3 thoughts on “‘Fire Tim or we’ll fire you’

  1. Thanks so much for the link. I’m convinced that this is a powerful, do-able goal.

    I’ve already said it a dozen times and will probably have to say it a zillion times more, but let me emphasize: What I propose is not THE ultimate goal. It’s a first move. But as first moves go, this one’s a doozy.

    It’s an easy win. One big victory makes the next victory much more likely.

  2. Anyone who lacks understanding concerning what this “movement” is all about will demand that “it” set concrete goals and become hierarchical. That is NOT what this “movement” requires. What “it” needs from each of us is a new way of thinking. “You’d better free your mind instead.” Where it ends has already been pre-programmed. So just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

  3. I like it, too. Except merely firing the guy means he rides off into a lucrative financial sunset.

    Rather than fire Geithner, I would demand a prosecution of Larry Summers.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10860

    Heart-warming excerpt:

    “…In this regard, Lawrence Summers’ economic discourse stands out. He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower. According to Summers, this makes it far more “cost effective” to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):

    DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

    “‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries? I can think of three reasons:

    1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality…. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

    2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

    3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. [the demand increases when income levels increase]. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand…. “

Comments are closed.