The Weekend Hit
Joshua Foust on Jan 27 2008 at 1:49 pm | Filed under: Developmental economics, Foreign affairs
Two weeks into my new job, I am loving it. I’m sick from sleep deprivation and brand new Midwestern pathogens (and subzero—in centigrade—temperatures!), but it’s wonderful. I can’t believe I get paid to do this… hell, I couldn’t believe I got paid to do my last job. Regardless, much has happened, and there is much to do.
- I’ve taken a lot of grief for my incessant badgering of the Instapundit. So I’ll only note that, once again, he doesn’t really seem to understand what he’s linking to (and he “threw up?” Really?). Breathe, people: capitalist programs targeted at economic growth amongst the world’s poor aren’t, according to Larry “OMG I’M LOUD” Kudlow, “turning a cold shoulder” to capitalism, they are explicitly recognizing that capitalism has the best chance of lifting the poor out of poverty. That is the entire concept behind “Base of the Pyramid,” or BoP, thinking. Much more on the concept is on hand at NextBillion.net, which is all about using capitalism to turn the poorest five billion people on this planet into a dynamic market. But of course, you wouldn’t know this reading Instapundit.
- My latest Afghanistan blogger roundup is posted at Global Voices Online. It’s worth reading for information about the issues over returning refugees and police corruption.
- I remain amazed at the fidelity of open-source satellite intel on U.S. adversaries. There is this overview of North Korean nuclear facilities. Then there is this view of Osama bin Laden’s supposed stomping ground along the Durand Line.
- Another declaration by some 2-bit police chief that Iran is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remain deeply skeptical that Iran is as a matter of policy supplying the Taliban with weapons, given the ferocity of their proxy-war against the Taliban just a few years ago. More so than that is the eagerness with which they collaborated with the U.S. to oust the Taliban in 2002–without some sort of compelling argument for why their strategic calculus would have suddenly elevated American sanctions over the destabilization and economic ruin the Taliban represented (to say nothing of the potential genocide against Hazaras and Tajiks), I don’t believe it. Now, some elements within Iran may very well be smuggling weapons across the border… those smuggling routes probably never went away once the Taliban fled nearly six years ago (the smuggling groups are too powerful to be scared away that easily). But until someone can point to why Tehran would want to undercut Ismail Khan, the de-facto owner of Herat and Farah, who has been Iran’s go-to boy for decades, it’s just hyperventilating to assume they’re sending land mines to the Taliban.
- Charlie raises an interesting point about COIN in India: why isn’t it studied more? I honestly don’t know… insurgency has a long history in Asia, but most of our doctrine seems drawn from European colonialists. That seemed limiting to me, but I don’t feel too comfortable commenting on the subject very much. I’m glad Charlie voices those concerns about our western-centricity much better.
- IKEA comes to Kazakhstan!
- Even more importantly, Admiral Fallon visited Tashkent. Nathan peers inside what this might mean.
Well congratulations Josh. Damn, one day I hope to know what that feels like.
Oh, the Reynolds thing about throwing up is actually a cultural reference, a line from a Ben Stiller movie I think.
yours/
peter.
Yeah, it’s actually really nice
Getting paid to do your hobby is unbelievable.
You’re right, he could have been quoting Zoolander. My point stands.
No it doesn’t, since Reynolds believes exactly what you are arguing, and Gates was arguing something a bit different that what FP is claiming. So, I guess FP deserves the same disdain that you claim Reynolds does, because they don”t get what Gates was saying either. Of course Reynolds didn’t say a bunch of nonsense, he just linked to someone else’s opinion. Given that Reynolds has a long history of linking to people espousing all the views FP is claiming are in line with Gates, you now are guilty of the sin you are accusing him of. You linked to someone who missed Gates’ point, and you acted as if Reynolds doesn’t believe in such things. At least Reynolds when he linked to someone you disagreed with didn’t say a bunch of stuff to dig the hole.
Look, with all the bloggers out there saying truly offensive things, many as big or bigger than Reynolds, pick a more deserving target, someone whose sin that isn’t he doesn’t agree with you. Doubly so since you want to hold him accountable for every link, even when cursory knowledge of the man let’s you know he doesn’t really disagree with you. The original term for weblog was in reference to a collection of interesting links. It wasn’t about commentary. Disagree with his commentary, though rarely does it deserve the snarky crap you spew out at him, but his links? He is one of the last to practice the art of blogging that way, let him do it.
Oh, and while I think Kudlow in that quote is over the top, a sin which you, given our conversation over your quote of Keith, feel is okay anyway, FP manages to give a misleading impression of Kudlow’s argument as well, which outside of that quote is pretty spot on.
That being said, the FP piece makes some great points, and I love Next Billion. And if I wasn’t pointing out the meanspirited nature of your use of the piece, I wouldn’t spend much time attacking it just because I find some aspects of it a bit off. Generally it is right, and Gates shouldn’t be characterized as endorsing communist era planning even in passing.
Lance, then a lot of us apparently have seen something in Gates’ speech neither Kudlow nor Reynolds saw. Read the link at NextBillion.net, which confirms what Hounshell at FP was saying. How was Bill Gates not saying that capitalism should serve the dual purpose of generating profit AND lifting people out of poverty? How was he turning his back on the system that made him rich? I don’t get it.
Okay, fine. But still: I don’t get where Gates said something bad.
I didn’t say he did. Then, neither did Reynolds. Nor is Blake aka Praktike, saying anything really bad. There are aspects of Gates’ speech I take issue with, but not seriously. Kudlow was over the top, but the meat of his piece was fine as well. You have an example of people talking past each other. Gates does make claims about Capitalism which are unwarranted, I just don’t care about them enough to say nasty things about him, as you seem to insist with Reynolds. Minor nits which others have addressed:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/bill_gatess_kind_capitalism_is.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/01/bill-gates-was.html
I read through the links, and honestly it sounds more than anything like Gates is confused and his ideas aren’t fully baked. I’m thrilled that he’s discovered Julian Simon, Borlaug, and Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, but he shouldn’t call his theory “creative capitalism,” he should call it “creative philanthropy.” Someone needs to put Hayek’s The Fatal Conceit on Gates’ night table. Gates needs to grasp the scope of human ignorance in general and his own in particular. Capitalism can’t be altered simply by recompiling code or stiff-arming a competitor.
Capitalism is economics, it simply is, making “creative capitalism” a non-sequitur, much like “creative linguistics.” Trying to change economics to help those in poverty is like trying to change a language to help the illiterate. It’s ass-backwards. I believe this is what Kudlow and Reynolds were reacting to.
yours/
peter.