Although I usually loath sports metaphors, this one seems apt: if a winning basketball team changes from a zone to a man-to-man defense and starts losing, the change in defensive stategies (while not nessessarily the only cause) would be decried by every commentator and armchair coach. Why is it that a major change in economic stategy (followed by 25 years of losing seasons) does not prompt the same sort of analysis?
Jim Baird
(As an aside, have you ever noticed the generally higher level of discussion among sportscasters on TV? While most TV types (and indeed reporters in general) seem to take pride in their ignorance of the subjects they cover, the people at the sports desk are steeped in the history and stategy of the games they cover. Imagine an economics correspondent with the verve and insight of a Mike Lupica, or even a Dick Vatale...)
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com