Do you really believe this? I guess this is really what I am
complaining about, US intellectual imperialism. Ugh.
Paul Phillips
From: "Andrew Hagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:02:05 -0500
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Priority: Normal
Subject: [PEN-L:9466] Re: Re: Re: Demicans or Repugnocrats (was:
ergonomics, etc.
> A healthy US economy would benefit the world's poor. A Gore
> Administration would been far more deft in its handling of the current
> economic crisis. They would have brought in people with actual civil
> service experience, for example. Fiscal policy is a good concrete
> example. Reduced taxation on middle and lower income people would have
> greatly helped the US economy. Instead, the Bush administration is
> planning to lower taxation on upper income people. Even this stimulus
> plan is in jeopardy of not passing Congress at all. Additionally, a
> budget that paid down a large amount of debt this year would have made
> it possible for Greenspan to significantly lower interest rates. The US
> economy would have benefitted from such an approach, indirectly helping
> out people in other countries.
>
> (Are you suggesting that there is a global polarization of income and
> wealth? Would you say poor people worldwide became worse off or better
> off in the 1990s? My current understanding is that poor people
> worldwide become somewhat better off in the 1990s.)
>
> A second example is trade policy. Instead of forgetting about the WTO,
> the Gore Administration would have been more amenable to a new round of
> talks aimed at setting global labor, health, and environmental
> standards. This could have conceivably wiped out child labor worldwide.
> It would also have fostered a lot of economic growth, because more
> nations would have willingly joined the WTO regime. The focus on
> international finance might even have led to a successor concord to
> Bretton Woods.
>
> Third, a Gore Administration would have been much less hawkish. In my
> view, the Bush Administration is going to propose some type of
> skirmish-war to bolster the US economy. This nasty possibility will
> likely take place if US economic growth is in doldrums for more than a
> year or two. Additionally, Gore supported the landmines treaty (with
> the temporary Korea exception) and the CTBT. Bush opposes both, AFAIK.
>
> Fourth, environmental policy. Enough said.
>
> Instead of a capable economic policy, a workable trade policy, and a
> sensible national security policy, the Bush Administration is
> implementing ill-thought policies that will wreak disaster upon
> humanity. We are looking at at least four years of economic, political,
> social, and military disruption.
>
> We don't owe it all to Nader, though. Gore ran the worst presidential
> campaign since Goldwater's, and the Clinton legacy hurt. Many other
> factors also contributed, such as the willingness of five Supreme Court
> justices to substitute their politcal preferences for that of 100
> million American voters. It's stupid to look for one cause of an event.
> There are always multiple causes.
>
> Andrew Hagen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:16:32 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Can Bush be any worse for the rest of the world than Clinton/Gore?
> > If so in what way. Will the civilians of Yugoslavia and Iraq be any
> >less fearful of their lives? Will the peasants of Columbia be more
> >fearful for their lives? Will Canadians fear more for the loss of their
> >jobs, pollution of their climate, etc. I don't think so.
> >
> >Paul Phillips
> >
> >
> >
> >> If you don't think that these shifts in policy make America a worse
> >> place, it's not clear what you do believe.
> >>
> >>
> >> Brad DeLong
> >>
> >
> >
>
