market economics: bollocks to it all
While we're all shitting our pants about those cheeky rogue states' possession of dual-use technology, this might make for interesting reading:
What is a Dual Use Technology? A technology that has both military utility and sufficient commercial potential to support a viable industrial base.The above, live and direct from the Department of Defence Dual Use fact sheet. In the interests of world peace and international understanding, perhaps Iraqi microwave oven owners could receive US Department of Defense Dual Use Technology Awards. Meanwhile, our friends the unnamed senior US officials have been busy again telling scary stories 'bout meanies in the desert and their evil germ toys. But:
Objectives: To partner with industry to jointly fund the development of dual use technologies needed to maintain our technological superiority on the battlefield and for industry to remain competitive in the marketplace.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration, having got atropine into the public eye, began kicking up a stink about it in the UN security council. Twice in the last two weeks, it threatened to block a renewal of the oil-for-food programme unless action was taken to stop Iraq acquiring atropine and other substances. Had the US carried out its threat, Iraq would by now have been unable to continue selling its oil or buying food and other civilian goods from abroad - another way, perhaps, of tightening the screws around Saddam Hussein. In the event, a crisis was averted and the American antics achieved little more than annoying other members of the security council.Sweet dreams, y'all.
Comments
From a purely economic standpoint:
There is a theory in macroeconomics that the less money that government spends on itself, the better, insofar as the only thing that monetary policymakers can do is tax and spend. The less they use of their own money to make "weapons" (which is clearly not the only thing that the military is interested in making, if you read some of those examples), then the less money they will take from the citizens to fund their war machine.
Another point would be that some theorists argue that commercial interaction like this actually benefits the entire marketplace. Take for example the military's innovation from about thirty years ago. The internet?
See, if something is developed to make life more affordable, even for some and not all, that at least contributes to the expansion and a better life for more down the road. And no, that's not reagan's trickle down theory.
That's the theory of new growth. More people spending time innovating new technology makes life better for all of us.
And yes, the end result in YOUR focus is that some of this technology and rules can be used to squeeze Saddam Hussein's country. But Saddam Hussein's "The Great Hope of Iraq" is also doing just what you might be implying, which is to squeeze out innumerable people in his kingdom from promoting and using any resources to create things for themselves or the country.
He is just the opposite of what we do here, and while I would not say, Gwen, that you are a Saddam Hussein, I would say, that your hatred for market economies "bullocks to it all," is a parallel to the idea that isolating innovation to do specific things that you want them to do, does share similarities to dictatorial thinking.
we must realize that humans are animals. and the market is an animal. perhaps you and i can agree somewhere, gwen, that we can share resources, and promote innovation, even with a military, since, as animals, humans will do anything to get what they want.
or maybe, I'm just brainwashed by the system.
Posted by: blitzpurple | December 10, 2002 6:19 AM
um, like this?
good product introduction into a hungry market?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845178.asp?cp1=1
Posted by: roger | December 10, 2002 10:48 AM
Actually, tiger, the market is great. If not a little embarrassing sometimes. Hence the desire not to let all the Security Council member nations see the whole dossier on Iraq's arms lest they see the words 'Made in America' or 'Made in the UK' too often. Oops.
Posted by: gwen | December 10, 2002 12:05 PM
Not to mention the words 'Made in France', 'Made in Russia' or 'Made in China'.
A good, healthy dose of free market economics would be good right about here:
The battle lines between the Western-based pharmaceutical industry and companies in the developing world that produce generic drugs have grown sharper this month, with anti-AIDS drugs being at the heart of this dispute. And the catalysts in such a turn of events include Cipla, an Indian pharmaceutical company, and the government of Brazil, both adamant in challenging the stance of the pharmaceutical industry that it decides who should produce anti-AIDS drugs and at what price they should be sold.
Posted by: gwen | December 10, 2002 12:53 PM