Skip to main content

The Political Economy of the Lesser Depression (A Response)

Responding to Paul Krugman's post, I wrote the following:

People avoid the analysis of motives, at times calling it paranoid, but in fact it is essential. Why would anyone be surprised that politicians are influenced their donors income interests, let alone their own.

A VP starting a war claims security reasons, but would you ignore that the company he was the CEO of will increase its revenue, making him millions? Obama is beholden to the big-money interests, and seems to have done well fund raising. Does anyone need to be told that some of his 'donors' are benefitting from the crisis.

The absurd irrationality of policy decisions would indicate that reason is not the driving motive, but the interests of the powerful and the wealthy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition by Geert Hofstede My rating: 4 of 5 stars A detailed and fascinating review of Hofstede's dimensions, by the researcher himself, showing broad high-level insights into history and culture, although a bit tedious, as it often describes in detail relationships many of us implicitly understand. View all my reviews

The Right to Write - NYTimes.com

In an article,  The Right to Write - NYTimes.com , I commented on the right to write, since writers are sometimes questioned on the validity of their writing, e.g., Harriet Beecher Stowe with Uncle Tom's Cabin: One, people always have the right to write, but readers concurrently have the right to reject said writing. Much personal criticism of depictions from writers is whether the depiction seems valid or plausible, but even that is an exercise in empathy, since it requires one to experience that depiction ideationally.  Two, there is a streak in Americans, and maybe anyone, that states that you cannot understand 'my pain', usually the death of a child or some horrific personal lose. Over a longer term I have sensed that people most easily accept empathy if it is expressed by someone with similar experiences, an aspect I believe is part of human nature. I find both irksome, since they deny empathy.