Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:14:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Greenspan: Globalisation vs Terrorism.


>
>     Terrorism poses a challenge to the remarkable record of globalisation. A
>global society reflects an ever more open economic environment in which
>participants are free to engage in commerce and finance wherever in thw
>world the possibilities of increased value added arise. It fosters ever
>greater cross-border contact and further exploitation of the values of
>specialisation but on a global scale.
>...
>
>I wonder what he means by "further exploitation of the values of
>specialisation"?
>Personally, I don't think the wolf in granny's bed of globalisation is that
>different from terrorism.


Yes, I wonder...What might he mean by "further exploitation...but on 
a global scale?"  It has an ominous sound from the standpoint of 
whoever is not included in what Greenspan means when he says "we" and 
"us."   When Greenspan says:


>If we allow
>terrorism to undermine our freedom of action, we could reverse at least part
>of the palpable gains achieved by postwar globalisation. It is incumbent
>upon us not to allow that to happen...


by "we" and "us", I don't think he has in mind most of the people in 
places like Afghanistan for example.  When he says


>A
>global society reflects an ever more open economic environment in which
>participants are free to engage in commerce and finance wherever in thw
>world the possibilities of increased value added arise

by  participants, I get the sense that he is thinking of certain but 
by no means all of the world's people having freedom to engage in 
commerce wherever possibilities of increased value arise.   He speaks 
in generalizations and abstractions but what he's talking about 
implies a fair amount of conflict, of winners and losers.  To the 
extent he wants to imply that globalization of specialization and the 
division of labor with its corresponding characteristic distribution 
of wealth and power, is good for all the people in the world, based 
on the "trickle down" theory, this is at least debatable. I think by 
further exploitation on a global scale, he just means the ever-more 
efficient administration of the existing and centuries old global 
program by and for the people he means by "we" and "us".  The posting 
of this piece alongside the Enron article is especially telling.

Did anyone read the Baudrillard thing on "911" as a phenomenon of 
globalization that Paul Tarry posted?  For me, that was a really 
powerful and reorienting thing to read.
Judy