Yes. Funny thing about people: when they find that something doesn't work, they go out and do it harder.
I think that one of the problem of the economists is that they seem not to be able to escape the accounting impulse, and so GNP (good old measurable units of dollars) becomes a substitute concept for value in a country. I like your questions: "What do we want those jobs FOR?" or "What's an economy for, anyway?" I am in northern Africa for a while, examining concepts and programs for, you guessed it, economic development. I have never seen such nonsense in my life, and most of it promulgated by foreign consultants, mostly American and European. They don't seem to have a clue, and meanwhile those local leaders who believe them try valiantly (and fruitlessly) to follow the consultants' nostrums. When one program doesn't work, there are plenty of consultants to take their place and introduce a new form of failure. Questions like the ones you posed MUST be answered before any good will come to these development efforts. Cheers, Lawry Algiers On Sep 4, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Sandwichman wrote: > I watched The Fog of War last night (Robert McNamara interview) and I > think there is a parallel between McNamara's impotence in confronting > the realities of the Vietnam war and Obama's "preemptive compromise." > There is no non-transformational "technocratic solution" to the jobs > crisis. Obama and his advisers, however, are fundamentally committed > to solving the crisis without upsetting the status quo. A little > tinkering here and a smidgeon of high-blown rhetoric there. > > The documentary's title comes from a comment by McNamara: "There's a > wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What "the fog of war" means is: > war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to > comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not > adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily." > > There is also a fog of economics. "It's beyond the ability of the > human mind to comprehend all the variables." So what do economists do? > They isolate a few of the more comprehensible and tractable variables > and pretend that is all there is to it. > > Take your pick: > > "Want more jobs? Stimulate more growth! Want more growth? Boost > investor confidence! Want to boost investor confidence? Cut their > taxes and regulations! Didn't work last time? Do it more vigorously!" > > Or > > "Want more jobs? Stimulate more growth! Want more growth? Stimulate > final demand! What more final demand? Spend more on infrastructure! > Didn't work last time? Do it more vigorously!" > > Don't ever, EVER ask, "What do we want those jobs FOR?" or "What's an > economy for, anyway?" > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Sally Lerner <[email protected]> wrote: >> 'President Obama's promised jobs plan needs to be >> unrealistic and unreasonable, at the very least. If he >> can crank it all the way up to unimaginable, that would >> be even better. >> >> 'This is a moment for the president to suppress his >> reflex for preemptive compromise. The unemployment >> crisis is so deep and self-perpetuating that only a >> big, surprising, over-the-top jobs initiative could >> have real impact. Boldness will serve the nation well - >> and, coincidentally, boost Obama's reelection >> prospects.' >> >> Columnist Eugene Robinson >> Washington Post >> August 30, 2011 >> http://tinyurl.com/3tpq9kj >> >> >> What would FWers propose? >> >> Sally >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > > > > -- > Sandwichman > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
