>Yes, but the way you posed it was (paraphrasing), the US wants Euroland to
>be more like itself, and if Euroland WAS more like us [you speculated] why
>could there not therefore by a huge new Euro upwave, albeit warty round the
>edges?
At the core, but otherwise, yes, this is pretty much what I'm saying.
> [ie, you argued in favour of blairite 'structural reforms', ie,
>closing down more of the welfare state, worker rights etc]. That was what
>you said, yes? That Euroland could be have market-driven 'wealth-effects'
>just like us? I lost the email so can't quote. But now you are talking the
>OPPOSITE talk of modern colonialism aka globalised markets, neoliberalism
>etc. Which is the exact opposite in INTENTION and is calculated to bind
>Euroland (like every other 'failed' state/metropole etc] into even worse
>duress than before. Under the guise of talking 'big upwave' we are actually
>talking about a new maquiladora-style Euroland. This is IMF-speak.
Yes it's IMF-speak, since IMF-speak is basically written by the U.S. Treasury and U.S. neoclassical economists. But it's not maquiladora-style Euroland (except maybe Britain, that low-wage offshore platform). It's about a core Europe doing all those chic New Economy things like finance, design, and advertising - with all the rude mechanical work being done in Poland and maybe someday Uganda. Regulation, habit, and strong unions are still hindering that evolution, though it's slowly underway.
Doug