Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

October 9, 2009

Civilian control of the military

Filed under: Afghanistan,antiwar — louisproyect @ 1:10 am

On October first, General Stanley McChrystal, the commanding officer in Afghanistan, made a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London that implicitly repudiated Vice President Biden’s proposals for refocusing the war as one against Al Qaeda in Pakistan rather than the Taliban in Afghanistan.  In his speech, the General dismissed the claim that Afghanistan “is a graveyard of empires” as “untrue”. Given the deteriorating situation that more than anything else has prompted Biden’s “dovish” stance, one wonders if McChrystal is whistling in the graveyard.

If you read the speech, you will not find much in the way of Fox-TV rhetoric. Indeed, the main thrust against Biden took place in the Q&A when the General was asked whether he favored a strategy in Afghanistan of killing top insurgent leaders with unmanned drones and missiles that was associated with the peace-loving VP. He replied, “The short, glib answer is no. You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish you were. … A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”

In the days following the speech, the civilian wing of the imperialist war machine asserted itself as the London Telegraph reported:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.

In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”

When asked on CNN about the commander’s public lobbying for more troops, Gen Jim Jones, national security adviser, said:

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.”

The liberal punditocracy jumped into the fray as well, including Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post columnist and indefatigable Obama apologist who concluded that civilian control of the military had to be upheld even at the cost of dead Muslims:

For the record, this would be my position even if McChrystal were arguing for an immediate pullout — or even if George W. Bush, rather than Obama, were the president whose authority was being undermined. In October 2006, when the chief of staff of the British army said publicly that Britain should pull out of Iraq because the presence of foreign troops was fueling the insurgency — a view I wholeheartedly shared — I argued that he ought to be fired. I wrote that I didn’t like “active-duty generals dabbling in politics, even if I agree with them.” If military officers want to devise and implement geopolitical strategy, they should leave their jobs and run for office.

One of the chief theorists of civilian control in the academy, in fact, was someone who devoted most of the past decade demonizing Muslims and Arabs. I speak of Samuel Huntington, best known for his “clash of civilization” thesis that amounts to Ann Coulter for the carriage trade. Huntington wrote “The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations” in 1957, as a reaction to General MacArthur’s defiance of civilian control during the Korean War.

Speaking in the name of the entire ruling class, the Washington Post allowed Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman to make the parallels with MacArthur in an October 5th op-ed piece:

Generals shouldn’t need to be told that it is wrong to lecture their presidents in public. Perhaps McChrystal was misled by the precedent set by Gen. David Petraeus, who strongly supported President Bush’s military surge in Iraq in 2007. Though Petraeus publicly endorsed the surge, this happened only after Bush made his decision. Petraeus was backing up his commander in chief, not trying to preempt him.

Nevertheless, precedents have the habit of adding up. Unless McChrystal publicly recognizes that he has crossed the line, future generals will become even more aggressive in their efforts to browbeat presidents.

We have no need for a repeat of the showdown between President Harry Truman and Gen. Douglas MacArthur over Korea. Truman faced down his general the last time around, but it was a bruising experience.

The parallels with MacArthur are indeed striking. He was to the Korean War as McChrystal is to the one in Afghanistan. In 1950, Truman began making public statements about the need to escalate the war, specifically to invite the defeated Chinese dictator Chiang Kai-shek to enter the fray and to strike inside the Chinese mainland if necessary. After MacArthur had sent an expeditionary force into the north that was threatening to cross over into China, Mao felt it necessary to intervene on behalf of the North.

Truman decided to fire MacArthur in after he wrote a letter to Republican Representative Joe Martin in April 1951 disagreeing with Truman. Ironically, the letter was rather mild in comparison to the General’s past bluster-filled statements. But it did end on the same note as McChrystal’s speech, namely that there is no substitute for victory:

It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomatic there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory.

The parallels between 1951 and 2009 are intriguing. Like today, the country was polarized during the Korean War between a Republican Party moving so far to the right that even the Trotskyists had begun to consider Joe McCarthy as a would-be Hitler. MacArthur was the darling of the Republican Party that was all revved up for a total confrontation with the Soviet Union, including the use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Democrats were more “reasonable” by comparison, favoring a “containment” strategy and the use of UN troops in peacekeeping missions. In the early 1950s, when cable TV and the Internet did not exist, the primary medium for the ultraright was the myriad of tabloids, especially in metropolitan centers like New York, which provided a bully pulpit for the Glenn Becks of their day, like Westbrook Pegler.

The other parallel is a divided nation, an inheritance of colonialism. The Korean War was precipitated by imperialism’s insistence on keeping the nation divided, just as the war in Afghanistan is largely a product of Pashtun nationalism cross-fertilized by political Islam and peasant resistance to landlordism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Will Obama have the guts to end the war in Afghanistan, the only strategy that in fact is in the long-term interests of American capitalism? In the last few days, there has been jubilation in the ranks of his supporters for appearing to resist McChrystal’s call for an additional 40,000 troops and a refocusing of the war into Pakistan in accord with Biden’s recommendations.

Yesterday the NY Times reported that the President was leaning in Biden’s direction:

President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.

But in his standard triangulation mode learned from Bill Clinton, Obama appeared ready to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan to placate the Pentagon Hawks and the Republican Party, as the NY Times reported in rather convoluted prose in tune with the convoluted fence-straddling behavior of the centrist President:

As Mr. Obama met with advisers for three hours to discuss Pakistan, the White House said he had not decided whether to approve a proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan. But the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.

In other words, only 10,000 or so young Americans will be sent to possible death or permanent injury rather than the full complement of 40,000 demanded by McChrystal. Apparently this “dovish” maneuver might be enough to assuage Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin who has become persuaded of the need to continue the occupation of Afghanistan in a kindler and gentler fashion.

One doubts that 10,000 or 40,000 more troops will do much to counteract a growing sense among the men and women stationed there that this is not a war worth dying for, as the Times of London reported today:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not.

Reflecting the new tilt toward bringing peace, stability and the American way to Pakistan, the United States has conditioned aid to the impoverished country on the basis of it living up to our standards. The NY Times reported today that the Pakistani Generals resent certain conditions, including one that is under discussion here:

The chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was so offended by stipulations in the American legislation that he complained to the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, when the two men met in Islamabad on Tuesday, according to a senior Pakistani military officer.

The legislation passed by Congress last week gives Pakistan $1.5 billion over the next year for the Zardari government to build roads, schools and other infrastructure, a gesture intended to shore up the weak civilian government and turn around the widespread antipathy toward the United States among Pakistanis.

Instead, the aid package has served to widen the distrust between the military and the civilian government, even though the new aid comes in addition to America’s aid to the Pakistani military, which had totaled more than $10 billion since 2001.

The section of the legislation that has outraged the army says the secretary of state must report to Congress every six months on whether the government is exercising “effective civilian control over the military.”

Who knows? Maybe the Pakistanis can consult with McChrystal on ways to circumvent this particular section since he has proven rather indifferent to such matters in his own bailiwick.

October 4, 2009

Mercedes Sosa, dead at 74

Filed under: Latin America,music — louisproyect @ 5:01 pm

Award-Winning Singer Mercedes Sosa Dies at 74

By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 4, 2009 7:54 AM

Mercedes Sosa, an Argentine singer who emerged as a electrifying voice of conscience throughout Latin America for songs that championed social justice in the face of government repression, died today at a medical clinic in Buenos Aires. She was 74 and had liver, kidney and heart ailments.

With a rich contralto voice, Ms. Sosa was foremost a compelling singer whose career spanned five decades. She performed with entertainers as varied as rock star Sting, the Cuban singer-songwriter Pablo Milanés and folk singer Joan Baez, who said she was so moved by Ms. Sosa’s “tremendous charisma” and emotive firepower that she once dropped to her knees and kissed Ms. Sosa’s feet.

Ms. Sosa’s towering artistry, which led to several Latin Grammy Awards, belied her physical dimensions. Short, round, dark-skinned and often dressed in peasant clothing, Ms. Sosa was affectionately nicknamed “La Negra” (the Black One) as an homage to her indigenous ancestry.

It was a term of endearment that followed her throughout the Spanish-speaking world, said ethnomusicologist Jonathan Ritter, who has written about Ms. Sosa. “It’s hard to overestimate her popularity and importance as a standard-bearer of folk music and political engagement through folk music,” he said.

Ms. Sosa once declared that “artists are not political leaders. The only power they have is to draw people into the theater.” While not defining herself as a political activist, Ms. Sosa asserted herself in the “nueva canción” musical movement of the 1960s and 1970s that blended traditional folk rhythms with politically charged lyrics about the poor and disenfranchised.

This “new song” movement, formed by singers, poets and songwriters with Marxist leanings, cast light on the struggle against government brutality and the plight of the downtrodden throughout the hemisphere. Ritter said, much of the nueva canción songs favored by Ms. Sosa “drew upon the rich heritage of Latin American poetry and literature to score their political messages.” This, he said, gave it a far-more enduring fascination than protest songs in the United States during that period, whose “blunt, direct lyrics were part of their political efficacy, but also limited their long term poetic appeal.”

Here are the lyrics of “We’re Still Singing,” which she sang accompanied by the large Andean drum called the bombo: “I was killed a thousand times. I disappeared a thousand times, and here I am, risen from the dead. . . . Here I am, out of the ruins the dictatorship left behind. We’re still singing.” Ms. Sosa came under official harassment and intimidation by the right-wing, nationalist junta that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983. The government was responsible for the deaths and disappearances of an estimated 30,000 real and perceived leftists, and Ms. Sosa transformed her sold-out concerts into rallies against the abuses of power.

Her songs were banned from Argentine radio and television, and she courted arrest by singing anthems of agrarian reform such as “When They Have the Land” at one performance in the university city of La Plata. Many in attendance were arrested by security forces, and Ms. Sosa was publicly humiliated by an officer who walked onstage and conducted a body search.

Ms. Sosa scheduled more concerts in the face of threats against her. They were subsequently canceled when anonymous bomb threats were called in. The military governor of Buenos Aires prohibited her from further performances. Unable to earn a living or speak out as an opponent of the regime, she moved in exile to Europe in 1979 and lived for three years in France and Spain.

She recalled this as a dark period for her artistically, and at times her voice failed. “It was a mental problem, a problem of morale,” she told the New York Times. “It wasn’t my throat, or anything physical. When you are in exile, you take your suitcase, but there are things that don’t fit. There are things in your mind, like colors and smells and childhood attitudes, and there is also the pain and the death you saw. You shouldn’t deny those things, because to do so can make you ill.”

Ms. Sosa returned to Argentina shortly before the dictatorship crumbled, and she found that her popularity had risen to a dramatic new peak. At home, her concerts attracted tens of thousands of ticket buyers, and her albums sold hundreds of thousands of copies.

Abroad, she was a star attraction as well, and a political celebrity. She received a 10-minute standing ovation for a 1987 concert at Carnegie Hall and received ecstatic reviews when appearing in other major American cities, including Boston and Washington. She broadened her repertoire to include rock, pop and cabaret songs, always sung in her native language.

Esquire magazine noted, “Your Spanish may or may not be good, but Mercedes Sosa requires no translation. Hers is the song of all those who have overcome their fear of singing out.”

Haydée Mercedes Sosa was born July 9, 1935, in San Miguel de Tucumán in rural northwestern Argentina. She was of mixed Indian and French ancestry, and her parents were day laborers.

She said the geography and culture of the area was also crucial to her development. It was desolate, with far greater influence from the indigenous culture of nearby Bolivia than distant, cosmopolitan Buenos Aires. She called it “an advantage for someone who wanted to be a folk singer,” and at 15, she won a local radio station’s amateur-hour contest.

In the late 1950s, she and her first husband, guitarist Manuel Oscar Matus, with whom she had a son, moved to Mendoza, a city at the foot of the Andes. There, they helped form the new-music movement that fused folk rhythms with the language and politics of the moment, and wrote an artistic manifesto as well. Her international touring career followed her appearance at an important folklore festival in Cosquín in 1965.

Not a songwriter, she was a keen interpreter of others’ works. The Chilean writer Violeta Parra was responsible for Ms. Sosa’s signature song, “Gracias a la Vida” (Thanks to Life), a number more nostalgic that political. Ms. Sosa collaborated on two acclaimed albums in the early 1970s with composer Ariel Ramírez on lyricist Félix Luna on the albums “Cantata Sudamericana” ( South American Cantata) and “Mujeres Argentinas” (Argentine Women).

She received a Latin Grammy Award for Best Folk Album in 2000 for Ramírez’s “Misa Criolla,” and again for “Acústico” in 2003 and “Corazón Libre” in 2006. She continued to win over younger audiences by incorporating the music of rock singer-songwriters such as Argentina’s Charly García and Sting, whose song “They Dance Alone” paid tribute to the disappeared in Argentina.

October 3, 2009

Columbia Business School: toxic ideology dump

Filed under: Africa,economics,imperialism/globalization — louisproyect @ 5:51 pm

R. Glenn Hubbard

William Duggan

As part of the fall-out from the financial crisis, business schools are now seen as training grounds for what FDR once called malefactors of great wealth–the more prestigious the business school, the worse the malefaction obviously. Columbia University’s Business School Dean, R. Glenn Hubbard, served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush and has been one of the nation’s more intransigent defenders of free market fundamentalism. While it is difficult to rank people such as Hubbard in terms of the harm done to American workers, he surely is a finalist in the competition for evil economists.

Hubbard is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, one of the country’s foulest neoconservative think-tanks, and a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal editorial page where he defended Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, scuttling the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and most recently defended the health insurance industry against even the mildest reforms.

Apparently not content to ravage American society, he has donned a safari cap and penetrated the Dark Continent in order to help the benighted natives achieve prosperity. For those who follow the activities of a-list economists, it should be well understood that “helping the Africans out of poverty” is a must for those aspiring to the Nobel Prize and other honors bestowed by bourgeois society.

Hubbard and fellow Columbia business school professor William Duggan (about whom later) have just come out with “The Aid Trap: Hard Truths About Ending Poverty“, published by Columbia University Press. The book argues that aid to governments and NGO’s does not work and that a new Marshall Plan geared to small businesses is the key to success. While I doubt that anybody who reads this blog will be tempted to waste $22.95 on such nonsense, you can get an idea of what these evil professors propose in an August 2009 article by Hubbard on the Foreign Policy website.  Titled “Think Again: A Marshall Plan for Africa“, it makes the case for bringing Africa “back to life” in the same way that Europe was. Although I have become fairly inured to this sort of rightwing garbage over the years, Hubbard’s article took my breath away. It might have even been enough to make a Goebbels blush.

Hubbard starts from an absurd premise, namely that the African economy is “overregulated” and that markets have never been given a chance:

But take a look at the World Bank’s annual report, “Doing Business,” and you’ll realize that many African economies have never had a business market to fail — thanks to their governments’ dense, unnavigable regulations.

This certainly does not describe the continent’s largest economy: South Africa. Since the ANC took power, it has adopted an economics strategy that could have been drafted by Hubbard himself. The Growth Employment and Redistribution Strategy (GEAR) has embraced free markets for the avowed purpose of creating a local bourgeoisie of the kind that is supposedly necessary for job creation and prosperity. Indeed, it has brought prosperity to the few while the unemployment rate has soared to 23.5 percent. It is doubtful that stringent regulations have led to such a disaster. In fact, the main cause is a collapse of the mining and steel industries attributable to declining exports in a world economy suffering from the hangover brought on by one bottle too many of R. Glenn Hubbard’s snake oil medicine from the Bush years.

The other major economy is Nigeria’s, which is largely dependent on foreign oil companies. 80% of the Nigerian government’s income is from oil, and over half of all oil money comes from Shell.  And the last time I noticed, Shell Oil was not having a problem with overregulation.

The 500,000 tribal Ogoni of the Niger delta in southern Nigeria have watched as their traditional fishing and farming livelihood has been laid waste by Shell Oil’s extraction of oil, with full complicity of the national government, which has allowed large parts of the Ogonis’ homeland to be ruined. The Ogonis’ land has been contaminated not only by oil wells and pipelines, but also by gas flares that burn 24 hours a day, producing intense heat and chemical gas fogs that pollute nearby homes as they render farm fields barren and unproductive. The constant flaring of natural gas also contributes measurably to global warming. Several Ogoni who protested the ruination of their homeland and the impoverishment of their people have been convicted of false charges and executed.

Shell has extracted oil from the Niger Delta since 1958. Shell operates a joint-venture consisting of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, Elf and Agip. Shell is by far the largest foreign oil company in Nigeria, accounting for 50 per cent of Nigeria’s oil production. Nigeria generated roughly 12 per cent of Shell’s oil production world-wide in the late 1990s.

According to one observer on the scene, “Rivers, lakes and ponds are polluted with oil, and much of the land is now impossible to farm. Canals, or `slots’, have permanently damaged fragile ecosystems and led to polluted drinking water and deaths from cholera. Gas flaring and the construction of flow stations near communities have led to severe respiratory and other health problems…”

Going from the ridiculous to the ridiculouser, Hubbard next makes the case for colonialism even more unabashedly than Niall Ferguson, or Cecil Rhodes for that matter. Referring to the concerns that pro-business policies would lead to a new colonialism, Hubbard assures his readers that this might be such a bad thing:

“Strong Businesses in Africa Will Be the New Colonialists.”

First, Africa was poor before colonialism, and for many countries, colonialism may well have made Africa richer. There were some exceptions, such as the Belgian Congo in the early 20th century, where forced labor for rubber extraction made the people poorer. But overall, Africans in 1960 were healthier, lived longer, and had higher incomes than Africans in 1900. Ghanaian economist George Ayittey calls the colonial era the “golden age of peasant prosperity” in Africa, when the vast mass of rural Africans joined the world economy for the first time. By 1960, this was even true in the Belgian Congo. The hospitals, ports, schools, railways, and roads of Africa date from the colonial era. Certainly Europeans benefited unfairly from colonialism, but for Africans the result was still an improvement over their former poverty.

You’ll notice how deftly Hubbard sidesteps the issue of slavery, which was essential to the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. If Africa was not being colonized in he same fashion as Jamaica or Brazil in the 1700s, it was still essential to the sugar plantations whose profits enriched Europe in this period. The loss of able-bodied men and women to the slave trade robbed Africa of the possibility of emerging as a relatively strong and self-reliant economic entity.

Hubbard moves from the ridiculous to the obscene when he describes Congo as “prosperous” in 1960, seemingly defined by the presence of “hospitals, ports, schools, railways, and roads of Africa date from the colonial era.” Except for the hospitals, every other sign of prosperity is associated with the extraction of minerals that certainly left Europeans richer.

But even more to the point, how in the world can one mention Congo, colonialism and the year 1960 in the same breath without referring to the overthrow of Lumumba in that year? Acting on behalf of Western corporations, upon whose behalf Hubbard has advocated forcefully for decades, the breakaway province of Katanga succeeded in ruining the chances of the Congo to benefit from its minerals. For the better part of four decades, the country was bled dry by a corrupt dictator supported by the West and by conservative think tanks in particular as a bulwark against Communism.

It is also of course worth mentioning that the Marshall Plan only succeeded because WWII destroyed so much of the European economy that it became ripe for a new cycle of capital accumulation. With funding from a cash-rich U.S.A., European corporations went into high gear supplying new markets for housing, automobiles, clothing, and other consumer goods. Furthermore, there was an added incentive to make the Marshall Plan work since it was necessary to stave off socialism. With the disappearance of the Soviet Union, there is little need to pump money into the African economy except, of course, on a strictly for-profit basis. Hubbard regards Zimbabwe as an abject lesson in the failure of statist economies, but he neglects to mention how fully integrated the country is in global markets, even on a basis that sounds like a Jonathan Swift satire:

Meals come only once a day for Helen Goremusandu, 67, and the six children she is raising. With prices for the most basic food products increasingly beyond her reach, that daily meal often consists of nothing more than boiled pumpkin leaves, washed down with water.

About a mile away, a Zimbabwean government grain mill is churning out a new product: Doggy’s Delight. Announced by its creators in January, the high-protein pet food is aimed at the lucrative export market, one of the dwindling sources of foreign exchange in a collapsing economy.

–Washington Post, March 3, 2008

Well, who knows. Maybe Hubbard believes that a Marshall Plan is best suited for boosting the sales of Doggy’s Delight. From the standpoint of comparative advantage, that’s what Africa seems cut out for nowadays.

Although R. Glenn Hubbard’s reputation preceded him, I had no foreknowledge of his co-author William Duggan. The Columbia University Business School website advertises him as an expert on the role of strategic intuition, whatever the hell that is. It sounds rather like a talent that is honed at seminars at Holiday Inn conference rooms rather than at a prestigious institution like Columbia University. But then again, maybe there is less there than meets the eye. It turns out that you can take a course from Duggan that puts it all together:

Fall 2009
B8799-012: Napoleon’s Glance
TR – B Term, 04:00PM to 05:30PM
Instructor: William Duggan

This course offers a key skill for strategy, leadership, and decision-making in business, your career, and your personal life. Other courses teach the science of management, through analytical tools and techniques: this course teaches the art, through strategic intuition – otherwise known as Napoleon’s glance.

The term “Napoleon’s glance” comes from the early strategy literature. The word “strategy” entered the English language in 1810, as military scholars rushed to study the success of Napoleon Bonaparte, who won more battles than any other general in recorded history. Over time the study of strategy spread to other fields, especially business. The first scholarly study of strategy, On War (1832) by Carl von Clausewitz, shows the key to Napoleon’s success as coup d’oeil, which means “glance” in French. Today we recognize coup d’oeil as strategic intuition: ordinary intuition is just a feeling, but strategic intuition comes from real knowledge and experience, brought together in a flash of insight to suit the situation. It’s the “big Aha!” – or a series of little ones – that shows you the way ahead.

This course helps you see how coup d’oeil works and how to apply it.

I suppose that a Holiday Inn conference room is the place for it after all.

* * * * *

Columbia Business School’s Dean Glenn Hubbard sings about wanting Alan Greenspan’s job that went instead to New Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. Parody created by Columbia Business School students

« Previous Page

Blog at WordPress.com.