> and, it seems to me that the conditions being described in the US miss
> the specific character of the US globally. certainly the US, by virtue
> of Bretton Woods, acted as de jure and de fact global credit (bolstered
> invariably by military force around the world), which means in some
> perverse way that the system that was perhaps absent within the US was
> by no means absent globally -- it was (is still?) the US. i have no
> idea how that connection works, but it seems to me it does or must at
> some point.
>
This sounds interesting--the system absent within the US but not absent globally etc. But I don't get it. Could you rephrase?
Christian