Brad, come on. I asked Michael K. to cool it, because I thought you had.
Nobody benefits from repeatedly going over the same tit for tat stuff.
You made your case fairly clearly in your last post, calling for a
kinder-gentler IMF.
Let me ask a question about that post: Is the role of the IMF to help
eliminate financial crises -- which was supposedly its original intention
-- or is it to jam neo-liberal policies down the throats of weaker states?
The answer to that question will bring us back to the core disagreements
that led to the COMPLETED (we don't need to repeat the arguments again)
discussion about Gore vs. Nader -- which in turn bring us back to the role
of liberal politics.
I suspect that the core question comes down to this: Does liberal
political activity exist to correct inequities in society or does it
merely serve to calm the waters when people begin to demand more.
I do not think that we can resolve the issues here. We can repeat our
interpretations of various events, but I don't think that we will progress
very much in that discussion.
I would like to see us educate each other in ways that would be fruitful
-- everybody should stop the tit for tat.
By the way, I still would like to know more about the risks of a rapid
repatriation of money from the U.S. Am I the only one who thinks that it
could possibly set off a Minsky-like crisis?
On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 02:42:48PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
>
> The "bullshit" was in response to Keaney's claim that his language
> was directed against the economics profession rather than me.
>
> There are degrees of mendacity that deserve to be called "bullshit."
> That seemed to me to be one o them.
>
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
