'Bush is dead wrong': Stiglitz is probably not right

Noble Laureate Stiglitz might be wrong, in many respects, when it comes to his analysis and finding with regard to "Bush is dead wrong" due, among other things, to the following reasons:

Mr. Stiglitz used time dimensions and pertinent statistics as some of the key factors in his analysis. But based on those and other factors he had used in his analysis, it might, inter alia, be difficult in a deeper sense for many people to conclude, at this point in time, and in a straightforward and wholesome fashion, "Bush is dead wrong". Because the 'perimeter' of the kingdom of knowledge is still nearly unknown or undiscovered or both; a continuous chain of what I will call the 'relative truth' after the 'relative truth' has apparently been the motive power (used in an engineering sense) for knowledge available so far to human beings (hereinafter: the knowledge, unless used otherwise); the per capita share of the knowledge is not the same or equal throughout the world; and the very existence (in a physical sense) of explorers, developers and users of the knowledge say, human beings, is not absolute but relative to say, time and space, like-wise the products of human beings and the outcomes of those products, for example. Those are among the reasons why two big physics theories of the 20th century -- quantum and relativity -- have failed, in several respects, to deliver a unified field theory to the world -- approximations cannot apparently become the basis of the unified theory, per se.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The bottom line is: in an apparently moving, as well as constantly changing reality (up to and beyond say, sub-atomic levels) that has been constantly affecting say, the life and living on earth, the demand for continuous human efforts towards the revelation of, and harnessing the 'truth' behind the 'truth' has been on the rise with the 'growth' of say, knowledge in human societies, in varying degrees though, relative to time and space. The effort towards the revelation of the 'truth' behind the 'truth' is relevant to the matter pertaining to the outcome(s) of Bush's policies, especially at this critical hour of the US history. But the revelation of a half or a quarter of the 'truth' regarding the above matter could inter alia deprive the US voters and others of gaining a 'full' insight into the matter, per se. In view of that and other considerations, it now appears Noble Laureate Stiglitz should have taken inter alia a harder, broader, deeper and more balanced look at the President's policies and the resultant outcomes (including intervening variables in pertinent areas) before concluding: Bush is dead wrong. Hence, it is apparent the conclusion does not have a stable and comprehensive base.

In his analysis, Stiglitz did not apparently take into account the country's contextual premise in the post 9/11 era and its continuing impact on say, the US's local, as well as national economy and the economy of the world at large and vice versa. He did not probably examine say, risks and vulnerabilities associated with the political economy of the post 9/11 era at national and global levels. Further, he might have overlooked the fact: the multiplying and cross cutting effects, especially in the post 9/11 environment, of such developments as the growing interdependency between and among the world countries; the inequalities that currently exist between and among the countries in the world-wide competition ranging from survival (used in a deeper sense) to prosperity; and the magnitude and consequence of present day disasters, both natural and human-made; are becoming increasingly instrumental in say, pulling and pushing the economies of world countries including the US in various directions, relative to time, space and the degree of impact. Closely related to it, is the existence of a direct and inverse relationship between environmental stability and economic stability at various operation levels. Stiglitz has apparently failed to internalise those and related factors into his conclusion but based his judgment only on the face values of those policies and outcomes mentioned earlier -- they do not represent though the entire scenario -- while declaring President Bush is dead wrong.

Stiglitz compared the rate of average economic growth during Clinton years with that of Bush's, in an effort towards establishing policy outcome differential (not used in an engineering sense). He concluded the growth was slower during the Bush years. It is fine. But, while terming Bush's policies as failed ones and linking them with the growth rates, he apparently failed to appreciate say, the relative tolerance levels of the US economy during Clinton and Bush years. It implies inter alia the Noble Laureate was not probably prepared to accept the fact that 2 is not always equal to 2. Stiglitz's analysis did not apparently consider, in terms of economics, the difference between performing in a non-war situation and in a war situation (say, the 9/11 attack on the US and its ongoing consequences) when it comes to challenges and opportunities under the respective situations, per se; and the impact of Bush's post 9/11 policies on the safety and security of the US, the people, and the country's corporate governance; to mention a few. Further, he should have reflected on the economic costs of meeting the challenges of the country's on-going war economy that has seen so far and inter alia: the shift of priorities; the policy, as well as strategy change or redirection (or both); the redistribution, as well as rerouting of resources; the formulation of new programmes or readjustment of existing programmes (or both); and the change of implementation plans and modalities in both internal and external dimensions of the US. In short, Stiglitz seems to have failed, in many respects, to unearth the 'truth' behind the 'truth' in his policy analysis effort.

Two plus two is not always four. The same holds well when it comes to say, generating output(s) through a process of economics and that of manufacturing (used in an engineering sense). It is easier to produce the required output(s) 'just-in-time' through say, a numerically controlled machining centre or a high-precision speed lathe than through a government machinery. One of the reasons is: while the former works under known and controlled variables, relative to time and space though, the latter does not largely work in that way. The approach of economics to say, problem-solving is, in many respects, based on say, choices and probabilities and that is why an economist cannot presently afford to give a direct 'yes' or 'no' answer to many problems in pertinent areas.

In fine: firstly, President Bush does not deserve the comment "Bush is dead wrong"; and secondly, it is expected Noble Laureate Stiglitz will step up his effort towards the revelation of the 'truth' behind the 'truth' in his area(s) of expertise.

Dr M S Haq is a freelance writer.