The Cover of Time

[pms]

I don't know Brad.  The article makes it sound like we were hero's in
Russia, and if they'd only listened.....as well as ignoreing a lot of other
economic realities in a way that lies to people. Don't they say something
about inflation fighting that completely distorts the picture.  (Should
have slipped the mag in my purse, darn it.) When you blame the authors for
false assumptions, are you assuming they are different from what these guys
have led the authors to believe?

 But what I'm really curious about is why a Deputy Sec gets to be on the
cover of Time.
Any ideas?  Did your old roomy call you?  I know I would have called every
one I know if I got to enlarge such a dynamic duo.  Wouldn't you?

pms

At 07:11 AM 2/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>Greetings ya'll,
>>
>>Got al haircut today, and guess who's on the cover of Time.  Alan, Robert,
>>and Larry.
>
>I don't think that the world economy was as close to the edge of another
>Great Depression last summer as the authors of the _Time_ article think
>that it was, or that we are as far away now as the authors of the _Time_
>article think that we are, or that--don't get me wrong, Alan, Robert,
>Larry, Janet, Michel, Stanley did a good job--any three people's actions
>did as much to move the world economy away from the cliff as the authors of
>the _Time_ article think.
>
>And if I had been writing the article, I would have focused on the
>weaknesses: a bunch of European central bankers who seem absolutely
>clueless about what their job is, a Japanese governing elite that seems
>intent on pushing its economy into depression, global institutions of
>economic management that are vastly underfunded given the magnitude and
>irrationality of swings in speculative capital flows, a president who
>doesn't pay attention (except in crisis, or when he wants to distract
>attention from other things), congressional leaders who believe that the
>IMF and the World Bank are dangerous because they do the work of Karl Marx,
>et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
>
>That aside, it was not a bad article...
>
>:-)
>
>Brad DeLong
>
>
>