KRUGMAN WATCH: foreign take-overs & foreign aid

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>July 16, 2000 / New York TIMES

> RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN

> Who's Acquiring Whom?

> For those of us who remember the great wave of foreign investment in the
United States between 1986 and 1990, it's starting to feel like déjà vu all
over again. ... I'd like to think that there's more going on here than good
old-fashioned American arrogance. We are a more sophisticated nation than
we used to be -- better traveled and more aware of the world outside. And
maybe, just maybe, we are even sophisticated enough to understand and
accept the idea that globalization is a two-way street.<

I didn't find PK's column comparing the US response to foreign purchases of
US capital now to that of the 1980s to be very interesting and thus have no
comments on it. I do think that the phrase "déjà vu all over again" should
be retired post haste.

--------------

> July 19, 2000 / New York TIMES

> RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN

> Delusions of Generosity

> Mr. Clinton," declared the full-page ad in yesterday's New York Times,
"the American people would rather
spend $40 billion to rescue Social Security than to rescue your legacy."
The ad denounced the possibility that an agreement at Camp David might
include substantial promises of aid to the Palestinians. Then it referred
interested readers to the Web site of Americans for Responsible Foreign
Spending, which -- like the ad itself -- gives absolutely no hint about who
these "Americans" might be. There are no names of officers, no endorsements
of the group by named individuals. Nothing in the ad or on the Web site
refutes the hypothesis that the group is actually a front for Islamic
militants, out to sabotage the negotiations.

>But I doubt it. After all, the supposed conflict between foreign aid and
Social Security has been the subject of a steady stream of press releases
from House Republican leaders. For example, last year the office of Tom
DeLay, the majority whip, declared that "the president's requests for
foreign aid would directly raid the Social Security trust fund." (Directly?
Let's just say that Mr. DeLay's definition of "direct" is even further from
common usage than Mr. Clinton's definition of "sex").

>It's a pretty safe guess, then, that this is just hardball domestic
politics -- though the peculiarly self-effacing behavior of Americans for
Responsible Foreign Spending suggests that they fear that even today's
hardened voters might look askance at politicians willing to undermine
sensitive peace negotiations for the sake of partisan advantage. ... <

this column is another ho-hummer. It's saying that the US doesn't really
spend very much on foreign aid and so it can afford to do so. The only
interesting thing I can find is that PK ignores the possibility that the ad
mentioned in the first paragraph might have been financed by ultra-Zionist
types opposed to the possibility that Prime Minister Barak might make
concessions at Camp David.

Frankly, PK's columns in SLATE and FORTUNE were much more interesting than
those in the NY TIMES. But I can't think of any professional economist who
could write a consistently interesting twice-weekly column.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine