----- Original Message ----- From: "Yoshie Furuhashi" <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu>
> What individual capitalists want and what the US power elite think
> would be good for capitalism as a system are not the same thing. It
> doesn't make sense for the US Government to try to conquer and occupy
> real "profit centers" -- Japan, Europe, China, Brazil, etc. -- as
> markets in such areas are complex, with no obvious single source of
> wealth.
===================
Aggregation of interests problem[s], anyone? Monolithicizing who gets to determine what is good for 'the system,' perhaps? You really are quite good at mis-re-presenting what I wrote in your attempt to score points these days.
>Economies of many states in the world -- especially in the
> Middle East -- are, however, crucially dependent on extraction of
> natural resources, especially oil, which may prove to be irresistibly
> tempting targets for the US power elite who seem undaunted by the
> prospects of either old-fashioned colonial conquest and occupation or
> blatantly neo-colonial control (= regime changes to create handpicked
> new native rulers) which they don't mind publicizing to the whole
> world ahead of time. If they can do it to Iraq, surely they can do
> it to others, if the world allows the USG to get away with this war
> of naked aggression. The world has no shortage of real dictators and
> terrorists, so they won't be stumped for pretexts.
> --
> Yoshie
=======================
You still need to define where-when the 'power elite' and/or 'capital as a whole' leave off and the 'US Government' begins; analogically, the Cambridge Capital Controversy x10 problem applied to 'States'..................
Historicize, unbundle, iterate..........
Ian