----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 7:54 AM Subject: Re: calling in loans
> kjkhoo at softhome.net wrote:
>
> >Astrology hardly rules our lives -- at least, not yet, until the
> >goons in Washington and at the so-called international institutions
> >pick up on it and make decisions based on it. Meanwhile,
> >neoclassical economics rules -- and with ever greater vigour and
> >extension as more and more future rulers and decision makers get
> >their training in the US. Over in Vietnam, there are all these young
> >economists, US trained, pushing for big bang, even pointing to
> >China's accession to WTO, without noticing that the Chinese guys
> >continue to keep a tight hold on things, watching their sequencing
> >quite carefully, etc.
>
> I think economists overestimate the influence of their discipline on
> policymaking. When a policy is adopted and economics is the
> justification, it's always worthwhile to see who benefits from the
> policy. Wall Street wanted capital account liberalization because
> they wanted to make money; economists provided the intellectual
> excuse for the policy. Privatization in Russia benefited the
> nomenklatura and a new class of gangsters; economic theory provided a
> convenient excuse. Etc.
>
> I'm not saying the ideology is unimportant; it certainly has a grip
> over a small group of specialists. But it's not really the reason
> most things are done.
>
> Why did Bush impose steel tariffs? If economists had their say, he'd
> never have done that.
>
> Doug
=================
While the first paragraph is true as far as it goes, it leaves out the fact that nce stuff is the staple of the business schools too and thus it behooves policymakers to couch their prescriptions and justifications in nc speak in order to have credibility with the economists and accountants at the big corps.
Steel tariffs are perfectly explainable with public choice economics.
Ian