I think I recommended Will Hutton's writings before. There, one can read about the significant difference between American big companies and European ones. In Europe, as we know, a significant amount of any surplus is put away for savings, developement and research. In the US, during the last 20-30 years, a much greater percentage of the surplus is sent out to the shareholders. The current recession in the US is not just the result of a temporary glitch (global recession + bad government), but of deep structural problems, which have been able to develop partly because of the immensity of American economy, and partly because of the US control of currency and military power.
The current situation in Iraq is not only stupid and ugly, it is also weakening US control of these two immensly important levers. As José said: lots of OPEC countries want to shift to the Euro. And the US army's inability to deal with the real conflicts of our age are not going about unnoticed. Like you said yourself Newromancer, we'd all prefer protection the French way (or the British or the Spanish or the German, any way that is accustomed to dealing with terrorism).
The US army fenced in and threatened in the Green Zone in Bagdad is not that scary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SRu:
The domestic problems like health care, collapsing retirement funds, the questionable future of Social Security, etc.

---

The social system ... or the lack of it ... is something we europeans can hardly understand.

@ M

Very interesting your last post.
Because I allways belived US puts much more money into research then Europe does.

The controll of Currency was a bad idea in the first place ... but a worse if they tried to keep the Doller at a level with the EURO (whichwas introduced at 1.2 at the current marketing) ... but i do belive this will regulate itself.

As the USD was that high, exports into US brought European companies lots of extra cash ... now that this has changed, it is harder to make profit from exports to the US ... but for US companies it became more profitable to export to EU ... divisen will exchange, the situation will stableize again. - I'm quit willing to help them, by buying my DVD there

Mister Gibson, your latest blog link is invalid, as it links right back to http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/*. However, the address http://www.massivechange.com/ is valid, and works fine once cut-and-pasted.

I shall take this opportunity to formally express my thanks for your continued hospitality and forbearance. This remains one of my favorite sites, one of only three I bother to post on.

Uh...what he said.

William, I just read your blog-post about the Massive Change installation at the Vancouver Art Gallery. I don't know if you attended today's set of conversations (Saturday October 16) but it was a wonderful day with some incredibly articulate, engaging, and energetic people. We got to hear from Bill Buxton (human/computer interface guru); Esther Dyson (cyber-ethics and venture capital); Andrew Zolli (futurist); Hazel Henderson (futurist, evolutionary economist, and sustainable development consultant); Janine M. Benyus (Biomimicry author); John Todd (biologist and designer of Eco Machines for waste treatment); Dean Kamen (inventor of the Segway); Jaime Lerner (former may or Curitiba, Brazil where he revolutionized transit); James Korris (U.S. military analyst, Army/gaming hybridist); and Gwynne Dyer (author, journalist).

It was an awesome day, with some good discussion and I think a lot of new information for those attending. I will be posting a summary of each of the sessions from my notes over at my blog at www.troyangrignon.com sometime in the next few days when I can make the time. I will leave you a note here when I have done so, just in case you are interested.

Today was blogalicious, good sir. I'll be in Vancouver again soon and will have to check out Massive Change, if it's still in. Irony-free, indeed.

And yes, thank you for leaving the lights on here while you were out. And thanks for coming back for awhile.

I've been reading the responses to the blog now that Gibson has started again, and I must say some of you are missing a critical (to my American mind) point: if US economy collapses, we exist in a society corrupt enough to sell real WMD. Not those imaginary ones Bush chased after in Iraq, but the real deal, you know, the shit we can't even tell our own people we developed. To think you can sit across the oceans and not be affected is old thinking. I'm one of those people who still can't choose who to vote for, mainly because, there really are no choices. I've researched and researched, and the only conclusion I can come to is, there is no TRUTH in today's media, only distortion and the result is misinformation. I wish I could believe Kerry was a better choice than Bush, but there's just no evidence.

And I say this after having watched the debates, and believing Kerry had much better points than Bush. Undertandable because Kerry says what I want to be hearing, but then when I research his own website, the more I think about his proposals, the less they seem like good alternatives to Bush, and the more they seem like MORE OF THE SAME.

These two guys are some symptom of the flaw in modern politics here, but if I thought I could jsut ignore the situation and not bother voting, then I vote for the collapse of the ideals of the Constitution. Maybe it's already happened. I don't know why things got so fucked up over the phantom Iraqi WMD but I do know where the real ones are, and I think it's in the world's interest to see America remain stable.

re: the above.

With Bush you're guaranteed more of the same.
With Kerry at least there's a sliver of a chance we'll get something different.

Just my rupee .50

Also re: the above, I think it is a terrible mistake to reduce democracy to the mere practice of voting. As per the current signature.

Whats the reference to John Stewart at the bottom of the blog entry about?

thanks primate and splitcoil. sometimes i feel like there's a lot going on in my mind and reducing it all to a few choice words tends to simplify the actual thoughts in my mind.

quote:

---

With Kerry at least there's a sliver of a chance we'll get something different.

---

I agree with this statement but also think it's the equivalent of saying in Russian roulette there's a sliver of a chance I won't blow my brains out.

quote:

---

I think it is a terrible mistake to reduce democracy to the mere practice of voting. As per the current signature[:] When your politics are only about the contest, you can win the contest, but you will always lose the polity.

---

Another valid statement. Too bad the election of the most powerful person in American politics has been reduced to the mere act of voting...

You know, when you ask me to choose between a fist or a boot, I know I'm in for a beating either way. How can we make that choice? I mean, I can - choose the lesser of two evils, purely from speculative analysis of the candidates, but it makes me sick. The contest is a joke, like calling heads or tails for a double head coin.

It's a problem. I see lots of people sharing the acknowledgement but no one offering any real solutions. If I had any to offer I would...

Just shouting at a wall, really, sometimes it's helpful to get it out even tho the wall remains...

Stonebird -

There was a thread on the News sub-board about Jon Stewart's recent appearance on Crossfire. Apropos of which, the Washington Post restyled Mr Stewart's last crack at Tucker Carlson thusly:

"You know what's interesting though?" Stewart shot back. "You're as big a [male pride] on your show as you are on any show."

"Male pride" - Good Lord.

Tom Wolfe's description of the press at the time of the Mercury missions as a "Victorian gentleman" (a person of extreme propriety and delicate sensibilities) seems to remain apt.

quote:

---

quote:

---

With Kerry at least there's a sliver of a chance we'll get something different.

---

I agree with this statement but also think it's the equivalent of saying in Russian roulette there's a sliver of a chance I won't blow my brains out.

---

This analogy implies that Bush is not so bad, and that Kerry could be worse.
From my point of view, even if the media are all lies and propaganda, it looks like :
- Bush is stuck with his war on terror/Iraq/whatever policy, and can't afford to move backwards. If he's re-elected, the war will go on, until something (probably very horrible) happens.
- Kerry, being a new guy, can try to change the situation without having the world pointing at him like : "Ooooh! He changed his mind! He's so weak and untrustworthy!"

That's the only way I think the Iraq situation can have a chance to be solved.

There are other points after that, on which I can't express due to my lack of knowledge of the US internal situation.

If a guy claims he's more moderated than Bush, I take that as a good sign.
I would be very afraid if he claimed Bush is a big sissy and he can do better than that.

--
ArkanGL

In more different and happy news, Arkan's back!

... and he's talking to the blog, since WG's back!
How could news be better ?

--
ArkanGL

Thanks ArkanGL, for your reply. I think those are all valid points to make, concerning Iraq, and how to step out of the hornet's nest it has become... My personal feelings in the interim between the Fall of the Taliban and troop allocation to the Persian Gulf region in late 2002 were that war was inevitable. Seeing all the things on the tv that Bush claimedthe US was going to do to prevent us from having to go to war didn't add up to the reality of the situation, which for me, living on the southern part of the coast of Virginia, home to 5 seperate military bases of which all 3 of the main subsets of our mighty forces are represented, it became apparent something was happening. Dealign iwth the public, with a large number of military spouses, you could see a large number of people were being moved out with orders that were pretty vague, basically, to go sit on a aircraft carrier in the Gulf and write emails back home until further notice.

Of course we were threatening to go to war with Iraq, so it only makes sense to do exactly what we did if we planned to be able to build it up.

Well, I fear, I have not had enough coffee to remember where the hell I was going with all that... but maybe it will give you a glimpse of why I don't feel outraged over Bush 'lying' to us about going to war. I had already accepted the fact it was happening. Personally, I didn't think there was a good case for finding WMD, didn't think they had enough troops to getthe job done, were deluded in thinking once Saddam was gone the entire Iraqi population would become Democratic on a wave of magic sunshine and good vibes, and that the inevitable long term occupation would only increase terrorist recruitment and further cause problems for my own people.

So, yes, Iraq is a problem. Do I think Kerry will be better adapted at solving it? I don't know, looking at his plan, I don't see a huge difference in what he's saying we need to do to help Iraq from what Bush says. Maybe a new guy will make the other countries feel good about stepping in to help out. Kerry seems to have the impression no one will join our efforts because under the Bush administration none of the countries who didn't come along initailly are allowed to make any money in Iraq. Well, I can only say if the reasons for not stepping in and restructuring Iraq are based that much on money,the world is far worse off than I had previously convinced myself.

So, that leaves the decision on domestic issues (to me that includes Homeland Security, a term I loathe by the way). Again Kerry says the thing I want to hear: he's gonna make us more safe, more secure, more better off, more educated, more healthy, mo betta mo betta mo betta. I dig it, but then when the candy gloss shine of this very palatable message wears off, there is a different taste in my mouth. How is he going to do all those things? Some of his proposals really bother me. Bush bothers me too, but in different ways.

I think this huge focus on which guy can get us out of Iraq is a case of 'can't see the forest for the trees.' You have to remember also, yes the president is a powerful guy, but he doesn't work alone. There's a huge chunk of the infrastructure that runs the US, that the citizens don't have much control over. Kerry has admitted if given the intelligence about Iraq that Bush was given, he would have also chosen to go to war. But that doesn't change the fact that our intelligence was wrong.

To clarify my analogy, voting for Bush is knowing the chamber is filled with a few more bullets. It's a case of Bush is very bad, but Kerry could be worse. I just don't like these odds.

The John Stewart remark was probably referring to his recent appearance on CNN's crossfire. There's a torrent here. Enjoy .

madevilbeats : Kerry could be worse, but Bush couldn't be better.
If you don't try it, you'll never know.

--
ArkanGL

quote:

---

Too bad the election of the most powerful person in American politics has been reduced to the mere act of voting...

---

I think you misinterpret my vague statement. What I'm saying is that for the vast majority of human history, securing a slightly less-shitty life has required quite a bit of activity. Lately we've been taught that you can spend 364 days a year chasing money and buying SUV's, and only think about how society is run one day per year (or perhaps two in a leap year) when we vote, and everything will turn out all right. That's horse-puckey.

There's more to politics than the presidential election, and there's more to participation than voting. Find a niche where you can do something and give it a shot. It can be very rewarding.