I still don't get de Cecco on this issue. On one page he's saying that capital flight generated 1/4 of western Europe's balance-of-payments deficit. On the next page he's saying that "most" of U.S. aid funded capital flight. 1/4--which I think I would believe--is not most. But in general de Cecco is certainly smart, thoughtful, worth listening to...
>Note: This is a collection of speeches and interviews, not quite as
>heavily footnoted or detailed as many of his other widely available
>works.
Ah! So there is an approved list of texts totally exempt from Hegelian influence. I begin to recognize this intellectual influence...
>Brad's view of the Cold War is entirely conventional: the US wished
>merely to protect itself against the aggressive commies. Brad
>declines to go beyond this for reasons best known to himself, but the
>"Trumanesque confrontation" so coyly referred to is quite important,
>based on economic interests rather than a simply irascibility or fear
Based on irascibility, fear, *and* economic interests, please...
>Also note Brad's entirely conventional (and wrong) summary of the
>Korean War ("Stalin took off the leash and Kim Il Sung began the Korean
>War"). As Rakesh has pointed out, Bruce Cumings two volume history of
>the Korean War should be consulted before so easily swallowing this
>wholesale
You are... badly out of date. Interesting things have been emerging from the Soviet archives that undermine Bruce Cumings' assessment.
Re:
>>What I object to is that Chomsky tears up the trail markers that might lead
>>to conclusions different from his. He makes it next to impossible for
>>people unversed in the issues to understand what the live and much-debated
>>points of contention might be. He clear-cuts the historical landscape.
>
>You mean the same historical landscape that so often directs the
>powerful to turn to a Neue Ordnung to solve their problems?
Enough.
Brad DeLong