> 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

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:
#  archive: contact:

Reply via email to