A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money
Senator Everett Dirksen, a hawk during the Vietnam era, is credited with coining the sarcastic phrase.
However, forty years later, it should be updated to read a trillion here and there. For instance, one of the articles highlighted in the Viewpoints section today details the ever expanding blackhole that is the accounting system(s) used by the Defense of Defense: “The Pentagon’s $1 Trillion Problem.”
It is arguably a depressing piece if for no other reason than to serve as a sobering update to a 3-year-old SFGate report, “Military waste under fire – $1 trillion missing.”
While the details of either investigation may not surprise the readers of AWC, the fact that these problems not only continue but geometrically grow could arguably serve as yet another empirical case-study of how socialism cannot calculate. The military, a bastion for the purest form of socialism, has neither the incentive, the knowledge, nor the ability to price goods and services — let alone produce accurate records of its own nefarious activities.
In many cases it is the sole consumer of vehicles and armaments whose existence is entirely alien to the market-based world that must satisfy wants and needs by providing useful and productive services to potential customers.
And in other instances its insatiable appetite distorts the market-clearing price for commonly used goods such as oil.
Even if a unified, common accounting system was implemented, institutional inertia comprised by secret committees, kleptocratic planners, and politically-controlled technocrats will perpetually fail to coordinate a Byzantine bureaucracy that inherently cannot communicate or calculate.
And there is little reason to believe that the engine for state growth – the health of the state – will be muted or diminished in the coming decades.
See also: Socialism, by Ludwig von Mises
The Security-Industrial-Congressional Complex, by Robert Higgs
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
(1) Whether Dirksen ever voiced the quotation,“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money” exactly as phrased is discussed in great detail and with admirable insight here:
http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm
There is to date apparently no documentary record of the exact quotation, though there are many witnesses who claim to have heard him say it, and the quotation was contemporaneously attributed to him. It is an interesting case of source criticism, quite apart from the sentiment, and especially as it was relatively recent and the records are dense.
(2) You are right to attribute the purest form of financial unaccountability to the American military, but to call it “socialist”" is tendentious. In fact, the financial unaccountability of the US Military, and the military-industrial complex behind it, is a special and unusual case historically, and it is putatively “Capitalist”.
Many Socialist regimes and even the old Soviets are or were much more abstemious in their military spending. Krushchev is a good example–he saw immediately that missiles were the cheapest response to the grandiose threats of the Strategic Air Command, and the Soviets, wisely, never bothered to compete toe to toe in what they considered a losing proposition.
The Americans, on the other hand, still believing the myth that strategic air power won World War II, have continued on the same disastrous path with the obscenely expensive and mostly useless Stealth initiative.
The point is that this is financially unaccountable “Militarism”, and is pursued by a supposedly “capitalistic” state.
To call it “Socialist” is put an ideological spin on it that it does not easily bear.
Historically it is Fascists and National Socialists that tend toward the biggest military expenditures, including such regimes as Israel and the United States.
One does not deny, on the other hand, that many Socialist and Communist parties mimic military organization, as did in fact also the early Christian Church. Part of this is, as with the Bolsheviki, what is viewed as the most effective form of organization for a revolutionary group.
The Soviet Communists–it is also true, and especially under Stalin–tried to carry that party organization over to society at large.
SanFernandoCurt
April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Wow! You’re right. That’s scary. I never thought of the military as a perfect socialist template before, but… it’s plain to me now. And in that pretext, the People’s Republic of GI Joe is almost as frightening as… the American healthcare industry. Except the medicos have the power of DIRECT taxation when they rob insured Peter to suture indigent Paul. No middle man…
$5 aspirin… anyone?
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
corr:”is to put”
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am
$5 aspirin is not a Socialist approach–it is rather the wet dream of the monopoly Capitalist, eh?
Having made “Socialist”, like “Liberal” or “Communist” or “Anarchist” or, for that matter “Libertarian” or “Conservative”–a charged and abusive term, it does not accomplish anything throwing it at whatever one finds lacking, and without analysis.
In fact, it obscures important issues.
“Monopoly Militarism” is perhaps the better term.
My own use of “Fascist”, by the way, is keyed on specific predicates, including, after Mussolini, the merging of State and Corporation.
SanFernandoCurt
April 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“…a charged and abusive term…”
Like… “capitalist”.
Yeah… I know. Capitalists are always evil and capitalism is always exploitative. On the other hand, in our cosmos – that dimension of reality in which we breathe air and around the sun does turn the earth, the moon and Mars – socialism means dachas for the few and green potatoes for the many.
Ahh, human nature… that nettlesome little snare…
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Marx invented Capitalism.
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Our cosmos”–hehe.
If you are a follower of the nonsense of Ayn Rand you are in deep doo-doo epistemologically.
If you are mindlessly repeating supposed enlightenments like, “Capitalism good, Communism bad”–there may be a modicum of hope.
That is more like the secretary who, taught only shorthand, cannot write in longhand or type out the full form.
Perhaps she can still learn.
Take three $5 aspirins and drink a lot Perrier.
SanFernandoCurt
April 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
…And what do you sensibly repeat, Eugene? …In the constraints of frustrating reality?
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Presuming the question is serious, one might ask why you phrased it as “What do you repeat sensibly” as opposed to, say, “How do you repeat sensibly”.
cemmcs
April 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
How about this? Spending all this money on war, destruction and/or the instruments thereof is just f**king stupid!
Eric
April 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
You people go into contortions to turn the wrongness of war into a mere prop for libertarian ideologizing.
Could it be that spending trillions on wars of aggression would be wrong anyway — even if someone could show that it was “good” for the economy?
You’re like a religious fundamentalist who can’t figure out whether something is right or wrong unless he can a find some Bible verse that tells him the answer.
InchoateDetail
April 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Amen to that Eric!
War is WRONG. PERIOD.
justaguy
April 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Well, Sanfernandocurt, you should pay a visit to the Scandinavian “socialist” countries or even France before Sarkozy does too much damage before you comment again. These countries have far and away the best indicators of human development on the planet and they are model socialist mixed economies i.e. government and commerce function in their own sectors of efficient use.
The USSR was not the template for Socialism in any way. More like state capitalism.
SanFernandoCurt
April 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Jabber, this is Wocky. Wocky… Jabber.
Kenneth
April 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Aye, justaguy. The USSR did not abolish capitalist production relations- they were merely subsumed into the Soviet state.
Kenneth
April 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Well, “stupid” presupposes some kind of shared value set. As it happens, spending trillions on war is quite “intelligent” from the standpoint of maximizing contractors’ profits and extending American hegemony at the expense of the general public. And, of course, let us not forgot Israel.
Tim R.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
We spend so much money as it is. 500 billion for the Defense Dept., etc.Can’t we invest say, 50 billion dollars or so, and create a new “Manhattan Project” type of program so we can get off foreign oil? Get the greatest scientific minds and give them all the resources they need to figure out a plan to get us off of fossil fuels. I mean the possibilities are endless, solar, hydro electric, wind mill, bio fuel, hybrids, we just need to set aside some money and put the force of our government behind it.
We can save the environment, help stop global warming AND stop giving money to filthy terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia all at the same time.
Come on, its a good idea. Go with me on this!
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It scarcely ever fails to amuse when someone says, “It’s all words!”.
Come again?
justaguy
April 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Nice idea Timmy, but the trade deficit on energy is but a spit in the ocean of US debt and it’s cause/s. manufactures make up the single largest proportion of that.
The inevitable morphing of monopoly capitalism to outright fascism at home is the US’s biggest problem morally, economically and financially.
And please don’t spruik for biofuels, it is a dangerous scam that will ensure mass starvation on a global scale and thus more war.
the Legendary Bill
April 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Terrorists? You mean like the IDF?
Eric
April 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Touché!
lear k
April 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
In 2007,the US crude oil import in thousands-barrels per day was as follows:
Canada 1864
Mexico 1410
Venezuela 1150
Nigeria 1082
_______________ a total of
5506 thouasands-barrels per day
The US ,however,import only 1453 thouasands-barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, a fraction of the US total import.The Saudis do not force the US to import oil from them!
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
C’est pire qu’un crime, c’est une faute.
[Talleyrand]
Pardon, just trying to add a bit of Kulchur.
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
“Vous êtes de la merde dans un bas de soie!”
[Bonaparte]
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
“Le peuple français est civilisé, et son souverain ne l’est pas.”
[Talleyrand]
Eugene Costa
April 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
“What in heaven’s name is strange about a grandmother dancing nude? I’ll bet lots of grandmothers do it.”
[Sally Rand]
More Kulchur.
TheTruth
April 16th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Let’s just call it corporate communism.
JC
April 16th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Well done Tim. I finally agree with comments by your good self!
It is of course a wonderful idea, Whats more it would be successful.
Lots of money , top minds,and the motivation to save the planet, couldn’t miss.
The sting in the tail of course is the fact that no Government would touch it
because there would be no money in it for their mates.
R. Nelson
April 17th, 2008 at 12:25 am
It’s never quite clear if and when you’re pulling our legs, Tim, but this post is different. Talk about deliberate, and sloppy, provocation. A little subtlety would go a lot farther than ham-fisted prodding like this.