There are no prostitutes in Israel

by Russ Roberts on May 2, 2008

in Politics

Early this morning, I turned my radio on and heard the very end of an interview on talk radio. I picked it up in mid-paragraph and here is what I heard, an imperfect transcript from a half-awake brain:

In World War II, the Democrats controlled the Presidency and the Congress, but they were careful to make sure the money was well-spent. The Truman Commission made sure there was no war profiteering. But because of the war in Iraq, Halliburton stock has tripled.

My mind must have wandered because the next remark I remember, while related to the war in Iraq, seemed to be a bit of a non-sequitor, but it was part of the general theme that Iraq was disaster:

The Philippines doesn’t want any of its people there–they’re worried about workers being kidnapped or held hostage or harmed so passports from the Philippines say "Not good for Iraq" but the American forces ignore this, they just wave them through, so you have 7000 workers from the Philippines working in Iraq so this has global repercussions.

Hmmm. Global repercussions? Workers without passports doesn’t really strike me as the most important global repercussion of the American adventure in Iraq. Who was this guy?

It was Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in economics.

He’s so worried about America’s relationship with the Phillippines that he wants to stop people from working who are evidently pretty desperate? That’s a little weird to me. But the real weirdness is the claim the Republicans are venal while Democrats are noble and idealistic who would never allow profiteering (love that word) during a war. 

I’m sure Halliburton has made a great deal of money in Iraq. I’m sure the whole process stinks. But maybe Stiglitz doesn’t know enough about Halliburton. One of their subsidiaries is Kellogg, Brown and Root, (KBR) formerly Brown and Root, the firm that helped LBJ and that LBJ helped in turn during war and peace. Halliburton acquired Brown and Root in 1962.

Maybe "helped" is too modest a term. Both LBJ and the Root brothers became immensely rich from their mutual efforts.

If you have not read it, please read at least the first volume of Caro’s biography of LBJ. It is very long. But it is perhaps the finest portrait of the thirst for power in a human being that you will ever read. It will remind you that yes, even Democrats like to give money to their friends in return for favors later.

When I was a 16 years old, my family lived in Israel–my father’s company sent him there on a project. While we were there, my aunt came for a visit and after a day of touring the country with some group, she serenely informed us that there were no prostitutes in Israel. How did she know? Her tour guide had told her so. It was a nice thought. It’s nice to think that only holiness pervades the Holy Land and that the holy people who live there would neither staff nor demand the services of the world’s oldest profession. But even I suspected otherwise.

Joseph Stiglitz knows better as well. But he is a partisan, evidently. I am glad not to be one.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • We might get into a discussion about how Truman's operation of the commission to prevent profiteering simply never had a shot at B&R, or somesuch.


    But I'm fascinated by this idea: Why do you seem to approve of Filipinos working illegally in Iraq for their profit and the profit of their American corporations, while the zeitgeist in America is that illegal workers should be deported, if not shot?


    Do you think no Republicans will read this blog and figure you out?

  • vidyohs

    For a pretty damn good report on how corruption was carried on during WWII read,

    "Trading with the Enemy" by Charles Higham. It can be found on Amazon.com


    You have to remember that Truman did not conduct but a small part of WWII, FDR and his cronies did the main part.


    Standard Oil, hmmmm? Dunlop Tires. Hmmm? Ford Motor Co., hmmmm? General Motors, hmmmm? General Analine (Bayer), hmmmm? Bank of America, hmmmm? IT&T, hmmmm? Lord lord the list goes on and one.


    Opens your eyes to what politics and money are really like when hidden from view.


  • Kook

    Enlightening!

  • Mesa Econoguy

    PS, Stiglitz is a wanker.

  • Mesa Econoguy

    Diz pretty much nailed it above, as did Prof. Roberts.


    KBR provides an extremely high-risk (profiteering?) service, and receives a requisite premium for it. That should be completely unsurprising to everyone, including and especially Paul Krugman, and this Stiglitz guy, who I’m finding to be more and more amateurish the more I read of him.


    Evidently Stiglitz has never studied CAPM.


    Risk and reward/return are economically and historically linked and evaluatable; some of the greatest risks have been rewarded handsomely, others were total disasters.


    Insurance, particularly the Lloyds of London insurance syndicate (the world’s first insurer), is a direct evolution of this investment evaluation philosophy. Risk is a largely diversifiable and controllable investment parameter, and when used prudently, can lead to large wealth creation and/or protection.


    The mechanisms and financial instruments (derivatives) are used in financial hedging, portfolio insurance, and multiple other financial applications to minimize risk, even in what appears to be risky transactions.


  • Ray Gardner

    Using the accepted definition of "profiteering" from the Left, there was plenty of it during WWII.


    What comes to my mind is the labor strikes.


    One book I have somewhere on the shelves about Pappy Boyington's Marine fighter squadron has a scathing quote by their XO about how they felt at the time upon hearing that the boys back home who were "supporting" the war were striking for a better wage.

    The XO had just written a letter to a newly minted widow when he heard the strike news and so it was a bitter moment.

  • Aw Russ. I know where you're coming from. My grandmother informed me last week that Barrack Obama is a Muslim. "How do we know that he isn't one in his heart?" she asked. I'm not gonna vote for the guy, no chance. But imagine the things your aunt would say today if she had friends that sent her email.

  • Cassandra

    Diz,


    Thanks for some background on Haliburton. It helps to get some input from someone who actually works in the field of energy.


    It is very tempting to think that one can understand the complexity of different industries through extensive reading or looking at a few financial reports. It is a bit like the banker who thinks that he could run a business by virtue of making loans and dealing with business customers.


    Thanks for reminding us to listen to others and remember that education is the process of defining the boundaries of one's ignorance.

  • Gerard D.

    I am not surprised. Joseph Stiglitz came to the London School of Economics to give a presentation on his new book "the 3 trillion dollar war" in January and the whole time he was making absurd propagandist remarks that were completely unlike what you would expect from a rigorous and analytical mind. I was extremely unimpressed and in fact insulted that as a nobel laureate he would expect his audience to be so vacuous as to fall for it. Shame on him. But then again, I could say a similar thing about Paul Krugman who came to present last year...

  • diz

    My understanding is that Halliburton provides some services in Iraq that no other company offers. I've never heard any evidence that Halliburton is able to prevent other companies from competing with them. No other has stepped up to do it. Good work if you can get it, I suppose.


    I wouldn't argue that Halliburton hasn't benefitted from Iraq, but to assert that a tripling in their stock price is due to work in Iraq is silly.


    It's an intellectually lazy, uber partisan argument. One that cannot stand up to 3 or 4 minutes of analysis.


    I live in Texas and work in the energy business. I experience Halliburton first and foremost as one of the several oilfield services companies you can hire when you need work done on a well.


    This was true long before Dick Cheney spent a few years there, and made them a convenient symbol for those making intellectually lazy, partisan arguments.


    It is kind of sad that a Nobel Prize winner wouldn't bother to acquaint himself with some basic facts. And sad that he doesn't have anyone surrounding him or editing him who understands what Halliburton does, or even thought to ask.

  • At least Democrats are openly, uh, 'progressive' (progressively growing government). Republicans talk one way, walk another.


    Where both parties fall down is their pretense of nobility.

  • Flash Gordon

    My understanding is that Halliburton provides some services in Iraq that no other company offers. I've never heard any evidence that Halliburton is able to prevent other companies from competing with them. No other has stepped up to do it. Good work if you can get it, I suppose.


    I read Caro's first volume on LBJ years ago and was riveted by it. I think I came away with more respect for LBJ after the first volume, but Caro's second volume burst that bubble.


    I don't think partisanship is necessarily a bad thing if it one does not allow it to close their mind. I'm a partisan for anything that will defeat liberal Democrats because I believe they represent a threat to liberty (everyone's liberty). Same for liberal Republicans, but at least that is not all Republicans. Maybe not all Democrats either but you could put all the Democrats who aren't trying to take your liberty away in a phone booth, that is, if you could find a phone booth.

  • diz

    Another detail that reveals hackery of the worst sort:


    Halliburton is not just the personification of evil, it's an oilfield service company in the middle of a worldwide oilfield drilling boom.


    If you compare Halliburton's performance to competitiors the entire Oil Field Service Index (OSX), you can see it's performance is not unique for the sector.


    http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/intchart.asp?submitted=true&intflavor=advanced&symb=%24OSX&origurl=%2Ftools%2Fquotes%2Fintchart.asp&time=8&freq=1&startdate=&enddate=&hiddenTrue=&comp=hal&compidx=aaaaa%7E0&compind=aaaaa%7E0&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=1&optstyle=1013

  • Chris

    brian --


    I think the partisanship is evident from (1) the implication that Democrats don't allow war-profiteering, but Republicans do (the comparison of WWII to Iraq) and (2) the criticism he levies for the US allowing Filipinos to work in Iraq, despite the passport restriction.


    LBJ is just a well-known counter example to Stiglitz' implication, demonstrating that he was selecting certain facts while ignoring others in order to make a partisan point.


    I suppose it's conceivable that the WWII/Iraq comparison is non-partisan, but then why talk about the Democrats at all? He could have just said "In WWII, the Truman Commission made sure there wasn't any war profiteering . . ."

  • brian

    Russ-


    I don't understand your post. You say that Stiglitz is a partisan, citing the fact that he did not bring up LBJ's corruption as proof...? From his quote that you recounted, he doesn't say that Democrats never allow war profiteering, or anything of the sort. Did he say such a thing?

  • Illuminating info about LBJ, thanks!

  • Peter St. Onge

    It's sad when an intelligent person turns partisan - it feels like talking to a robot, or a zombie. Milton Friedman had a quote to the effect that getting deeply involved in policy is soul-gutting...


    Oh, and have to agree with previous posters that the title's inspired!

  • Jp

    I hate to be a grammar nag, but "My mind must of wandered" should read "My mind must have wandered" (or, "My mind must've wandered"). The use of "of" in that sentence is a misunderstanding of spoken English, because we don't fully pronounce "have," most of the time, just the end, which comes out sounding like "of." You wouldn't say, for example, "My mind of wandered." You'd say "My mind has wandered." Same deal, different tense. "Could of" is another very common version of the same mistake.


    Fixed. Thanks, Jp.

  • Mace

    Caro's book forever changed my perception of politics and the motives of politicians. What can I say? I was young and stupid when that book came out.

  • "read at least the first volume of Caro's biography of LBJ. It is very long. But it is perhaps the finest portrait of the thirst for power in a human being that you will ever read."


    I'll second that, as a political scientist and teacher of the presidency. It's a fascinating read, and Caro's detailing of LBJ's lust for power is like an auto accident--you know it's appalling, but you can't help being fascinated.

  • oh, and...looks like you're getting more of a marketing approach to titles, Russ.

  • the more economics I'm reading, the more I'm equally disgusted by both parties' great ideas. It makes for bad dinner conversations, though, to be so equally nauseated.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: