Almost right. A free market fosters peace.
Bit by bit you are learning, but you still need a lot of work. Harry ******************************* Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ******************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:38 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] John Major on those who "spit hate" > > Naah, John Major would NEVER "spit hate". He's been doing > business in > the __Carlyle Group__ for too long to do that. And trade fosters > peace, > right Harry? > > Chris > > > http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story _ID > =1875084 > > The Carlyle Group > > C for capitalism > > Jun 26th 2003 > >From The Economist print edition > > > The secretive Carlyle Group gives capitalism a bad name. But > dismantling > the whole system (see article) may be slightly over the top > > > The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group > > By Dan Briody > > ON the day Osama bin Laden's men attacked America, Shafiq bin > Laden, > described as an estranged brother of the terrorist, was at an > investment > conference in Washington, DC, along with two people who are close > to > President George Bush: his father, the first President Bush, and > James > Baker, the former secretary of state who masterminded the legal > campaign > that secured Dubya's move to the White House. The conference was > hosted by > the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm that manages billions of > dollars, > including, at the time, some bin Laden family wealth. It also > employs > Messrs Bush and Baker. > > In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when no one was being > allowed in > or out of the United States, many members of the bin Laden family > in > America were spirited home to Saudi Arabia. The revival of > defence spending > that followed greatly increased the value of the Carlyle Group's > investments in defence companies. > > The Carlyle Group is a godsend for conspiracy theorists who are > convinced > that the world is run by, and on behalf of, a shadowy network of > wealthy > men. Sure enough, it was not long before Cynthia McKinney, a > Democrat > member of Congress, pointed a finger at Carlyle, noting in an > interview > that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge > profits > off America's new war" and that, despite "numerous warnings", > they did not > alert the "people of New York who were needlessly murdered". > "What", she > asked, "do they have to hide?" > > You need not be a conspiracy theorist, though, to be concerned > about what > lies behind Carlyle's success. Can a firm that is so deeply embedded > in the > iron triangle where industry, government and the military converge > be good > for democracy? Carlyle arguably takes to a new level the > military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower feared might > "endanger our liberties or democratic process". What red-blooded > capitalist > can truly admire a firm built, to a significant degree, on cronyism; > surely, this sort of access capitalism is for ghastly places like Russia, > China or Africa, not the land of the free market? > > > > The discreet charm of private equity > Jul 3rd 2003 > Global capitalism > Jun 26th 2003 > > The Carlyle Group > > > Named after the luxurious New York hotel favoured by the firm's > founders, > Carlyle even got started by exploiting a tax loophole, a legitimate > capitalistic activity, if not an honourable one. This particular > loophole > bizarrely allowed profitable American firms to enjoy a large tax > break by > buying the losses incurred by Eskimo-owned companies in Alaska. > In 1987, > this opportunity brought together a flamboyant dealmaker, > Stephen Norris, > who left Carlyle in 1995, with David Rubenstein, a former aide to > President > Carter and still the brains behind the firm. > > After this initial success, though, the going got tougher. Carlyle > missed > out on several attractive deals while completing some duff ones, > including > buying a stake in Caterair International, a company that later > collapsed > under the weight of its junk-bond financing. Still, it did introduce > them > to a man who became well worth knowing: George W. Bush, a > director of > Caterair. > > Carlyle really only took off after it hired Frank Carlucci, a former > secretary of defence and deputy director of the CIA, in 1989. Mr > Carlucci > was able to open doors in Washington that had hitherto been closed > to the > firm, allowing it to participate in many lucrative deals. > > Although Dan Briody's book is useful reading for anybody > interested in > American politics today, it tells Carlyle's story in the style of a Tom > Clancy or John Grisham novel. This is rather a shame. Instead of > expanding > in an unrelenting tone of shocked disapproval, the author could > have > offered a serious view on a number of difficult questions. > > For instance, if privatisation can increase the efficiency of the > notoriously inefficient defence sector, how should the inherent > political > and security risks best be managed? Given that the rewards for > success in > the private sector so far exceed those for public service, how can > talented > people be persuaded to enter public service without their former > private-sector activities becoming a source of suspicion? > > While some former presidents are happy to play golf, others may > feel they > can still earn a decent living. What rules should govern the > commercial > activities of former President Bush; or, for that matter, former > British > prime minister, John Major; or former South Korean prime > minister, Park > Tae-joon-all of whom have taken the Carlyle nickel? Mr Bush > senior receives > private intelligence briefings that are not available to ordinary > investors. Does his inside knowledge of, and possible influence over, > the > administration's political strategy towards, say, North Korea and > Saudi > Arabia directly benefit Carlyle? If so, does that constitute an > unacceptable conflict of interest? > > Perhaps there would be less reason to worry about Carlyle if there > were > rival clubs of ex-political heavyweights competing within the iron > triangle. Alas, this firm seems to be an aspiring monopolist, > hoovering up > former public officials from across the political divide and, > increasingly, > from across the world. It is becoming more ambitious in Europe, > and keenly > eyeing China. Perhaps there would be less reason to worry if > Carlyle's > activities were more open-but as a private equity firm, it has largely > escaped America's recent efforts to improve the governance and > transparency > of companies, which is unfortunate. At a time when America is > aggressively > promoting democracy and capitalism abroad, including by military > means, it > would be helpful if its politicians and businesses were regarded as > cleaner > than clean. Shrouded in secrecy, Carlyle calls capitalism into > question. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the > keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
