Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Business School Critical of Bush Economics
gregorantic writes "From BusinessWeek Online: 'George Bush, America's first President with an MBA, has been slapped on the knuckles by 169 concerned business-school professors.'"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Does anyone have a link to the text of this "open letter"? I didn't see a link to it in the article text (maybe I missed it somehow), nor was I able to find it with a few quick google searches.
-jim
So I guess you'd agree that Nixon's horrible econoic policies were what we were seeing under Carter, and Carter's thoughtful economic policies were what caused the growth in the Reagan Administration, while Reagan's disastrous policies brought us the awful Bush I economy.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004940.htm l
clicky link
200 economists ain't barely nobody...
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
An advanced degree doesn't neccessarily equal wisdom. In fact, it seldom does.
"Wisdom" would be seperating the political label from the ethic. The evils of the USSR were many--intolerant atheism, tyranny, despotism, facism, war-mongering, etc., etc.--but "communism" was by far the least of them.
Remember: the USSR beat the snot out of the Germans in the latter part of WWII, and then went boondoggle for boondoggle with the USA for close to fifty years. There has to be SOMETHING to their economic policy.
Some of our brightest minds may have betrayed us during the Cold War, but many of our leaders betrayed us by turning what should have been a right-angle dispute into a head-on staring contest.
"Wisdom" would be seperating the political label from the ethic. The evils of the USSR were many--intolerant atheism, tyranny, despotism, facism, war-mongering, etc., etc.--but "communism" was by far the least of them.
Mikhail Gorbachev had this to say about the fall of the USSR:
"It was a shame, and I continue to say that it was a shame, that during the final years under Brezhnev, we were planning to create a commission headed by the secretary of the Central Committee, [Ivan V.] Kapitonov to solve the problem of women's pantyhose. Imagine a country that flies into space, launches Sputniks, creates such a defense system, and it can't resolve the problem of women's pantyhose. There's no toothpaste, no soap powder, not the basic necessities of life. It was incredible and humiliating to work in such a government. And so our people were already worked up, and that is why the dissident movement occurred."
Remember: the USSR beat the snot out of the Germans in the latter part of WWII, and then went boondoggle for boondoggle with the USA for close to fifty years. There has to be SOMETHING to their economic policy.
In terms of numbers killed, the Germans rolled the USSR. The weather also had a lot to do with slowing the Germans down. That, and the fact they were fighting on two fronts.
As far as going "boondoggle for boondoggle", reread Gorbachevs quote about toothpaste and washing powder.
An economic policy that can't provide such things is horribly flawed.
It has been stated that Pres. Bush has specifically requested that the republican controlled Senate and House should not send him legislation regarding spending that he will need to veto. Because both houses are republican controlled they have been able to withhold bills of spending until they were at the point where no veto would be needed.
If you are a coder you might understand this analogy...
Imagine coding a application with no bugs in it.
Then imagine being judged, performance reviewed based on the number of bugs that you fixed.
Do you see my point?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
"I suspect you may be a Kerry supporter... ;-p"
Well you guessed wrong. Gotta love America, you are either Repubulican or Democrat and there is no third option. The only thing I'll say in Kerry's favor is he is the lesser of two evils compared to the crony capitalists and liars currently occupying the White House, though just barely. Kerry is a prep school elitist, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Yale Grad, Skull and Bones exactly like little George, sure to serve the elite first and the people second if at all. There isn't really a dimes worth of difference between them deep down. The American people were denied much choice in this election when Kerry locked up the nomination.
All I can say about the rest of your post is its straight out of the Bush propaganda book, which is little more than trying to explain away why invading Iraq wasn't a war based on lies when it clearly was. "Oh sure we lied about all the original reasons for it but we are bringing "Freedom and Democracy" to the world, and thats what God put me on Earth to do, he told me himself, so its OK, trust me, lock and load".
If you were to really apply this strategy here is what you need to do. You need to take out the governments of:
- Saudi Arabia
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- United States
The first two, in particular, have for years worked with, funded and harbored muslim extremists. When the Taliban fell the U.S. had to let Pakistan evacuate hundreds of its secret service and military people from Afghanistan that were working with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The tribal area of Pakistan is still Al Qaeda's home base and they are largely unhindered by the Pakistan government there. Pakistan's military seldom goes in there except to put on a show to keep the American's happy. Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda far more than Saddam ever did.
The first three on my list are dictatorships, and the forth is heading that way. Why don't we take them down because, I'll tell you because those dictators are our friends, and the Saudi's own a big piece of the American economy. While your at it our biggest trading partner China is a dictatorship and Russia is pretty much back to one. Why don't we take them out if "Freedom and Democracy", at the point of a gun, is the solution to the worlds problems.
Pakistan has the single biggest proliferater of nuclear weapons on the planet. It appears they single handedly jump started the nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran. The Bush administration likes to brag about the great work they did busting up the A.Q. Khan. They forget to mention the let the ring run for years, Pakistan's current government was thouroughly aware of it too, and its done grievous damage on the nuclear proliferation front. The forget to mention A. Q. Khan received a full pardon in Pakistan, is free as a bird, wealthy, and a revered hero in the Muslim world for giving the Muslim world the bomb. By contrast we leveled Iraq and jailed Saddam over a vague supsicion of nuclear proliferation, though Iraq didn't have any nuclear program, let alone actually proliferate nuclear technology to rogue states or terrorists.
Saddam was a secular dictator, Iraq was unique in the Arab world in that its men didn't have beards. Why, because Saddam outlawed them as a way to obstruct fundementalist Islam. He in fact aggressively suppressed fundementalist Islam, he gave women more equality than they got in the rest of the Arab world, and their rights are rapidly eroding in the new Iraq which is rushing towards an Islamic government. It defies logic for Al Qaeda and Saddam to have worked together, Saddam was an infidel in the eyes of Al Qaeda, and Saddam hated fundamentalists.
Despite all of your rambling about "Freedom and Democracy" its going to take a miracle for Iraq to not end up with:
- An islamic government, potentially a harsh one modelled after Iran
- A puppet government like Allawi's installed by the U.S. through rigged elections. You wer
@de_machina