|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
JUNE 13, 2005
Economists And Execs Need To Revisit Ayn Rand Both Joseph A. Schumpeter and William H. Gates III got it wrong if they supported monetary or debt expansion as a means of boosting productivity or increasing capacity utilization ("Dishonest capitalism won't go unpunished," Economic Viewpoint, May 23). The notion that monopolies are able to invest their super-normal profits is peripheral to the excess liquidity spilling into speculative equities that offer no tangible or sustained value. We need only consider the money wasted on the Internet bubble, supporting projects that have since evaporated. What of mining booms where projects are explored but not developed for decades? If John Maynard Keynes supported "price distortion as long as it got idle resources back into productive use," he might well ask why those resources fell out of productive use or why they could become productive after excess capacity was absorbed? It's simple: Capacity grew to excess because of government-stimulated booms. Paradoxically, Alan Greenspan was once a supporter of Ayn Rand, who campaigned against such monetary nonsense. Her views seem more relevant than ever. Andrew Sheldon Crooks Ranzan Machi, Japan The U.S. Has No Business Doing Business With EADS Re "Will EADS thrive on the American plan?" (News: European Business, May 23): It is not surprising that European Aeronautics Defence & Space (EADS) is the winner of the contract to build the aircraft to be used by the European rapid deployment force. The original lowest bidder for the engine portion of the contract was an American company -- I believe it was Pratt & Whitney (UTX ). But the German government refused to participate unless the American company was replaced by a European one. As long as the European Union is making defense decisions based on "nationalist" criteria, awarding major U.S. defense contracts to EADS is indefensible. Michael Ramaker Green Bay, Wisconsin 
| | |
 Copyright 2005, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version