Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
Roubini is one of the most respected economists in the world. His opinion would trump 99.9% of any group of scholars out there. I provided a link to his stated opinion which goes with what i am saying.
Can you provide anything to prove yours or am I supposed to take your word for it? Not to say that you are dishonest sir, I just want to know if you have anything to substantiate your point that now MOST scholars would not call
Bush socialist?
|
First let me just say that you might be overstating Roubini a bit. Afterall, Yale did refuse to give him tenure when he taught there.
However, Roubini's credibility isn't really the issue and he is, as you say, a generally respected economist. As I said the last time we engaged in this discussion, the only way I know that you can learn more about this topic is either to read some books on the history of socialism (I believe I recommended a couple good ones to you last time) or to actually talk with some respected marxist scholars.
There are certainly people that call Bush a socialist (mainly people on the right) but it seems that people that do (including Roubini) use a pop-culture definition of the word rather than its generally accepted meaning among academics.
Again, I ask you to look at the socialists themselves. Here is their economic platform from this year:
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html
How many of those things do you think George W. Bush would agree with? (Oh and if you read #5
carefully you will see that he would not agree with it at all). I would also encourage you to look at their other platform planks at the bottom of the link and see how many things on there you think Bush would agree with. If he really is a socialist, why does the Socialist Party disagree with him on almost every issue?