By Steven E. LandsburgPosted Monday, April 14, 2003, at 1:33 PM ET
In Iraq, the main looting ended when the coalition troops arrived. Sure, there's been some pilfering of food, appliances, medical supplies, and historical relics. But by the standards of a country whose rulers have routinely expropriated billions in oil revenue and seized whatever property struck their fancy, walking off with a jar of peanut butter and a fridge is more petty mischief than looting.
Even if you insist on calling it "looting"—in which case, I have no idea what word you'd use for the depredations of the old regime—the question remains: What, exactly, is wrong with it?
Related on washingtonpost.com
For MSN's complete coverage of the conflict in Iraq, click here.
Objections to looting—or more generally to theft—fall into two categories: the economic and the moral. The fundamental economic objection is that looting diminishes wealth; the fundamental moral objection is that people shouldn't take things that don't belong to them. Let's consider these separately.
Start with the economics. It's not immediately obvious that theft does diminish wealth. If you steal my bicycle, I'm one bicycle poorer, but you're one bicycle richer. Average wealth hasn't changed. No resources have been lost; they've just changed hands. The economic objection to theft doesn't kick in until your thievery starts distracting you from productive activities. If I've already got a bicycle, and you spend a day building a bicycle, we end up with two bicycles between us. If instead you spend your day plotting to steal my bicycle, we end up with just one bicycle between us. That's a bad outcome.
But does that objection apply in present-day Iraq? Does anybody want to argue that if only they hadn't been out stealing, the citizens of Baghdad would have been reporting to work, producing goods and services for distribution in smoothly functioning markets? The fact is that in the (hopefully brief) chaos of liberation, there probably aren't a whole lot of useful tasks for Iraqis to do. From an economic point of view, that means their time has very little value—so they might as well spend it stealing.
Another economic objection to theft is that it inspires potential victims to take costly precautions to protect themselves. Instead of hiring someone to build you a patio, you hire someone to install iron gates and a burglar alarm. The world ends up one patio poorer.
But again, this hardly seems relevant to a society that has been suddenly and temporarily plunged into chaos. Nobody in Baghdad is building patios right now anyway. (Of course, there might be some patios that went unbuilt a few months ago, as people installed iron gates in anticipation of today's looting. But that harm's already been done, whether the looting occurs or not.)
The final economic objection to theft is that people will not work and save to accumulate assets that are liable to be stolen. But this objection applies equally well to assets that are liable to be appropriated by the state. I'll bet you a dollar that the net effect of the liberation—inclusive of all the looting—will be more productivity and saving, not less.
Turning now to the moral issue, most civilized people (my ex-wife and her attorney excluded) instinctively recognize the fundamental human right to retain one's earnings, and therefore react with abhorrence to unrestrained thievery (and, if they are intellectually consistent, to marital property laws and the taxation of income). But I wonder how much of the property in Baghdad was legitimately earned in the first place. Iraq, for at least two decades, has been a society where many rewards have flowed not to those who served the needs of the marketplace, but to those who served the needs of the tyrant. If those rewards are redistributed to the tyrant's victims, that's fine with me.
That's not to say that the crowds' exuberance has been harmless; I'm sure that a lot of glass and more than a few noses have been needlessly broken, and I'm sure that some goods have been transferred to people who won't fully appreciate their value. (On the other hand, I'm also sure that some goods have been transferred from people who didn't fully appreciate their value.) But in the scheme of things, this is small potatoes. Iraq has been systematically looted for two decades. This is, one dares to believe, the beginning of the end.
One economic objection to almost all theft, and certainly looting, is that the property is probably not as valuable in the hands of the thief than it was in the hands of the original owner. The owner acquired it because he was willing to pay the creator's price, because he had some important need or use for it. The thief acquired it just because it happens to be what was there for the stealing. Further, in the case of looting, the thief depreciates the value of the property in the very act of removing it. This is evident when you watch the Iraqis tearing up buildings, and carting off computers and grand pianos. The moral objection is that, although Landsburg is almost certainly right in saying that the Iraqi government and elites had no real moral claim on the property, neither should it be awarded to the first person who was lucky, strong, and brazen enough to find it and take it. Morally the best thing to do with the property would be to "return" it to the people who have should have had it in the first place. Because there doesn't seem to be any way to do that in the Iraqi case, the next best alternative would have been to leave it in the hands of a new legitimate Iraqi government for use or redistribution. No, I'm not some kind of socialist. But, government ownership and redistribution is preferable to thief ownership. --samuelv
There are additional costs to looting, however, besides the general encouragement of a lack of virtue, the distraction from productive labor, and the need to hire guards and buy protective devices. The first, barely mentioned, is collateral damage. Something that the US is always accused of, it reminds us that when things are taken, usually other things are destroyed in the process. When a bandit searches a home for money, furnishings and mattresses, never the targets themselves, are ruined. Any effort that went into putting clothing neatly into drawers is lost. And so on. Then comes the argument drawn from biology, of coadapted complexes. The rearrangement of wealth may seem like no big deal until you realize that some combinations of things are actually worth more than the sum of their parts. A fully functioning hospital may require a generator, for example… and may not be able to function when its generator is 'reappropriated.' In an aesthetic realm, matched furnishings may be more pleasant together than when all looted by various parties. Museum collections work the same way. Thus, by disassembling things, problems are created. This is especially true when the infrastructure is pillaged, and copper wires from power distribution, for example, are removed…
In his article, it doesn't seem Steve Landsburg is saying looting is all good. He's not advocating the destruction of the property and wealth of the Iraqi people. He's just saying that when looting occurs a lot of wealth is not destroyed; it just changes hands instead. The benefits derived from the looting could be positive if the people who receive the looting appreciate the ransacked items more or it could be negative if the looters don't appreciate them more. I believe he's saying that the people (namely Saddam and his followers) whose possessions are being robbed may have obtained their items unethically in the first place anyway so it could be argued that stealing wealth from them might not be any less ethical. Since he is an economics professor, I'm sure he recognizes that there could be unfortunate costs associated with the looting. Artifacts could get trashed and people could lose personal property. However, I agree with him that these costs could be "small potatoes" compared to what already has been imposed on the Iraqi people. I'll go a step further and say that perhaps the brunt of these "small potato" costs are probably being carried by Saddam loyalists who exploited other Iraqis during the regime while the lion's share of the benefits of the looting are probably being enjoyed by those who were exploited in the first place. Sure...there may be some thugs and common criminals who are just using this war to commit petty theft against innocent citizens and pillage national treasures that are probably best left to be enjoyed by all. However, there's a lot of wealth which was held by Republican Guardsmen and Saddam himself being spread around too. I'm not for looting the museums...but who better to loot the Presidential palaces and Baath party buildings then the exploited Iraqi people themselves? I'd rather see them get the wealth there then have coalition governments secure it and sell it off as they see fit.
Steve Landsburg does a reasonably good job building a case for letting iraqi looters off the hook… however, he'll be unable to convince some of my more genteel friends. to paraphrase what i heard several times this weekend at a backyard barbecue: "I lost all respect for them (the looters) when I heard they looted the Iraqi Museum of Antiquities". the only correct response, of course, is incredulity. incredulity that the my rib munching friends cannot understand that after enduring 20 some years of oppression - and torture of their loved ones - some iraqis might be unable to discern a moral distinction between liberating a rusty air conditioner from the "iraq ministry of injustice", vs a broken vase or bronze knife blade from the building next door… i can't specifically recall, but i think the people professing their outrage at the museum looting are the same ones 12 years ago who didn't feel saddam was a menace until he set the kuwaiti oil wells on fire . . . (earth first!!!!)
The overwhelming economic objection to looting is that the whole of any functional economic entity is much greater than the sum of its parts. You would realize only a small fraction of Microsoft's true value if you plundered and redistributed its physical plant; the buildings, furniture and computers it uses to make more software. But it can't make more software without that physical plant, and its really valuable asset, the talent of its employees, becomes worthless without it. A hospital that has its beds stolen confers a trivial benefit on the beds' new owners -- they can sleep on their new acquisitions, but has a vital benefit stolen from the whole community served by the hospital -- there is no longer a place to treat the seriously ill.
How the Bailout Auction Should Work How much should the Treasury pay for distressed assets that nobody else wants? A Bils-Kremer auction could set a fair price. Steven E. Landsburg | Oct. 13, 2008
The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox How economics and game theory explain the shortage of available, appealing men. Mark Gimein | April 9, 2008
In Iraq, the main looting ended when the coalition troops arrived. Sure, there's been some pilfering of food, appliances, medical supplies, and historical relics. But by the standards of a country whose rulers have routinely expropriated billions in oil revenue and seized whatever property struck their fancy, walking off with a jar of peanut butter and a fridge is more petty mischief than looting.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
When Congress Sends a Bill to the President, Do They Use E-Mail?
Gov. Haley Barbour's Strange Habit of Pardoning Murderers Who Work on His House
Slowpoke Directors Explained: Why It Took 12 Years to Make Avatar
The Surprising Reason Banks Are Suddenly Repaying Their TARP Funds
How Come You Don't Hear About the "War on Christmas" Anymore?
Jeff Bridges Gives the Performance of the Year in Crazy Heart
Remarks from the Fray:
One economic objection to almost all theft, and certainly looting, is that the property is probably not as valuable in the hands of the thief than it was in the hands of the original owner. The owner acquired it because he was willing to pay the creator's price, because he had some important need or use for it. The thief acquired it just because it happens to be what was there for the stealing. Further, in the case of looting, the thief depreciates the value of the property in the very act of removing it. This is evident when you watch the Iraqis tearing up buildings, and carting off computers and grand pianos. The moral objection is that, although Landsburg is almost certainly right in saying that the Iraqi government and elites had no real moral claim on the property, neither should it be awarded to the first person who was lucky, strong, and brazen enough to find it and take it. Morally the best thing to do with the property would be to "return" it to the people who have should have had it in the first place. Because there doesn't seem to be any way to do that in the Iraqi case, the next best alternative would have been to leave it in the hands of a new legitimate Iraqi government for use or redistribution. No, I'm not some kind of socialist. But, government ownership and redistribution is preferable to thief ownership.
--samuelv
(To reply, click here)
There are additional costs to looting, however, besides the general encouragement of a lack of virtue, the distraction from productive labor, and the need to hire guards and buy protective devices. The first, barely mentioned, is collateral damage. Something that the US is always accused of, it reminds us that when things are taken, usually other things are destroyed in the process. When a bandit searches a home for money, furnishings and mattresses, never the targets themselves, are ruined. Any effort that went into putting clothing neatly into drawers is lost. And so on. Then comes the argument drawn from biology, of coadapted complexes. The rearrangement of wealth may seem like no big deal until you realize that some combinations of things are actually worth more than the sum of their parts. A fully functioning hospital may require a generator, for example… and may not be able to function when its generator is 'reappropriated.' In an aesthetic realm, matched furnishings may be more pleasant together than when all looted by various parties. Museum collections work the same way. Thus, by disassembling things, problems are created. This is especially true when the infrastructure is pillaged, and copper wires from power distribution, for example, are removed…
--BenK
(To reply, click here)
In his article, it doesn't seem Steve Landsburg is saying looting is all good. He's not advocating the destruction of the property and wealth of the Iraqi people. He's just saying that when looting occurs a lot of wealth is not destroyed; it just changes hands instead. The benefits derived from the looting could be positive if the people who receive the looting appreciate the ransacked items more or it could be negative if the looters don't appreciate them more. I believe he's saying that the people (namely Saddam and his followers) whose possessions are being robbed may have obtained their items unethically in the first place anyway so it could be argued that stealing wealth from them might not be any less ethical. Since he is an economics professor, I'm sure he recognizes that there could be unfortunate costs associated with the looting. Artifacts could get trashed and people could lose personal property. However, I agree with him that these costs could be "small potatoes" compared to what already has been imposed on the Iraqi people. I'll go a step further and say that perhaps the brunt of these "small potato" costs are probably being carried by Saddam loyalists who exploited other Iraqis during the regime while the lion's share of the benefits of the looting are probably being enjoyed by those who were exploited in the first place. Sure...there may be some thugs and common criminals who are just using this war to commit petty theft against innocent citizens and pillage national treasures that are probably best left to be enjoyed by all. However, there's a lot of wealth which was held by Republican Guardsmen and Saddam himself being spread around too. I'm not for looting the museums...but who better to loot the Presidential palaces and Baath party buildings then the exploited Iraqi people themselves? I'd rather see them get the wealth there then have coalition governments secure it and sell it off as they see fit.
--RogerFancyguess
(To reply, click here)
Steve Landsburg does a reasonably good job building a case for letting iraqi looters off the hook… however, he'll be unable to convince some of my more genteel friends. to paraphrase what i heard several times this weekend at a backyard barbecue: "I lost all respect for them (the looters) when I heard they looted the Iraqi Museum of Antiquities". the only correct response, of course, is incredulity. incredulity that the my rib munching friends cannot understand that after enduring 20 some years of oppression - and torture of their loved ones - some iraqis might be unable to discern a moral distinction between liberating a rusty air conditioner from the "iraq ministry of injustice", vs a broken vase or bronze knife blade from the building next door… i can't specifically recall, but i think the people professing their outrage at the museum looting are the same ones 12 years ago who didn't feel saddam was a menace until he set the kuwaiti oil wells on fire . . . (earth first!!!!)
--baltimore-aureole
(To reply, click here)
The overwhelming economic objection to looting is that the whole of any functional economic entity is much greater than the sum of its parts. You would realize only a small fraction of Microsoft's true value if you plundered and redistributed its physical plant; the buildings, furniture and computers it uses to make more software. But it can't make more software without that physical plant, and its really valuable asset, the talent of its employees, becomes worthless without it. A hospital that has its beds stolen confers a trivial benefit on the beds' new owners -- they can sleep on their new acquisitions, but has a vital benefit stolen from the whole community served by the hospital -- there is no longer a place to treat the seriously ill.
--gtomkins
(To reply, click here)
(4/14)