5 thoughts on “Responses to Summit

  1. In fairness to the Hamlet of Higgins, he says he looked through the report; he does not mention the submissions.

    Your paragraph about oncoming financial difficulties would have been ignored at the time because it didn’t fit the inflation-dragon-slaying narrative; it would be ignored today because it doesn’t fit the nobody-foresaw-it narrative.

    Come to think of it, a smart opposition would mine the submissions for stuff like this.

  2. I think your post is interesting in that it highlights difference in attitudes between investing in human capital and “seeable” infrastructure (and just wasted money). It’s disappointing that politicians seem far less amenable to suggestions like yours (most of which are to do with the quality of human capital) than suggestions where you actually have to build something (a bridge, a road, something in a primary school…). I presume this is because they can actually point to something concrete at the end and get to say “I did this” no matter how worthless it is.

  3. In fairness, too, that submission didn’t scream ‘global financial institutions’ at me.

    And not one of those words actually appears in the document, so SEARCH(“GLOBAL”NEAR”FINANCIAL”NEAR”INSTITUTIONS”) would not have returned it :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.