Doug Henwood wrote: > > Ken Hanly wrote: > > >As I recall, Summers later claimed that the memo was not meant to > >be taken seriously and that he wrote it "tongue-in-cheek"--foot-in-mouth > >would be a better description. Perhaps some politico noting the PR > >disaster created for the World Bank gave Summers a lecture on "damage > >control." It doesn't really make any difference as far as I can see > >because the conclusions follow from a typical welfare economics > >point-of-view anyway no matter how he may have meant it. > > And a recent New Yorker profile of Summers says the memo was actually > written by Lant Pritchett, and Summers took the hit for it (which is about > the only nice thing I've ever heard about the guy). > > Doug After I pressed the SEND button I realised that I probably misinterpreted your post. I assume Pritchett not only wrote the memo but also SENT it without Summers having anything to do with it. If this is so, it is wholly incredible. Why would Summers have IMMEDIATELY issued a further memo clarifying the fact that this was a lark written by someone else rather than saying it was his lark? If it had been revealed as a prank by someone else, the reputation of the World Bank would have been preserved, whereas Summers' accepting responsibility casts the Bank in a very bad light since he was a senior economist I believe. Summers would not be just a nice guy; but he would be a total saint, willing to sacrifice his own and the Bank's image to protect an underling or at least a colleague. Any way if it were revealed as someone else's prank at the outset surely the whole issue could have been put to rest. No one's reputation need be damaged. But it seems to have been seriously discussed. Only after the memo leaked and the shit hit the fan did Summers speak out. Is Summers now an economic advisor to the Clinton administration? Maybe he could help Clinton frame his testimony at the impeachment trial. Cheers, Ken Hanly
