Re: Hoping for a new direction in Macro Theory

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Economists tend to focus on truth which is very admirable, yet human actions
are often motivated by perception which are more often less than true, or
accurate or even rational.  There is now as much emotional reaction to the
tragedy as the emotional irrational perception that lied behind the attacks.
We have a world in which technological advances and distribution have greatly
outpaced social justice on a global scale.  Poverty is perceived by many of
its victims as having political root, whether this is valid or not in
economics is irrelevant. Perception is all in politics.

The perception is widespread that the world richest and most powerful nation
is the cause of the world's poverty and destruction. Whether this is true or
not is also irrelevant.  What is relevant is that a small number of
extremists can cause great harm.  Terrorism operates on the assumption that
if you do not have to means to fight against a powerful government, you can
hit its at its vulnerable point - its innocent citizens, who have the power
to change the government in a democracy.  That is why Bush's war on terrorism
includes a large dose of rallying the US public towards patriotism, by
picturing the attacks as attacks on American freedom and civilization, rather
than on US policies.  All attackers incur collateral damage, thus the fact
that people die, as detestable as it is on a moral level, is irrelevant to
the attackers.  This is true in all wars.  Thus the characterization by Bush
that the attacks of 911 were acts of war actually undermines any prospect of
an effective counter terrorism campaign. In war, declared or non-declared,
civilians are expected by get killed as collateral damage.  Only in peace
that killing civilians become an immoral crime.  In war, the convention is
well established: both sides kill civilians in retaliation and the killers
are honorable soldiers.  Only by neutralizing the political justification of
terrorism in peace time can terrorist be condemned as murderers.

Henry C.K. Liu

Harry Veeder wrote:

> >From: Mason Clark <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Terrorism and Unemployment
> >Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2001, 9:57 PM
> >
>
> >I did some searches in the 156 pages of  the
> >*Road Map for National Security* prepared by the
> >distinguished U.S. Commission on National Security:
> >
> >   "terror"  51 times
> >   "poverty"   4 times
> >   "unemployment"  zero times
> >
> >But is not the unemployment of young men the principle
> >source of terrorism?  Unemployed young men with no hopes
> >of constructive employment are likely to engage in dangerous activities.
> >If only one percent of one-million join terrorist organizations,
> >that is 10,000 energetic, organized, young terrorists.
> >
> >If the root source of terrorists is ignored, how many billions
> >of dollars will it take to win this war?
>
> Hope is important, but one can't simply point to an unemployed
> *individual* and say "there is a person without hope."
>
> Macro economically, measures of unemployment really
> measure the lack of *communal* hope. Such numbers do not
> tell us which individuals are hopeless. The employed and
> unemployed can both subject to feelings of hopelessness.
>
> Hope consumes expectations. If a community
> lacks hope, expectations will exceed the supply
> of labour resulting in unemployment.
>
> Harry Veeder