TheAgitator.com
With Us or Against Us
Thursday, December 11th, 2003Okay, so I understand the playground logic behind not letting French, Russian or German firms bid on contracts in post-war Iraq. You might call it the Eric Cartman “screw you guys, I’m goin’ home” school of dipomacy and commerce.
But here’s the bottom line:
The moratorium on bids from firms in those countries means that the American, Italian and Spanish firms get to compete in something that’s less than a completely open market. That means that U.S. taxpayers will be footing arficially high tabs for construction projects, and it means that Iraqis will be getting something of less quality than what a truly open market would provide.
Of course, this assumes that we’re awarding contracts based on competition and not patronage in the first place, which is a pretty generous assumption.
There’s also something decidedly unseemly — and at odds with free trade principles — about holding private firms accountable for the foreign policy of their governments. Consider if France or Germany or Russia deicded to punish McDonalds or Microsoft or General Motors for the Bush administration’s unilateralism.
We’d be ourtraged, and rightly so.
But then, no one has ever accused the Bush administration of consistent devotion to free trade principles.
John Kerry accused them of “extremist libertarianism”. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
to the victor, the spoils, eh?
how far apart to government and business actually stand?
Would it be unreasonable for a foreign country to deny a contract to haliburton because they don’t approve of what Cheney has been up to?
Big business and governement are so intertwined these days as to be indivisible.
So you want tax dollars going to companies, such as BASF, that have been trading with Iraq in violation of the sanctions? Our tax dollars should go to countries that made our job in Iraq more difficult? Besides, there is no regulation against subcontractors being from the banned countries.
I’m a little ambivalent about this one. Really big business and government is very intertwined. The true impact on “free” trade doesn’t seem to be much, since there will still be competition. Allies get rewarded while the percieved non-allies get punished. There are just too many levels to unravel here. It somehow strikes me as both right and wrong at the same time. Basically, I don’t agree or disagree with either side of this argument. I think they are all crazy.
You might have noticed that although McDonalds domestic restaurants are flourishing lately, the company profits are going down the toilet because of the downturn in international business.
I wonder why so many foreign folks have stopped eating at McDonalds? Makes you go hmmmmmmmm….
Speaking from a princple perspective, as you have done with the free market points you brought up, France obtained about 80% of it’s oil from Iraq while Saddam was using that money from the sale of the oil to kill other Muslims and Arabs he didn’t like. France looked the other way.
Now the USA is of course not without guilt on this. We certainly get our fair share of oil from these fascist backwater nations–and it probably needs to end. But, at least we did something about Saddam. Going to war may not have been the best solution but at least we stuck our necks out and stood up for something.
Besides, isn’t what is happening here the same thing that happens in the private sector? If company A does all the R&D/infrastructure/marketing/sales work to bring a product to market does company B automatically get rights to market as well? I think not.
I have to say, I agree with what the govt is doing on this. The countries that didn’t want to do anything against saddam, were that way because they were getting the largest chunck of money from Iraq’s oil. Since this is American tax dollars, I would rather not continue to line the pockets of these hypocrites. I would prefer to line the pockets of all the other hypocrites that stuck it out there with us.
DougB - McDonalds is doing so poorly cuz there food is crap. (not the fries).
Also just so everyone knows, The government is big business. Big business just needs the govt to handle issues that need “legal violence”.
The “free trade” argument rings a bit hollow. I don’t mean to psychoanalyze, Radley, but your opinion seems colored by your feelings about being in Iraq to begin with.
As Bob points out, this is U.S. (taxpayer) money financing the contracts. The U.S., as the purchaser of goods and services, can choose any companies we want for any reason whatsoever.
Think of the libertarian argument for freedom in hiring practices: it may plausibly be “unfair” for an employer to restrict hiring along, say, racial lines, and it certainly crimps the free market pool of labor. But most libertarians would defend a company’s freedom — as an entity contracting for services — to put whatever restrictions it sees fit on its hiring practices.
This is basic economic liberty.
Unfree trade occurs when an outside entity (such as a government, the UN, the EU) restricts access to the free market — that is, when it disallows a buyer and a seller from negotiating terms independently.
Im Sorry, but if these crybabies didnt want to participate in the first place, then why should they get our tax dollars to do so now?
If I asked my friends to help build my backyard pool, and some told me to fuck off. but later came by and asked to play. Id tell them the same thing they told me. Fuck off.
The countries that got involved in the first place should get first dibs at the contracts.
Do you want us to be viewed by the rest of the world as spineless cowards? We dont need the opponents. This is their punishment and it serves them right.
Even if we and the rest of the world have to suffer a bit for the opponents’ bad behavior, so be it. It’s a necessary evil. They’ll think twice next time. Isn’t that the point to all this?
More Special Pleading At The Agitator
Sigh…
Normally I would post this as a comment to The Agitator but Balko is tired of such comments there so I’ll post it here. Today he writes:The moratorium on bids
I agree with Enobarbus and Monkey Boy. Regardless of why or how we’re there[and how wrong it is that we are], we are. The countries that chose to sit it out I have nothing against so long as they don’t also get the spoils. The US government is acting as an employer so they have the right to hire who ever they like.
I think the free market argument is weak in this case.
Ah, Aaron said it best, I’d rather have American crony-hypocrites getting rich than foreign ones.
I don’t think that denying people who didn’t help out in the war effort — indeed, people who went against us in the war effort — is a violation of free market principles.
Free market does not mean that at all times in all places you have completely open contracting going on.
Think of it like a dating relationship. Maybe at first the competition is open — but at some point, even though you are not married and could change your relationship at any time, you close off bids.
Or think of it like this — the investors of the corporation (corp. being war effort or Iraq) reap the benefits exclusively.
If you invested in AOL 15 years ago and saw the company grow and grow, would you want someone who hadn’t invested to be able to come in and reap the profit? Probably not. Or definitely not, actually.
Mr. Balko,
If you are REALLY for completely unrestricted and unilateral free trade then what you should really be concentrating on is the approximately 2 million people we currently have RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY who are legally denied the ability trade freely with their âfellow citizensâ. In fact, these individuals are even denied their right to find a job, work, and earn a salary!
Of course I am referring to those citizens who are persecuted merely for acting on their devout belief in âfree willâ â rapist, murderers, and thieves â convicted criminals!
Imagine how much better off we would all be if we allowed these poor persecuted individuals to join in the community of their peers. Imagine the PROFITS!!! We are being cheated! We are getting something of less quality than what a truly open market would provide!
There’s also something decidedly unseemly — and at odds with free trade principles — about holding Individuals accountable for their own actions. Consider if Murderers or Rapists or Thieves decided to punish McDonalds or Microsoft or General Motors for the Bush administration’s unilateralism. Is that what we want?!?
How much longer are âWe the Peopleâ simply going to stand by and allow this valuable pool of âfree tradersâ to be âembargoedâ by that knuckled-head Bush and his anti-capitalist cronies!!!
How does punishing a company that was incorporated in a country opposed to our intervention “teach them a lesson.” The implicit assumption is that private companies should be involved in making foreign policy decisions–otherwise, why would you punish a private company for residing in a country that disagrees with our foreign policy? If, as an American, I disagree with our foreign policy, should I be denied a contract? If my views are protected, then why not the views of foreigners?
“Ah, Aaron said it best, I’d rather have American crony-hypocrites getting rich than foreign ones.”
Even if it means you’ll be poorer as Radley correctly point out?
His consequentialist argument is correct even though his moral argument lacks foundation. And throughout this comment thread we can see how the invalid moral argument clouds and obscures the valid consequentialist argument.
John Kennedy: Even if it means you’ll be poorer as Radley correctly point out?
Hey, we are poorer because we have 2 million convicts in jail not working, not paying taxes, and not trading (not to mention we are paying for the prisons).
Are you saying that we should stop putting people in jail for rape, murder, and thievery because it is bad for our wallets?
I guess any sort of punishment for behavior conflicts with your devout belief that there are no consequences for action?
I think a case can be made for allowing Canadian and German companies to participate. (Besides I am sure Canadian and Germany will participate as sub-contractors or as owners of US-based companies.)
The exception to this is…wait for it…the French. The French are so in bed with the Islamists that I think it would be a security risk for French companies (which are mostly government owned) to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Regular reading of Merde in France makes that pretty clear.
I agree with the philosophy of Monkey Boy (you didn’t help build the pool, why should I let you play in it?). However, pulling my head up a little higher to look at the forest and not the size of GW’s ego, is this policy the best for the Iraqi people we’ve just “liberated.” Is this policy the best route for rebuilding a country that will not be conducive to harboring/encouraging terrorist cells? And how will continuing to alienate the Europeans help our long term strategy of finding and eliminating terrorist cells? We can play Hatfields and Mccoys for now, but it’s not a very good long term foreign policy.
JMHO
This policy is not at odds with free trade. These are GOVERNMENT contracts and I (along with many millions of other American taxpayers) do not want my tax dollars to benefit nations that actively opposed this war. An obvious fact that is being ignored: when you give a large contract to a private firm, its government benefits. Really, Radley, is it better to reward nations that conspire against you? What message will we send if we reward French, German, etc. firms with big contracts? This would project pathetic weakness!
I guess it violates free trade principle not to sell US nukes to NK or to allow US Steel to sell to Germany in 1943. I won’t lose any sleep over it. There’s another principle at work, it’s called don’t fuck with the US. It seems like one I and most Americans are pretty comfortable with.
I should add that collective punishment often gets results. Maybe next time the multinantionals and German/French companies will not let their governments so blatantly work against US interets when their own interests might get caught up in the mix. Justice? Fairness? Who cares? Int’l relations is like competition between businesses; we need to maximize value to our shareholders (US Citizens) and that often requires screwing other people. This is the difference between people with an abstract free market perspective, and folks that have actually worked in a market. Why else are big private actors always seeking government largesse, to help themselves.
Supergenious,
With France, Germany, and russia benifiting from helping saddam in the first place, while he murdered his own people, how did that help the Iraqis?
Supergenious,
With France, Germany, and russia benifiting from helping saddam in the first place, while he murdered his own people, how did that help the Iraqis?
Supergenious,
With France, Germany, and russia benifiting from helping saddam in the first place, while he murdered his own people, how did that help the Iraqis?
Supergenious,
With France, Germany, and russia benifiting from helping saddam in the first place, while he murdered his own people, how did that help the Iraqis?
Sorry for the multiple posts there? I have no clue what caused that.
All joking aside, if violations of abstract free market principles in limited circumstances can help the US and hurt foreigners, shouldn’t we endorse that. Consider the position of a big buyer, a so-called monopsony buyer. On the margins it can probably wealth maximize for itself by screwing the seller (slight wealth transfers up and down respectively). Should pro-free-trade people be indifferent about whose wealth is maximized, or should citizen wealth count more. I of course take the corporate shareholder perspective, though I realie about 85 or 90% of the time protectionism hurts some domestic folks to help others, but not always, esp. in the case of a monopsony buyer like the US.
What does free trade have to do with an attempt at nation building?
:0
Perception is everything. If you already hate Bush, then of course you’re going to pin this on feeding his ego.
If I thought that allowing companys from the countries that opposed us to profit from the rebuilding would help bridge the gaps caused by their oppisition in the first place, then the ban would be a mistake. But all it would be is one more time the U.S would be taken advantage of by these same countries. The time would come when we would seek their support and they would oppose the U.S.
They didn’t have to send troops, but at the least they could have supported us in the U.N. If they had, and Saddam was faced with a united front. Maybe, and that is a big maybe, things would be different over there now. Hopefully for the better.
Radley, your polemics shine in this post. Are you just trying to stir a little debate with such an over-simplified objection to our “Iraq Rebuilding Contracts” policy?
Those who argue that we shouldn’t punish private companies whose countries’ foreign policy disqualified them from bidding should consider that most of these countries have nationalized or socialized economies that are so interdependent on their respective governments. The government is the enterprise, the enterprise is the government. Besides the tax dollars alone would provide too much benefit to these antagonist governments.
You should have simply stated, “I am morally opposed to our military presence in Iraq and therefore oppose any policy by the current administration as it relates Iraq.” That seems to be your overriding issue.
Lt. Smash makes a good point
http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/002402.html#002402
I think Radley Balkoâs problem is that he simply CANNOT accept the fact that we have already fought a war with Iraq. He wants to deny that it ever happened. History in inconveniently interfering with the exercise of his âfree willâ.
Roach: I guess it violates free trade principle not to sell US nukes to NK or to allow US Steel to sell to Germany in 1943.
hehe ⦠I like the way you think Roach.
Ms. Dani: Perception is everything.
You are one of those scary smart chicks â arenât you?
Tony,
Do you mean to imply that the US government is NOT an enterprise? There is no government on the face of the earth at any time in history which has given away so many tax dollars to “private” enterprise as our own.
Some of us believe that the Iraq War has more to do with business than with national security or social justice. (Since when have the neocons taken up a social cause, anyway?)
I agree with Radley this time. It’s not just that this war is of dubious merit as far as wars go, but the way our government is conducting the enterprise itself is a shitty deal for US taxpayers first and anyone who’s not in the pants of the ruling elite second.
Percerption is everything:
Exhibit A “Some of us believe…”
Exhibit B “I agree with Radley this time…”
Not smart, more like simplistic, but definitely scary in a debate. My husband could tell you.
please excuse my mispellings. They are not intentional.
“Perception” is what liars call truth when they tire of the arduous task of searching for it.
It’s simplistic to mock me for telling something that we KNOW to be the truth: that all of us don’t believe the same thing about this.
Tell that to your husband.
MA,
“Perception” is what liars call truth when they tire of the arduous task of searching for it.”
Truth does not need to be found. It simply exists. What is tiring is trying to make something out of the truth that it’s not, it’s called making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I was not mocking you in my previous comment. Those were merely examples of how we all have different perceptions, the very thing you just said. When a person is sharing their perspective, they might start the sentence with, “Some of us believe” or “I agree with…” which is what you did.
I would compare this to collateral damage. The civilian lives and infrastructure that are destroyed by war are not part of the target of war but suffer just the same. The private companies that are deprived of the juicy contracts are the unfortunate recipients of one governments wrath for another.
Punchline: I’m cool with it
MA: Some of us believe that the Iraq War has more to do with business than with national security or social justice.
Is War good business?
And are you forgetting about 9/11 or just conveniently ignoring it?
Hey if you want to ignore murderers, rapists, and thieves, we could probably boost the economy by keeping them out of prisons.
MA: I agree with Radley this time. It’s not just that this war is of dubious merit as far as wars go â¦
Regardless of the merits the war has already been fought. The time to debate its merits is past. Either you can deal with reality as it is, or you can erroneously deal with reality as you wish it were.
MA: ⦠but the way our government is conducting the enterprise itself is a shitty deal for US taxpayers first and anyone who’s not in the pants of the ruling elite second.
Ahhh, so when someone does something wrong to us (like a thief robbing your neighbors house, or France allying with Saddam) we shouldnât negatively reinforce their behavior because as any âsaneâ person knows there are no consequences for action?
We just turn the other cheek. Is that what you are saying MA?
War is excellent business for some politically-connected companies and the usual suspects in the military-industrial complex. Especially when the bidding process is suspended.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The Taliban did and we were compelled to militarily oust them for harboring al Qaeda.
We have enough murderers rapists and thieves in our own country (and government, no less) to keep us busy. I note that we’ve ignored the murderers, rapists and thieves in the Congo and China and Bangladesh and Russia where it doesn’t make good business sense to invade and impose neoconservative morals.
Correction: the war is STILL being fought. Don’t lecture me on reality. I have mine and you have yours.
France didn’t ally with Saddam. Its government adamantly refused to back us in the war. There’s a big difference.
When you refer to the US government (i.e. Bush) as “we” you lose me. I opposed the war from the beginning and oppose the way it’s being managed now.
Your frothing assessment of France as an ally of Saddam and a bad child to be whipped by George W. Bush, rather than as a sovereign nation with its own interests could land you a job in the White House. You should send them your resume.
I see this argument breaking down into two different camps. Those who received corporal punishment as a child, and those who didn’t.
Funny Aaron.
Instead of looking at it as a punishment for France, Germany, Russia, and Canada, I’m looking at it as a reward to Italy and Spain and the rest of the countries that supported us. No, it won’t be a perfectly efficient market– but I think attaining that in Iraq in the near future will be as likely as finding a unicorn.
While some see this policy as ideologically impure and possible childish, I see it as a lovely package combining carrot and stick. I don’t mind my government projecting the message of, as one of the commenters above put it, Don’t Fuck with Us.
What the hell is this US/us all about????? If this is operation “IRAQI Freedom”, what the Fvck does us have to do with it. Wouldn’t the best product for the best price be the best deal for the Iraqi’s. Who gives a s**t about our foolish pride.. If France could build better roads, faster and cheaper than anyone else, then I say our gov’t is wasteing our tax dollars. And in the end will be coming back to ask for more. IMHO
BTW, I think it’s high time that the US quit looking at Iraq as some victorius prize. The war is not over until we have our troops out of country and back home alive….
Well said michael, however I would like to quote the news this morning, “It’s america’s money, let them spend it the way they want to.”
No more needs to be said.
So what you are saying is is that we’re still fighting WW2 in Europe?
Michael: What the hell is this US/us all about????? If this is operation “IRAQI Freedom”, what the Fvck does us have to do with it. Wouldn’t the best product for the best price be the best deal for the Iraqi’s. Who gives a s**t about our foolish pride.. If France could build better roads, faster and cheaper than anyone else, then I say our gov’t is wasteing our tax dollars. And in the end will be coming back to ask for more. IMHO
Okay, and by the same token just because someone has raped and murdered your wife doesnât mean that I should be prohibited from trading with them! I donât care about You or your dead wife getting justice! I just want the best product at the best price. I donât care about You I only care about me, Me, ME!!!
What the Fvck does us have to do with it? Wouldn’t the best product for the best price be the best deal for the Me? Who gives a s**t about Your foolish pride.. If a Raping Murderer could build better roads, faster and cheaper than anyone else, then I say our gov’t is wasting our tax dollars by not employing the raping murderer to do it! And in the end will be coming back to ask Me for more. IMHO
Aaron: I see this argument breaking down into two different camps. Those who received corporal punishment as a child, and those who didn’t.
Does being âCursed above all the Cattleâ count as corporal punishment?
You aren’t the same Aaron that is part of Johnny Kennedy’s crew are you?
I’m sorry but the French profited off of Saddam’s regime. Forgive me for getting pissed off when they actively obstruct our progress to get rid of Saddam, then get pouty when they’re not allowed to profit from rebuilding what they helped destroy. France’s actions have consequences.
OR would you be ok with the guy who stood by and watched your wife get raped, doing nothing to stop it, coming over and hanging out at your house and enjoying your wife’s cooking after the whole “incident” ?
It’s reassuring to know that you folks will be perfectly happy if OPEC ever decides to raise gas prices to the perfectly reasonable $2.64 a gallon.
(Don’t mind the peanut gallery, Radley. Stick to your libertarian guns.)
all the more reason for drilling in Alaska…
Serpent - The cattle curse will only hold water, if you were at the same time getting branded.
No, I’m not with Johnny Kennedy’s crew. I typically hang with the Ronnie Reagan crew.
Radley, your sweeping generalizations are maddening. Just because three countries are (rightfully) left out of the bidding process does NOT equate to taxpayers getting squeezed. Do you know for a fact that any of the dozens of other countries will NOT be providing the most efficient and cost-effective bids over France, Germany and Russia (FGR)?
Did FGR allow us in on their illegal trading with pre-war Iraq?
Aaron: I typically hang with the Ronnie Reagan crew.
hehehe … Yeah I heard those boys were some bad-asses.
Serpent:
Them and the Van Buren Boys
You are invited to visit some information on store - Tons of interesdting stuff!!!