Being Consistent in our Argument

David Brooks has a weird column today, about the overconfidence that our government has because it wants to set executive compensation at some of the banks.

Again, the issue is not whether government acts, but whether it acts with
an awareness of the limits of its knowledge. Sometimes we seem to have a
government with no sense of those limits, no sense that perhaps government
officials don’t know how to restructure General Motors, pick the most promising
battery technology, re-engineer the health care system from the top, or
fine-tune the complex system of executive pay.

"Limits of its knowledge...." If only Brooks applied this truth across the board. How about the ability of government to invade and occupy and rebuild another country in another culture clear around the world? Did he use this fine principle to oppose our hubristic invasion of Iraq? I did, but he didn't.

How about our current military buildup in Afghanistan? Why do we think we're going to be able to accomplish that kind of nation-building in that wild country? Is Brooks for or against it? I'm against it, for the very reason he cites, the 'limits of our knowledge".

Personally, I think it's crazy for our government to be setting individual executive's pay. The thing is, however, we basically own several of these companies, don't we? I know that's the case with AIG and GM and probably several others. So setting the salaries is probably justified.

Frankly, I wish we would have done to them what we normally do to banks. Put them through bankruptcy and make sure they won't do again what they did the last time.