The bracelet on the left is one that I wore in the 70's in honor of Bobby Neeld, a Colonel in the US Airforce whose aircraft was lost in bad weather in Vietnam Jan 4. 1969. I've researched the Internet and Lt Col Neeld is still listed as MIA.
The bracelet on the right is one I am wearing now in memory of PVT Barry Mayo, US Army, a buddy of my stepson Karl, who was killed March 5th, 2007, in Baqubah, Iraq when an IED detonated near his unit. Karl was riding in the Humvee behind the one hit. Two other soldiers along with Barry were killed. Mr Bush should ask Private Mayo's mom if she thinks that our past 5 years in Iraq have been "worth it".
39 comments:
Most parents of MIA/POW are proud of the sacrifice thier children made for our Country. I will not and never will stand by as our military is maligned. If not for the sacrivice of those who gave all, the anti military group could not speak thier mind. Ask someone 5 years ago in Iraq about speaking out against the goverment. We know of 300,00+ who were buried in mass graves.
In our groups of MIA/POW groups, we have a saying. "all gave some, some gave all". All who served gave something of themselves. Those who did not come home, gave all.
I still say bring them home, or send us back!
Being against war as a way to solve problems has nothing to do with not being proud of our country or supporting the men and women who bravely serve and protect us in the military. What happened to our generation of "make love not war" ? To quote Marianne Williamson, "The generation that declared war on hypocrisy has become among the most hypocritical of all: the generation that sought to replace guns with flowers has more often replaced flowers with guns".
This comment is in response to a different but similar post and subsequent dissenting comments. It seems the author felt it necessary to remove that post. I shall instead place my comments here. Therefore, some of this may not seem entirely relevant.
I've read every single word ever written on this blog and never once have I heard anyone put down the men and women of our Armed Forces. President Bush on the other hand has been fair game. If the President wants to take credit for the good during his watch, then he also has to take a hit for the bad. Ask any vet here; the military rule of law dictates that with responsibility comes accountability... a virtue rarely practiced in this modern "me" driven society.
For a number of years the Office of the President told us we were kicking ass in Vietnam. Unfortunately, it was that same office that ensured we could never win that conflict. Only when the American people started tallying up the body bags was the real truth revealed. The dissention of the people, not the voice of greedy politicians, is what finally ended a struggle we had no business ever being in.
Vietnam was a frustrating time in our history. Unfortunately a lot of people vented that frustration on the valiant young men and woman and their families who were involved in that conflict. I know this for a fact because we in the Circle were sometimes guilty of venting that frustration too. However, I can assure you that the country learned its lesson and we wholeheartedly support our men and women in uniform today. They serve us with honor despite the possibility of poor judgment by our elected officials.
After the Civil War General William T. Sherman enlightened us with the profound observation that "War is Hell." This great truth has not changed. And since we are the people who pay to fight these wars with our blood and money, it is our utmost responsibility to know exactly what we are paying for. If we hide from the consequences of our actions - without weighing the risk/reward of our past, present and future conflicts - then we have failed as a Nation. War should always be a last resort. It is our DUTY as Americans and as parents to question ourselves whenever we put our young people into harm’s way.
This country was built on the principles of controlled anarchy. The Constitution dictates we continuously question the performance, direction and intent of our elected officials. I personally find nothing offensive with the publication of flag draped coffins as a way of questioning the loss of American lives. I feel it honors those who gave their lives by acknowledging their sacrifice. It shows these were real people with real families and real lives. You can read about war all you want but until you stand at the edge of a military cemetery like Gettysburg, Arlington or Normandy you will never be able to put that sacrifice into perspective. War is not decided by points racked up on a score card. Wars are won by the lives of those who fight them.
I respect that some of you may disagree with me on this subject but I ask you not to question my patriotism in the way I have recently witnessed here. I am an 11th generation American. My forefather arrived in Virginia some 25 years after the establishment of Jamestown in 1607. I share some of the same blood as American icons Thomas Jefferson and Jessie James. The first woman elected to the US Senate was related by marriage. I think it's fair to say my family has participated in EVERY war this country has ever fought in; including the original one for our freedom and independence. I believe the Constitution of the United States is as sacred a document as any that has ever been written. And I hold these truths to be self evident.
Testify!
Thomas Paine tells us that it is the patriotic duty of every citizen in a democracy to question their government.
To equate civilized dissent with a lack of patriotism or disdain for our military is both unfair and unfounded.
Thank you Robert.
You know it's arm chair patriots like you self drl that are the biggest threat to our military and constitution because you refuse to deal with the tangible facts and instead label any real information as anti-military. You speak of the innocent lives caught up in these unnecessary conflicts as some sort of expendable distant commodity that are okay to destroy as long as their isn't any dirt on your door step. Believe me, the US people will be paying to clean up this mess our corrupt government officials created for the next hundred years. Our foreign policies are directly responsible for a lot of global suffering in the world and in our own country. I think you need to go visit some of our more depressed areas in the US and tell me about the greatest country in the world. I don't believe in squandering our citizens and resources for the personal gain of a few. You infer that Cindy, who encouraged her step son to join the military is anti-military. In stead of spreading rubbish about how Starbucks, (which incidentally is one of the more successful US economy productive companies) doesn't support the troops, why don't you chase down some of the overpaid manufactures of military vehicles and equipment and ask them why they don't donate and provide better equipment to support our troops. I know, why don't you take some of that war time US economic prosperity that you write about and add it to the money you are saving from not buying coffee and buy yourself a ticket, fly over to Iraq and ask the people yourself if life is better. The Iraqi people didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and our troops are not over there protecting our constitutional rights, they are there on an economic mission to personally benefit the money behind the Bush administration and SA. If you really studied history and economics, as you claim to do, you would clearly see this. I will never agree to disagree while people are dying. For the record I am not anti-military, anti-war and I don't drink coffee. I also don't buy on credit and I also don't buy your comment that the parents of dead and maimed kids feel their child's sacrifice was worth it...the parent inspired organisations against continued conflict suggest otherwise.
Cindy, I wore my POW bracelet for years until I had to take it off because I was allergic to the metal. Capt. Fielding Featherstone 196? I never found him on any lists. I think we bought them through school. I remember reading that some of the names on those bracelets didn't exist.
Doug, how is it you are able to put so eloquently in 4 simple lines what I struggled to write in an entire page? You my friend are the true Master Wordsmith.
Doug and Juliet, thank you also for posting your opinions. I am in awe of all of you who are so talented in expressing your thoughts in words. It's always a struggle for me. Having ALL of you back in my life again through this blog in such a blessing to me and I have loved reading each and every post and comment written since we started last year.
Robert & Cindy,
as the children (along with my favorite Pat of course) of Edgar Allen Carraway whom I always admired for his skilled and artful use of the English language I am humbled by your comments.
I have no other words.
Doug, Thomas Paine was a Protagonist fo the Revolution, not the Revolutionary war. He was wrong and wrote the the article consisting of the quote containing "patriotic duty of a democroacy". We were still under British rule. He alto wrote in an article titled, "Crisis", that it is a faint-hearted campain for a more eviciant Fedral and State tax system to meet the cost of the war (Revolutionary). and in the same article he "encuraged" the belief that Britan would eventualy recognize American independance through non military action. He was wrong.
Cindy, Remember it was the "make love not war" generation that spit on our troops coming home from the war, and burnt American flags in protest. The same flag that draped the coffins of many men and women. I once talked to one of these protesters, and he told me that he had the right to burn the flag because of the men and women that died fighting.
I know of something else Marianne Williamson said, "certain evils-evils that peace may not correct-be confronted militarily". That is not meant with flowers.
Thomas Paine. The American Crisis
Numbers 1-3: December 19, 1776, January 13, 1777, April 19, 1777. Number 1 of this series is of particular historical interest, for it was written during Washington's retreat across the Delaware and by his order was read to his dispirited and suffering soldiers. The opening sentence was adopted as the watchword of the movement to Trenton: "These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."
http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/history/american-crisis.html
RAC, I agree that the President, being the Commander in chief holds full responsibility. He makes and lives with his decisions.
Remember that Vietnam War started with Prisident Kennedy (Democrat) that sent our troops in without amunition. President Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) who lied about what was going on. When Nixon took office, it was a true quagmire. He tried carpet bonbing, but that was squashed by the Democrats in the House of Rep. When we left, we prommised aid to the South Vietmanies. That was ended by Democrats such as Senator Kennedy. The result was the loss of South Vietnam to the North. There is no parralell with the two wars. Today we have reporters inbeded.
You are correct, and I agree with you, that it is the anti-military who are violent protesters.
"War is hell" is a true statement. Nothing we ever due will stop the carnage war leaves. We were hit 5 times by Al Qaeda under President Clinton (Democrat), who did nothing to fight back. We were then hit once under President Bush (Republican). 3000 lives were lost in a matter of hours. Bush went on the attack, and we have not had a hit on our soil since.
We can not always know what our military is doing. I was twice put in harms way. Once was an amphibious landing on an enemies soil. I was never fired upon, but if the public knew, many would have been outraged. It was needed, but the public did not "need to know".
Do you or anyone think that any President dosn't think of every life under his command?
I have stood not only on military cemeteries in the U.S., but on foriegn ground. I also look for military head stones when I go to do the Military grave side services. Since breaking my back, I can't stand still too long, but I use to do quit a lot of them, Too many. About the only ones I attend now are those fallen, or friends who have passed away who served.
Doug, I forgot, we are not a Democracy. We are a Representitve Republic. In a Democroacy, every vote coundt (mob rules). We on the other hand vote in those weo will represent us, and vote for us.
DRL, I think we can all agree that it was a disgrace that our returning troops were treated the way that they were and a time we would never want to repeat. Today, I find it outrageous when I hear stories of veterans and servicemen not receiving the health care and benefits from our government that they so rightly have earned and deserve for their service. To me, it's just like spitting on them.
Juliet, How dare you call me an "arm chair patriot".
I have friends who still have nightmares over the loss of un uniformed casulties (civilians killed due to his or others actions in battle). I have never daid any loss of life is acceptible. Not even the lives of the military personel. I do have dirt on my door step that you could never understand. We emplay alot fo local people here in Eastern Idaho for the DOD. We have an Armor Manufacturer out here that ships protection to our troops. As I have already said, I was willing but unable to serve with my old unit, the 116 armor div. as they went to serve in Iraq. I know that the people of Iraq are much better off now than under the oppresion of Sadamhusssain. Remember that he slaughters more that 300,000 people whe stood against him after the Gulf War.
There are Gold Star famiies in this area, and we feel for them. But every time they are asked, the reply how proud they are for the sacrifice and support the war on terror.
We are not fighting the Iraq people. We went in to Iraq, bot because of 9/11 but because of the many broken U.N. reselutions. The last of which stated that if it were not adhered to, the consiquense would be military action. We are now fighting insurgents, who are an ununiformed fighters. Ununiformed fighters are not covered under the Geneva Accord. We have not fought the Iraq Military for more than 4 years.
I will not stand idle for any post or comment that even slightly dstorts or holds distain for our military, or any action taken by them.
It seems that I stand alone on this on this issue. And am proud to do so. I will not waver.
Hmmmm note to cell....I will not stand idle for any post or comment that even slightly dstorts or holds distain for our military, or any action taken by them.
you know remember the Alamo.
drl,
if your point is that we are in a representative democracy I yield it to you. This does not in any way change the fundamental responsibility of its participants of being an informed, questioning citizenry skeptical of authority. To do otherwise is to do a grave disservice to all those that have fought and died in all of our conflicts.
drl, you are not alone. I was stationed in Germany in '78 to '82
and I remember the days of the Red Brigades, the terrorist organization that was going around blowing up military housing while the soldiers were at work. Picture if you will that some asshole is planting explosives in fire extinguishers in laundry rooms and while your wife and kids are down washing laundry chatting about this and that and watching soap operas on Armed Forces television and just generally making the best of a shitty situation when they wanted to be back home in the U.S.
and BOOM! I was there and I remember being scared shitless every other day when we were put on alert and told another laundry room blew up. It was'nt soldiers coming home in body bags it was their wives and children. So yea, we need to be in Iraq and Iran and anywhere else that sponsors terrorism. Hate President Bush if you want but terrorism has been around a lot longer than he has and its about time someone stands up to these pussies! I too am sorry for ranting but I felt this needed to be said.
Only when we stop labeling ourselves as (Democrat) or (Republican) and begin to see ourselves as (People) will any real dialog take place. By branding ourselves as this or that we paint ourselves into a corner. The built in bias of these positions unable us to see things from an objective point of view.
Thomas Paine has the distinction of being one of most influential Founding Fathers. To blasphemy him with lies is the equivalent of spitting on the very foundation of this great country. And to that I find offense.
Mat, I was stationed in Northern Germany (between Bremen and Bremenhaven) until '82 myself. At our Garrison, 2nd AD Fwd, 'they' the terrorist broke through our security fence and blew up our medivac helicoptor just 100 feet from my barracks and attempted to burn down all of our buildings. They were stopped by the German Polizi and US Army MP's. Also knew some civilian riding the rail in Germany when it was attacted, (carry US military dependent women and children only), severely hurting a lot of women and children, including one of my Sgt.s wife. I have no simpathy for terrorist of any type. Remember, I was just a few miles away of the World Trade Center went it was hit. I personaly did not lose any friends, but know people who lost there spouses.
Yes, hate President Bush if you want. At least he had the balls to go after the Terrist. And for our young men and women over there fighting them...they all volenteered, unlike the Vietnam War when the draft was in effect. I salute our troops and veterans from all campains.
I too have my political view. I have no problem expressing them. At the same token, I also respect and appriciate those that disagree with my veiw. This is the freedom that the men and women in uniform have protected for us. I will not debate opposing views, nor will I attempt to cram my views down the throats of those that disagree with me.
(But I am an advacate for kicking the terrorist ass, what ever cave or country they may be hiding in, even if that means making Iran a glass parking lot. DRL, Cindy and Mat I am also a strong advocate for free speech, for everyone).
That is all.
RAC, I say this with a kind and humbled heart. The defonition of "Protagonist" is "a main cheractor". He was a major factor of the Revolution. He was just one who thought we could win it without a fight.
Thank you Ric and Mat.
I was feeling alone here.
DRL, thank you for the English lesson but I am well aware of the definition of a Protagonist.
I know Juliet posted this earlier so I'm not sure where you’re getting your information. I think Paine's call to arms is blatantly clear. I've reposted the first paragraph of The Crisis. Please take a moment to actually read it this time and let me know which parts of it you don't understand. If it helps, I've highlighted the juicy bits.
"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God." The Crisis, by Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776.
RAC, I know of Thomas Paine, and his life. How did I profane him? I acknowledged his importance in the insperation of the troops and the revelution.
Doug first mentioned him, then I did, then Juliet.
I only stated that Paine was against the war and thought Britan would allow America's independance without the war.
Paine didn't even stick around to the end, he went to Europe. But I had not stated anything negitive about the man. Would you please tell me when I did.
I know that it was a sarcastic strike at me about the english leson. I fail at the english language. That was personal.
RAC, I hadn't studied Paine since high shcool, and found this web page with a quick biography. If I have missrepresented him, let me know. I am not putting this on to throw anything at you, or to upset you anymore than you already are. www.ushistory.org/paine/
One problem wiht typing, is we can't tell emotions. The only time I was upset was when Juliet called me an "arm chair patriot", and when you said that I prophaned Paine. No matter what someone else thinks, I will not intentionaly insult, belittle, or prophane them.
Can't we all just talk about food?
For the record, I don't hate President Bush. Hate is an emotion reserved for simple minds and one I've worked very hard trying to overcome. Hate clouds one's judgement. Along with greed it is the source of most of the World’s problems. I think history will bear this out.
DRL, the role of victim does not fit you very well. You definitely make a much better ANTAGONIST.
It's all good, Dude. Just don't expect me to help you out when my sister kicks your ass in Vegas. Remember, she's seen your x-rays and knows your weak spot. There are two things Caraway's are genetically programmed to do... one of them is fight. ;-)
RAC, yup. If there is one thing, it may take me a while, but I know when I have gone too far.
All I can say after reading all the posts is that I personally wish for Peace,but I recognize that it's impossible. RAC, my father told me to never forget my great,great by 9 times or so Uncle. His name is on the "Declaration of Independence" His name is James Wilson, one of the 46 men that signed that. My Dad's full name was Blair Wilson Sparks. Seeing all these feelings on this blog alone makes me wonder what he would be thinking now?
There was a comment made regarding war time prosperity and the continued growth of the US economy even in the worst of times. a figure of 15 percent was suggested. One of the messages that the president passes on is how good our economy is doing and it is the same message that the Clinton administration is credited with. This is really misleading and I have posted an excerpt from an article that explains why far more clearly than I ever could. If you all have the time read the whole thing if you don't at least read this portion. It is from 1995 but the fundamentals are still current. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm
The GDP Today: How Down Becomes Up
If the chief of your local police department were to announce today that "activity" on the city streets had increased by 15 percent, people would not be impressed, reporters least of all. They would demand specifics. Exactly what increased?Tree planting or burglaries? Volunteerism or muggings? Car wrecks or neighborly acts of kindness?
The mere quantity of activity, taken alone, says virtually nothing about whether life on the streets is getting better or worse. The economy is the same way. "Less" or "more" means very little unless you know of what. Yet somehow the GDPmanages to induce a kind of collective stupor in which such basic questions rarely get asked.
By itself the GDP tells very little. Simply a measure of total output (the dollar value of finished goods and services), it assumes that everything produced is by definition "goods." It does not distinguish between costs and benefits, between productive and destructive activities, or between sustainable and unsustainable ones. The nation's central measure of well being works like a calculating machine that adds but cannot subtract. It treats everything that happens in the market as a gain for humanity, while ignoring everything that happens outside the realm of monetized exchange, regardless of the importance to well-being.
By the curious standard of the GDP, the nation's economic hero is a terminal cancer patient who is going through a costly divorce. The happiest event is an earthquake or a hurricane. The most desirable habitat is a multibillion-dollar Superfund site. All these add to the GDP, because they cause money to change hands. It is as if a business kept a balance sheet by merely adding up all "transactions," without distinguishing between income and expenses, or between assets and liabilities.
The perversity of the GDP affects virtually all parts of society. In 1993 William J. Bennett, who had been the Secretary of Education in the Reagan Administration, produced a study of social decline. He called it "The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators," a deliberate counterpoint to the Commerce Department's similarly named regular economic report. His objective was to detail the social erosion that has continued even as the nation's economic indicators have gone up.
The strange fact that jumps out from Bennett's grim inventory of crime, divorce, mass-media addiction, and the rest is that much of it actually adds to the GDP. Growth can be social decline by another name. Divorce, for example, adds a small fortune in lawyers' bills, the need for second households, transportation and counseling for kids, and so on. Divorce lawyers alone take in probably several billion dollars a year, and possibly a good deal more. Divorce also provides a major boost for the real-estate industry. "Unfortunately, divorce is a big part of our business. It means one [home] to sell and sometimes two to buy,"a realtor in suburban Chicago told the Chicago Tribune. Similarly, crime has given rise to a burgeoning crime-prevention and security industry with revenues of more than $65 billion a year. The car-locking device called The Club adds some $100 million a year to the GDP all by itself, without counting knock-offs. Even a gruesome event like the Oklahoma City bombing becomes an economic uptick by the strange reckonings of the GDP. "Analysts expect the share prices [of firms making anti-crime equipment] to gain during the next several months," The Wall Street Journal reported a short time after the bombing, "as safety concerns translate into more contracts."
Bennett cited the chilling statistics that teenagers spend on average some three hours a day watching television, and about five minutes a day alone with their fathers. Yet when kids are talking with their parents, they aren't adding to the GDP. In contrast, MTV helps turn them into ardent, GDP-enhancing consumers. Even those unwed teenage mothers are bringing new little consumers into the world (where they will quickly join the "kiddie market" and after that the "teen market," which together influence more than $200 billion in GDP). So while social conservatives like Bennett are rightly deploring the nation's social decline, their free-marketeer counterparts are looking at the same phenomena through the lens of the GDP and breaking out the champagne.
Something similar happens with the natural habitat. The more the nation depletes its natural resources, the more the GDP increases. This violates basic accounting principles, in that it portrays the depletion of capital as current income. No businessperson would make such a fundamental error. When a small oil company drains an oil well in Texas, it gets a generous depletion allowance on its taxes, in recognition of the loss. Yet that very same drainage shows up as a gain to the nation in the GDP. When the United States fishes its cod populations down to remnants, this appears on the national books as an economic boom--until the fisheries collapse. As the former World Bank economist Herman Daly puts it, the current national accounting system treats the earth as a business in liquidation.
Add pollution to the balance sheet and we appear to be doing even better. In fact, pollution shows up twice as a gain: once when the chemical factory, say, produces it as a by-product, and again when the nation spends billions of dollars to clean up the toxic Superfund site that results. Furthermore, the extra costs that come as a consequence of that environmental depletion and degradation--such as medical bills arising from dirty air--also show up as growth in the GDP.
This kind of accounting feeds the notion that conserving resources and protecting the natural habitat must come at the expense of the economy, because the result can be a lower GDP. That is a lot like saying that a reserve for capital depreciation must come at the expense of the business. On the contrary, a capital reserve is essential to ensure the future of the business. To ignore that is to confuse mere borrowing from the future with actual profit. Resource conservation works the same way, but the perverse accounting of the GDP hides this basic fact.
No less important is the way the GDP ignores the contribution of the social realm--that is, the economic role of households and communities. This is where much of the nation's most important work gets done, from caring for children and older people to volunteer work in its many forms. It is the nation's social glue. Yet because no money changes hands in this realm, it is invisible to conventional economics. The GDP doesn't count it at all--which means that the more our families and communities decline and a monetized service sector takes their place, the more the GDP goes up and the economic pundits cheer.
Parenting becomes child care, visits on the porch become psychiatry and VCRs, the watchful eyes of neighbors become alarm systems and police officers, the kitchen table becomes McDonald's--up and down the line, the things people used to do for and with one another turn into things they have to buy. Day care adds more than $4 billion to the GDP; VCRs and kindred entertainment gear add almost $60 billion. Politicians generally see this decay through a well-worn ideological lens: conservatives root for the market, liberals for the government. But in fact these two "sectors" are, in this respect at least, merely different sides of the same coin: both government and the private market grow by cannibalizing the family and community realms that ultimately nurture and sustain us.
These are just the more obvious problems. There are others, no less severe. The GDP totally ignores the distribution of income, for example, so that enormous gains at the top--as were made during the 1980s--appear as new bounty for all. It makes no distinction between the person in the secure high-tech job and the "downsized" white-collar worker who has to work two jobs at lower pay. The GDP treats leisure time and time with family the way it treats air and water: as having no value at all. When the need for a second job cuts the time available for family or community, the GDP records this loss as an economic gain.
Then there's the question of addictive consumption. Free-market fundamentalists are inclined to attack critics of the GDP as "elitists." People buy things because they want them, they say, and who knows better than the people themselves what adds to well-being? It makes a good one liner. But is the truth really so simple? Some 40 percent of the nation's drinking exceeds the level of "moderation," defined as two drinks a day. Credit-card abuse has become so pervasive that local chapters of Debtors Anonymous hold forty-five meetings a week in the San Francisco Bay area alone. Close to 50 percent of Americans consider themselves overweight. When one considers the $32 billion diet industry, the GDP becomes truly bizarre. It counts the food that people wish they didn't eat, and then the billions they spend to lose the added pounds that result. The coronary bypass patient becomes almost a metaphor for the nation's measure of progress: shovel in the fat, pay the consequences, add the two together, and the economy grows some more.
So, too, the O. J. Simpson trial. When The Wall Street Journal added up the Simpson legal team ($20,000 a day), network-news expenses, O. J. statuettes, and the rest, it got a total of about $200 million in new GDP, for which politicians will be taking credit in 1996. "GDP of O.J. Trial Outruns the Total of, Say, Grenada," the Journal's headline writer proclaimed. One begins to understand why politicians prefer to talk about growth rather than what it actually consists of, and why Prozac alone adds more than $1.2 billion to the GDP, as people try to feel a little better amid all this progress.
The Politics of Permanence
Simon Kuznets had deep reservations about the national accounts he helped to create. In his very first report to Congress, in 1934, he tried to warn the nation of the limitations of the new system. "The welfare of a nation," the report concluded, can "scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above."
But the GNP proceeded to acquire totemic stature, and Kuznets's concerns grew deeper. He rejected the a priori conceptual schemes that govern most economic thought. As an economy grows, he said, the concept of what it includes must grow as well. Economists must seek to measure more and different things. By 1962 Kuznets was writing in The New Republic that the national accounting needed to be fundamentally rethought: "Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long run," he wrote. "Goals for 'more' growth should specify more growth of what and for what" (emphasis added).
To most of us, that would seem to be only common sense. If the government is going to promote something, surely the voters should know what that something is. But in the view of most economists, Kuznets was proposing a pipe bomb in the basement. Once you start asking "what" as well as "how much"--that is, about quality instead of just quantity--the premise of the national accounts as an indicator of progress begins to disintegrate, and along with it much of the conventional economic reasoning on which those accounts are based.
Unsurprisingly, the profession did not seize eagerly upon Kuznets's views. Though he won a Nobel Prize in 1971, many economists dismissed him as a kind of glorified statistician. Most are aware of at least some of the basic shortcomings of the GDP. But rather than face those shortcomings squarely, they have either shrugged their shoulders or sought to minimize the implications for their underlying models. In his ubiquitous economics text Paul Samuelson and his co-author William Nordhaus devote a few pages to possible revisions to the GDPto reflect environmental and other concerns. But this is more in the spirit of a technical adjustment than a questioning of the underlying premise.
I admire that you recognize your limits, DRL. It's obviously a virtue I have yet to acquire.
I am with you on this one Dave, FOOD, awwhh Food.
I agree with you juls how about serving up some crow pie. HAHAHAHAHAH
Juliet, I am a gormet taster when it comes to eating crow, humble pie, foot. I was once told if I were to shoot myself in the foot it would be a fatal head shot, I have "foot in mouth syndrome".
IRONY: What are the odds the peace loving hippy chick is the only one here that's actually sent a kid off to fight the War on Terror?
Post a Comment