In a message dated Sat, 9 Feb 2002 12:07:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:37 AM 2/5/02 -0800 Doug wrote: > >Bush's Aggressive Accounting > >By PAUL KRUGMAN > > Paul Krugman better be carefull.... at the rate he is going someday people > will forget that he was once a respected Economist..... I guess the > first time someone slips up and calls him "James Carville" at a dinner > party will probably wake him up. > I am no expert on economics but the fact that Krugman disagrees with W and his Treasury Secretary O'Neil does not make him less of an expert. I would humbly submit that he may be correct and W may be wrong. This would be more consistent with their track records by the way. Krugman began to crticize Bush during the campaign in particular with regard to his plan to privatize social security. So lets look at that; in our post Enron era would anyone seriouslys suggest that american workers should trust the major portion of their retirement to private companies without oversight? Think about all of the opportunities for some bright young financial expert to get his/her hands on all of that cash and take it for her/his friends and families with accounting measures that are completely opaque. About three weeks ago I was watching Charlie Rose and he had on a noble prize winning economist (name slips my mind) who was equally critical of W's plans. He argued that the tax stimulus should be better unemployment insurance since people who get this money need to buy things and the buying of things would stimulate the economy. In short, he said things that Krugman has been saying. Perhaps it is Krugman's understanding of economics that is driving him looney; he sees the way the administration is manipulating the budget, the way it wants to distribute the money and knows that it is at best wrong and more likely immoral. __________________________________________________________ > John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685 > "Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some > sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between > civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
