This is a shortened version of the whole Bulletin which I sent out weekly from 2002-2008. Not only did I send it to my "Green Lists" but to Local Officials, Montana Media, and other peace or "coal" (environmental) lists as relevant. It's a huge body of work, and I wrote several articles myself as well as commenting on and reprinting a wide variety of other material. - PHS
Montana Green Bulletin
January 28, 2008 Volume VII, Number 5
A TALE OF TWO COMMENTARIES (from KUFM/KGPR)
Great Falls’ Rush to Coal for Electricity by Prof. Tom Power, University of Montana
Highwood Plant - Reply by Brett Doney, Great Falls Development Authority
GREEN SOLUTIONS by Paul Stephens, CasCoGreens
The Strange Case of Brett Doney
Voices from the Wild: The Canada Goose and the Cutthroat Trout
Who are the Bois Brûlé?
The Grand Inquisitor as Pope
ECONOMICS: Stimulus Gone Bad by Paul Krugman
Tom Power - January 21, 2008
Great Falls’ Rush to Coal for Electricity
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/494
Great Falls is known as the Electric City because of the concentration there of hydroelectric facilities along the Missouri River. Those hydroelectric dams, that helped industrialize Western Montana in the early 20th century, were built there, as the city’s name makes clear, because of a 20 mile reach of the Missouri that was dominated by five waterfalls and steep rapids. It was here that Lewis and Clark had to pull out all of their boats and gear and drag it twenty miles around those falls and rapids. Since 1966 the remnants of that Lewis and Clark portage site have been recognized as a National Historical Landmark.
Now, however, the City of Great Falls and a group of rural electric cooperatives want to build a coal-fired generating facility, the Highwood Generating Station, adjacent to that portage site. The open farmland would be converted into an industrial site complete with a tall smokestack, a railroad spur, coal chutes, transmission lines, water and waste water mains, and various buildings and maintenance yards. From that smoke stack will come tons of greenhouse gases as well as particulate pollution scattering the light and obscuring the view as well as mercury and other pollutants.
The justification that Great Falls has offered for building this coal-fired facility on the banks of the Missouri, adjacent to the Lewis and Clark National Historical Landmark, is that buying a share of the Highwood plant will stabilize electric prices at relatively low levels and that will contribute to economic development and improved local economic well being. Great Falls sought to get the cities of Missoula and Helena to also buy into this facility, but they wisely refused.
If building a conventional coal-fired electric generator assured customers of low and stable electric prices, every utility in the region and around the nation would be planning to build such plants. But that is not what utilities have been doing. During 2007 53 coal-fired plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed. The primary cause of this move away from coal for electric generation was the uncertainty about what the impending regulation of carbon emissions would do to the cost of electricity from coal-fired plants. In addition, the cost of building the plants and the cost of the coal itself have also been rising steeply. This has created the potential that coal will become the highest cost source of electricity rather than the lowest. If, for instance, the carbon dioxide emitted by a coal-fired plant had to be captured and sequestered, the cost of coal-fired electricity has been estimated to be above that of nuclear power and natural gas plants even after the expected escalation in natural gas prices is taken into account.
Those uncertainties about what coal-fired electricity will actually cost recently led PacifiCorp to cancel two coal plants in Utah. In Nevada, Sierra Pacific decided to delay building a coal plant and, instead, move up a planned natural gas plant in the schedule. In NorthWestern Energy’s newly released electric supply plan for Montana, there are no new coal plants planned. NorthWestern is not alone in steering clear of coal for now. Avista Utilities in Idaho and Washington, Puget Sound Energy in western Washington, and Portland General Electric in Oregon have also put a hold on any development of new coal-fired generators until the risks and uncertainties about the true costs associated with coal-fired generation have been clarified. It is not just the electric utilities that are worried. The financial markets to which the utilities would have to turn to raise the money to build new generators are also skittish about investing in risky coal.
The Great Falls and rural co-op proponents of the Highwood plant, inexplicably, think they and their customers will not be exposed to that risk. That is a dangerous fantasy.
But the risks associated with the costs that the imminent regulation of carbon emissions will impose is just one of the financial risks that the captive customers who are forced to take power from this plant would face. If Great Falls forms an electric utility around this plant, it will serve its customers exclusively from just this one source of power. As the history of thermal-electric plants such as Colstrip in Montana and Coyote Springs 2 in Oregon demonstrate, generators can fail for extended periods of time forcing utilities to turn to other sources of generation. If the utility has no other sources, it is forced to go into the market and pay whatever is necessary to serve its customers’ needs. The Highwood Plant is also much too large for the customers that Great Falls and the co-ops have lined up. As a result, those utilities will count on paying for the plant by selling large quantities of electricity into volatile regional electric markets at unknown prices.
None of this suggests that the proposed power plant will provide electricity at low and stable electric rates to its customers. It is highly likely to do the opposite, imposing a serious economic burden on customers and the region in the process. In addition it will add to the global warming problem rather than moving in the direction of mitigating it. Finally, it will trash a remarkable part of Great Falls’ historical heritage.
One has to ask, what’s the point? Why are Great Falls’ political leaders committed to this risky proposition just when utility leaders are stepping back from coal? It may take financial markets to sober those political leaders up and put an end to this economic and environmental gamble.
KUFM/KGPR
T.M. Power
================
Highwood Plant - Reply by Brett Doney - January 23, 2008
Great Falls Development Authority
http://www.mtpr.net/commentaries/496
As President of the Great Falls Development Authority, I am responding to Dr. Power’s commentary broadcast Monday evening questioning the Highwood Generating Station project in Cascade County.
Over the past several years, Dr. Power’s commentaries on this station have attacked many aspects of the Highwood Generating Station, coal and other natural resource development, and efforts to create high wage jobs in Montana. In the five minutes provided by Montana Public Radio, I have time to respond to only a few of these attacks, but it is clear that Dr. Power and I see the world and the Montana economy from very different perspectives.
As a professional economic developer, I believe creating higher wage job opportunities for the citizens of Montana, and for the Great Falls region in particular, is a worthy pursuit. There was a time when I was a child that my family struggled to make ends meet. It forced me to grow up much more quickly than I would ever want for my kids. Dr. Power, with all due respect, it sucks to be poor.
Dr. Power has called for public power in Montana so long as it is democratically controlled. The Highwood Generating Station is being developed by Southern Montana Electric which is made up of five nonprofit rural Montana electric cooperatives and Electric City Power. The rural coops are run by boards democratically elected by their members. Electric City Power is a municipal utility run by a board appointed by the democratically elected Great Falls City Commission.
Southern Montana Electric is losing the power it currently buys from the Bonneville Power Administration. The coops conducted an exhaustive analysis looking at the various options they had to replace that power. They decided that they would rather control their own destiny to protect their member owners, ranchers, farmers and rural residents across central and eastern Montana, rather than trying to purchase power in the volatile open markets or being dependent on utilities owned by out of state investors. SME believes that dependable and affordable electricity is critical to its members. Dr. Power believes that energy prices have not risen high enough, that they should rise much higher, and that we should not worry about the impact of much higher prices on rural Montanans because the government will somehow take care of them. We’ve heard these types of promises before. The answer, according to Dr. Power, is for rural Montanans to conserve more because evidently we waste so much electricity at our farms and ranches. Does he think we’re the Las Vegas strip?
SME considered a wide range of generation types. Wind generation does not work for base power loads. In central Montana, we are trying to build as many wind farms as possible, but have to fight environmentalists to construct each and every wind turbine and transmission lines to transport the electricity to where it is needed. Dr. Power points to natural gas generation, but natural gas prices have been extremely volatile. The National Energy Technology Lab states that forecasts of North American natural gas supply to the U.S. are flat to declining and that added gas-fired generation needs to rely on imported liquefied natural gas. Yet, efforts to build LNG terminals on both coasts have been strongly opposed and the LNG must come from mostly unfriendly nations, potentially putting us into future wars for natural gas as today we fight for oil. The National Energy Technology Lab says that new coal fired generation is increasingly required for maintaining minimal regional electricity capacity margins.
Dr. Power spoke of proposed coal electric generation plants that have been delayed or cancelled. What he failed to mention is that new coal generation plants are currently under construction in 18 states across the country. He also referred to the technology of Highwood Station as old technology. Actually, the fluidized bed technology that Highwood Station will employ is the newest technology in the field. It’s emissions will be far, far less than Colstrip where we and Missoula get much of our electricity.
Natural gas generation plants generate only half of the CO2 emissions of coal generation plants, which could result in lower carbon taxes or cap and trade fees in the future. However, experts estimate that 8% of natural gas is lost to the atmosphere from the gas field to the generation plant, and it is 20 times more powerful than CO2 as a global warming agent. So if future carbon tax legislation takes this into account, the savings of natural gas are suspect. In fact, SME has proposed that the Highwood Generating Station be a national demonstration site for carbon capture and sequestration in partnership with the Montana State University Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Project.
Lastly, Dr. Power attacks the Highwood Generating Station because it will be built within the viewshed of the Lewis & Clark Portage Route National Historic Landmark. Well, most of the Great Falls region is within the viewshed of the portage route. Malmstrom AFB sits on top of the route. The Landmark is private property. The National Park Service has never offered to buy the thousands of acres that comprise the Landmark. In fact, Federal law specifically prohibits Landmark status from affecting the development rights of private property owners.
The Highwood Generating Station is a project being built by Montanan’s for Montanans. It will use the newest coal generation technology commercially available today. It will provide dependable power for rural Montanans with far less pollution than the rest of us generate from our power consumption. It will meet or exceed all state and federal environmental regulations. It will create high wage union jobs and increase the property tax base of Cascade County by over 25%. We think it should be built and built without further delay.
===================
[And who is "we"? Does he have a mouse in his pocket? I've known Prof. Power for nearly 30 years, and he has always supported organized labor and high or higher-paying jobs for all Montanans. It is Mr. Doney who is doing the "attacking" here.
I find it incredible that someone with Doney's intelligence and experience understands nothing about renewable energy and global warming. However, if he really is that ignorant, here's a chance for him and the rest of the "we" to redeem themselves. Spend an hour reading this, and then tell us that the Highwood Station "should be built and built without further delay." -- PHS] http://www.uspirg.org/reports/CoalRushUS.pdf
/\/\/\/\/\
GREEN SOLUTIONS
The Strange Case of Brett Doney
When the Great Falls Development Authority hired Brett Doney as its director a couple of years ago, most of us were thrilled. The GFDA and its predecessor organizations (originally established, as I recall, to spend or "invest" the $6 million which Atlantic Richfield paid to mitigate the closing of the former Anaconda Company smelter in the late 1970's) have always been plagued with bad leadership. Two previous directors imported from North Dakota were, by their own testimony, "run out of town" either for bankruptcy or for "creating too many high-paying jobs"). All they talked about was the need for "right to work" laws, and plans to bribe low-wage corporate employers to move their phone rooms or other low-wage jobs here, while being given millions of local taxpayer dollars to do so. The few real successes were attributable to the connections of Great Falls natives who worked for major companies elsewhere.
From the beginning, the GFDA was a Chamber of Commerce gig dominated by existing businesses whose primary mission has been to expand local military spending and other corporate welfare pork as well as to prevent any dynamic, progressive companies offering high-wage, environmentally sustainable jobs from locating here.
I've made this charge many times, and even my intimate friends in the business community deny the motive, while agreeing that, while they'd like to pay living wages competitive with, say, Denver or Spokane, they simply can't afford to do so. QED. What they understand very well is that if some company(ies) employing hundreds or thousands of people in the $12-25/hour range were to locate here, existing businesses (often in the same families for generations) would either have to match those wage levels or lose most of their key employees to these new arrivals. But that's what "the free market economy" is all about, isn't it? Competition for the best workers to make the best products and provide the best services to consumers. But who in Great Falls has ever heard of a "free market" or understands the basic principles of full-cost pricing, opportunity cost, sustainability (it must be just as good for the 7th generation), etc.? If they did, they were locked up, "re-habilitated" (as I was), or simply "run out of town on a rail" - and these days, it is "a rail" - the Burlington-Northern-Santa Fe monopoly.
One of my own economics professors at UCLA used to say that no business person is really in favor of competition or free markets - witness Bill Gates. Adam Smith said much the same in his "Wealth of Nations" (Glasgow, 1776) - something to the effect that business people never meet or discuss anything that doesn't amount to a conspiracy against the public interest. Brett Doney and his Great Falls bosses (I'm thinking particularly of Owen Robinson, whom I've known since high school) are following this tradition precisely. More's the pity because I don't think Brett really wants to do this. He was hired on the basis of his resume from Maine, where he was successful in two projects which were very relevant to the situation in Great Falls - developing clean, renewable energy projects, and converting a closed military base to civilian uses. And, he is a native Californian (UCSB graduate) as well as having earned a Master's in Public Administration from Harvard. Perfect! He certainly would have been my first choice for the job.
But it has taken less than two years to grind him up and spit him out as a clone of John Kramer or Ron Oberlander, the North Dakotans. The anti-development, elitist, authoritarian rustbelt business community in Great Falls could think of nothing better to do with Doney's vast experience and intelligence than shut it down. I think we can read his reply to Tom Power's excellent comments on the Highwood Station as his letter of resignation - in spirit, if not in fact. He has met the enemy, and he is theirs. There is no possibility, now, that he can actually do the right thing and support sustainable development for Great Falls. He's done, here. -- PHS
================
Voices from the Wild: The Canada Goose and the Cutthroat Trout
One of the perils of being a real, wilderness-trekking environmentalist, is that like our Native forebears, we tend to associate ourselves with some sort of "totem animal." Those guys who go and live with grizzly bears and consider them their friends are the best examples. That the bears should fatten them up and eat the nature-loving human beings prior to hibernation is by far the best part of the story - a true sharing of love and bodily substance with the animal "objects of desire."
So we should celebrate these deaths as being deaths of the very best kind - a continuation of Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" (also the key to the mystery in the book and film, "The DaVinci Code").
FROM EPISTLE II
Know, then, thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reasoning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused, or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled:
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
FROM EPISTLE III
Nothing is foreign: parts relate to whole;
One all-extending, all-preserving soul
Connects each being, greatest with the least;
Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast;
All served, all serving: nothing stands alone;
The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown.
>>>Read the complete work at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2428/2428-h/2428-h.htm
=================
Who are the Bois Brûlé?
In my story last week about the Metis, I neglected to mention the name that they originally applied to themselves. Although the Metis People now use that term honorably, it was originally more or less the French equivalent of "half-breed" and etymologically the same as "Mestizo". After a century of racism and Nazi (and other) ideas of "racial purity", the idea of "mixed blood" people had some sort of stigma attached to it, even though biologists have always known that expanding the genetic pool is an evolutionary benefit, not a liability. It is the inbred "pure" strains which lose their vitality, intelligence, and functionality, while the natural selection of interbreeding leads to all sorts of magnificent successes and improvements to the gene pool and the future potentiality of our species. Witness Tiger Woods!
The name the Metis first applied to themselves was, interestingly enough, the "Bois Brûlé", or "scorched wood" people - because of their color. So, we "woodlanders" have another great ally, here. One wonders if the fashionability of sun-tanning had something to do with the Bois Brûlé? In all the history of the world, white Americans were among the very few to actively seek to get "toasted" in the open sun, over most or all of their skin surface. Traditional peoples living in hot, desert areas have always preferred the shade, and to protect their skins from the devastating, carcinogenic effects of direct exposure to the mid-day sun. Would that I had been so wise in my youth. I could break out in a mass of skin cancers at any time, now. Fortunately, I need no such induction into the Bois Brûlé. -- PHS
==============
The Grand Inquisitor as Pope
When Cardinal Ratzinger's name first came into prominence around the time of John Paul II's death, I made a joke that Celestial Seasonings' "Red Zinger" tea had been named for him. It's probably not that far from the truth. And I predicted that he would be the next Pope, which few of my Catholic friends believed at the time. He seemed way too conservative, too old, and with apparent Nazi connections (he had been in the Hitler Jugend, among other things). And, as the chief advisor and speechwriter for John Paul II, he had inherited the position that used to be called "the Grand Inquisitor", fighting heresies, burning books, etc. So, that's what we have now - a Grand Inquisitor as Pope. It's like promoting a Supreme Court justice to President. Not much of a promotion, really. Except for the money and power. Indeed, this begs the question of the "separation of powers" principle.
It's more like the head of the FBI or CIA becoming President. Vlady, are you out there? Come in from the cold! George II knows your soul! But whatever happened to Democracy?
Well, we certainly know that it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Except for some dissident strains like St. Francis, Teilhard de Chardin, and Jesuits without number. Has there ever been a Jesuit Pope, or is that feared above all? They'd make us into goddam communists!
The one great hope we had for Pope Benedict XVI was peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI He took his name (one of the few real prerogatives the Pope has - to choose his own papal name) from Benedict XV, the Pope who made a valiant effort to prevent World War I, and then to bring it to a quick conclusion. But the Bismarckian Kulturkampfers were having no part of it. Basically, World War I was a continuation of the Thirty Years War, with variations. And that, as we know, precipitated the Holocaust and the overall shape of the world, today. A dismal thought, indeed..... -PHS
===============
Another piece of the puzzle?
Georg Ratzinger (politician)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Ratzinger_%28politician%29
Georg Ratzinger (born April 3, 1844 in Rickering at Deggendorf, died December 3, 1899 in Munich) was a German Catholic priest, political economist, social reformer, author and politician. He saw the gospel and Catholic social teaching as a means of empowering the poor but was also responsible for shaping anti-Jewish attitudes among 19th century German Catholics[1].
Ratzinger was a pupil at the gymnasium at Passau during the years 1855-63, studied theology at Munich, 1863-67, and was ordained priest in 1867. In 1868 he received the degree of Doctor of Theology at Munich. During the following years he devoted himself partly to pastoral, partly to journalistic work. In 1869 he was chaplain at Berchtesgaden; 1870-71 he was editor of the journal "Fränkisches Volksblatt" at Würzburg; 1872-74, chaplain at Landshut, then editor, until 1876, of the "Volksfreund", at Munich.[2]
He was a member of the Bavarian Landtag (parliament) from 1875 to 1878 and of the German Reichstag from 1877 to 1878. During this period he belonged to the Centre Party. He combined the roles of priest and politician in a way which his grandnephew, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, rejected.
With exception of a pastorate of three years at Günzelhafen, 1885-88, he lived for a number of years at Munich, where he devoted himself to journalism and research.
In 1893 Ratzinger was again elected to the Bavarian Landtag, where he was now a moderate adherent of the "Bayerischer Bauernbund (Bavarian Peasant Union) party, his views of social politics having caused him in the meantime to sever his connections with the Centre Party. In 1898 he was again elected a member of the Reichstag. He remained a member of both bodies until his death.
As a literary man Ratzinger deserves much credit for his scholarly work in political economy and in historical subjects. His chief works, distinguished by erudition, richness of thought, and animated exposition, are: "Geschichte der Armenpflege" (prize essay, Freiburg, 1868, 2nd revised ed., 1884); "Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen. Ethnischsociale Studien über Cultur und Civilisation (Freiburg, 1881; 2nd. completely revised ed., 1895).
The later work maintains the ethical principles of Christianity as the only sure basis of political economy and opposes the materialistic system of what is called the "classical political economy" of Adam Smith.
"Forschungen zur bayerischen Geschichte" (Kempten, 1898); this contains a large number of studies on early Bavarian history and on the history of civilization, based on a series of unconnected treatises, which had first appeared in the "Historisch-politische Blätter". Of his smaller works the following should be mentioned: "Das Concil und die deustche Wissenschaft" (anonymously issued at Mainz, 1872) appeared first in the "Katholik", 1872, I; "Die Erhaltung des Bauernstandes" (Freiburg, 1883).
His nephew was the police officer Joseph Ratzinger, Sr., father of Pope Benedict XVI (born Joseph Ratzinger) and Georg Ratzinger, the priest and church musician.
References
1 Uriel Tal, Christians and Jews in Germany: Religion, Politics, and Ideology in the Second Reich, 1870-1914 (Cornell, 1975)
2 Georg Ratzinger
Georg Ratzinger (politician)
/\/\/\/\/\
ECONOMICS
[Ever since I studied economics in college, I've been mystified by the tendency of government and corporate economic policy makers to seemingly always do the wrong thing - and to keep making the same mistakes over and over, again. Part of the problem is institutional - most of the money and banking system, fiscal policy, the stock market, etc., is fundamentally flawed. It was designed to serve very different purposes than "providing for the general welfare" - namely, for elitist, statist, militaristic, profit-maximizing, imperialistic control and domination by "the two party system of denial and blame." So long as voting is governed by what Nobel Prize winner James Buchanan called "the calculus of consent," where people vote their perceived selfish economic interests instead of for the best candidates and policies for the country as a whole, we're doomed to perpetual wars, corporate welfare, and a government entirely controlled by organized corporate interests and their K Street lobbyists and bill brokers.
The U.S. has never been "socialist" in any sense of the word. And so, to evaluate any particular policy or program in isolation leaves us frustrated and confused. Why would the Bush Administration (and the Democrats in Congress) pass a "stimulus package" which is almost sure to fail? Because that's what they always do. And why do voters keep electing them? It's largely because of the New York Times, and the rest of the corporate media. They've taken over the government, and won't allow any sound thinkers and policy makers to be heard - or elected. -- PHS]
Stimulus Gone Bad
by Paul Krugman
Published on Friday, January 25, 2008 by The New York Times
House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan - which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape - looks like a lemon.
Specifically, the Democrats appear to have buckled in the face of the Bush administration’s ideological rigidity, dropping demands for provisions that would have helped those most in need. And those happen to be the same provisions that might actually have made the stimulus plan effective....
On the other hand, money delivered to people who aren’t in good financial shape - who are short on cash and living check to check - does double duty: it alleviates hardship and also pumps up consumer spending.
That’s why many of the stimulus proposals we were hearing just a few days ago focused in the first place on expanding programs that specifically help people who have fallen on hard times, especially unemployment insurance and food stamps. And these were the stimulus ideas that received the highest grades in a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
There was also some talk among Democrats about providing temporary aid to state and local governments, whose finances are being pummeled by the weakening economy. Like help for the unemployed, this would have done double duty, averting hardship and heading off spending cuts that could worsen the downturn.
But the Bush administration has apparently succeeded in killing all of these ideas, in favor of a plan that mainly gives money to those least likely to spend it.
Why would the administration want to do this? It has nothing to do with economic efficacy: no economic theory or evidence I know of says that upper-middle-class families are more likely to spend rebate checks than the poor and unemployed. Instead, what seems to be happening is that the Bush administration refuses to sign on to anything that it can’t call a "tax cut."
Behind that refusal, in turn, lies the administration’s commitment to slashing tax rates on the affluent while blocking aid for families in trouble - a commitment that requires maintaining the pretense that government spending is always bad. And the result is a plan that not only fails to deliver help where it’s most needed, but is likely to fail as an economic measure.
The words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt come to mind: "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
And the worst of it is that the Democrats, who should have been in a strong position - does this administration have any credibility left on economic policy? - appear to have caved in almost completely.
Yes, they extracted some concessions, increasing rebates for people with low income while reducing giveaways to the affluent. But basically they allowed themselves to be bullied into doing things the Bush administration’s way. And that could turn out to be a very bad thing.
We don’t know for sure how deep the coming slump will be, or even whether it will meet the technical definition of a recession. But there’s a real chance not just that it will be a major downturn, but that the usual response to recession - interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve - won’t be sufficient to turn the economy around. (For more on this, see my blog at
And if that happens, we’ll deeply regret the fact that the Bush administration insisted on, and Democrats accepted, a so-called stimulus plan that just won’t do the job.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Conscience of a Liberal
No comments:
Post a Comment