dagblog - Comments for "Globalization and its discontents: a new paradigm"

The United States has really

David Seaton — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:51:19 +0000

The United States has really squared the circle by decontenting Democracy. No matter who gets elected, nothing changes. If you'd like some insights on how it was done read, my last post and watch the BBC video series, "The Century of Self", especially relevant is the second episode of the series, "Engineering Consent", which delves into the relationship between Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann. The result, as Gore Vidal wittily points out, is that we have one political party, the Party of Property, with two right wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. America's organized hollowing out of the democratic idea and then marketing it world wide is perhaps our most distinictive contribution to western civilization.

Ah David you are getting into

Richard Day — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:21:00 +0000

In reply to Globalization and its discontents: a new paradigm

Ah David you are getting into complicated ideas again. Damn!!!

But I said somewhere last week that I am having a hard time jumping up and down with glee over a military junta.

I await outcomes.

I think the Administration is doing the same!

What the frick is FREEDOM anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYFhWV8--io

I have an "impossibility

EmmaZahn — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:56:00 +0000

In reply to Globalization and its discontents: a new paradigm

I have an "impossibility theorem" for the global economy (...). It says that democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full. Dani Rodrik - Kennedy School Harvard

What? Isn't he basically describing the United States if you replace national sovereignty with states' rights? Sure we still squabble over the states' right thing from time to time but the economic powers that be do not let that get in the way of interstate commerce too often or too much. Of course, we did have a nasty civil war about the sovereignty issue once. We definitely do not want something like that at the international level with advanced weaponry. Two world wars were more than enough for one planet.