Your point has merit. It may be a pareto outcome for economists and foreign policy people to remain in their respective worlds.

However, I believe Denny Blair’s testimony was valid. Most national security experts believe the global economic crisis is the greatest short-term threat to U.S. national security. If you disagree with Blair’s assertions, I would encourage you to talk to members of NYU’s Politics Department. Much of Blair’s testimony was predicated on very sophisticated computer modeling that examined the links between economic crises and global instability. The National Intelligence Community has relied on number crunchers in the vein of NYU Politics in the past, and did so again when Blair gave his testimony.

or remember the general that arrived in iraq after sadam was toppled. he had a bag of cash to distribute. he realized that without goods on the shelves for the people to buy he would just cause inflation by distributing the money.

lots of foreign affaris fields require some economics knowledge. yet economists fail to see that economic growth follows security. they are too busy crunching numbers and overaggregating everything while mocking the austrians.

thanks for your frank feedback on this issue. However, ad hominem attacks like the one you made are not a healthy part of the debate. It’s not so much that I take offense as that I think we will never get anywhere if we judge arguments based on unprovable and unfalsifiable claims about motivations or other personal attributes. Despite disagreeing with you, I do not question your motivations and I respect your right to have any argument you make examined on its own merits.

Best regards,

Bill Easterly