HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 24, 2005 After my article on "Left-Leaning Versus Center-Rightist Path" got published here February 21, I exchanged some e-mail comments with readers. Evidently my original article had not really said enough about a few of the main points, so here is a summary of our e-mail debates. Question: let's see you prove that lowering taxes and at the same time spending more Government money was the thing that prevented a recession. My answer: I can't prove it. Economics is surely "the dismal science," where some professors (Princeton, et al.) say we must decrease the national debt, but some (University of Chicago, et al.) say that, instead, we should lower taxes. Both sides have equally good credentials as "experts." Some countries like Chile followed the Chicago advice and went from poverty to prosperity, but others like Argentina let their debts grow wild and went nationally bankrupt. Maybe we are doing both at the same time, but we can't definitely predict the long term result. Magazines like Business Week claim that Europe has high unemployment because of high taxes, and I tend to agree. But I can't "prove" it, like I used to prove things by modifying a machine in a factory when I was engineer in industry. All I can do is say that President Bush lowered taxes, and we averted a deep recession. Other factors, like business cycles? Nobody knows for sure. Question: aren't we killing the people we are claiming to help, when we fight in Iraq? My answer: yes, but many people died in our "Revolutionary War" against England, and in the "Civil War" that ended slavery here. In the long run, it was worthwhile to fight. Of course, the Extremist Muslims say the same thing, that Israelis blew up a hotel full of civilians when they broke free from England, and that the present suicide bombers in Iraq are similarly justified. My answer is that we have to look at the probable result --- will it be democracy? If so, then a considerable amount of fighting might be justified --- otherwise, it is not. Question: how can we know that Communism won't eventually succeed in China? My answer: it's almost a hundred years since Communism started in Russia, and the result has been mass poverty, and tens of millions of people tortured, killed, and deprived of freedom. There has never been a single successful Communist country from an economics standpoint, ever. Question: aren't we violating our own principles when we imprison Muslims without trial in Guantanamo? My answer: the Extremist Muslims are not playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules of fair play in a gentlemanly boxing match. Instead, they are blowing up school buses in Israel and ambulances in Iraq. If liberal lawyers like Kerry and Edwards had won here, they surely would have released some crazies from Gitmo. Our open-style country is potentially very vulnerable, with our freight trains loaded with chlorine- filled tank cars such as had a recent derailment accident. And with our New York and Boston tunnels filled with buses, trucks, and cars during rush hour, and our Bhopal-type chemical plants upwind from populous suburbs. A small cadre of crazies could cause enormous damage, and we wouldn't have the evidence to convict them until afterwards. There are times when we simply can't follow the same rules we use with our own generally-civilized people. Modern explosives are too available, along with shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and the like, and we have to adjust our behavior to those scary facts. ------------ About the author: Dan Shanefield is a retired engineering prof, who worked at Bell Labs and then at Rutgers University. He wrote the book "Industrial Electronics for Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians". Visit his website or email Dan Shanefield: shanefield@ieee.org Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
