Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard

["Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Somehow I knew Anne would respond. This is meant as a compliment, of course,
as my guess was based on the intensity of your replies -- full of an
idealism which I find common among Americans.

I however think that the prosperity that America enjoys is not due to the
dollar reserve currency system. That is a phenomenon of the last two
decades. And, even then, it would not have been so if the "terms of trade"
were different from what they are now. The dollar hegemony would not be
exploitative if the exporting countries themselves did not price themselves
so low. The trade would not be predatory if the value placed on foreign
labor is miniscule compared to the value placed on US labor. Things would
certainly be different if exports to the US were done at a parity exchange
rate for each dollar net saved is effectively a claim on any US asset. Let
us not bash the US unfairly. When Thailand outbid the Philippines for a
General Motors plant, giving a 10 year tax free incentive, it was their
choice to be exploited.

To be sure, the less developed countries had very "little choice" but to
compete amongst each other since alternative development strategies were not
available. Export led growth was and still is the paradigm for development.
But, like I said, there is no political-economic system that does not foster
or prevent inequalities from forming. Not even in China. Especially, not in
China.

No, the source of prosperity of America has been its openness to immigrants
who bring with them their capital and strong motivation to succeed where in
their home countries they found only oppression by an exploitative and
discriminatory system. The source of prosperity has been the technology
developed by these immigrants, motivated by what a market based,
entrepreneurial system had to offer. The source of prosperity has been the
export of American culture which leads to owners of US assets eventually
becoming US citizens. The source of prosperity has been the renewal of
morality that each wave of immigrants brings with it, reminding the jaded,
now American immigrant what it was like a generation or two ago. Where else
in the world can you find such things?

What the US was, is certainly not what it is today. It has become
materialistic, parts of it too proud, its rich are getting richer at the
expense of its poorer sectors and, lately, the rest of the world. But, the
same can be said in other countries. The USSR did the same to its satellite
countries only in a different, more expedient way. America has just become
so big and prosperous it exemplifies what is wrong in the world. The world
lacks a moral compass. It's leaders and elite, to be precise, lack moral
compasses. It's a greedy, materialistic, consumer oriented, Godless world
and no political-economic system can change that. Fiat is only the tool of
today. It is the "rational self interest" of neoclassicism that is more to
blame for today's malaise and J.K. Galbraith would have been a better
economic guide if this one book of his I read is any indication.

If the world were united under a federation, would this mean the death of
cultural diversity? I think not. The world is too divided by oceans and
mountains for that to happen. Not everyone will have the opportunity or the
desire to travel and live in New York City. And, having mentioned New York
City, I find its attraction precisely to be the diversified cultures one
finds there. There is a common Americanism, of course. The twang of the
English spoken and the propensity to spend. But, each ethnic group has kept,
by choice, what it has chosen to keep. The Jews with black hats and twirly
sideburns. Chinatown. The Chinese have always kept their culture wherever
they go. The same with the Japanese. Greeks, Irish and the Italians to a
lesser extent. But, what's wrong with that? Williamson, is that Anglo-Saxon
in origin?

If we are headed for a period of fascist like control, it is because the
whole world is on an economic precipice. If such a situation occurred at the
family level, I bet you anyone would become a fascist dictator. And, if my
spiel on America gave some of the most fervent in this group some pause,
think about it, the silence draws from that idealism that Americans are
known for. It's part of your history.

>From someone who will choose the American side if there is no other choice.
Perhaps, that is what it has come to given what is wrong with the world.

Gary Santos



----- Original Message -----
From: "annewilliamson" <annewilliamson@msn.com>
To: <a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Return to an old standard


> On Feb 10, 2003 Gary Santos wrote:
>
>  > You know I've been thinking about the U.S. and Rome -- a parallel that
is
> > not unique, others have thought so, too. That the US is trying to
dominate
> > the world using all resources that it has available to it. And,
surprise,
> I
> > don't think it's that bad an idea to have a world dominated and united
> under
> > the Amercian style of democracy.
>
> The American style of "democracy," which is NOT what the Republic of the
> United States is based upon, sustains itself through manipulation by a
self-
> interested and destructive elite; it's prosperity is based on a system of
> credit
> and paper money that - as the holder of the reserve currency - allows the
US
> to loot the world.  IOWs, the American "system" such as it is can not be
> expanded across the planet as there would be no subjects remaining for
easy
> racketeering through the currency to sustain the phony "democratic"
> apparatus.
> Voting rights make this palatable?  Not when the only choices are
> pre-approved
> Tweedledums and Tweedledees.  The very idea of a world government is
> repellent, destroying as it would all the diversity and cultural richness
> that
> makes life such an intriguing and exiting experience.  A secular Tower of
> Babel
> will collapse just as the Biblical one did.  And below is an outline of
what
> we
> all should be very worried about when a bunch of hysterical,
> hyperventillating
> wannabe emperors demand unfettered freedom -- for themselves, for their
> "visions," and for their "missions."  The discussion should be about
> liberty,
> not "democracy." -A.
>
>
> George Bush's Faith-Based Foreign Policy
>
> By Robert Higgs*
> In public statements, President George W. Bush has often avowed his
personal
> religious faith, and from the very beginning of his administration, he has
> sought to draw churches and other religious organizations into the orbit
of
> the government's provision of goods and services-thus, the so-called
> faith-based initiatives. Bush insists that such religious providers have
an
> excellent record in helping drug addicts and others who have gone astray
to
> get their lives back on track. Although the president has yet to announce
> formally that his foreign policy also relies heavily on faith, this
reality
> has become increasingly clear as his term in office has unfolded.
>
> When the administration released its "National Security Strategy of the
> United States of America" to Congress last summer, the grandiosity of the
> intentions expressed in the document stunned many observers-as commentator
> Joseph Stromberg noted, "it must be read to be believed." The strategy
> amounts to an enormously presumptuous agenda for domination of the entire
> world, not only overweening in the vast scope of the specific ambitions
> enumerated but also brazen in the implicit assumption that the president
of
> the United States and his lieutenants are morally entitled to run the
> planet. It takes a lot of faith in one's own rectitude to declare, among
> other things, that "our best defense is a good offense" (I am not making
> this up, it's in the document). Small wonder that George Bush closes his
> introduction to the document by resorting to religious metaphor, referring
> to his foreign policy as "this great mission."
>
> Well might we recall, however, that the crusaders of old went forth on
their
> faith-inspired missions heavily armed and itching for a fight, and in
those
> respects the Bush administration bears a startling resemblance to them.
"As
> a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against . . .
> emerging threats before they are fully formed," the president declares. In
> disturbingly Orwellian rhetoric, he affirms that "the only path to peace
and
> security is the path of action"-the path, that is, of launching unprovoked
> military attacks on other countries. This ongoing preemption, supported by
> the administration's faith that it can identify the threats correctly even
> before they blossom, will be, the president warns, "a global enterprise of
> uncertain duration." We may presume that once Eurasia has been
preemptively
> polished off, the United States will set its military sights on Eastasia.
>
> The adminstration's faith in preemptive warfare currently expresses itself
> in the plan for military conquest of Iraq, a country that has not
threatened
> the United States and does not possess the means to do so effectively in
any
> event (in part because the United States has been waging low-level warfare
> and enforcing an economic embargo against it for some twelve years). The
> Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Perle coterie evidently has faith that the
United
> States can conquer Iraq quickly and then turn it into a showcase of
stable,
> flourishing democracy. The sheer preposterousness of this expectation
> suggests that it is fueled more by quasi-religious zealotry than by logic
> and evidence. Whatever else Iraq may be, it certainly is not a democratic
> success story waiting to be told by American crusaders. Indeed, given the
> violent ethnic, religious, and political conflicts that ravage this
> unfortunate country, it may not be viable under any form of government
> except dictatorship-nothing in its history suggests otherwise.
>
> Nonetheless, President Bush, after having insisted not so long ago that he
> opposed getting our country bogged down in utopian "nation building," now
> has unleashed the neoconservative fanatics to transform the Middle East
into
> a fantastical form they find pleasing, molding Iraq itself into something
> remarkably like the placid social democracies of North America and Western
> Europe. If you suspect that the Iraqis lack the necessary parts to compose
> this visionary contraption, well, you just need to have faith. As St. Paul
> wrote to the Hebrews (11:1), "faith is the substance of things hoped for,
> the evidence of things not seen"-a characterization that fits perfectly
the
> administration's vertiginous conception of the post-conquest
reconstruction
> of Iraq.
>
> Finally, the Bush administration has faith that it can continue to drag
the
> American people down the path of perpetual war for perpetual peace and
> endless nation-building. Maybe it can: for the most part, the people
> certainly have rolled over and played patsy so far, especially if we judge
> by the actions of their pusillanimous representatives in Congress, who
> hastened to pass a resolution unconstitutionally delegating to the
president
> their power to declare war against Iraq.
>
> In the past, however, the American public has risen up from time to time
to
> insist with regard to some disastrous foreign adventure that enough is
> enough. They eventually did so during the Korean War, and they did so
again
> during the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, in both instances the public came
to
> its senses only after enormous loss of life and other human and material
> devastation had been sustained. More recently, with respect to the U.S.
> military mission to Somalia, the public quickly decided against spilling
> additional blood in a seemingly hopeless nation-building effort.
>
> I would like to believe that sooner or later the American people will
> resist, and resist strongly, the Bush administration's crusade for global
> domination in general and its present plan to conquer and reconstruct Iraq
> in particular. As matters now stand, though, I just don't have much faith
in
> the majority of my fellow citizens.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> *Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent
> Institute and editor of its scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent
> Review. He is also the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes
in
> the Growth of American Government and the editor of Arms, Politics and the
> Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
>
>
>
>