thanks gillian, interesting read except for the fact we stopped being a
manufacturing country years ago.  we assemble many things here, but the
manufacturing is done out of country.  labor is cheaper not to mention the
lack of benefits.  we have become a country of consumers.  the only
exception is probably munitions---------so perhaps dr. harvey is correct.
thanks again gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gillian Apter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "joni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:04 AM
Subject: Oh, no, not another f.... ing link!! NJC


> I know some (or the silent majority?) are tired of all this back and forth
> about the war (yes, it seems to be a a fait accompli already doesn't it?)
but
> I was sent this link about the possible "real reasons" behind the US
> determination to go into Iraq with blazing saddles.
>
> I don't say I agree or disagree with this... I just found it fascinating
> reading.  Here's a quote:-
>
> "In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one of
the
> world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first
> comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination to go to
war.
> His analysis suggests that it has little to do with Iraq, less to do with
> weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed.
>
> The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically
afflicts
> all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive
> production of any good - be it cars or shoes or bananas - means that
unless
> new markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits
> collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from
> surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity
and
> money. Just as it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet
the
> two surpluses, as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has
been
> developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of
> solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only
> remaining, politically viable option is war. "
>
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html
>
> Peace
> Gill (in Madrid

Reply via email to