In nearly 50 years of @Harvard affiliation, I have never been as disillusioned and alienated as I am today.
The silence from Harvard’s leadership, so far, coupled with a vocal and widely reported student groups' statement blaming Israel solely, has allowed Harvard to appear at best neutral towards acts of terror against the Jewish state of Israel.
Unlike President Bacow’s strong statement of support for Ukraine after Putin’s invasion and the decision to fly the Ukraine flag over Harvard yard...rb.gy/zx7ff
...or Dean Gay’s powerful statement on police violence, we have as yet - 48 hours later - no official Harvard statement at this time of moral testing. rb.gy/alqdr
Instead, Harvard is being defined by the morally unconscionable statement apparently coming from two dozen student groups blaming all the violence on Israel. I am sickened. I cannot fathom the Administration’s failure to disassociate the University and condemn this statement.
I very much hope appropriate statements from the University and College condemning those who launched terrorist attacks and standing in solidarity with its victims will soon be forthcoming.
To be clear nothing is wrong with criticizing Israeli policy past, present or future. I have been sharply critical of PM Netanyahu. But that is very different from lack of clarity regarding terrorism.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@HarryStebbings asked me: What is the path out of US indebtedness?
First of all, we need to put it in perspective. A growing company can have a permanently growing debt. A growing economy can have a permanently growing government debt.
A company probably wouldn't think about its debt by comparing its debt to its earnings. It would probably be much more likely to compare its debt service to its cash flow or to compare its debt to the market value of its equity.
While I am glad to see that the “debt limit crisis” is in the rearview mirror, CBO projects budget deficits will exceed 7 percent of GDP and be on an upwards trajectory a decade from now.
For all of the post financial crisis/ pre-pandemic period I feared secular stagnation and opposed fiscal alarmism. But now I am alarmed because we are in new and dangerous territory.
Current CBO medium term deficit projections are twice as large as those when the Simpson- Bowles process was initiated in 2011 and substantially larger than those faced by the incoming Clinton administration in 1993.
Very good @WSJ interview with the very wise Bob Rubin on his new book, The Yellow Pad: Making Better Decisions in an Uncertain World, and the challenges facing the United States.
The fact that the US is the only country where a career like Bob Rubin’s is possible makes me--for all our problems--more optimistic about our prospects than those of any other country.
I learned an enormous amount from Bob @ finance & financial mkts but even more @ decision making & leadership. Long after the issue set has changed, Bob's insights @ thinking in probabilities, relying on disciplined & inclusive process, & getting best out of people will endure.
@JakeSullivan46 is a very thoughtful leader and it's probably the most carefully intellectually developed exposition of the administration's philosophy that we have had to date.
Certainly, he's right that the world has changed. He's right that China represents a new kind of challenge. He's right to emphasize after what we've seen in Europe with oil, other things, the importance of resilience.
But I was disappointed that the speech did not emphasize the central importance of importing low-priced goods. That is a substantial part of what determines the living standards of Americans.
Today marks the 75th Anniversary of President Truman’s signing of the Marshall Plan into law. It might well be the greatest act of American foreign policy since World War II. Interesting to reflect on it today.
Could Congress imaginably today commit 2 percent of GDP, or about $500 billion, to a 4-year foreign assistance venture? Would the Marshall Plan have passed in 1948 if it had been focus grouped?
Relative to the total scale of the countries being assisted, it represented only about .5 percent of GDP per year. Why was it so successful compared to modern reconstruction and aid efforts that are often 10 to 100 times as large relative to recipient economies?
There is elegant justice in using Russia's state funds, now lying idle, to counter the cost of Moscow's destruction.
Govts would have plenty of legal justification to move ahead.
Those who hold Russian assets are entitled, under int'l law of state countermeasures for a grave breach of int'l law, to cancel their obligations to Russian state & apply Russian state funds to pay what Russia owes