Ladina-Ameerika pseudosotsialistidest, J.K. Galbraithi mälestuseks ja Economist kanepist

Delfist jäi silma uudis Sündis USA-vastane majanduspakt, kust võib lugeda:

Boliivia ühines koos Kuuba ja Venetsueelaga majandusblokiks, mis lükkab tagasi USA-meelse vabakaubanduspoliitika ja lubab piirkonnas sotsialistlikku kaubandust ja koostööd.

Nendel kolmel riigil on sellest paktist märksa rohkem kaotada kui võita. Tegu on poliitilise sammuga, kus kodanike heaolu on allutatud juhtide ambitsioonidele. Tegelikult on Ladina-Ameerika vasakule kalduvad valitsused jagatavad kahte leeri - autoritaarne vastanduv ja demokraatlik lahendusi otsiv. Mõlemast andis hea ülevaate Foreign Affairs'i artiklis Latin America's Left Turn Jorge Castañeda:

With all the talk of Latin America's turn to the left, few have noticed that there are really two lefts in the region. One has radical roots but is now open-minded and modern; the other is close-minded and stridently populist. Rather than fretting over the left's rise in general, the rest of the world should focus on fostering the former rather than the latter -- because it is exactly what Latin America needs.

Keda huvitab pealiskaudsusest rohkem olukorra tegelik keerukus, erinevate regioonide valikute tagajärjed ja piirkonna tulevik võiks selle igati loetava artikliga tutvuda.

. . .

Majandusteadlane ja kirjanik John Kenneth Galbraith on surnud. Boston Globe kirjutab:

John Kenneth Galbraith, a towering figure in American intellectual life whose astringent wit and elegant iconoclasm graced the academic and political scene for seven decades, died yesterday at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge. He was 97.

Artikkel on pikema poolne, kuid annab hea ülevaate Galbraith'i panusest poliitika ja majanduspoliitika kujundamisel koos päris mitme huvitava anekdoodiga:

''I hear that in your country you are considered a man of the left," Leonid Brezhnev once said to him. ''I invite you to the Soviet Union so you will have the experience of being a reactionary."

Kuigi Galbraith oli poliitiliselt üks aktiivsemaid majandusteadlasi hinnatakse tema kirjutatut rohkem tavalugejate kui majandusteadlaste seas. Pete Boettke selgitab:

Galbraith's claim to scientific influence is dubious at best. Parker tries to make the case that Galbraith's ideas are now influencing modern economic discussions in the scientific literature like behavioral economics. Among heterodox economists Galbraith is no doubt an icon, but as someone who made a lasting contribution to the mainline of the discipline it is hard to agree with Parker. Galbraith achieved influence and fame, but did not make a lasting contribution to the advance of the discipline of economics. He did set a standard for writing that we should aspire to achieve, but his core ideas are either restated Veblen, warmed over Keynes, or Marxist platitudes. It is not clear that any of his ideas are original enough to warrant that he be placed in that company of critics of the market economy.

Boettke kirjeldab ka ühte sõbraliku kohtumisest Galbraith'iga:

It was an amazing evening and it was one of the important moments which taught me that you cannot divide the world neatly into those who are stupid, those who are evil, and those who agree with me. Instead the world is full of charming, brilliant, and good hearted individuals who just happen to hold opinions opposite of the ones I do.

. . .

The Economist lahkab natuke kanepiteemat:

If cannabis were unknown, and bioprospectors were suddenly to find it in some remote mountain crevice, its discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would praise its potential for treating everything from pain to cancer, and marvel at its rich pharmacopoeia—many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body.

Artiklis leiab käsitlust kanepiteema politiseeritus USA's ja nagu ka taime mitmed meditsiinilised omadused, mida pole siiani suudetud poliitiliselt aksepteeritavaks tabletiks manada. Parim katse kanepi meditsiinilisi omadusi tabelti vormi suruda on aga lõppenud tulemusega, kus patsientide saavad küll maheda olemise, kuid mitte positiivsete kõrvalmõjude osaliseks.