All that Henry Liu asked for,
especially massive
federal credit to pay for the
necessary redirection
of economic energies from
zero-sum games to
cooperation among firms and
nations, (aimed at
solving the problems of
immediate scarcity and
long term threats to us all,)
makes a great deal
of sense.
The Bush tax cut Henry would
skip may make
more problematical finding the
massive credit
to pay for all we need -- repaying that credit
may be harder with lower taxes.
On the other hand, the
tax cut might lead to a
signicant reduction in the
foreign price of the
dollar. A lower dollar and
lower taxes might
combine to bring about
Henry's better world
sooner than
otherwise.
Henry's spending advice is
good. We must
identify the main opposition
to it. Is it those
who fear taxes in relation to such spending?
Or is those who fear full employment and the
end of poverty?
So far, our enemies talk of
"tax and spend"
progressives. They never tell
the public their
real aim is "an army of the
unemployed" to
keep labor in bondage.
That may be their
aim, but until we offer them
lower taxes
why assume they are so
rotten?
With China boasting it is the
now the leading
producer of many required
products, and yet
maintaining an outward
dedication to fair and
full employment, what role
will that nation
play in 2003 -- relative to
Henry's list?
Will it try to fully employ at fair wages all its
millions of people? Or will it see the path to
military parity more easily reached by keeping
the pressure on its people to compete and
excell in all things scientific?
My guess is that in 2003
neither Bush nor
China's leaders will opt for
more cooperative
approaches to full employment
here or there.
Yet, war against terror will
help rationalize
some of the financial systems
necessary to
defend all nations. That
rationalization may
force us all to take
steps to reform global
trade in favor of economic growth to reduce
the sources of terrorism.
John Gelles