Shroeder admits
>"Some people here assume that one can govern a country against the
>wishes of the business community. That is not on."
We should all post this above our monitors. Should a country by run solely for the benefit of the business community or for the citizenry at large? Shroeder, Clinton and Blair have thrown in the towel.
Often the specter of captial flight is just used to threaten. The U.S. conceivably could withstand such threats b/c of its large consumer market. Less powerful countries like Ecuador have fewer options.
>At the nation-state governing level, is there a credible argument for
>management of the economy against the interests of the business community,
>where any gains in social justice won't be overwhelmed by the losses due to
>capital flight?
I would emphasize that this doesn't entail the "end of socialism," it just highlights the fact that business isn't very interested in social justice. Having said that, there are some things business can't move overseas (or even out of state) to escape regulation. Both California and Illinois recently gave consumers the right to sue HMOs - something arguably not in the interests of the business community. Fuck 'em, let there be capital flight out of the health care racket and then government will be forced to pick up the pieces and we'll have socialized medicine. But after a few years when thing are running smoothly, business propagandists will start shouting for privitization in order to make the system more "efficient."