I agree wholeheartedly. Americans may be a bit arrogant in some respects, but you can't lay all the world's problems at our feet. For a good perspective on the lessons of 9-11, see Tom Friedman in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/20/opinion/20FRIE.html Nat > > > Hi guys > > If Argentine economy collapses or there is economic > problem in Thailand or Indonesia, the blame is on > their politicians and NOT on USA. > > The politicians in these third world countries talk in > local language, but they love > 1. US Dollar > 2. Swiss banks > > Yes. They loot billions of dollars from their > countries, convert it into USD and deposit it in Swiss > Banks. So are the businessmen of these countries, > who put their profits in the foreign banks. > > USA cannot be responsible for their problems. > Now that Euro is there, they will convert some of > their looted money into this currency. > > 1 day, the politicians/businessmen of the third world > countries will realise what is the cost of 'HONESTY'. > It requires a person like Vladimir Putin to clean > every nation. > > As for America's arrogance, they have a correction > mechanism which is 'democrary'. If they have corrupt > businessmen, they will see more 'Enrons', otherwise > they will prosper. > > As for the America's manufacturing sector, the answer > is metrication, if they do, their efficiency will go > up, otherwise they go down. > Airbus has overtaken Boeing in orders in 2001 also. > Japanese are pushing their lead in cars and suv's and > these are just few examples. > > Its upto the Americans to learn the metric lessons and > for the third world people to learn lessons on > honesty. > > Madan > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Here's the article. > > cm > > > > > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:43:51 -0500 (EST) > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: A washingtonpost.com article from a > > washingtonpost.com user > > > > You have been sent this message from a > > washingtonpost.com user as a courtesy of the > > Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). > > > > To view the entire article, go to > > Variables.HTTP_REFERER > > > > After This > > > > By David J. Rothkopf > > > > > > Somewhere in the world today walks the next Marx. > > But he is not a communist, and he almost certainly > > is not an expatriate German slaving over his > > theories in the stacks of the British Library. > > Nonetheless, he or she will attempt to seize upon > > the trends behind today's headlinesto shape a > > competitor to "American capitalism" that the > > disenfranchised in nations around the world can > > embrace. > > > > She may be in the streets of Buenos Aires, > > protesting an economic meltdown that has left her > > family in the dust. He may have been among the > > Palestinians celebrating at the collapse of the > > World Trade Center or among the Indonesians marching > > beneath banners bearing the likeness of Osama bin > > Laden. He may be in Beijing working to become the > > architect of reforms that might actually make > > "market socialism" a sustainable concept. She might > > be a Nigerian whose daughter is among the 25,000 > > children worldwide who die every day because, in the > > era of Perrier and artificial hearts, they lack > > clean water, basic medicine or food. He might even > > be a Russian seeking to reestablish that country's > > leadership with an approach that is an alternative > > to an increasingly self-interested, inflexible > > United States. > > > > We may not know the region from which the next Marx > > will hail or his particular approach. But we can be > > sure that someone, somewhere will offer an > > alternative vision. And as America stands astride > > the world, the fact that so many of us, citizens of > > the most successful nation in history, think that > > such a threat to our values is impossible may be the > > very thing that will allow it to come true. > > > > Never in the history of nations or ideas has there > > been an extended period in which one view has > > prevailed without challenge, particularly one that > > is seen by many to be widening the gaps between the > > world's comparatively few rich people and the great > > majority who are poor. > > > > Rome was supposed to last forever, and fell. Kings > > ruled by divine right, and fell. The British Empire > > was the mightiest in the world but could not stand > > up against the will of its subjects. The Industrial > > Revolution was transformed when it generated a > > clamor for workers' rights and unions and communism > > itself. In business, what dominant brand has ever > > remained unchallenged? As Swiss watchmakers and > > American car makers, steel companies and television > > networks all know, the seeds of disaster lie in a > > triumph so great that it stifles the will to > > innovate, to evolve and to attend to the needs of > > the markets or peoples upon whom you depend for > > success. > > > > The end of the Cold War was not, as some would have > > it, the End of History. It was, instead, the end of > > one challenge to capitalism. And if we do not > > recognize the costs of the hubristic interpretation > > of world affairs we have accepted during the past > > decade (that we are right and all others must play > > by our rules or founder), then we will be making it > > easier for a new generation of challenges to arise. > > > > The harbingers of this looming threat are not just > > in the dissatisfaction of the world's poor. They > > also lie in the frustrations of America's allies at > > this moment of our undisputed greatness. > > > > Recently, one of Latin America's senior diplomats -- > > a known supporter of the United States -- asked me, > > "What kind of message is America sending? In > > Argentina, they thought they were playing by U.S. > > rules, being a good friend to the United States, > > helping you from Haiti to Bosnia. And what was their > > reward? You turn away at their moment of greatest > > need. They are not alone in this feeling." He went > > on to say that many of America's friends in Latin > > America and elsewhere think that we are good at > > asking for cooperation, good at directing -- and not > > so good at listening or giving. > > > > This is not a new view. But recent events have > > exacerbated feelings of frustration with the United > > States on these points. A European politician with > > whom I spoke a few weeks ago complained about the > > so-called Bush Doctrine, the president's "Whose side > > are you on?" policy toward terrorism. This was not > > his idea of what an alliance should be. "It's a > > one-way street. You say we are either with your or > > against you. And who decides? America does." When I > > repeated this politician's reaction a few days later > > to a group of senior Asian military leaders, they > > laughed and nodded in agreement. > > > > At the moment, the U.S. government talks a good game > > about engagement in the world, but the reality is in > > large part disengagement and self-absorption -- just > > the sorts of approaches that leave openings and > > persuasive arguments for would-be rivals. > > > > The war against terrorism is worthy, but it is > > really a war to protect Americans. From Latin > > America to Africa to Asia, any one of which may give > > rise to the next Marx, terrorists will wage their > > campaigns with little or no direct opposition from > > Washington. We talk of globalization but in the past > > eight years, since NAFTA and the Uruguay Round in > > 1994, Congress has primarily chosen a path of > > protection on trade issues and has made few major > > advances in the area of trade liberalization, with > > the exception of China's accession to the WTO. In > > the meantime, U.S. influence in international > > financial institutions has advanced policies that > > promote hard currencies and the interests of Wall > > Street above those of local populations to such an > > extent that they have triggered a backlash against > > the "Washington consensus" -- a recipe for emerging > > markets reform that stresses privatization, market > > opening and trade liberalization. Indeed, to say > > "Washington institutions" in most of the ! > > world is to speak of rich man's rules. > > > > Don't get me wrong. I'm no latter-day Che Guevara > > wandering out of the jungle. Quite the contrary. The > > radical reformer to whom I think we need to pay the > > most attention is none other than Margaret Thatcher. > > She championed the idea of a "nation of > > shareholders." When she became Britain's prime > > minister, 2 million people in her country owned > > stock. When she left office, there were seven times > > that. That shift transformed a nation that had > > viewed itself as consigned to stagnation and > > frustration into a world leader in innovation > > regardless of the political party at the helm. > > > > This is where most of the reforms of the recent past > > have fallen short. This is where capitalism has let > > down most emerging markets. This is where the United > > States has created the greatest opportunity for > > anger and backlash. In the 1990s, the International > > Monetary Fund, banks andother advocates of the > > interests of advanced capitalist countries went > > around the world preaching the much-needed > > "Washington consensus" reforms. But they did not > > address the central issue bedeviling most emerging > > and less developed economies: ownership. > > > > When governments sold their assets as part of > > privatization schemes, they were bought by those who > > had access to capital. These were either > > multinational corporations or powerful local > > business people with the assets and credit history > > to borrow to buy -- in other words, the elites. When > > borders were opened or new capital flowed into the > > country, who benefited most? Those who already > > controlled the majority of local assets. Call them > > what you will: the<em> chaebol</em> of Korea, the > > former apparatchiks of Russia, the kleptocrats of > > Indonesia or the family-owned groups of Latin > > America, the elites and their closest associates in > > the international financial community benefited most > > from the reforms of the '90s. > > > > But when troubled times led to austerity programs in > > these countries, it was the newly laid-off workers, > > small borrowers and others who were slammed when > > currencies were suddenly and artlessly devalued. > > Sure, plenty of big businesses faltered. But the > > benefits of reform were generally greater and > > problems far fewer for the elites. So, too, with > > globalization: Rich nations have benefited more than > > poor, while the number of those living in absolute > > poverty (or indeed starving) has risen starkly. > > According to Canadian Feed the Children, the richest > > 358 people in the world have a net worth equal to > > the combined annual income of the poorest 2.3 > > billion. > > > > So, now again the cry of the populists is falling on > > receptive ears. That populism may take the form of > > the tragicomic economic policies of Eduardo Duhalde, > > Argentina's fifth head of state since mid-December, > > or the rhetoric of the increasingly paranoid and > > erratic Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It may be the > > regionalism > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ > > >
