This is not an invitation to throw away Globalization, even if we could. But it may never lead to the better world it promises if those of us that support it have to shoot our way into dominance. We should not make Marx’s mistake when he saw the disruptive effects of early industrialization in Europe as capitalism’s death throes rather than its birth pangs. But we need to design these changes in more sensible and intelligent ways, and realize that we have a selling job to do, even at the lowest levels of the socio-economic totem pole. Perhaps most there. If we charge ahead with a “bottom line,”macro-economic standard only, we can expect more conflict and terroristic wars. We may have to face the fact that neoliberal decentralization in the form of democracy may be the best long term strategy, but can have disruptive and even catastrophic effects in the short run. I see no easy solution to the problem, but it deserves more attention than it is getting, especially from economists.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dave Schuler:
November 9th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
And, of course, in a fully globalized world any way of doing things that relies on being left to its own devices is in trouble. Is it really possible to avoid this or is it just part of the cost of doing business?
Daniel E. Teodoru:
November 9th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
I still deeply regret my break with Prof. Macdonald over what REALLY are the neocons. But I am very happy to see that his measured considerations are still pattent:
This is not an invitation to throw away Globalization, even if we could. But it may never lead to the better world it promises if those of us that support it have to shoot our way into dominance. We should not make Marx’s mistake when he saw the disruptive effects of early industrialization in Europe as capitalism’s death throes rather than its birth pangs. But we need to design these changes in more sensible and intelligent ways, and realize that we have a selling job to do, even at the lowest levels of the socio-economic totem pole.
But that is he problem. Firstly, most of the shahids are not rural folks but hard science educated youths. Perhaps Prof. MacDonald misses the phobia of many towards math and science. We see it just as avidly if not vividly in the USA. So many go into “business” a la GW Bush, coming out devoid of capacity for rigorous thinking. And many who go into science come to fear its bottomless dark pit of answers that only pose more questions. Note that, while we do not have state sponsored ulamas in America, several states have voted to give equal treatment to “intelligent design” as to “evolution.” Why is that? Is it because the voters understand both and thus chose, or is it because they understand neither so they like the idea of “devine mystery” in their pedagogy?
So, the protest of Thai Muslims has more to do with the self-esteme seficit from which Muslims suffer because so much is asked of them by destitute families, given that they went to school. Suicide with a bang is often a reset button that puts them in paradise without having to measure up with those white people that invented the enducation they endure and the agencies where they might gain wages. France, as Olivier Roy so well examines, is a case in point. The Jahidists are not Arabs but French-born, bound to what Roy calls “inti-Islam” explained in at most a ten page Korhan. For that they will die. Or, could it be that frustration begs for revenge and blowing up as many of them as you can along with yourself is the best way to be heroically remembered by a family that considers you a useless mout to dead despite the Bach and the university degree?