One Big Project

by on October 2, 2008 · 10 comments

Don Marti has one of those posts I can’t resist reprinting in its entirety:

The New York Times columnists have gone to the well for reasonable pro-bailout arguments and come up dry. Time to fall back to name-calling. People who don’t favor handing over $700 billion to known financial failures are “nihilists”, “madmen”, and “idiots”. Look, Rep. Pete Stark, as a former bank founder and CEO, has more bank knowledge than the bailout cheerleaders, and he has come out against it. Rep. Stark is a Democrat, but this bailout issue isn’t the Republicans against the Democrats, or the free-marketers against the statists. It’s common sense against One-Big-Project-Can-Solve-Everything-ism. Let’s bulldoze a neighborhood for One Big Freeway, and put the people in One Big Tower. Let’s put a huge percentage of the federal budget into One Big Airplane for the USAF. Let’s all read One Big Newspaper. Or let’s do One Big Bailout. Come on, people. That never works. If there are bailouts needed, make them small, and focus them on the people who need them. Borrowers who are paying on deceptively sold mortgages? Municipalities that need bond underwriting? Fine, dig up some of the many good ideas floating around economics departments, and use them. Local and regional banks, which didn’t post the paper winnings of the big ones, are ready to take on a bigger role. Losing gamblers, and the East Coast Media Elite that wants to throw good money after bad? Let them fail.

And, he might have added, the One Big Operating System doesn’t work so good either.

  • MikeRT

    Perhaps the New York Times is desperately looking for someone to bail it out. The company is doing so badly these days that maybe they're hoping that they can scoop up a stray billion or two to bolster their collapsing business.

  • Ryan Radia

    Comparing Windows to the bailout isn't even remotely reasonable.

  • http://www.tc.umn.edu/~leex1008 Tim Lee

    Is it? Obviously, there are lots of important differences, most importantly that no one is forced to use Windows. But I think Windows sucks for some of the same reasons that the bailout does: too much central planning and bureaucracy.

  • Ryan Radia

    Windows does suck in countless ways, but its the least sucky OS I've come across. Besides, when it comes to central planning and bureaucracy, you must suffer a lot more than us Windows users with your Macbook and iPhone.

  • http://www.tc.umn.edu/~leex1008 Tim Lee

    Mac OS X is a thin layer of proprietary software atop mostly open technologies.This frees Apple to focus on where they can create the most value—mostly in UI design and product integration—and tap the local knowledge of the relevant free software communities for more standardized pieces like OSes and HTML renderers. Microsoft is virtually the only vendor left that tries to build its operating system from the ground up using home-grown, proprietary technologies. And for reasons Hayek first identified, this tends to be massively less efficient than more decentralized development strategies.

  • Ryan Radia

    Comparing Windows to the bailout isn't even remotely reasonable.

  • http://www.tc.umn.edu/~leex1008 Tim Lee

    Is it? Obviously, there are lots of important differences, most importantly that no one is forced to use Windows. But I think Windows sucks for some of the same reasons that the bailout does: too much central planning and bureaucracy.

  • Ryan Radia

    Windows does suck in countless ways, but its the least sucky OS I've come across. Besides, when it comes to central planning and bureaucracy, you must suffer a lot more than us Windows users with your Macbook and iPhone.

  • http://www.tc.umn.edu/~leex1008 Tim Lee

    Mac OS X is a thin layer of proprietary software atop mostly open technologies.This frees Apple to focus on where they can create the most value—mostly in UI design and product integration—and tap the local knowledge of the relevant free software communities for more standardized pieces like OSes and HTML renderers. Microsoft is virtually the only vendor left that tries to build its operating system from the ground up using home-grown, proprietary technologies. And for reasons Hayek first identified, this tends to be massively less efficient than more decentralized development strategies.

  • http://techliberation.com/2008/11/23/yglesias-on-central-planning/ Yglesias on Capitalism and Central Planning — Technology Liberation Front

    [...] is spot-on, and it’s a theme that I’ve blogged about in the past. One of the reasons I think that Matt’s point isn’t more obvious is [...]

Previous post:

Next post: