calling in loans

[msambors at bloomberg.net]

Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>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.

I worked in the Finance Ministry of a Canadian province and I remember the Premier
saying that he didn't trust the numbers out of that place.  It was somewhat
of a blow to the ego.  If he was following some ideology, he took into account
more than the official economic theory and data.
>
>Why did Bush impose steel tariffs? If economists had their say, he'd 
>never have done that.

George Bush Sr. had been characterized as a corporatist-style manager-President
who mediated between the various interests in society to keep them relatively
happy and to keep the system moving forward.  It wasn't his job to ensure that
certain people benefited; they should be able to figure that out on their own.

 Perhaps GWB is continuing the same management style.
>
>Doug
>
Mark