Response to Yesterday's Post (Soros-Clinton)greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I wanted to respond to some of the questions asked regarding the article in a fresh post, so here goes:
Since George tries to apply the same "critique of current economic thought to geopolitical processes", and based on your reasoning and assumptions, so does Clinton (by extension), perhaps they can conceive of this worldwide "political umbrella for all governments". But conception and bringing it to fruition are two different things entirely, right?
Yes, however if you look at the current institutions worldwide that allow a bridge to such a thing, youd have to look at three. The United Nations itself, which frankly is too independent of the US to be considered a worthy contender. The global economic/corporate infrastructures, which are both truly global in capacity and contain the heart of what would probably be affected in 2000. The argument could be we brought you the technology well help you fix it. Finally, the military, which wouldnt initially seem to be allowable, but we are allowed, or allow ourselves (as in Kosovo today), to have access into countries. Under the umbrella of peacekeeping, you know. If such a beast were to begin, I think it has the best chance through a united effort on these two fronts.
So while I can understand the will to "produce a policy toward steering the world through Y2K", I just do not see it actually happening. Certainly not before or during Y2K, perhaps afterwards, but there are a lot of 'ifs'. What do you think?
Youre right lots of ifs and it greatly depends on whether Clinton falls secretly into the GI camp. But as many inconspicuous inroads would be sought prior to 2000 so that the necessary infrastructure would be in place to carry out such a thing post-2000. Which actually segues into the next question:
However, as Rob suggests, if there is massive "communication breakdown" due to Y2K, I have trouble seeing how "open society" can be fostered in a climate of disrupted flow of information.
I do too, but I am not naove enough to presume that the military wouldnt have a means of communication during crisis. Im quite confident that Clinton and other world leaders will have very tested communications equipment that can operate independently of the rest of the telecom world.
I tend to think that the old "closing up" mindset will be pervasive as smaller geographical entities attempt to protect their interests, local strongmen seize power, and "data islands" emerge in previously unknown configurations.
I think youre describing scenarios in 2001 more than in 2000. The collapse of post-Soviet Russia shows that the mafia rule today took a bit of time to develop. Prior to that, as much of the old guard, both pre- and post-collapse, fought to maintain the status quo. I expect that fight for things as they are because we dont want them to change will be exhaustive. The last thing Clinton wants to preside over is the collapse of infrastructure in the US and regardless of political persuasion, every politician would help him in this effort.
IF (the big IF?) money and markets, as they are currently understood, were to change radically, power could shift (or be consolidated?) so as to make "openness" an impossibility.
My quibble is with Soros' interpretation of economics. I've heard Soros speak before congress, and I know his background. He grew rich with money from government money. His entire life has been spent safeguarding his ill-begotten wealth. He is a total statist, and doesn't have any qualms about inflicting that view on the US.
Youre right hes totally left-wing but isnt Bill a Democrat? I think many people have made the rather mistaken assumption along the way that just because Bill is into a strong economy and a strong police force, hes a moderate or conservative Democrat/Republican. Whether or not Soros arguments hold any merit (I believe they hold some very good points, as does Krugman nobody has it all right), thats irrelevant. The point of my argument is that he inflicted his views on the US through the person of Clinton. Fine, quibble all that you want, but what does that mean? Thats why I wrote the article.
-- Sniff Jones (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 19, 1999
-- Watchful (email@example.com), March 21, 1999.