Brian: > And the question is: Does this represent the > longed-for foundation of a new expansionist wave? > Or (more likely in my view) just the agitated death > throes of neoliberal informationalism?
There you go again! <g> You really can't put an "ideology" on these developments, since they are not being driven by the *ideas* so much as by the technology. Don't let your "morals" get in the way of your analysis. Follow the technology! The rise of the US "neoliberals" was much more the result of a breakdown in coherence of the alternatives (labor had sold out for their pension plans and the "intelligentsia" had abandoned "nationalistic" thinking) -- all of which took place in the drive for "globalization" which is, in turn, occasioned by the "Global Theater" that is produced by geo-stationary/LEO satellites (delivering both television and surveillance.) Technology was in charge. So, the "ideology" question today is what happens to GLOBALISM now that the dominant medium is *not* television but rather the Interweb -- which is *not* a "globalizing" technology but rather a *localizing* one, driven by feedback (i.e. what really happens on Facebook, not selling soap)! Is DAVOS kaput? Does the failure of Schmidt/Page/Brin to showup this year do more to put a nail in its coffin then "anti-globalization" riots (which just makes these people feel important) ever could? Have people finally figured out why China *never* sent anyone of any rank to the World Economic Forum? On growth, your view is correct. Growth is over in the already-industrial economies, at the same time it will continue for decades elsewhere. The US has been "post-industrial" (notice, not an "ideological" term) since median wages leveled off in the 1970s. Europe since the 1980s(?) Japan since the 1990s. Without the steady upward push of industrialization, there is no place for the economy to go other than "services," in particular finance. Calling this "neoliberal" misses the whole point and mistakes an epiphenomenon for the underlying causes. Party over. Industrialization has run its course for 1 billion people. The other 6 billion don't really need Goldman Sachs and, yes, sea levels are going to rise as massive amounts of carbon is burned to industrialize the rest of the planet. Forget about Kyoto -- which was just another *globalist* scheme. And, forget about the EU (ditto -- globalist scheme that has crashed.) Bravo that you are actually reading Schumpeter's "Business Cycles" and going over the SPRU materials! Carlota Perez is a friend and we have discussed the *qualitative* differences between the current "Moore's Law" Techno-Economic Paradigm and the previous FOUR "surges" that made up the Industrial Revolution. So, the *economic* question is what technologies are coming next? And, since the "silicon" TEP is in its final phases, what will the impact of the NEXT one (roughly 2020-to-2080) be on societies around the world? As long as the economists (and anthropologists and sociologists etc) *ignore* these developments they will have little to contribute. Btw, based on my conversations with Ning Wang, Ronald Coase's partner, he agrees. He's familiar with the Chinese Academy of Sciences "Strategic Roadmap to 2050" -- a uniquely organized effort to address these issues. Available on Amazon. Read his book on China w/ Coates. These guys are *not* confused, like so many others. Yes "neoliberalism" is compatible with "complex systems theory" and, most of all, the illusive notion of "emergence" -- because all of this is based on a total lack of COHERENCE. All this talk about the 2nd LAW is the result of *disorder* not clear thinking. No ideas, no plans, no analysis, no strategy -- don't worry *emergence* will save us! No surprise that Kevin Kelly, Clay Christensen and George Gilder are all religious "millenialists" hoping for the end-of-the-world. "Out of Control" is their ticket to the spaceship that will take them to the PROMISED land! <g> But none of this is capable of motivating any activity other than "gaming the system" to line your own pockets -- which is what happens when a "worldview" is in disarray and decline, not when it is ascendant. The problem with "conspiracy" theories -- which includes the one that puts the "neoliberals" are in charge of anything -- is that they give far too much credibility and too much power to the "enemy." Because they are really "stories" cooked up to explain one's own powerlessness, they have to construct a BOOGYMAN. All of this us vs. them is a distraction -- if understanding the world is really your goal. Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org