Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 21:22:23 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Greenspan: Globalisation vs Terrorism.




Mal
OK - reasonable interpretation - I think however it may be the same 
thing in the end and in both cases I think that I'd maintain my 
position... but then i'm a european and that remains significant.

regards
sdv

Matthew A. Levy wrote:

>I didn't read him as saying that globalism had been effected, so much as
>warning against the public's fear of terrorism leading to a new isolationism
>that would fail to protect the U.S. from terror but would hurt its economic
>strength.
>mal
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
>To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 9:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Greenspan: Globalisation vs Terrorism.
>
>
>>Glen
>>
>>Fascinating, what a weird and parochial definition of terrorism.
>>
>>It's also worth noting however that some areas of the new generation
>>
>telcos,
>
>>VPN, data and networking are anticipating an increase in virtual movement
>>
>to
>
>>replace the physical movement of (business) travel... Basically it becomes
>>
>a
>
>>shift in budget from travel to networking...
>>
>>The strangest thing may  be that he imagines globalisation has been
>>
>affected
>
>>by terrorism..
>>
>>regards
>>steve
>>
>>fuller writes:
>>
>>>Here is a something I found in the Weekend Australian Financial Review
>>>
>that
>
>>>I thought you people would find interesting:
>>>
>>>    Globalisation as a rebuff to terrorism
>>>
>>>    The US Federal Reserve Board's chairman, Alan Greenspan, speaking at
>>>George Washington University on December 3.
>>>
>>>    The United States has benefitted enormously from the opening up of
>>>international markets in the postwar period. We have access to a wide
>>>
>range
>
>>>of goods and services for onsumption; our industries produce and employ
>>>cutting-edge technologies; and the opportunities created by these
>>>technologies have attracted capital inflows from abroad.
>>>    These capital inflows, in turn, have reduced the costs of building
>>>
>our
>
>>>country's capital stock and added to the productivity of our workers. It
>>>would be a tragedy if progress towards greater openess were stopped or
>>>reversed...
>>>    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.
>>>    Fear of terrorist acts, however, has the potential to induce
>>>disengagement from activities, both domestic and cross-border. 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...
>>>    Globalisation, admittedly, is an exceptionally abstract concept to
>>>convey to the general public. Economists can document the analytic ties
>>>
>of
>
>>>trade to growth and standards of living.
>>>    A far greater challenge for us has been, and will continue to be,
>>>
>making
>
>>>clear that globalisation is an endeavour that can spread worldwide the
>>>values of freedom and civil contact - the antithesis of terrorism.
>>>
>>>------
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>
>

HTML VERSION:

I didn't read him as saying that globalism had been effected, so much as
warning against the public's fear of terrorism leading to a new isolationism
that would fail to protect the U.S. from terror but would hurt its economic
strength.
mal


----- Original Message -----
From: <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Greenspan: Globalisation vs Terrorism.

Glen

Fascinating, what a weird and parochial definition of terrorism.

It's also worth noting however that some areas of the new generation

telcos,

VPN, data and networking are anticipating an increase in virtual movement

to

replace the physical movement of (business) travel... Basically it becomes

a

shift in budget from travel to networking...

The strangest thing may  be that he imagines globalisation has been

affected

by terrorism..

regards
steve

fuller writes:

Here is a something I found in the Weekend Australian Financial Review

that

I thought you people would find interesting:

    Globalisation as a rebuff to terrorism

    The US Federal Reserve Board's chairman, Alan Greenspan, speaking at
George Washington University on December 3.

    The United States has benefitted enormously from the opening up of
international markets in the postwar period. We have access to a wide

range

of goods and services for onsumption; our industries produce and employ
cutting-edge technologies; and the opportunities created by these
technologies have attracted capital inflows from abroad.
    These capital inflows, in turn, have reduced the costs of building

our

country's capital stock and added to the productivity of our workers. It
would be a tragedy if progress towards greater openess were stopped or
reversed...
    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.
    Fear of terrorist acts, however, has the potential to induce
disengagement from activities, both domestic and cross-border. 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...
    Globalisation, admittedly, is an exceptionally abstract concept to
convey to the general public. Economists can document the analytic ties

of

trade to growth and standards of living.
    A far greater challenge for us has been, and will continue to be,

making

clear that globalisation is an endeavour that can spread worldwide the
values of freedom and civil contact - the antithesis of terrorism.

------

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.