Re: Re: Re: Demicans or Repugnocrats (was: ergonomics, etc.

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A healthy US economy would benefit the world's poor. A Gore
Administration would been far more deft in its handling of the current
economic crisis. They would have brought in people with actual civil
service experience, for example. Fiscal policy is a good concrete
example. Reduced taxation on middle and lower income people would have
greatly helped the US economy. Instead, the Bush administration is
planning to lower taxation on upper income people. Even this stimulus
plan is in jeopardy of not passing Congress at all. Additionally, a
budget that paid down a large amount of debt this year would have made
it possible for Greenspan to significantly lower interest rates. The US
economy would have benefitted from such an approach, indirectly helping
out people in other countries.

(Are you suggesting that there is a global polarization of income and
wealth? Would you say poor people worldwide became worse off or better
off in the 1990s? My current understanding is that poor people
worldwide become somewhat better off in the 1990s.)

A second example is trade policy. Instead of forgetting about the WTO,
the Gore Administration would have been more amenable to a new round of
talks aimed at setting global labor, health, and environmental
standards. This could have conceivably wiped out child labor worldwide.
It would also have fostered a lot of economic growth, because more
nations would have willingly joined the WTO regime. The focus on
international finance might even have led to a successor concord to
Bretton Woods.

Third, a Gore Administration would have been much less hawkish. In my
view, the Bush Administration is going to propose some type of
skirmish-war to bolster the US economy. This nasty possibility will
likely take place if US economic growth is in doldrums for more than a
year or two. Additionally, Gore supported the landmines treaty (with
the temporary Korea exception) and the CTBT. Bush opposes both, AFAIK.

Fourth, environmental policy. Enough said.

Instead of a capable economic policy, a workable trade policy, and a
sensible national security policy, the Bush Administration is
implementing ill-thought policies that will wreak disaster upon
humanity. We are looking at at least four years of economic, political,
social, and military disruption.

We don't owe it all to Nader, though. Gore ran the worst presidential
campaign since Goldwater's, and the Clinton legacy hurt. Many other
factors also contributed, such as the willingness of five Supreme Court
justices to substitute their politcal preferences for that of 100
million American voters. It's stupid to look for one cause of an event.
There are always multiple causes.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 13:16:32 -0600, phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>Can Bush be any worse for the rest of the world than Clinton/Gore?
> If so in what way.  Will the civilians of Yugoslavia and Iraq be any
>less fearful of their lives?  Will the peasants of Columbia be more
>fearful for their lives?  Will Canadians fear more for the loss of their
>jobs, pollution of their climate, etc.  I don't think so.
>
>Paul Phillips
>
>
>
>> If you don't think that these shifts in policy make America a worse
>> place, it's not clear what you do believe.
>>
>>
>> Brad DeLong
>>
>
>