Today, a star-studded cast of former leaders from Asia, Africa, and Europe met in Tehran at a conference sponsored by Mohammad Khatami, the former Iranian president. Khatami is expected to challenge Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his reelection bid next June, and the presence of Kofi Annan and others at the Conference on Religion in the Modern World is seen as their endorsement of the event’s sponsor in the presidential contest. Besides the former U.N. Secretary-General, attendees included a former Irish president, a former Italian prime minister, a former French prime minister, a former Portuguese president, a former Sri Lankan president, a former Sudanese prime minister, and a former UNESCO director general.
“This conference has nothing to do with presidential elections,” Khatami told reporters. Of course. But the timing of the visits of the foreigners was hardly coincidental, coming during a period of speculation in Iran as to who will challenge Ahmadinejad. “Our homeland Iran is in danger,” said Mostafa Tajzadeh, a reformist figure. “Khatami has to run in the upcoming elections to save Iran from catastrophe and destruction.”
If the former president could do that, we would all be wearing Khatami campaign buttons and making donations. But Iran’s president is hardly the most powerful figure in the country’s amorphous political system, and he does not control key regime elements, including those responsible for the nuclear weapons program. Even if Khatami is elected to his old post, the change in administration would hardly constitute a change in the regime-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would remain in charge, after all–and it might just make things worse by putting an acceptable face on an abhorrent government. During his two-term presidency, Khatami often clashed with the more radical elements in the regime and mostly lost, disillusioning his supporters and delegitimizing the reformists.
Khatami is expected to announce his candidacy in February. And when he does he will undoubtedly attract support from other nations that hope to see a more moderate Iran. There is, in general, nothing wrong with encouraging the more modern elements in Iranian society, but at some point–well before the election–we need to know whether Khatami will acknowledge the existence of the nuclear weapons program and how he feels about it.
Too often we encourage moderates in a hardline society on the assumption that engagement in the long run will bring needed change. With Iran just months from acquiring all the knowledge needed to build a nuclear weapon, we cannot afford to rely on the tiresome generalities of good intentions-for which Kofi Annan is famous. We need to know what Khatami intends to do and when he will do it.
“But what the times demand – above all else – is certainty. The markets are screaming for certainty;” Abe Greenwald
“This is a lovely sentiment, but premised on a false notion that if the “smart” people in Washington think hard enough they can figure out how to ”stabilize” the economy. They can’t, of course.” JRUB
So what we need of course is certainty without stability. We,in other words, need creative destruction with predictable results.
As I commented below, I’ve been showering money on people who are greedy, foolish AND self-indulgent all my adult life. It’s called paying my taxes and, frankly, I’m sick of it.
“But they aren’t very good at “stabilizing” things because governments never are. Command economies run by bureaucrats (or 535 legislators) have a rather poor record of improving economic growth, increasing employment, providing opportunity, and the like.”
Jennifer, you’re close to the answer, but not completely there. This isn’t a case of bureaucrats or legislators being unable to do this because they lack skills, authority, resources. It’s a case of a a command economy being a *structural impossibility*.
The decisions made by a central authority will never have the information available to them that lower-level economic actors have, nor will the effects of bad decision-making ever have as immediate or lasting impact as they do on the economic actors who make them– Washington is, by definition, insulated from these choices (either from the rational incentives to make them– looking after your neighbor to be a good neighbor is a defensible emotional or political decision, not a rational economic one– or the consequences of screwing them up, i.e. sure, legislators may lose their elections, but that’s a very, very diffuse theoretical consequence).
Interestingly, this is why market economics and small-r republican federalism have such a long & happy history together: both are mechanisms for increasing local autonomy AND local responsibility for decision making in order to provide not just the most effective decisions, but also the fairest. Washington can’t efficiently make my grocery store shopping decisions anymore than they can efficiently staff my county school board or paint my road signs.
Then again, since when has ineffectiveness ever stopped any politician from trying to increase their power and authority over other people’s freedom to make decisions for themselves– and their responsibility to live with the consequences of unsound choices?
RCAR, the certainty that the markets need is the certainty of knowing what government regulations they will operate under, not the present uncertainty where TARP money is thrown out seemingly almost at random, where the government sets the payment requirements for financial executives, where some companies are bailed out and some are not. You should know that.
To add:
The Left looks at these decisions and thinks, “If only we had smarter/better people making these decisions in Washington, we’d be alright.”
The Right looks (or *should* look) at these decisions and think, “No one in Washington should be making these decisions, because *no one can*.”
Again, it’s not a question of skill, resources, or desire– it’s an impossibility. Like unicorn rides, square circles, and phantom Russian submarines, these things just can not exist. To act otherwise is to ignore human nature, economic science, and countless historical failures.
#4Pete Madsen Says:
February 20th, 2009 at 1:55 PM
RCAR, the certainty that the markets need is the certainty of knowing what government regulations they will operate under
Pete, Because Government has the power to legislate business, you can never have certainty as to what they will legislate. What smart businesses do is to “influence” legislation that favors their business,and that process is a certainty,and you know that.
“Despite all the good intentions, it is plain we are making things worse, not better.”
Yeah, plain. Because the stimulus bill has been law for going on three days now. How is it things aren’t turning around?
No wonder America is purging the government of conservatives. Not only can’t you govern, not only are you bereft of ideas, you can’t even muster an honest argument.
I hope all you former Bush lackeys will take advantage of the Clown School education credit that Pelosi wrote into the stimulus package.
When Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Barack Obama can put their heads together and provide a correct answer to the rather simple questions “real people” face day-to-day, such as where should one locate a small flower shop in my neighborhood so that, balancing rent, traffic and competition, it will make a decent profit, then I will accept that they are smart enough to govern the economy from Washington. They can’t and they aren’t.
Daniel, so precisely how many days should we wait before noting the fairly obvious fact that the pork-a-paloosa is a really dumb idea? Come on now, drop the BS and give us a number.
The word is the White House found yesterday’s “tirade” on the Chicago trading floor “amusing.” Said it’s not their job to “punish” or “reward” but to “stabilize.” You guys are doing a heck of a job.
The conservative mantra should be:
“Governance is most effective in the hands of those closest to the issue who have the ability to impact the issue.”
Marriage? Individuals are the closest hands to the issue, and individuals can impact the issue. Marriage should be out of the government baliwick (hetero or otherwise…The problem isn’t GAY marriage, its government endorsed marriage period)
Sewage? Individuals certainly are closest, but lack the ability to impact its collection and treatment. Municipalities and Counties can impact its collection and treatment. Therefore, Municipalities and Counties should be in charge.
Freeways, Highways, and bridges. Clearly not an individual issue, municipalities and counties can impact parts, but not the whole. States can lay down a system and have the best ability to bring resources to bear on such a large-scale infrastructure.
Air Traffic? Now we see federal agencies like the FAA that serve a purpose that neither the states would have difficulty managing seperately. It could be done by the states, but it is precisely cross-state commerce that the constitution gives preference to the federal government.
So what to do about the economic “crises” ?(it’s not a crises…yet. That term has lost meaning. Everything is a crises nowadays.) If the problem is debt (it is…personal debt leads to bad mortgages, bad mortgages leads to bad banks, bad banks lead to bad markets) then the solution lies in resolving debt. Personal debt being resolved by individuals: Yes, stop spending, and pay down debt. Most Americans are doing that thus slowing the economy. This means that there will be business losses. Those businesses in insane debt (GM, *cough*) need to get out of debt, not go further in it. If its real bad, there is a mechanism to resolve debt when unable to pay: bankruptcy. This goes up the chain. The ones who come of this, regardless of whatever the “stimulus” scheme is, are those who are able to get out of debt, stay out of debt, and begin to rebuild for the next cycle.
The “stimulus” is simply the last leg of the chain: market debt is now becoming National Debt. We can’t pass the buck any further. High Inflation and High Taxes are what’s in store. Prepare accordingly.
Remember Ira Magaziner, Hillary’s henchman on her task force to reform health care? He was always a big proponent of government stabilization of the economy. He wanted it done through central planning with the government choosing the winners and losers ahead of time and formulating its policy accordingly. Last I heard, he’s some mucky-muck at Bill’s foundation, but he might be amenable to another government position. Maybe the Obamites should look him up.
#10, We can’t pass the buck any further. High Inflation and High Taxes are what’s in store.
High Inflation tends to trump high taxes,and for those of us deeply in debt,bring it on.
I do admire J-Rubs brilliance – a top rate economist WITH the ability to foresee the future – she knows that Obama and his stimulus bill failed before it left the gate- that we might as well call it a night. Jut don’t call this typical Republican defeatism…
It is utter nonsense to say people who have been working in our financial-investment industry have been ‘Bailed out.” There are a few who may seem to have missed a complete beat down of their wealth, a well connected few, such as Robert Rubin and Sandy Weill. There are hundreds of thousands who are out of work, collecting unemployment while they can, and desperately looking for work. The lucky ones who still remain have seen their personal net worth drop to what it was ten to 20 years ago. They have to start building their wealth all over again at a time when their business is a fraction of what it was two years ago.
As macroeconomist Steven Horwitz points out, most of these efforts make the economy LESS stable (read some Friedrich Hayek or Roger Garrison or Steven Horwitze to see how and why).
Listening to David Brooks talk about economics is like listening to your garbageman talk about heart surgery or gene splicing. You’re the moron if you take him seriously.
Warpublican,
What “stimulas package” are you talking about?
Team Obama hasn’t passed a “stimulas” bill, the only thing they did was ram through a spending bill with billions for his friends, tens of billions for his political allies, and NOTHING for the American economy, except another trillion in debt heaped on the trillions The United States already owes.
We don’t have an economic plan in place, all we get is endless hints, suggestions, tentative proposals, trotted out theories and talking head commentary, —————— but so far, WE HAVEN’T SEEN A REAL ECONOMIC PLAN rolled out.
Team Obama is trying to replicate their successful campaign policy of zen like indifference, aloofness and Olympian detachment.
THE MARKETS are tanking.
RUNS are going on our banks. Not lines such as in the Dustbowl era, but runs nonetheless, albeit ELECTRONIC RUNS.
When one of the JVers on team Obama trotts out a bank nationalization proposal as an ingredient in the stabilization plan that has yet to emerge, that triggered a vast electronic run on our banks.
Keystone coppers, JVers, 2d raters, unready-for-prime-timers, ———————– in a word, LIBERALS, ——————– they don’t know what the hell they’re doing!
Team Obama is before our very eyes breaking and shattering Excallibur!
RCAR:
“Pete, Because Government has the power to legislate business, you can never have certainty as to what they will legislate. What smart businesses do is to “influence” legislation that favors their business,and that process is a certainty,and you know that.”
This is why I favor a situation in which the government has the least possible control of business.