Re: Conclusions

    Simplistic solutions? David Korten? Thought they were a couple.

Michael Pugliese
............................................................................
............................................................................
.
THE VILLAGE POLITICS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON GLOBALIZATION
____________________________________________________________________
By Harry Westerink
at  http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/ats-l/2000.04/msg00003.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard K. Moore <richard@cyberjournal.org>
To: Paul Riesz <priesz@itn.cl>
Cc: haritatos@athenian.net <haritatos@athenian.net>; gkohler@accglobal.net
<gkohler@accglobal.net>; wsn@csf.colorado.edu <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Sunday, January 07, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Conclusions


>
>1/7/2001, Paul Riesz wrote:
> > REFORMED CAPITALISM; similar to the existing Scandinavian models
>
>C'mon Paul, you're going to have to do better than
>repeating yourself if you want to convince anybody of
>anything.
>
>What do you know about the Scandanavian economies?  Do you
>know how much of their well-being depends on oil royalties,
>or on weapons-related contracts?  Have you done the numbers
>to determine if their economy is sustaintable?
>
>When you look at the current imperialist global economy, you
>cannot look at the cream and ignore the non-fat milk below
>it.  The economy of the West and the economy of the third
>world are one economy.  If you want to sing the praises of
>Scandanavia, then you've got to justify the death squads in
>Guatemala at the same time, not to mention the famine
>victims in the African countries which export their coffee
>to Scandanavia.
>
>And what in the world do you mean by 'reformed capitalism'?
>When you get done with the reform, what part of capitalism
>is left?  Have you worked out what's going to happen to the
>global economy when you reform away the growth that allows
>capitalism to function? Have you read David Korten?  Do
>you know the difference between a market economy and
>capitalism?
>
>Why don't you set your little formula aside for a while, and
>discuss how to get what you want.  You want a solution which
>can be achieved, and which doesn't require a disruptive
>transition period, right?  Let's talk about the problem,
>instead of debating simplistic solutions.
>
>rkm