Confronting Empire (A 3'rd World View Of The NWO)

Considering the possibility that you will understand a more complete answer, I'll try this:

Suppose I told my wife that I supported the "New Neighborhood Order", and defined that as not leaving trash cans on the curb for several days after the trash pickup, curbing dogs, and keeping lawns neatly mowed.

Suppose further that I lobbied my neighbors to voluntarily do these things, in the hope of maintianing or enhancing quality of life and property values.

Let's suppose that I have some success, but not with everyone.

Now let's suppose that one fellow down the street of particularly lazy habits is faced with eviction and comes to me for a loan to save his house.

Would I be within my rights to make a condition of the loan that he clean up his property and follow the neighborhood rules, or would I be an a-hole?

And in either case is there really any such thing as the "New Neighborhood Order". It is really just a figure of speech, isn't it?

And so it is with the "New World Order". It was just something that some GHW Bush speechwriter thought sounded cute in a speech he was writing. It sure doesn't make it real in any ontological sense.

You are looking at a rope and seeing a snake.

Excellent.

But I still oppose the WTO for the reasons I said

Its fine to oppose the WTO, or the IMF, for specific policies. But if you simply treat them as some kind of fetish, as some do, representing some generalized evil, then debate becomes impossible. The WTO has an important function to perform, without which trade would be impossible. That does not mean they always know what they are doing. But most people attacking the "WTO" simply use the term without any clue what they really do.

Before we can debate specific policies of the WTO and similar agencies, two things need to be clear. One, the source of wealth, and second, the source of poverty.

The essential conditions for the accumulation of wealth are: (1) individual liberty, so that people can act on their own initiative, and in their own interest (2) clear and predictable laws, and (3) honest courts, to settle conflicts and to protect the fruit of your labor.

Poverty usually results from the inverse: the lack of liberty, and a corrupt and politicized legal system. Its really that simple. Usually these conditions are embedded in the culture, and bringing a country out of it is difficult. Poverty always has its defenders, because the status quo always benefits someone.

But one of the most revolutionary agents of change is the American company. I have seen them in action. As they negotiate the conditions of their investment, they are often establishing legal precedents that allow other, national, companies to establish themselves. American companies always treat their workers better than do local companies, and the difference establishes a new standard in labor relations. Americans don't do it grudgingly, they do it because thats just how they are. Imagine yourself running a crew in Country X; you would treat them with dignity, and so would I. So do most Americans, and the effects of that are revolutionary.

The project may directly hire thousands of workers at wages higher than normal, but beyond that it creates an opening for small entrepreneurs who set up shop to service the project. Hundreds of small contractors spring into existence. New technologies are spread out into the community, as people learn their trades and then take those trades back into their villages after the project is over.

The government's take puts them in the black at least until they have found new ways to squander it, but meanwhile a whole generation of people are learning how to live without being dependent on the party.

The downside is that the academic class is left out, construction workers are making more money than they do, and no one is asking them their opinion. So political opposition builds, and takes many forms. But it is almost certain to grow.

The simple fact is that a pipeline does more to liberate a country than a whole generation of embittered journalists, and that is what you are up against. Because while the pipeliner is creating wealth, and transferring usable technologies to thousands of people out in the hinterlands, the journalist has access to his keyboard and microphone. And his revenge is terrible to behold.

A company doing business overseas is at a particular disadvantage. Legal systems are often ill-defined, and very political. That means, the law is whatever the ruling class says it is. So the opportunities for blackmail are endless, and only increase as the investment grows. When you show up to build a billion dollar plant, they are very willing to make concessions; but once the plant is built, the shoe is on the other foot. Your billion dollar plant holds you hostage now to the vagaries of their system, and the never-satiated greed of the political class. That is where the multinational lending agencies come in. They help to spread out the risk, they help to establish the rules of the game, and they have leverage over the country that the company lost once their project is built.

But it isn't foolproof. Enron lost 3 or 4 billion dollars on a plant they built in India, when the Indian government failed to make good on their promises. Despite heavy contributions to Clinton, Clinton was unable to resolve it. This was part of what brought Enron down.

Companies well know that their investment can be seized and nationalized at any time, so typically they build that into the agreement. In most cases, the plant or pipeline becomes the property of the host government after so-many years. Why not, they would probably seize it anyway. So you price it such that you get your principle and interest back during the 7 years, or 10 years, or 20 years of the life of your contract. After that, its theirs and they can run it themselves or bid it out again to you or someone else.

But without the WTO, and without the lending agencies, these projects would not be built at all. These countries would be trapped in their medieval squalor. The people who call this evil are simply shocked at the power of private actors. If the state built projects as grandiose as these, they would be writing symphonies about them. On their government stipend, no doubt.

Seoul is a really nice place, I've been there, but not for over 20 years. I don't have any sympathy for that rabid anti-americanism of many koreans.

But if you put that condition in the loan as you described, then you'd be doing something reasonable. The World Bank puts conditions on loans. They force other countries to have policies that would be entirely unacceptable policies here in america. But those countries receiving the loans have the financial problems because they can't pay back their loans. We don't have any financial problems, we just have 3-4 trillion dollars in debt we can't pay back. So, I hear what you're saying, but the whole system I just don't trust.

I don't trust the federal reserve, I don't trust the CIA, etc.

Regarding that water problem in bolivia you were mentioning. I don't know everything about it, neither do you. But some very poor people were told that they have to pay 25% of their income for water. There were sudden large increases in water prices. And this occurred right after Bechtel bought the water utility. According to my values, I wouldn't have done what Bechtel did. If I were the World Bank I wouldn't have allowed this to happen. They're saying that the water utility needed some large investment to keep operating. Maybe so. The World Bank touts itself as a charity organization, a lender of last resort that loses money by design. Well then, they should've been on top of this water problem. I've managed real estate developments before. I know how to get things done. If I were World Bank I'd have gotten with the government of Bolivia and built a close relationship, then done the same with Bechtel and somehow induced Bechtel to provide technical analysis. Then I'd have considered getting 2'nd opinion on technical analysis. Bechtel is an expensive american company. India and Russia have experts too you know. I'd have found a way to get those improvements done without the massive cost increases even if it meant subsidy from World Bank coffers. World Bank throws so much money around maneuvering people, they could do it easily. I'd have told the Bolivian government, after identifying the cheapest source for doing improvements, that we'll finance it if they provide concessions. Concessions can be all kinds of things, whatever's required. It could even mean special preferential treatment on real estate developments so World Bank could profit. You have touse your imagination, your skill, your money even to get good results if you are a businessperson to be respected. A good banker produces prosperity for all, not just for a few elite. Those poor people in Bolivia were all of a sudden told to increase the amount of moneythey had to pay for water by a very large amount and the end-result was absolutely un-doable for them. They rioted and the Bolivian government kicked Bechtel out. Bechtel was stupid to proceed with the deal and it was good they got punished. The World bank shouldn't have anything to do with such deals.

There's been a lot of criticism of the World Bank and IMF in the financial press. These people force governments to impose draconian measures so that the people become slaves. There's got to be a better way. A banker should be a creative, imaginative, resourceful consultant with money to help a nation out when they are extremely poor. He should build friends and even preferential treatment in that nation. He should be willing to invest his own funds. He should not be a bully. People say the World Bank is a bully. It's not just third world people. I've read it in the financial press of the US.

We probably just have different experiences and images in our minds of this 'New World Order'.

thank you again, your analysis is very good. I will also yield that you are correct in your diagnosis of causes of poverty in countries like India or Mexico or Brazil. Corruption, legal problems, just like you said. I'm aware that american companies have sometimes put forth huge efforts to be badly frustrated by these obstacles in those countries. 'Medieval squalor' is term you used and accurate. I will also yield that WTO is a well-thought out means of dealing with these challenges.

However, I am also mindful of the christian concept or original sin. Or, as Lord Acton? said 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. When you weaken democratic institutions' abilities to rule a nation and you put power into the hands of very powerful international organizations that are beyond the public's reach and even out of view, then I think bad things will result. And I have witnessed negative effects of NWO related policies in America. And I believe that there are and will be negative effects in other countries as well.

But I surely agree with you that extraordinary actions are called for to create satisfactory development around the world. And certainly, socialism is a failure, as is the terrible systems of corruption that occur in India, Mexico and elsewhere.

Red,

Cochabamba is an excllent case in point. Here, local leftists stirred up trouble and ruined the chances for the poorest of the local people to have piped, safe, clean, and economical water.

I am attaching a link to a scholarly article appearing in the Bulletin of Latin American Research entitled "The Limitastions of Water Regulation: The Failure of the Cochabamba Concession on Bolivia" This is generally conceded to be the authoritative study of this subject.

Listen to this from the article's conclusion:

"The rapid demise of the Cochabamba water service concession has been heralded by observers as a major popular victory in the struggle against the forces of globalisation (Lobina, 2000). This analysis suggests that such an interpretation is mistaken. The evidence suggests that the lowest five deciles of the urban population stood to gain most from the successful implementation of the Contract - both in the short term (i.e. the introduction of cross-subsidisation through the IBT and reduction in leakage rate0 and over the longer term (i.e. the extension of the pipe network to poor neighborhoods currently dependent on high-cost water vendors)."

Also, to my knowledge, much of the criticism of the project was just plain concocted. Lies, if you will, which this study exposes.

Cochabamba Article

why thank you for that link. I'll try to read it tommorrow. Perhaps Bechtel did get a raw deal. I saw a story about it on Bill Moyers' show on PBS. Maybe the story I saw didn't tell the whole story. thanks.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a381e9a782e19.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/involved?group=287

http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/11-06-2000/insider/vo16no23_ins_gorby.htm

http://getusout.org/un/articles/world_currency.htm

http://propagandamatrix.com/archive_new_world_order.html

http://getusout.org/un/articles/worldwide_welfare.htm

http://getusout.org/un/articles/rpnwr.htm

http://getusout.org/un/articles/building.htm

http://getusout.org/resources/bloomfield_7.htm

I have yet to catch Bill Moyers in a truth.

thanks for all those links. I'll look at em and not post here a while. Got to figure out what's going on.

I have no interest in communist ideology. But James Burnham is one of the premiere intellectuals of the american conservative movement of the late 20'th century. James Burnham was the most commonly published writer in the magazine called National Review from 1957 to 1970. That was a period of time when the conservative movement was really being made and National Review was it's biggest center of discussion by far. James Burnham said that the managerial class was gaining too much power, becoming arrogant and abusive towards other classes of people and that if trends continued it would be a real problem that would challenge freedom and prosperity for americans. Read his book 'Managerial Revolution'. It was one of his big ideas in his life. and he was as influential as any other intellectual in the conservative movement.

But the conservative movement today is a shell of what it was when Burnham was writing for National Review IMHO. We are polluted by Republican cheerleaders IMHO.

This an excellent, thought-provoking post. Unfortunately it is bound so tightly in the sulferous language of the international Left that the yummy molasses center can hardly be tasted. This is the problem with the so-called antiwar movement too. It's rhetoric is dominated by Lefties who, contrary to their fawning media portrayal, LOVE war. It's only that we're not warring against the right people. The Right antiwar voice is drowned out. And I can't help thinking there's a reason to that rhyme.

Anyway, it seems to me the the great obstacle to liberation from the Global Economic Plantation is language. The language is trapped in a time warp and polemics are conducted with mummified words---insofar as polemics are even conducted. It usually ends up with a so-called "conservative" shouting: "That's class warfare! You're a marxist!" And thus ending any critique from the Right--which was always the more profound critique of capital.

There is also the problem with the myth of "rugged individualism". An inability to accept that Class warfare is being waged by someone--even if the "classes" do not conform to marxist dogma. And so, only one side is fighting--and wiping up the planet with the confused, atomized remnants of traditionalism.

It's old hat, but I don't see why more people haven't awakened to the fact that "communism" and "capitalism" are joined at the hip.

Instead we have a series of dislocated groups being brutally awakened. First the farmers, miners, loggers, fishermen---all the unimportant rednecks out in the hinterlands who don't play as well on TV as Michael Jackson's nose.

Then, slowly, groups in the suburbs are hit by HBI visas; by shoe factory closings; by the sickening revelation that all those people in the so-called "Third World" have brains too, and will toil for lower wages. The myth of secure brain jobs is exploded. But again, it doesn't play as well as a nightime bombing display over the capital of some recalcitrant "un-free" society with a New Hitler as their Leader.

And never fear! There will always be another Hitler out there crouching in the tall weeds who, along with his un-free People, will need to be treated with a great many high tech weapons and thus, liberated into economic freedom.

Anyway, I don't think we have the cultural skills anymore to confront this looming disaster with a sense of communal affection and loyalty.

(Just a footnote: It's interesting that Indian Lefties seem to hate their Native "rednecks" even more passionately than American Lefties hate their Native rubes.)