Úr grein í Wall Street Journal:
The important difference between the "socialist" Barack Obama and the Republicans is he'd settle for 2% annual growth (gotta pay for the green dreams) and they might get 3%. In a world of China, India and Brazil, growing at rates between 5% and 9%, we need more. A future president who puts the U.S. back in the race with these fast runners could call himself a communist for all I care.
Þetta minnir mig óneitanlega svolítið á lokasetninguna í hrikalega þættinum Does Europe Hate Us? með erkibjálfanum Thomas L. Friedman -- "With India and China as rising powerhouses in the East, it is more important than ever for America and Europe to stand together!"
Það sem ég skil ekki er af hverju hagvöxtur fátæku ríkjanna þykir svona mikil ógn við vesturlönd. Er ekki bara eitthvað svona blinkered megaherz-benchpressing-typpastærðar-kapphlaup í gangi í hausnum á þessu liði?
(Sveinbjörn)
Add Comment |
RSS Feed
Hann Paul Krugmann sagði á blogginu sínu í gær að þegar maður læsi leiðarasíður Wall Street Journal þyrfti maður að hafa tvennt í huga:
"1. The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything.
2. If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1.
After all, heres what you would have believed if you listened to that page over the years: Clintons tax hike will destroy the economy, you really should check out those people suggesting that Clinton was a drug smuggler, Dow 36000, the Bush tax cuts will bring surging prosperity, Saddam is backing Al Qaeda and has WMD, there isnt any housing bubble, US households have a high savings rate if you measure it right. Im sure I missed another couple of dozen high points."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/modified-goldbugism-at-the-wsj/
0
▽
Fyrir utan að margt bendir til þess að hagvaxtartölur frá Kína séu í besta falli dregnar út úr rassgatinu á einhverjum bjúrókratanum