More Letters for Economists to Sign
Posted by John Irons at February 26, 2003 11:02 PM
It's been a while since I have seen so much political activism from the economics profession. This past month, there have been three major sign-this-statement pushes trying to get economists to speak out.
Currently circulating is an anti-war Statement by US Economists on Iraq by ECAAR. (Over 100 have already signed).
Two statements on Bush's economic proposal were also presented this past month.
Economists’ Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts, Feb. 10 (Around 450 signers.) For a critique of the letter (but not the substance), see Don Luskin's comments.
In response, a short letter to Bush was drafted: Economists Endorse President Bush's Jobs and Growth Plan Feb. 12 (Around 250 signers.) For a critique, see DeLong's Thoughts on the Republican Economists' Letter.
Posted by John Irons at February 26, 2003 11:02 PM
I find this ECAAR statement particularly clear and articulated, for what my opinion is worth... It's been a while I wanted to find an occasion to use the term "Russian roulette", but I am glad to read that these economists stole away from me the initiative.
There is one unwritable thing I would have added: isn't the US about to outspend itself in the Middle-East just the way Reaganites claim that the US won the Cold War by trapping the USSR in Afghanistan?
Make no mistake, according to Guru Perle, WWIII is not to stop at Irak but is to expand, one way or another to Iran, Libya and Syria. And that's only what's officially in the boxes so far:
http://216.26.163.62/2003/ss_mideast_02_25.html
Wouldn't all that make Osama "Who?" bin Laden pretty happy? Isn't he particularly well placed to make this kind of calculation by virtue of having been USSR's master trapper in person?
I'm sorry to politicize this post but this is a seriously economic question. In fact, I can harly think of a more important macro-economic question these days...
It looks like ECAAR can't handle all the traffic you've sent its way... It's gone down.