I believe that the purpose of studying economics at university is not to produce experts who can reform either the local or global economic system, or to analyze the upward and downward trends in the economy; rather, its purpose is to provide job opportunities for teachers and graduates. I don't remember ever hearing any economic forecasts that proved to be correct during the annual session of the World Economic Forum, and if an expert ever came up with a correct forecast, this would be the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. This is because these forecasts are nothing short of divining, and if the reader is a believer in reading one's fortune in a coffee cup, then this reader might believe an expert when he says that the Dow Jones will rise ten percent during the year, or likewise fall ten percent. What I remember from Davos in two decades of my participation in the annual sessions there, is that the stock exchange in the United States, and then in the rest of the world, made steady gains in the nineties under Bill Clinton, while the experts said that stocks could not continuously increase in value. Then George W. Bush was elected president, and the stock markets crashed, while the experts were saying that these markets cannot collapse. Two years ago, those experts started saying that the global financial situation is sound and that a crisis is unlikely, with the result being that a crisis akin to the great depression in the 1930s took place. Those same experts then returned to Davos to tell us about what will happen tomorrow, then after tomorrow and next year, and even in 2050, if we live until then of course. Thus, the field of economics provides jobs for economists, and then benefits the rest of the people; all the latter have to do is listen to what the economists say and then do the opposite, so that if the latter say ‘buy', they sell, and if they say ‘sell', then they buy. While I realize that an economist might get it right one day, he or she will definitely get it wrong the rest of the week, month, and year, so that if a stock broker should do against the economist's advice, he or she will definitely make gains. We were still in Davos when the Washington Post published a short and amusing article about the errors committed by ‘experts' during the annual conference, entitled “Davos predictions: predictably wrong?” The article quoted the expectations of many prominent men of finance, businessmen, ministers, and experts, which later proved to have been entirely wrong. Since I was a witness to most of these expectations, my attention was caught by two that are worth going over here with the readers of al-Hayat. The article mentioned that Enron's CEO Ken Lay declared that his company was a ‘21st century corporation.' Then come December, Enron filed for bankruptcy; Lay was indicted for fraud in 2004 and found guilty in 2006 and then passed away, probably of grief. In 2001, Enron hosted the Middle East dinner on the sidelines of the conference, in which Abu Ammar sat next to Lay, and Mrs. Lay and myself next to them. Also, on the table that accommodated 12 guests, the late Gebran Tueni sat opposite us, may he rest in peace. Ken Lay was at his best at the time, and his company had started building the large power plant in the Gaza strip (which the Arab company CCC finished building at its own expense after Enron went bankrupt). He also advised the western businessmen present to invest in the Palestinian territories, and when a Canadian businessman asked him what guarantees he could give for his investment, Lay said that he is personally willing to provide any required guarantees. In fact, the sessions in Davos that year were the last time I saw Abu Ammar, and I had recorded much of the above at the time and thereafter. The other expectation mentioned in the newspaper article was made by Colin Powell, the then U.S Secretary of State, during his speech at the UN Security Council Chambers, when he said: “Saddam should tell the truth, and tell the truth now. The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, more time for him to pass a weapon [to the terrorists], share a technology, or use these weapons again.... Saddam Hussein's hidden weapons of mass destruction are meant to intimidate Iraq's neighbours. These illegal weapons threaten international peace and security. These terrible weapons put millions of innocent people at risk”. But the above statement is entirely untrue, or one hundred percent lies, and I do not exonerate Powell of any responsibility as it turned out later that the State Department's intelligence agency was always opposed to the estimates conducted by the other intelligence agencies regarding Saddam's weapons, or often expressed its reservations against these estimates. Eventually, around one million Iraqis were killed in a colonial war that was launched on oil-related and Israeli premises. The war criminals are still at large, perhaps because they killed Arabs and Muslims, who, along with their lands, seem to be acceptable game for hunting and occupation; but then he who surrenders to acquiescence, surrenders to humiliation. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and he should have never been allowed to rule Iraq. The price of his removal should not have been more than one bullet that sends him to hell, along with his regime. However, the actual price was the lives of one million Iraqis; may God never forgive those who were the cause. [email protected]
