[FoRK] Capitalism, Contracts and Cronyism

J. Andrew Rogers andrew at ceruleansystems.com
Tue Aug 26 12:51:05 PDT 2008


On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:20 PM, geege schuman wrote:
> Uhm, not exactly.  Haliburton is not "the Government."  If we're  
> supposed to
> buy (literally and figuratively) into the privatization of military  
> support,
> then sell us on cost SAVINGS, not BLEEDING (again, literally and
> figuratively).


Haliburton is the company that governments use to do government things  
when the government would be too slow to do it themselves. Not just  
the US government but a couple dozen other national governments as  
well.  They are only required to be marginally more efficient and less  
corrupt than the governments they work for, and there is not much in  
the way of viable competitors in that market to force efficiency.

It is not a big stretch to suggest that shitty privatization is still  
more efficient than having the government do it themselves.  Even the  
crustiest of big old companies was never as bloated and inefficient as  
the Federal government in my experience.  If government was competent,  
companies like Haliburton would have no reason to exist and they've  
thrived for decades.


> Funny how you'll shrug away an economic *reality* and get all freaky  
> over an
> economic *prediction*.  To shrug you'd have to categorize a whole  
> lot of
> Iraq expenditures as Good Old Pork (GOP).  Is that what you're doing?


I am not going to waste too much time looking in the rear view  
mirror.  You can't change "now", but you can change "tomorrow".  The  
Democrats have wasted no time gorging themselves at the trough, so I  
do not see how railing about pork will make a difference.  Democrats  
or Republicans, both will attempt to max the credit card on pork.   
There is no one interested in stopping pork from either party, so it  
is a futile battle.

It suggests some misplaced priorities to focus on existing stupidity  
that cannot be realistically changed while ignoring gross future  
stupidity that can be prevented.  This is not "funny", it is pragmatic  
and results-oriented.

J. Andrew Rogers



More information about the FoRK mailing list