This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Big Thinkers: The Brainy Awards

Submitted by Econophile on 12/02/2009 16:04 -0400

I've been in Ecuador on business and I have all this vitriol stored up from not being able to publish for two weeks and it needs to be spewed. I just read Foreign Policy magazine's "The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers," and it is worthy of my bile. Of all the crap I have to read every day to get to ideas of real value, this article is the most pompous fluff piece that I have seen in, well, quite a while.

Now I am not saying that the magazine is crap; I don't read it so it wouldn't be a fair comment. I'm not saying that all their articles are crap, for the same reason. And I understand their foreign affairs focus. But their "100 Greatest" stuff just brims with a lack of intellectual rigor, reason, and good scholarship. It is a kind of Parade magazine feel-good fluff that we see in many of these types of lists. At least the Forbes 400 has some measurable quantifier: money. I can imagine the FP editors going home feeling smug about the "Brainies" (you know, like the Grammies). "Hey Honey, I got to pick No. 7, 13, and 67 today!"

I am also not saying that these people on the list are not well meaning individuals, or that all their accomplishments are fake or meaningless. In fact, some of these people I greatly admire. I think I am being more critical of the editors for coming up with a meaningless list based on such little comprehension of economics, for example.

Here are the top 25 winners of the Brainies with their tag line for each person. Comments are mine. If you've got the stomach for it, go to their site and to read the entire list.

1. Ben Bernanke: for staving off creating a new Great Depression.

I guess you could say that he staved off the collapse of certain large financial institutions which collapse certainly would have led to worse short-term consequences for the worlds' economies. But, it was the Fed (during Alan Greenspan's reign) which largely caused the financial collapse in the first place by flooding the economy with money and credit. The consequences of Chairman Bernanke's short-term policies will not only lead to a drawn out recession, but may lead to much greater negative long-term consequences to the U.S. (See, "The Japanese Disease," and "The Smartest Guys in the Room.") The editors of FP have no clue what caused the crash or what he's done to "cure" it, but, gosh, everyone's saying it, so it has to be true.

2. Barack Obama: for reimagining America's role in the world.

I say the jury is still out on this. Like many of his predecessors, I don't think he has a firm concept of what our national interests are or how American power should and can be used. I am listening to his Afghanistan speech right now. I hope he can live up to his rhetoric and I want to be fair to him and see the results before I dismiss him as a failure on foreign policy. Yes, I do think his domestic policies are disastrous.

I thought Afghanistan was the good war. I believe that Iraq was a huge mistake, and, despite our mistakes in Iraq we "won" in a sense. I have the greatest respect and awe of the men and women who have served and now serve in our armed forces, and what we've achieved in Iraq is due to their bravery, intelligence, and sacrifice.

But, I don't see how we can just pull out of Afghanistan. I don't think it can be a war of counter-terrorism, but rather one of regional, if not global, implications for our security. I don't see how our national interests are served by letting the Taliban re-establish themselves and threaten Pakistan and it's nuclear weapons. A new fundamentalist beachhead in that area is something we can't afford. But we can't stop them by pressing a button from 30,000 feet in the air. So we need to reset our goals. I think we should get back to Real Politik (that Cold War policy of making friends with any Devil to defeat a common enemy), and just devise a policy that says, let's do whatever it takes to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda. We should get rid of ideas of converting them to a western style democracy; we will just be denting our pick.

3. Zahra Rahnavard: for being the brains behind Iran's Green Revolution and the campaign of her husband, opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Uh, OK, I guess. Number 3 though?

4. Nouriel Roubini: for accurately forecasting the global financial pandemic.

Dr. Doom! I like this playboy-economist. I rarely agree with his prescriptions for solving the economic crisis, but he did put himself out there by saying we were in for a big fall. And the guy has built a substantial business as an economics consultant. Professor Roubini did attend the Mises Institute as a scholar, and got many of his ideas on the risks of the economy there, but it is as if he didn't attend Austrian Economics 102, so his solutions are basically Keynesian. Too bad. But is there anyone who has a gloomier visage than Nouriel?

By the way, lots of Austrian school economists got it right as well. And what about David Rosenberg? He was Merrill's chief economist and he called it correctly. But they are ignored.

5. Rajendra Pachauri: for ending the debate over whether climate change matters.

This one makes me a bit ill. If there ever was a debate over this issue it's with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which he formerly chaired. Don't the FP editors read the news about the information that was withheld from their reports which has been a huge recent controversy? The science here stinks. It is my opinion that the global warming issue is just a stalking horse for socialists to attack capitalism. There is, of course evidence of global warming, but it has been going on long before human industrial activity. Global cooling too. For many millennia. Actually we have been experiencing global cooling lately but that doesn't fit in their science ideology.

6. Bill Clinton: for redefining philanthropy in the modern era.

6. Hillary Rodham Clinton: for giving "smart power" a star turn at the State Department.

I have to smile a bit here. I kind of miss Bill. And Monica. We had the perfect system when he was president. The Democrats controlled the presidency and the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, controlled Congress. The Contract with America actually resulted in some good legislation (repealing many welfare and regulatory laws).

Hillary I think is an empty suit. This whole SmartPower^® thing is just an vapid political phrase created to denigrate the Bush Administration who obviously demonstrated DumbPower. What the hell is smart power?

7. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler: for taking behavioralism from niche to necessary.

I don't follow Thaler's behavioral work so I can't really speak to it. He was an adviser to the Obama campaign. Sunstein is in the Obama Administration. Their recent book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, advocates a so-called libertarian paternalism to direct people to what the authors think are better decisions about their life. I haven't read the book, but I can point you to an excellent critique of the concept ("Libertarian Paternalism").

8. David Petraeus: for reshaping the way the U.S. military goes to war.

Scholar, intellectual, warrior. He was right on Iraq. But the armed services have a nasty habit of fighting the previous war over again. I hope he's right in Afghanistan.

9. Zhou Xiaochuan: for reminding the world that we can't take the dollar for granted.

The head of China's central bank understands full well the importance of our debt financed fiscal stimulus and he knows he is grabbing his ankles, but he also knows he can't do much about it without creating a disaster. That is, if he rejects the dollar for some other currency(ies), he will immediately devalue China's holdings of our debt and revalue the yuan. And the cost of financing our deficit will go up, causing increased taxes and less consumer spending here. And general chaos.

But what the hell does the FP comment mean? Everyone knows the dollar is screwed, so why does China need to remind the world? Yes, I know they are one of the top three holders of our federal debt.

11. Fernando Henrique Cardoso: for calling the war on drugs what it is: a disaster.

Here's a guy who actually makes sense. Brazil and other countries are punished because buying, selling, and using drugs here is a crime. I'm all for legalizing "illegal" drugs. What good has prohibition done anyway? Besides causing the rise of powerful international gangs, buying and corrupting whole countries, and being completely useless in preventing the drug business.

12. Bill Gates: for taking the efficiency of Microsoft to the poorest of the poor.

I have no idea what this means. Bill gives away billions. Thank you Bill.

13. Dick Cheney: for his full-throated defense of American power.

I have no idea what this means either. Cheney was one of the perpetrators of Iraq. He was wrong. He was one of the perpetrators of the invasion of our civil liberties. He was wrong. He advised W. W was wrong on most things.

14. Larry Summers: for being the brains behind Obama's economic policy.

Now this is a true statement. But Larry has no idea what he is doing. Why give the keys of the economic truck back to the same drunks who got us into this crash? Please see, "John Maynard Summers," "The Washington-Wall Street Complex," and "The Smartest Guys in the Room." By the way, does anyone know if he's narcoleptic? He always looks like he's falling asleep.

15. Martin Wolf: for being the dean of financial columnists.

Mr. Wolf is a very bright guy and an excellent observer and writer, but ... mostly Keynesian and therefore mostly wrong. If you wish, please check out my conversation with him.

16. Mohamed El-Erian: for his unparalleled knowledge of global finance.

Well, OK. Thanks Mohamed. Keep up the good work at Pimco. Umm, John Paulson, Jim Rogers, David Rosenberg?

17. Benedict XVI: for showing that even the supposedly infallible can change.

He is The Pope, so why not throw him in too. But the former Grand Inquisitor doesn't seem to be changing much from my viewpoint. How do you reconcile reason with faith?

18. Richard Dawkins: for his unceasing advocacy on behalf of science.

Here's a guy I like. He doesn't believe in evolution, he actually presents reason and logic to prove it and to defend science in general. Did I mention he's an atheist.

19. Malcolm Gladwell: for rethinking how we think about thinkers.

I thought his first book on behavioral research, Blink was interesting. But, Tipping Point, didn't hold together for me. Haven't read Outliers yet.

20. Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart: for having the courage to call out failed states -- and then try to fix them.

No comment. Never heard of them.

21. Thomas Friedman: for his genius at popularizing complex ideas.

I thought his defense of free trade and globalism in The World is Flat was done very well. You don't have to agree with everything he says, and I don't. But he's a good writer. I think his discussions about climate change are incorrect. I haven't read The World is Hot Flat and Crowded, and probably won't.

22. Robert Shiller: for warning us -- over and over -- about dangerous bubbles.

Yes, he did talk about the housing bubble and was right. Never got the big picture though. A good economist and co-author of the Case-Shiller Housing Index, but basically a Keynesian econometrician.

23. Vaclav Havel: for four decades of speaking truth to power.

Here's a man who really accomplished something and should be enshrined in our pantheon of heroes. The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia helped lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.

24. Chris Anderson: for bleeding-edge thinking on how the Internet's marketplace of ideas should work.

He's the editor of Wired magazine. Don't know him. For some reason they started sending me their magazine gratis. By the way, what does "bleeding-edge thinking" mean? Is it more leading edge than "leading edge"?

25. Joseph Stiglitz: for relentlessly questioning creating economic dogma.

He's one of the economists I least respect. Yes, Paul Krugman is on the list too, No. 29. At least Krugman comes after No. 28, Elinor Ostrom, the fine U.S. economist who just won the Nobel Prize. Stiglitz is just another Keynesian technocrat type.

Pretty sad.

- advertisements -

Wed, 11/10/2010 - 06:31 | 715674 cheap uggs for sale

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:41 | 150139 Hephasteus

You're so vain. I bet you think this song is about you.

Oh wait this one is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD_viEMgk5o

Thu, 12/03/2009 - 00:43 | 150277 Econophile

Oh, I liked this. Good call.

Thu, 12/03/2009 - 01:47 | 150338 Hephasteus

Just replace the slurpee machine with the fractional reserve crack faucet

Halo 2 with the I'm a force for good bullshit game.

Alway broke with the bill collecting, attempt to collect a debt banking system.

LOL

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:16 | 149909 steve from virginia

Good lord! Any list with the Klingons (Clintons) on it is one to put under the transmission leak. The also left off Darryl 'Gorilla Slam' Dawkins.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:01 | 149887 Anonymous

Bernanke always makes me think of a pre-Copernican astronomer: through the use of very complex and arcane calculations able to predict the past with very rough precision, but when attempting to predict the future - like getting a rocket to Mars - ends up drifting aimlessly in deep space.

The industrial grade mental blinders that must be needed to allow one mind to declare the mistakes of Japan won't be repeated while following every step in their policy playbook in excruciating detail is totally incomprehensible.

Thu, 12/03/2009 - 00:44 | 150279 Econophile

Amen, Bro. Well said.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:56 | 149883 Jestocost

BaaHaaHaaaHaa.....

what a large, steaming, corn-kernel filled pile...

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:54 | 149875 Anonymous

Thats the saddest list i have ever seen. Please tell those guys from FP that they should stop working, their magazine is not worth any ink or paper.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:25 | 149839 Anonymous

Picks 1-7--Insane. Tom Friedman--if this is what passes for thought, give me idiocy any time.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:27 | 149824 Unscarred

12. Bill Gates: for taking the efficiency of Microsoft to the poorest of the poor.

What a load of shit!

Unless, of course, you mean strong-arming the poorest countries in the world into long-term contracts that they cannot afford by bribing the families of politicians with cushy MSFT jobs...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122332198757908625.html

Wall Street Journal - 28 October 2008:

In Nigeria, Microsoft proposed paying $400,000 last year under a joint-marketing agreement to a government contractor it was trying to persuade to replace Linux with Windows on thousands of school laptops. The contractor's former chief executive describes the proposal as an incentive to make the switch -- an interpretation Microsoft denies. In Namibia and Nigeria, where it has sought government contracts, the company hired family members of government officials. Microsoft says they were qualified.

Some of Africa's poorest countries also have discovered that they can't meet the terms of a special $3 Windows package for "underserved" students around the world, announced last year by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. For governments to be eligible, they have to buy at least 10,000 computers that students get to keep -- an expensive proposition for cash-strapped countries. To date, Microsoft says only four countries have qualified -- Libya, Egypt, Russia and Mexico.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:46 | 150146 Hephasteus

But everyone keeps saying bill gates loves the poor and does lots of stuff for them. Just listen to the message. If you can lie long enough and hard enough you can make it the truth.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:01 | 149810 Rollerball

Shall we just isolate the genome?

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:46 | 149794 Anonymous

thank you; i'll be sure to add some more names to my sHIT list.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:41 | 149784 bugs_

Madoff, Deep Shah, Raj Rajaratnam, Stanford.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:37 | 149773 Anonymous

"FP Top 100 Global Thinkers"

A perfect example of why top down media is dead.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:27 | 149759 Bill - Yes That Bill

I'm not an FP fan, mainly because their analysis and prescriptions are likely wrong more often than not. Think of it this way: FP is to foreign policy magazines as Ben Bernanke is to the world financial establishment.

Now I'm not gonna create my own list, but let me just suggest two names - right off the top of my head - who should be on any such list:

Charles Murray.

Camille Paglia.

BILL

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:21 | 149749 Anonymous

They lost me with #1.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:54 | 149706 Project Mayhem

hahahahaha thanks for writing this up i needed a good laugh ... Ben Bernanke #1 are you f-ing kidding me? ahahahahah

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:50 | 149703 sgt_doom

"I thought Afghanistan was the good war. I believe that Iraq was a huge mistake, and, despite our mistakes in Iraq we "won" in a sense. I have the greatest respect and awe of the men and women who have served and now serve in our armed forces, and what we've achieved in Iraq is due to their bravery, intelligence, and sacrifice."

As an American combat vet who has at least several neurons still to rub together, this complete drivel from econophile is just too much for me to stomach.

What the bloody hell does Afghanistan have to do with anything? Other than oil and gas pipelines and the drug trade? And positioning bases closer to China?

Those individuals who attacked the WTC and Pentagon and Shanksville on 9/11/01 - assuming the Bush Admin.'s conspiracy theory is correct, came principally from Saudi Arabia, with a couple from Yemen, and possibly from Kuwait (although their passports are still in question). They did their planning -- according to Thomas Kean's [Amerada Hess BoD, UnitedHealth Group BoD] and Lee Hamilton's [Iran-Contra coverup, etc.] 9/11 Commission -- in Spain, Germany and America, and their training was undertaken in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and possibly either last-minute planning right outside NSA at Ft. Meade, Md.

Catch a clue, dood!

"Won in Iraq"? Murdered thousands to millions of innocents, yes. Forced thousands, and then some, to flee their country, yes. Stole and destroyed their economy, while ensuring that their oil facilities will be permanently privatized, yes. Ensured that their power base now points them towards Iran, a fellow Shi'a controlled theocracy, yes. Spread Sharia law throughout the Middle East and Near East, yes.

Catch a clue, dood!

The military, under Bush and now Obama, has taken in thousands upon thousands of violent convicted felons and rapists, something which never happened during the draft back in them old days. Those with that criminal mindset have been, and are now being trained, in various types of munitions and incendiaries.

Let's see how you feel about that in a few years, and my sympathies to all those women, and civilized males, in the military who have to survive such types.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:07 | 149897 JR

According to The New York Times, by using the White House’s rough formula, it costs the US $1million to keep one soldier per year in Afghanistan. As to the heavy cost of war, here is more from the December 1 column of Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s term and past Associate Editor of The Wall Street Journal:

…“Entitlements” is a right-wing word used to cast aspersion on the few things that the government did, in the distant past, for citizens. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are denigrated as “entitlements.” The right wing goes on endlessly about Social Security and Medicare as if they were welfare give-aways to shiftless people who refuse to look after themselves, whereas in actual fact citizens are vastly overcharged for the meager benefits with a 15% tax on their wages and salaries.

Indeed, for decades now the federal government has been funding its wars and military budgets with the surplus revenues collected by the Social Security tax on labor.

To claim, as the right wing does, that we can’t afford the only thing in the entire budget that has consistently produced a revenue surplus indicates that the real agenda is to drive the mere citizen into the ground.

The real entitlements are never mentioned. The “defense” budget is an entitlement for the military/security complex about which President Eisenhower warned us 50 years ago. A person has to be crazy to believe that the United States, “the world’s only superpower,” protected by oceans on its East and West and by puppet states on its North and South, needs a “defense” budget larger than the military spending of the rest of the world combined.

…The US invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with American national interests. It had to do with armaments profits and with eliminating an obstacle to Israeli territorial expansion. The cost of the war, aside from the $3 trillion, was over 4,000 dead Americans, over 30,000 wounded and maimed Americans, tens of thousands of broken American marriages and lost careers, one million dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, and a destroyed country.

All of this was done for the profits of the military/security complex and to make paranoid Israel, armed with 200 nuclear weapons, feel “secure.”

… No American national interest is served by the war in Afghanistan. As the former UK Ambassador Craig Murray disclosed, the purpose of the war is to protect Unocal’s interest in the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. The cost of the war is many times greater than Unocal’s investment in the pipeline.

…The same “protectors” of “free speech” had no objection to the Israel Lobby’s passage of the “hate crime” bill, which has criminalized criticism of Israel’s genocidal treatment of the Palestinians and continuing theft of their lands.

…Russia’s Putin has already compared the US to Nazi Germany, and the Chinese premier has likened the US to an irresponsible, profligate debtor.

…Meanwhile, the US investment banks, which have wrecked the financial stability of many governments, including that of the US, continue to control, as they have done since the Clinton administration, US economic and financial policy. The world has suffered terribly from the Wall Street gangsters, and now looks upon America with a critical eye.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/091201_obama.htm

http://cryptogon.com/?p=12126

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:27 | 149831 zack

This list is so obviously sponsored by the elites, it is a who's who of militarism.

Ben Bernanke - by keeping interest rates artificially low, and creating a virtual blow-up land for all housing, creditcard, and random other debt, and by being the lender of last resort...he sets up the country for a certain currency crisis. He guarantees the middle class will be robbed of their savings, and their children will seek military jobs for a secure future. But hey, the theft affords the opportunity to sneak in another round of international empire over there in "The Iraq", stunningly a nation that is bankrupting itself to keep people in homes, still has the funds for this!

Barack Obama - the only promise he kept was Afghanistan. They hired a great salesman for more of the same. (unfortunately the author has drunk the koolaid, "fundamentalist beachhead is something we can't afford", by bombing people and erecting stooge govts (who are linked to the drug trade) you only stoke the fire of the civilians to kick out the invader, erecting a democracy is not lending a few ballot boxes and scorecards, 70% of the people don't have clean water any news on fixing that? Silence I am sure. This isn't about the people there, any more than Vietnam, or Iraq was. Fellow ZH'r has given some insight into the real war: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-escalates-afghanistan )

Hillary Rodham Clinton - This tank of a woman is obviously part of the new world order. In Pakistan, Clinton was asked about terrorism....a student asked ‘Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?’ she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism. ‘No, I do not,’ Clinton replied. A Madeline Albright Iraq moment there "When asked by Stahl, "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

David Petraeus - He has obviously been schooled in propoganda repeatedly telling us "the objectives are clear to us all" over and over. And then inserting 9/11, extremism and jihadism as emotional catch phrases that attach to that statement. I am sure neurolinguistic programming/political speak is taught to these people. I over heard McCrystal say that "in one year I am confident we will be able to confidently look forward and clearly articulate where we are at." (paraphrase..it was that obtuse!)

Ashraf Ghani and Clare Lockhart - this nobody with an Irish accent gets interviewed on CNN on the day we're laying out plans for Agfhanistan? She is the poorest intellectual cover I've ever come across for the elites strategy.

Dick Cheney - War lover. From massive spying to rendition and torture - has one man ever cared so little for the constitution? They even proposed theories like the fact that "the president as commander and chief can override criminal laws" (one of their intellectual attempts to cover for their torture plans, via defiling the constitution).

Why do we write these things? Most of us are American loving, truth loving people first. These peole are self-interested first and politically minded second. They will comprimise anything for themselves and their advancement.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:00 | 149808 Anonymous

+1 Econophile, if you didn't go, then you haven't EARNED an opinion, so you don't really HAVE an opinion, any more than I HAVE an opinion of whether or not Paris Hilton is good in bed.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:47 | 149699 AnonymousMonetarist

I think ZH should list the top 100 most pissed off bloggers as voted by the readership.

Winner gets a 'Clockwork Orange' toothpick treatment to an endless loop of Greenspan testimonies.

The blog entry thereafter would be quite precious.

Thu, 12/03/2009 - 00:45 | 150284 Econophile

Remember to vote for me.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:37 | 149680 sgt_doom

Thanks for reminding me why I never read that douchebag publication.

I mean, everyone one of those clowns (with possible....I mean only possible...exception of Wolf) makes me barf bigtime.

Stiglitz for his noble support of NAFTA and his lukewarm support for the status quo,

Bill Gates, for keeping the population down where ever anyone is spending six months of their lives attempting to install the latest version of Windows for the brain dead,

Larry Summers, a major douche who will never, ever understand economics,

Chopper Ben Bernanke, self-proclaimed "expert" on the Great Depression, who doesn't understand square one about it, what a colossal douche (they are called credit derivatives, Benjy, and they have something to do with securitization, Benjy, and back in 1909, a financier issued the first mortgage security with a senior claim, and then certificates were issued on mortgage pools, and later stock pools, leading to the Crash of '29 and the Great Depression, Benjy, and those investment "trusts" of days of yore are now called "hedge funds", Benjy.....

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:14 | 149641 JR

Thanks for the tremendous romp through OWG la la land. It's sure to make the hit list. I'm reposting the following from ZH elsewhere:

America’s answer to Pravda—Foreign Policy magazine, owned and operated by The Washington Post, sets the stage for Ben’s inauguration.

…this from The LRC Blog: Ben Bernanke Named Top “Thinker” of the Year

Posted by David Kramer on December 2, 2009 05:36 AM

After the CFR’s Foreign Affairs magazine, Foreign Policy magazine is the second most influential Establishment (i.e., One World Government/New World Order) propaganda rag in the world. The magazine just came out with its list of the world’s top “thinkers” (i.e., best propagandists for the One World Government/New World Order). Guess who is the top* “thinker” in the world?

Ben Bernanke. (Stop laughing. Stop it! Right NOW!!)

And why did the OWG/NWO rag name Ben Bernanke the top “thinker” in the world? I’ll let the magazine’s website tell you in its own words:

The Zen-like chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve might not have topped the list solely for turning his superb academic career into a blueprint for action, for single-handedly reinventing the role of a central bank, or for preventing the collapse of the U.S. economy [emphasis mine]. But to have done all of these within the span of a few months is certainly one of the greatest intellectual feats of recent years.

Saying that Ben Bernanke prevented the collapse of the U.S. economy is like saying O.J. Simpson prevented Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman from dying of cancer.
_________________________________
*And yes, President Obamanable was of course No. 2. (Well, what did you think—that the editors of Foreign Policy magazine were a bunch of rashists [sic]?)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/044124.html

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:33 | 149674 Sqworl

"I smell varmint poontang, and the only good varmint poontang is dead varmint poontang, I think." ... Caddy Shack...

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:49 | 149608 Gwynplaine (not verified)

I have to agree - a pretty sad list. Even the phrase "bleeding-edge" at No. 24 started circulating around 1998. Has there been no originality for the past ten years or more? It really reminds me of how stale our culture has become.

Apparently, Foreign Policy is trying to copy the standards of Time or Newsweek.

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:41 | 149775 Gilgamesh

This rag is the farthest thing from "journalism" or objective... It is CFR propaganda, pure and simple. Believe what you want, but their publications are about promoting their self-interests. Take a look at the "Founders" and "President's Circle" - that should tell you everything.

http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:53 | 149612 Sqworl

yes copy their standards right out of publishing...what rubbish.

The Big Thinkers: The Brainy Awards

Comment viewing options