When Parody Is Good Policy

…or at least as good as what's actually going on.

Quoth The Onion:

U.S. To Give Every Iraqi $3,544.91,
Let Free-Market Capitalism Do the Rest

A snippet:

Even the building and running of Iraq's schools will be privatized.

"I believe we've seen what state-funded education did for Iraq," Bremer said. "I can say with confidence that it's the last thing they need."

According to Bremer, as soon as capitalism brings an end to ethnic and religious tension, U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq.

Fortunately, few Iraqi government structures need to be put into place. In accepting the $87.5 billion aid package, the Iraqi Governing Council has agreed to banish all restrictions on trade, capital flow, and foreign investment.

While the original aid package included $100 million to support the writing of a constitution and the holding of national elections, the new "$3,544.91 For All" plan contains no such allotment. Bremer did, however, help the Iraqi Governing Council draft a 25-word "Iraqi Promise Of Excellence."

Bremer said returning the government to the men and women of Iraq solves one problem that had confounded his team: deciding how rule would be divided among Sunni Muslims, Shiites, and Kurds.

"Under the new system, the religious, ethnic, or political group offering the best service will naturally beat out the competition," Bremer said. "It's that simple!"

Comments

[Swamp Justice]

Not a bad idea. At least it would be an interesting experiment and end US “occupation” of Iraq.

[Brian]

Let’s not stop at Iraq. Let’s pass a bill that requires all welfare money to be distributed directly to the ultimate recipients, so less is wasted along the way.

[Russ]

I ran into this segment on The Onion this morning and found it pretty troubling.

Is laissez-faire now such a fringe movement that it warrants the same satirical bitch-slapping as Marxism, Post-modernism, and Catholicism?

[Ron Hardin]

No, you need property rights, and contract enforcement. That makes it possible to borrow against your home, start a business.

[Dan]

I know what you mean, Russ. I read the article and couldn’t help thinking “yeah, sounds like a pretty good plan to me”.

It worked pretty well with the homesteaders of the 19th century.

[dj of raleigh]

Give all the people the same amount of money,
and in a couple of years, 10% will have 90% of it,
1% will have none, and 1% will have 50% of the 90%.

Why not give X amount per barrel of oil exported to each woman (and exclude the men). Talk about plural marriages. Naw, give X amount to every man and woman of age. That should keep the oil flowing.

[John M. Joy]

At 19:38 on 14-Jan-2004, “Andrew” writes:
“We“…”We“…”Iraq isn’t a test-tube– it is our most advanced position in the War on Terror.” [italics mine]

I’m sorry but… Dawg-dammit, I’ve about had enough of such first-person crypto-empirical hubris. It has already gotten too many Americans planted (or unrecoverable) already.

JMJ

[Andrew]

“We” is the appropriate usage when addressing policy prescriptions in a democracy.

[John M. Joy]

At 21:51 on 14-Jan-2004, “Andrew” writes:
“”We” is the appropriate usage when addressing policy prescriptions in a democracy.”

“We” (italics, once again, mine) are, last I looked, a constitutional republic.

I speak for me. For whom, exactly, is “Andrew” speaking?

JMJ

[Gadfly]

I thought Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

[Jason Ligon]

I would just like to say that I am impressed by Andrew’s fine use of the word ‘eupeptic’ …

[Andrew]

JMJ and Kevin–

Grow up.

“We” is the customary usage in public policy recommendations, and for good reason. Any other pronoun would be both misleading and (in some cases) false– the actions commended necessarily involve a collectivity (or they wouldn’t be about public policy) which includes the speaker.

It is safe to say you will both use the pronoun “we” in exactly the same fashion regularly, if you discuss public issues at all.

Christ– you two sound like feminist scolds!

[thoreau]

I thought the point of the Onion article was a naive faith that handing out money and then trusting “market” forces would solve all problems when markets require some semblance of the rule of law (to enforce contracts and property rights). Iraq still has to make a little progress on that front. Not to mention the irony of the US preaching capitalism but basically putting the whole country on welfare.

In my interpretation, the Onion’s editors actually displayed a good understanding of capitalism.

Overall, the Onion is my favorite quasi-libertarian publication (as opposed to Reason, which is of course the infallible barometer of pure libertarian thought; now how did my nose get so brown?). Consider these headlines:

“Drugs Win War on Drugs” (from Our Dumb Century)
“Marxist Apartment a Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn’t Work”
“Bill of Rights Pared Down to a Manageable Six”
“Americans Demand Increased Government Protection from Selves”

And, of course, in the spirit of “We’re not laughing at you, we’re laughing with you”:

L.A. Efficiency Chosen As Site Of 2000 Libertarian Convention

[Russ]

While the course of action that TheOnion mocks, does resemble anarchy more than “laissez-faire”, the economic implications are worth a few moments of thoughts.

The gross inflation of the money supply would serve to drive domestic prices to outrageous levels, meaning that the actual purchasing power of the average Iraqi would hardly change. Initially, the equitable distribution of mountains of cash would serve to devaulue the moderate amounts of cash that people had previously accumulated.

The big beneficiaries would be the first folks to get their handouts and spend them before prices start to rise, and then the importers who can direct the sea of cash toward foreign goods. Fortunately for them, they can get more goods with US dollars than they would have if they had been given an equivalent amount of Iraqi dinars, since the foreign exchange markets wouldn’t instantly devalue the currency.

In the long run, the added capital (in an international monetary sense) would bring a flow of goods and services into the country. The only difference is, the market would direct the flow instead of the bureacrats in the US Government.

The transition phase would obviously be difficult, but not much worse than what’s going on now.

[Voyager]

It seems the Libertarian Party has barely more political influence in the United States than the Nazi Party — and the Libertarian Party has *never* lost a war!

[Andrew]

In truth, I don’t think it is the LP or Reason crowd getting ribbed here, but rather some of the more eupeptic neo-con circles in and around the Administration.

[christhamrin]

Explain to me why one would need for Iraq to have the ‘rule of law’ and protection for property. Thats statism to me buddy.

[John M. Joy]

At 1:47 on 15-Jan-2004, “Andrew” writes:
“the actions commended necessarily involve a collectivity (or they wouldn’t be about public policy) which includes the speaker.” and “It is safe to say you will both use the pronoun “we” in exactly the same fashion regularly, if you discuss public issues at all.”

Regarding the former:

Wow – it’s so rare to hear a collectivist admit to being one! But seriously… unless you’re a RNC or DNC operative, methinks you’re flattering yourself a bit here.

On the latter:

When I refer to actions of the US federal government, policies of Democratic or Republican politicians, games of professional sports teams, or other people’s children, I identify them as such, and in each of these cases I use the third person – so no, it’s not “safe to say.”

JMJ
(“feminist scold” – hmm… I’ve been called a lot of things before, but…)

[Andrew]

Oh JMJ…

…you are disappointingly obvious. And I suppose– since you are not a “collectivist”, that you never use the collective first person AT ALL…like the reverse of the Ayn Rand sci-fi novel?

(And I take it, that you– with Kevin– might still be in Middle School…as this is where your analytical skills, and conversation, would appear to place you.)

[John M. Joy]

“Andrew,”

The observation being made here is less a criticism of usage than a recognition of the attitude which it betrays. I’m sorry I have to point this out (as I am disappointed at the banality of the ad hominem which close your post of 7:02 15-Dec-2004).

Similar is that despicable trait of local politicians who, after an entrepreneur spends his energy and dollars to build a successful enterprise, grin at the local reporters and brag, “Look at the wonderful ‘economic development’ my policies have brought us!”

JMJ
(many years removed from middle school, despite my boyish good looks – but thanks for the compliment all the same)

[Mike Van Winkle]

Unfortunately this is the exact opposite of what is really happening.

[Mark Borok]

It’s a double-barreled satire. First, it makes fun of the Bush administration for using the free market as a one-size-fits-all solution for all domestic problems (that may or may not be an exaggeration, but satire is allowed to exaggerate). Second, it underscores the administration’s frantic efforts to find a way out of the Iraq situation before the next elections.

If you’re a libertarian and you don’t see how libertarian ideas (like all others) can be taken to an extreme and misapplied, then you are the kind of person this piece is making fun of.

[JD]

I think thoreau has it pretty much right on. The Onion skewers everybody, so if they poke fun at free-market idealists, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re anti-capitalist. I’ve always felt the Onion to be at least quasi-libertarian, in that the targets of their harshest humor has always been those who think they can or should control the lives of others. I think the key to understanding the Onion plan for Iraq is how you look at what will happen, which, IMO, is that large amounts of money, extracted from working-class, non-politically-connected Americans, will go into the pockets of rich, politically connected Americans, to buy the Iraqis things they didn’t choose for themselves, a plan put together by people who loudly proclaim how much they like the free market.

[joe]

When you can’t recognize absurdity and extremism among your ranks, you end up the ridiculous, dangerous “no enemies on the left” thinking from the 60s.

[Will Spencer]

In a world where any press is good press, perhaps we shouldn’t look so harshly upon our friends at _The Onion_.

This may be the first contact some of their readers may have had with libertarian ideals.

[Ken]

What I would do: I would setup a corporation to produce and sell Iraqi oil, and distribute 100% of the shares in this corporation to each Iraqi citizen. Each person could hold, sell, or acquire more shares.

OK, go ahead and knock my strawman down.

[Kevin Carson]

Andrew,

There’s no such thing as democracy on a continent with 300 million people. Once an organization gets large enough to operate on the representative principle, it will serve the interests of those who actually control the machinery. It doesn’t matter how ostensibly democratic the legitimation rituals are–the elites making policy will be quite stable over time, and political debate will be limited at best to the second-tier issues on which the elites are not in full agreement.

JMJ,

That “we” thing starts in junior high school with school spirit and support for the team. The kids are socialized to have manufactured loyalty to an institution created by authority for its own ends, and to identify with an organization over whose activities they have no real say. The relevance to later life is obvious.

[homer jay]

Too bad we can’t elect the editors of The Onion.

[thoreau]

Christhamrin-

How are property rights and the rule of law statist? Without the rule of law to enforce contracts and property rights, we’d wind up with the rule of the Mafia. I sort of like the idea that if I sign a contract with somebody I can get a court to enforce it (OK, at least in theory, yes, yes, I know, the courts are flawed in practice, but I think we all know what I mean). Otherwise business transactions would be far more risky and the market would break down.

[Realist_Boy]

Wow, so many political nerds, I didnt realize anyone gave a shit. In 60 years, you’ll all be dead, stop worrying about things you can’t change, get money, get laid, have fun.

[Schwartz Allison]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 195.94.1.122
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 12:02:43
Be wiser than other people if you can; but do not tell them so.