6 responses to “Axis of Soros”

1. 

   Bloxham

   May 12, 2007

   Since when do you fight corruption by engaging in corruption? In fact, Wolfowitz seems to want everyone’s hands to be clean except his own. That’s no way to run an organization.

   It’s time for the World Bank to be disbanded anyway. But Wolfowitz is NOT helping to clean up the house. He’s part of the problem.

   Reply
2. 

   George P. Wood

   May 14, 2007

   Bloxham:

   If the WSJ reporters have reported things accurately, then I think Wolfowitz is innocent of the charge of “conflict of interest” regarding his partner’s salary. He had tried to recuse himself but was told by the World Bank bureaucracy what he had to do. That hardly sounds like corruption. However, you may have better information about this issue (and other issues), so if you respond, please do so with links.

   Thank you!

   George

   Reply
3. 

   Bloxham

   May 15, 2007

   George:

   Here‘s an article supporting your point of view.

   Here‘s an opinion piece that condemns Wolfowitz. Admittedly, the writer is known for being a liberal! But then, the WSJ is known for being the mouthpiece of certain elements of the Bush Administration.

   And here‘s a piece that says that l’affaire Wolfowitz is hampering the work that the Bank is doing.

   Bloxham

   Reply
4. 

   George P. Wood

   May 16, 2007

   Bloxham:

   Thanks for the links! I read each of the articles. I find it interesting that the European board members of the bank are trying to oust Wolfowitz for an alleged conflict of interest that might cost “millions,” but took little action to fight corruption that actually cost “billions.” (I’m getting this information from the third article you linked.) Even if those board members are correct about Wolfowitz’s actions (and I’m unconvinced that they are), there seems to be more at play in their animus toward him than can be explained by the nature of his action.

   George

   P.S. And thanks for the dialogue! You’re one of the few people to critically engage what I post, and I appreciate your efforts. Without contrary opinions to sharpen my own, I sometimes get intellectually lazy. I hope I’m not becoming such on this issue.

   Reply
5. 

   Bloxham

   May 16, 2007

   Well, I do like to engage critically. I haven’t really taken the time to read all your blog — just little bits from time to time. I’m sure this is stereotyping, but I haven’t seen an Assemblies of God minister who is as politically engaged as you. It’s a breath of fresh air.

   The World Bank seems to have a lot of trouble, and by the looks of it, it’s as bloated as all the other big national and international bureaucracies. But at their best, the bureaucracies DO something — they help people.

   My problem with the way that the Bush Administration has attempted to “reform” various bureaucracies is that it seems to have transformed big wasteful bureaucracies that were DOING something into big, wasteful bureaucracies led by people incapable of doing their job. I’m generalizing, but I’m thinking of FEMA, EPA, and the World Bank. I’m thinking of appointing people to lead Interior and EPA who actually seem to hate the work that those bureaucracies are supposed to do, and have nothing but contempt for the professional staff of those organizations.

   So when a Wolfowitz becomes president of an organization, I expect him to reform it, lead it well, or quit, not to carp about how bad and unfair an organization it is.

   (I suppose there are some parallels to being a pastor, although I don’t know anything about your church!)

   Enough sermonizing for today.

   Reply
6. 

   George P. Wood

   May 16, 2007

   I’m a skeptic about big bureaucracies in general, but especially those whose stated aim is to “help people.” I’m currently reading an excellent book by William Easterly called, “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good.” Easterly is a development economist who is critical of much of the World Bank’s misguided efforts to help the world’s poor (as well as the similar efforts of other large, anti-poverty bureaucracies). He distinguishes between Planners (who take a top-down, systematic approach) and Searchers (who take a bottom-up, piecemeal approach). His economic approach, although he doesn’t state this, is very similar to that of Friedrich von Hayek, of whom I am an admirer. Anyway, when you consider how tied into the political status quo the World Bank is, and how slow large bureaucracies are to reform themselves (if they do so at all), I’m inclined to cut Wolfowitz a little slack and to be a little more than skeptical of the World Bank’s board. But, obviously, I have a very limited perspective on the whole imbroglio.

   Reply