Re: [Leica] US Consumer Behavior

[Johnny Deadman <lists@johnbrownlow.com>]

> The division of old versus new Europe is not a real one and not really
> consistent with a modern global viewpoint is it?

It's a bit of desperate Rumsfield-ing, that's all. It even sounds 
desperate. Slogans are never really a substitute for thought, are they?


> We dont have to teach Americans anything.If they want to study history 
> thats
> up to them isn,t it? Whether they learn anything is beyond anyones 
> influence.

Well, we can learn something from the experience in Afghanistan I 
think. The warlords have regained control of large swathes of the 
country, thanks to the new governmental structure. That means, to be 
explicit, that someone can come into your house and take your money, 
your possessions, your wife and your children, and you can't do a damn 
thing about it (which is exactly why the Taliban were able to take 
control in the first place, to put an end to this kind of thing). As 
for Karzai, I have no idea what kind of a leader he is but I do know 
that to the expatriate Afghani community here in Toronto he is a 
western stooge, and seen by some as a stumbling block to the 
reconstruction of the country.

What are the lessons here? Regime change is easy to bring about if you 
drop enough bombs, but 'nation building' is a slogan, not something 
that has even taken nor is ever likely to take place. Or to be more 
precise, it is yet another convenient way of cycling money through the 
US economy.

> To change the subject,at the moment it is very interesting to see if 
> the USA
> will go it alone.

I think it depends entirely on domestic US opinion.

Bush's goal here is that of all politicians, to get re-elected. That is 
not a cynical goal; if you really believe you are the best person to 
lead the country, then your first priority is to remain in power.

If US opinion turns against him, he will back down in an instant. There 
are signs that it is on the slide, but it is fickle so who knows?

The irony is that most polls show that the economy is still in the 
forefront of domestic political concerns for ordinary people. What Bush 
can't say is that that is the whole point of the damn campaign. And I 
don't mean (just) the conspiracy theory about trying to preserve the 
value of the petrodollar. The truth is much more obvious, namely:

Anyone who thinks Bush has spent his surplus on homeland security and 
the Iraq campaign has completely missed the point. It has been spent to 
keep the economy from deflating. With America's current debt load, 
deflation would be catastrophic. The only way to keep from deflating in 
slowdown is for the government to spend, spend, spend. However, that is 
tough for Republicans, and you can only get away with so much in tax 
cuts, so you really need a damn good excuse to get some cash flying 
around, and what better than a massive build up to war?

(As I've pointed out before, you don't actually need a war -- the 
build-up does just fine -- but a war is even better if you think you 
can get something out of it)

Moreover, the reconstruction of Iraq will be a massive opportunity to 
cycle yet more money into the multinationals who are given the 
contracts to do the rebuilding.

As for the oil, well, the best comment on that I have heard was from a 
Scotsman quoted in the Guardian after the protests in London. "If they 
grew carrots, who'd be interested?"


- --
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html