Ramesh:

I am starting to get dizzy here.

You said: “…it does make a difference whether those regimes can throw the

world economy into a tailspin.”

To which I replied: “Their ability to do so is much exaggerated. We survived

’73. See also the excellent Huber article in the WSJ a couple of weeks ago.”

That is not the same as my saying that ‘73 was inconsequential (cf. “I

survived cancer”), or that I couldn’t care less if such a thing were to

happen again. I would prefer to avoid it. I just don’t think it would be

as catastrophic as “throw the world economy into a tailspin” implies. And

further, as I also said, if anything so dire looked like happening, there

are dire things we could do. And, contra you, I believe we would do them

(more to the point, I believe that the ME bad actors believe we would do

them) — though our will to do them would be weaker after a multi-year

failed, or ambiguous, engagement with Iraq, which I believe the most likely

outcome of present policies.

I say again: I desperately wish we were not so dependent on Islamic oil.

There would then be less need to fret about these dismal scenarios. And the

frustrating thing is that there are things — legislative and fiscal tweaks

– that we could easily do to wean ourselves from this unattractive habit of

dependence on ME oil. Not only do we not do them, we do all the opposite

things. Compare the size of a U.S. family car now with one in 1973.

The crux of our disagreement is your notion that we must transform the

politics of the ME because its oil is such a vital component of the world

economy. I say: (a) It may not be as vital as all that (see the WSJ article

I cited); (b) To the degree that it is vital to our own economy, that is our

own silly fault, and I wish things were otherwise; and (c) For all of that,

I believe we can improve the situation and preserve our own security without

embarking on grandiose liberal culture-transforming Wilsonian adventures,

which, I believe, have a low probability of success.

Now, aside from all that, the more I think about my follow-up suggestion,

the more enamored of it I am. Here it is again:

“A few weeks ago, well before the Jan 30 elections, I read somewhere that it

costs at least $2,000 to get from Baghdad airport to the Green Zone —

because of the danger. Does it cost less now? Or more?

“Perhaps we could use the cost of that cab ride as an index of progress in

Iraq. Someone should post it daily, like a stock index.”

Will someone with access to the necessary figures please do this? It would

be like that MacDonald’s Index the Economist used to print — the

purchasing-power parity price of a Big Mac in various countries, as an index

of the strength of various currencies. If any competent person feels like

doing this, I hereby give them permission to name it “the Derbyshire Index.”