The Owners of Democracy at work in Nicaragua

[jimmoyer]

Despite our disagreements, darkbeaver, I've always
felt we could all use a little more of what is in that
Rush tune.

Now, how to do that ?

I got a proposal.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: The Owners of Democra

It's a closed system we live in Sanch the limits of growth and development are being approached, capitalism of the type we have embraced does not have a future. The consumer age is over, the age of the conservationist is dawning, there is no room or fuel to support limitless expansion, limitless choice, or limitless consumerism. Trade based on regionalism is the coming thing, all economies need the same basic components. It's is very telling in your argument that you omit the primemover of economies and the greatest disruptive force of military intervention and what destruction of indiginous economies that has caused in the last hundred years. The principal mover in economics of the twentith century was military. Stable politics and economies always curb capital that's is why instability has been the prime mover, while you seem to believe that the magic of capitalism has produced the wealth this IMHO is incorrect or am I wrong and the military has not been a principal player in the American economic miracle.
Whatever you say you are going to have to look at the economic situation facing America today, the miracle of capitalism is responsible for that dismal position nothing else, and the only possible fix is success in the middle east which will require increased military activity.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: The Owners of Democracy at work in Nicaragua

Despite our disagreements, darkbeaver, I've always
felt we could all use a little more of what is in that
Rush tune.

Now, how to do that ?

I got a proposal.

Well roll it out and let me cast my beady little eyes upon it.

 

[sanch]

DB we are really looking at two very different things. You have this pranksterish and fatalistic resignation about the inevitable dominance of the US. The success of the US as a superpower in the 20th century can be attributed to a variety of sources including the military industrial complex. And this type of dominance will likely not be sustainable and so there are limits to expansion.

I am focusing on what types of economic pursuits might be possible in the developing world under current conditions. I have been going to Latin America for over 30 years and have seen the reforms and the subsidies for beans, rice and fuel and have seen the outcome of more poverty and more displacement. And this is the outcome of a top down approach be it by neo-liberals or the right. It hasn’t worked. The state whatever noble intentions has failed the world’s poor.

So the alternative is a bottom up approach. Its roots are in village politics. It’s more pragmatic and less rhetorical. The partners in these communities come from the US and Europe and the developing world and it is a very big global stew that is brewing. But it is less about revolution than participation. It is about inclusion and not exclusion. Technology is making it possible for the excluded to participate and the future partners will be anyone who wants to do business. The US in this new world order will be a player but not necessarily as directive. It is the 21st century and there are qualitatively different rules at play.

I could be more specific but you seem more interested in being silly than in doing anything productive.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: The Owners of Democra

The principal mover in economics of the twentith century was military.

Don't be silly.

Stable politics and economies always curb capital that's is why instability has been the prime mover,

This is about the most incorrect thing I've seen yet on this forum, and that's saying something.

Stability is critical to attract capital. If a company is going to build a plant somewhere, it wants to be sure that its not going to be expropriated or blown up 5-10 years down the road.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: The Owners of Democracy at work in Nicaragua

How's this Darkbeaver ?

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
to mold a new reality
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart

The Blacksmith and the Artist
Reflected in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the Heart
Yea, CLoser to the Heart

Philosophers and Plowmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentallity
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart
Yeah ah

ohhh ahh

(Solo)

A Wooah, Wooo

You can be the Captain
And i will draw the chart
Sailing into destinity
Closer to the Heart
Closer to the Heart
Well,Closer to the Heart
Yeah, Closer to the Heart
Close to the Heart
I said, Closer to the Heart

No thanks.

 

[jimmoyer]

LOL, Jay.

You got no rush from that, eh?

 

[cortezzz]

rush--- is pretentious

 

[jimmoyer]

am focusing on what types of economic pursuits might be possible in the developing world under current conditions. I have been going to Latin America for over 30 years and have seen the reforms and the subsidies for beans, rice and fuel and have seen the outcome of more poverty and more displacement. And this is the outcome of a top down approach be it by neo-liberals or the right. It hasn’t worked. The state whatever noble intentions has failed the world’s poor.

So the alternative is a bottom up approach. Its roots are in village politics. It’s more pragmatic and less rhetorical. The partners in these communities come from the US and Europe and the developing world and it is a very big global stew that is brewing. But it is less about revolution than participation. It is about inclusion and not exclusion. Technology is making it possible for the excluded to participate and the future partners will be anyone who wants to do business. The US in this new world order will be a player but not necessarily as directive. It is the 21st century and there are qualitatively different rules at play.

----------------------sanch------------------------------

THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT POST.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: The Owners of Democracy at work in Nicaragua

rush--- is pretentious

I once read an article by a critic in a rock magazine, oh 20 or so years ago, that Rush had to start writing songs about what went on in high school rather than the cosmos.

That goodness Rush are pretentious.

 

[darkbeaver]

DB we are really looking at two very different things. You have this pranksterish and fatalistic resignation about the inevitable dominance of the US. The success of the US as a superpower in the 20th century can be attributed to a variety of sources including the military industrial complex. And this type of dominance will likely not be sustainable and so there are limits to expansion.

I am focusing on what types of economic pursuits might be possible in the developing world under current conditions. I have been going to Latin America for over 30 years and have seen the reforms and the subsidies for beans, rice and fuel and have seen the outcome of more poverty and more displacement. And this is the outcome of a top down approach be it by neo-liberals or the right. It hasn’t worked. The state whatever noble intentions has failed the world’s poor.

So the alternative is a bottom up approach. Its roots are in village politics. It’s more pragmatic and less rhetorical. The partners in these communities come from the US and Europe and the developing world and it is a very big global stew that is brewing. But it is less about revolution than participation. It is about inclusion and not exclusion. Technology is making it possible for the excluded to participate and the future partners will be anyone who wants to do business. The US in this new world order will be a player but not necessarily as directive. It is the 21st century and there are qualitatively different rules at play.

I could be more specific but you seem more interested in being silly than in doing anything productive.

Acctually I did mention a regional approach earlier and I like what you've posted above, the bottom up approach and the village politics, great lets do it, an approach like this is revolutionary isn't it. While I am pranksterish I don't have a fatalistic resignation about the inevitable dominance of the US but a historically correct perspective of Americas attempt to do the impossible and the cost of that attempt. Again participation of the kind you speak of is what I very much believe the world needs, please elaborate, supply links I would rather a good story full of hope than constant contemplation of disaster.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: The Owners of Democra

The principal mover in economics of the twentith century was military.

Don't be silly.

Stable politics and economies always curb capital that's is why instability has been the prime mover,

This is about the most incorrect thing I've seen yet on this forum, and that's saying something.

Stability is critical to attract capital. If a company is going to build a plant somewhere, it wants to be sure that its not going to be expropriated or blown up 5-10 years down the road.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toro get out your history books a big military was a very handy economic tool in the last century and still is.

The governments of both America and Canada have tried to institute public programs of medicine, insurance, education etc ; and public cooperative procurment, witness the enormous attack on these public institutions in the last twenty-five years by the private sector it is the stability of those public institutions and thier sucessful operations that stability and the absence of competition does not please capital, that's what I was talking about. Potential profit is critical to attract capital, technically low wages and no labour laws and no benifits represent the stability that capital looks for. The stability of poverty is not something I want to promote but capital activly does.

 

[jimmoyer]

I have been going to Latin America for over 30 years and have seen the reforms and the subsidies for beans, rice and fuel and have seen the outcome of more poverty and more displacement. And this is the outcome of a top down approach be it by neo-liberals or the right. It hasn’t worked. The state whatever noble intentions has failed the world’s poor.

So the alternative is a bottom up approach. Its roots are in village politics. It’s more pragmatic and less rhetorical. The partners in these communities come from the US and Europe and the developing world and it is a very big global stew that is brewing. But it is less about revolution than participation. It is about inclusion and not exclusion. Technology is making it possible for the excluded to participate and the future partners will be anyone who wants to do business. The US in this new world order will be a player but not necessarily as directive. It is the 21st century and there are qualitatively different rules at play.

-----------------------sanch---------------------------

I just had to repost Sanch there one more time.

GOOD POST.