future use, and also an excuse to maintain a huge military presence in the area. Saddam was a mad dog which America kept chained up in the Middle East in order to make all the other countries afraid - "what if we let it go?"

  I would argue therefore that these autarchies are actually the creatures of the great powers and are not independent of them in any way.
  

• Published: August 5, 2006 11:17 AM

• anarkhos

• I disagree completely. Sanctions work wonders! They only don't work if you believe the official lies as to why they are put in place!

  Did U.S. sanctions against Iraq work? Hell yea! Without the sanctions and the ensuing poverty, isolation, power consolidation, human misery etc. where would the imputus be to liberate them? Heck, even before the war, the sanctions allowed the UN security council and US armed forces (especially Navy and Air Force) to show their teeth, relevance, and indespensibility.

  I mean for crying out loud, the Persian Gulf war was our answer to losing the Soviet Empire. We trained and spilled treasure for decades to win our tank battle in the rhineland. What else would we have done with our tanks and DU ammo? But the war ended shortly. Could we just leave...and do WHAT? No, we had better stay and enforce sancrions and no-fly zones or we would have to find something else to do.

  Sanctions work. War works. You're just arguing with the tools, cogs, and sheep of society who have and want no power to begin with.

• Published: August 6, 2006 4:24 PM