Our Sept. 29 cover story on the devastating worldwide financial crisis alarmed readers. While one cautioned we haven't yet learned of "all the corruption, malfeasance, fraud and stupidity" that brought this about, others decried the bailout possibility of "perpetrators making millions from taxpayers."
Rescuing Crumbling Economies
In "Big Government to the Rescue," (Sept. 29) Fareed Zakaria erroneously claims that this crisis "should put an end to false debates about government versus markets. Governments create markets, and markets can exist only with regulation." The market is created by human instincts, not by the government (and democracy was born in the market, not from any great philosophies or ideals). Neither the market nor government is perfect, but the difference is that the former punishes incompetence and the latter subsidizes it. Whom would you rather have running things, those who punish incompetence or those who subsidize it? Zakaria further claims that with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, "America is extremely fortunate to have a man of tremendous intelligence, drive and pragmatism." No one would have disagreed with Paulson when he denounced "irresponsible practices" under which mortgages were sold to unqualified buyers and "sliced and diced" all over the world. According to him, "What has gone on here is terrible, inexcusable." Where was he when this behavior was rampant on Wall Street? Until May 2006 he was running a leading investment bank that was doing quite a bit of slicing and dicing, as John Gapper of the Financial Times has suggested. Now, as Treasury secretary, Paulson declares he's shocked about these "irresponsible practices." His ethical position appears questionable. If Paulson were bold and conscientious enough to donate the $18.7 million bonus he received from Goldman Sachs for half of 2006 to the Treasury's fund and lower the taxpayers' bill, his $700 billion bailout plan would seem more palatable to taxpayers and avoid the impression that it privatizes gains and socializes losses.
Yeomin Yoon
Professor of Finance and International Business
Seton Hall University
South Orange, New Jersey
Robert McGee
Director, Center for Accounting, Auditing, and
Tax Studies, Florida International University
Miami, Florida
When Fareed Zakaria cited Haiti to illustrate where financial markets are "truly free of regulation," he picked the wrong example to make an otherwise good point about financial market regulations. As a matter of fact, since the mid-'90s, we in Haiti realized that "good regulations allow markets to work well" by setting up a package of norms and rules inspired by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These are constantly updated and strictly enforced by an independent surveillance body based at the Banque de la République d'Haiti, the country's central bank. Readers can check Haiti's bank profiles and record in any country report from the International Monetary Fund or by visiting our Web site at www.brh.net. I hope Mr. Zakaria will honestly yield to the fact that Haiti has indeed a good and strong banking and financial regulation.
Charles Castel
Governor, Banque de la République d'Haiti
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti
How interesting that the very proponents of smaller government when it comes to the interests of the little people are now ready to become big government and rescue Wall Street fat cats. Aren't these the same leaders who championed free markets and deregulation for the past three decades? Why should they be bailed out while people are losing their homes because of the greed and deception of these very firms? A bailout that does not include help for those in lower income brackets who have purchased reasonably priced homes would be grossly unfair. Perhaps all at-risk loans for first homes should be restructured depending on the income of the owner And it would be a crime to allow the perpetrators of this debacle to make millions from taxpayers.
Mary Bagwell
Atlanta, Georgia
Bundled mortgage securities insured with credit default swaps sold by pseudo-bankers (mortgage brokers) and real-estate agents on steroids? Who needs regulation when juvenile delinquents can run things? This crisis has been caused by pretend loans for pretend buyers from pretend adults with pretend insurance. And now the Wall Street suits are running to Mommy for a nearly $1 trillion bailout. Mommy, confused, scared and forgiving, admonishes her brats and caves in. Socialism for greedy, immature capitalists, and scraps and debt for the peasants? Why are we surprised? They should be required to pay it back, say at 5 percent of future profits. What a concept—that banks requiring us to pay our debts be required to pay theirs.
Tom Evans
Bemidji, Minnesota
Let's say you go to McDonald's and order a cheeseburger. I take your order and your money. Then I take your cheeseburger outside and set it down in front of my dog. I walk away and come back a minute later to find a happy dog, but no cheeseburger. Then I tell you it's my dog's fault, not mine, that your cheeseburger is missing. And no, you can't have your money back. This is pretty much what they've been doing with your money in Washington. It will take years to sort out the details of who stole what from whom and how they did it. We haven't even begun to learn of all the corruption, malfeasance, fraud and stupidity that brought us to this, our worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The one thing we can be sure of is that the American taxpayer is going to get hit hard.
Dave Coyne
Goshen, Indiana
When my job was eliminated because of the lagging economy, I was given my supervisor's verbal expression of condolence, a letter confirming the exact dates of my employment, the chance to buy health insurance at my own expense and the assurance that I would be entitled to the fully allowable unemployment benefits due me. I hope this is the same generous package that will be offered to all those who lose jobs in the financial-services sector, but especially to CEOs and those in management positions who not only share responsibility for the current debacle but could have afforded to save for leaner times. Certainly the taxes paid by the thousands like me should not contribute in any way to allowing those people to continue living in the kind of comfort I could not afford even before I lost my job.
Susan Bennett Dupuis
Pleasant Hill, California
Smoking Out Tobacco Use
Many thanks to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for his article about the devastating damage caused by tobacco use ("The Way to Save Millions of Lives Is to Prevent Smoking," GIVING GLOBALLY, Sept. 29). It makes me feel ashamed to live in a wealthy country with well-educated citizens, where no leading politician dares to state the obvious and act decisively. Yes, smoking is one of the greatest health hazards. Nevertheless, even the slightest attempt to ban smoking in some places under certain circumstances and with many exceptions causes an outcry, as if basic human rights were under assault. The influence of the powerful tobacco industry and a strong pro-smoking bias in the media manage to stymie every rational effort to improve this public-health situation. My only criticism of Bloomberg: He should have mentioned the death toll among nonsmokers, and how to protect nonsmokers from secondary smoke. This would actually be a perfect piece to appear in every German newspaper—and to impact the minds of German politicians.
Werner Breitenstein
Stutensee, Germany
A One- or Two- State Solution?
Sari Nusseibeh, President Of Al-Quds University, writes about the one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ("The One-State Solution," Sept. 29). This of course means the dismantlement of the nation-state of the Jewish people. That is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Israelis, who refuse to commit national suicide. The only solution to the 100 year-old conflict remains the two-state solution, with the border following closely the Green Line, with minor modifications and land swaps. And the majority of Israelis today support that solution.
Jacob Amir
Jerusalem, Israel
More on Sarah Palin
I very much enjoyed Sam Harris's comments on Sarah Palin in the Sept. 29 issue. But seriously, what on earth was up with the title "When Atheists Attack"? Sam Harris does not even mention his lack of faith, let alone attempt to argue against faith generally. So what does the title have to do with the comments he does make? A person of any faith or none could have written that essay. Atheists are not the only people who are concerned about having a person of Palin's religious disposition in the White House, nor should they be. What Harris offered was a concerned warning about putting a dangerously inexperienced and overconfident person in a position of incredible power. What your headline seems to imply is that he's merely ranting about having a theistic candidate for the vice presidency.
Gretchen Koch
Aarhus, Denmark
Sam Harris seems to attribute Sarah Palin's popularity to the anti-elitism psychology in America as he questions her competence and experience to lead the nation to the right track in this "age of turbulence." Moreover, he portrays her as an ignorant and insensitive figure and uses a surgical analogy. However, unlike neurosurgery, there is no specific training for being a president. It does not make sense that the smartest or the most experienced guy deserves the presidency mostly because at the end of the day, what counts is not necessarily experience or intellectual ability. In retrospect, Nixon was definitely more experienced than Kennedy during the 1960 campaign, but the final winner proved to be an outstanding leader in his short presidency. Kennedy was once the hope of America and now Obama is lauded as the hope of a nation. Along those same lines, why wouldn't easygoing Palin bring hope back to people and restore their confidence?
Wang Wei
Singapore
In referring to the list of problems in the world in general and in the United States in particular, Sam Harris concedes that Sarah Palin "does not seem competent even to rank these items in order of importance, much less address any one of them." He forgets one small, but important detail: Sarah Palin is, among other things, quite an effective hunter. And hunters have that acute ability when taking aim, to take their time and think very carefully about what they are doing. A good hunter will never pull the trigger of his or her respected rifle before considering every possible outcome of their shot, intended or unintended. If I had to choose, I would prefer a proven hunter have the code for the nuclear missiles of the United States, not just "some elite from the upper office" who, not being an experienced hunter, never will have a clue about the outcome their shot will cause.
Hannes Deetlefs
Lütisburg-Station, Switzerland
I'm quite disappointed by the way NEWSWEEK utilized "a noted provocateur" to deal with the most vital issue regarding the character of Sarah Palin. You couldn't do a better favor to the theocons who want to destroy both democracy and faith. Fundamentalists love to make the public believe this debate is between faith and atheism (using exactly the same tricks as with intelligent design): the true debate is at the political level between democracy and theocracy, and at the religious level between sound faith and fundamentalism. In the United States as in the Middle East, and increasingly in Europe, the true enemies of fundamentalism are the true partisans of democracy: each camp needs the opposing caricature to thrive and prosper. As a president, George W. Bush failed lamentably. As a fundamentalist, he successfully boosted fundamentalism worldwide. His only "failure"? Being one Supreme Court justice short of completing the transformation of America. True partisans of democracy and of the republic should understand that America cannot let Bush-McCain-Palin nominate the next members of the Supreme Court. It is high time for America to declare its independence from fundamentalism.
Stephane Mot
Seoul, South Korea
Georgia
'
s Democratic Credentials
The question of Georgia's democratic credentials was settled twice this year—in extraordinary presidential elections last January and in parliamentary elections in May ("The West Hails Georgia as a Democracy. But Is It One?" PERISCOPE, Sept. 29). Thousands of international observers judged both elections as better than any previous election in Georgia. Indeed, the former election was the direct result of last November's unrest. Then, the government had to act. But it had to renew its citizens' consent to govern. President Mikheil Saakashvili chose to settle this question by resigning (thus cutting his own mandate short by over a year) and standing for re-election. He won, but that did not please the losers. Thousands demonstrated in the streets of Tbilisi to voice their disappointment. There was no trouble. Opposition demands were discussed and substantially met: the board of the public broadcaster was recast, giving the opposition an equal voice; vice chairmanships of parliamentary committees were granted to them, the electoral threshold lowered, the opposition given broad representation in electoral administration, Georgia's efforts to enshrine its democracy continued even in the face of mounting Russian provocations. The country has moved a long way from where it was in 2003, before the Rose Revolution brought the current team to power. It moved from 87th to 37th place in the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom, 112th to 18th in the World Bank's ease of doing business index and 133rd to 79th in Transparency International's corruption index. Freedom House contrasts the improvements in Georgia with the situation in our neighbors Armenia, Azerbaijan and especially Russia. Both it and Reporters Without Borders think our media are freer than any of these countries, especially Russia's. Education reforms have been praised by the World Bank and international experts for being "unprecedented in scope and schedule." In 2003, we were almost a failed state. We have made tangible progress in the face of widespread poverty, a dysfunctional administration, and a Russian economic blockade which shut down our main export market overnight. Georgian democracy is far from perfect. Some things simply can't be done in five years. But the reform process is accelerating and our democracy is strengthening. The government and the opposition are working together to manage the postwar aid flows and other crucial functions of the state. Russia tried to destroy Georgia's democracy. Paradoxically, it has ended up making it stronger.
Alexander Lomaia, Secretary
National Security Council of Georgia
Tbilisi, Georgia
Succeeding Kim Jong Il
Thank you for the timely and pertinent analysis in "Looking Past Mr. Kim" (Sept. 22). It is a must read for every North Korea observer. Whoever succeeds Kim will either follow in his footsteps to exhibit the irrelevant tough stance, or be more receptive to the West and the world at large. The successor need not be a single ruler; there could also be a collective leadership. Whatever may result, the world ought to treat North Korea with due respect and recognition (which will eventually be reciprocated), and maintain the cordial talks that have proved to be rather fruitful so far. Abrasive confrontation and abusive denunciation do not work; they can only bring lethal conflicts. Let mutual obeisance prevail.
Venze Chern and T. B. Tee
Singapore
Downside of Green Architecture
While we are appreciative of Cathleen McGuigan's opinions on the irony of building huge structures for "sustainability" ("The Bad News About Green Architecture," Sept. 22), her examples of green building all embodied cutting-edge technology and highlighted the irony of building green all while burning through nonrenewable resources. In doing so, however, she missed a stellar opportunity to educate the public further on one of the greenest of all construction options—adaptive reuse and preservation. Although preservation doesn't get a lot of attention as a sustainable design or "green" building technique, there are connections everywhere. Preservation has always been a green activity. New construction, no matter how green it is, uses valuable resources and energy and also creates waste. Furthermore, while the value of newer, greener construction can't be overlooked, it is crucial to understand that many of these technologies are able to be applied to existing buildings. The demolition of buildings in the United States generates at least 124 million tons of debris a year, all which ends up in a landfill. Reusing existing buildings lessens demands and conserves embodied energy in structures. In terms of energy use, many older buildings are already quite energy-efficient due to the quality of their construction. Traditional features such as operable shutters, courtyards, double-hung windows with operable upper and lower sashes, porches, real masonry construction and appropriate roof pitch naturally help to keep a building warm in winter and/or cool in summer. These attributes can even be retrofitted with newer technologies to continue to reduce their environmental footprint. The environmental value of the reuse, or continued use, of historic buildings gets much less attention than it should. We were hopeful that McGuigan would point this out while discussing the irony a "green" palace in Vegas whose visitors use tons of jet fuel to reach.
Laura K. Zavala
Director of Marketing
Katie Eggers Comeau
Advocacy Coordinator
The Landmark Society of Western New York, Inc.
Rochester, New York