Uncertain of understanding WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
> ... Of course all editorial content
> is welcome as long it carries some merit and is not so incendiary. (01)
Ditto email.
But removing the sting from the rhetoric leaves a point that cannot be ignored.
Let's look at the system of beliefs here.
[N.B. The following does not necessarily represent my views. I am just trying to
understand the fuss made earlier by reasoning from the evidence.] (02)
If you are a patriot of the US then what JTM says appears to hold true.
The _economic_ (and hence conceivably the political) best interests of the US
appear to be served by the strategy he outlines.
With the caveat that the US would not adopt that strategy if it didn't not have
such vast reserves: It can afford to wait out anyone else's complaints for the
time being.
Similarly, it can probably afford not to be very eco-friendly right now too.
Ravage first, buy later, would _appear_ to be the strategy. (03)
The point being, that if the US considers that it can afford to be blasé about
what it considers to be *its local* environment, and that capitalist managerial
economics is the way to go, then most other slights thrown at the US do look
like having their seeds in jealousy.
All that remains are debates about the distribution of wealth: in effect
discussion of whether modern forms of sanctioned private ownership need
reforming. And as far as I'm aware the only barrier to a country dictating what
forms of ownership are acceptable lie in the prospects for foreign investment
given particular forms.
In a capitalist system what brings money into a country is the prospect of an
increased profit rate in some sector. Profit can be exported (under global
finance terms) by the investor (assuming the relevant forms of private
ownership), but there's nothing to stop the investor creating a feedback loop
short-term by reinvestment until competition causes the profit-rate to drop
again. By that time though, a significant asset should have been established. (04)
What is missing from this picture?
--Few investors have found the seeds of an increased profit rate in most of
Africa. Much of Africa remains mired in feudal politics and internecine strife.
Most of the aid that was supposed to rescue these countries went astray. In
short, they lack the basic institutional structures required for progress.
--Free trade policies are punishing weak developing economies.
--Maybe the biosphere is dying after all. What does a polluting
industrial/commercial asset represent in respect of this? (05)
These give rise to another key question: How do you manage the tendency for
human beings to be greedy?
The answer would _appear_ to be globally ratified, democratically supported
legislation to that effect. (06)
What are the chances of that happening before the last faeces hit the last fan?
With existing patterns of thought: slight.
Where does a patriot fit into that game? That one I'll leave for JTM to think
about. Maybe John has ideas we haven't heard yet. Certainly he's made a play
that is rarely understood. (Maybe that's why he seems to #CAPSLOCK# shout and
rave so much.) (07)
On the rack of possibilities hang:
Marx reckoned that the self-emancipation of the workers from 'capitalistic
exploitation' was the key.
Some might think that the new gene-therapy eugenics hold promise.
Perhaps we all just need to smoke more dope and chill out, dude.
Maybe we need a different approach to the simple act of exchange.
Maybe advances in financial thinking, dissolution of borders, new forms of
energy and transport/travel,...
... (08)
Frequently in Shakespearian tragedies, it is the raving lunatic that voices the
truth.
Maybe we are in a fix that suggests that we can't write someone off just because
they SHOUT a bit rudely.
Maybe shutting off our ears and ceasing to think won't get us anywhere. (09)
Thank you and good night,
--
Peter (010)