Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (26670)	4/23/2002 11:27:26 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 281500

The Cato Institute is a legitimate operation, Libertarian in outlook, that is just as legitimate as any other well known Institute on the left. Don't know about that comparison but from where I sit they definitely have an agenda which drives their research. I had a few minutes before last minute packing so I skimmed the CATO thing. The Marshall Plan analysis is really a sort of "leverage" for them to do yet another critique of the World Bank. A couple of quick thoughts. 1. Their analysis of the Marshall Plan depends on the viability of a chunk of research done by an economist at George Mason University, Tyler Cowen. One would have to examine that research and counter arguments fairly carefully before coming to any serious conclusions. I'm afraid that issue will remain in the perpetual fourth ranking on my reading to do list. I suspect Cowen is wrong but will not take the time to examine it. Too many Arthurian novels to read ;-). 2. The report carries the usual ideological smear for such reports (by saying so I'm not denying ideological smears form the left) in which two category thinking is supposed to help one understand the world. In this one, we have "centralized command economies" and "true free market economies" as the division. Almost typed something like, give me a break. But I wouldn't do that. Furthermore, If economies are not "true free market economies" they must be "centralized command economies". Whoops, we now have a category which subsumes Soviet Russia in the 30s and the US in, say, let me guess, the 90s. That really helps us get a handle on things ;-). 3. Moreover, the very idea that the state might be good for something like building roads, providing security, let alone a small measure of humanitarian relief appears to be some sort of major transgression. We are told that "For example, for every Marshall Plan dollar that the United States gave a European government, that government had to set aside an equivalent amount of domestic currency to be used for public works or other state projects. As a result, every U.S. dollar sent to a foreign government caused that government to take another from its own private sector." Now, not to be too sardonic, that's just wonderful stuff. I gather from those quotes that (a) nothing the state sector did benefitted the private sector (roads, etc.) and (b) nothing the state did could not have been done better by the private sector to the better benefit of the entire population. Well, I've taken too long to type this. Gotta hurry. No doubt I'll have some replying to do when I get back. If anyone wishes to argue against my take on the Cato document, it prints out to 30 pages on my printer. Fast printer; slow reader. So I've only skimmed. No doubt you'll be able to find some mistakes on my part. Be my guest.