This year was notorious drought of ideas at the World Economic Forum in the necropolis of Davos by neoliberal theology living the first stage (denial) of “post traumatic stress syndrome”, before entering another phase of the double depression (psychiatric and economic).
With the expected exception of theological ghettos Friedmanites (e itamitas in Mexico, controlled by the Salinas failed, Zedillo, aspianos, and now calderonistas) concluded the pernicious paradigm of Thatcherism and its American cartoon (Reaganomics) with its tropical teratology monstrosity: the neoliberal Consensus Decalogue (sic) of Washington.
While lucid thinkers and Samaritans in the world are tripping over themselves to rebuild a more viable and sustainable world, we must live the inevitable ordeal of ‘globalization’: a term coined and made book Under Scrutiny, which is beginning to be used in the city, the devastated capital of the deregulated financial globalization.
Sean O’Grady addresses the unapologetic ‘globalization’, meaning (in his opinion) and why Britain, the birthplace of free-cambismo and neoliberalism, “should be afraid” ( The Independent , 31/1 / 09). What’s not going to be afraid Britain, a group of a little over 200 thousand square kilometers (one tenth of Mexico), who dominated the planet and lived parasitically on it thanks to the triple joint taxation (colonial, military and financial ) its radical capitalism that is subsumed in the deregulated global neoliberalism?
The ‘globalization’ is much deeper and extensive (not dimensionally mercantilist) as explayamos in our book ( Towards deglobalisation , Editorial Jorale, 2007), that reductionism operated by Sean O’Grady and compressed to a vulgar “protectionism “.
Neoprotectionism with which it has begun to threaten the U.S. Congress ( Buy American : Buy American at all) has sleepless British Prime Gordon Brown, who just slide a Freudian slip Freudian ( The Times , 4/2/09) to admit that their country is entering Hell economic “depression” (now I better do the etymological distinction with its similar psychiatric).
Even in its reductionist edition under the exaggerated optical anglocentrista , the approach is useful on deglobalisation Sean O’Grady: “Britain has more to lose than most with the revival of protectionism and disintegration (super sic!) of the world economy. ” Correctly describes (and agonizing) cosmological dimension of Britain is drifting, “one of the traditionally most open to foreign economies (sic), a power that built the greatest empire the world has ever seen in his fincado international trade. ”
It’s true: Britain would not be anything without international trade and legendary Piracy (maritime, economic and financial). The free market for Britain is an aerobic and ontologically geopolitical necessity for which has been devoted for more than three centuries to wage global wars in order to impose their parasitic model to the world and led to its conclusion with Thatcherism runaway globalization and deregulated, which placed it as the first seat of global (paradoxically, with an economy increasingly declining) finances.
Without the parapet of global neoliberalism, Britain is about to be a less important country and losing their financial oxygenation achieved at the expense of countries valetudinarians exploitation of the planet, even at the cost of predatory wars: from his two “wars opium “against China until her recent adventures in the Middle East, which left devastated after colonization.
O’Grady argues that the “merchant history (sic)” Britain’s “left with a still significant national economic dependence on exports for their survival (super sic).” It is understandable that its ideologues elementally, from Adam Smith to Thatcherism, fanatically advocate for “free (sic) market” (which is neither “free” nor “market”), its “raison d’être”: “17 percent domestic production derived from goods and services sold abroad, “compared with the other two maritime powers of the United States (7 percent) and Japan (10 percent).
It follows that the United States less dependent on its foreign trade and globalized trade was a British contagion theologically Reagan succumbed. Ie: if the United States is protected after their defeats in all areas of globalization (the “financial” mode, by suicide, the “commercial” versus China, the “energy” to Russia and the Persian Gulf , etc.) can recover vibrantly, as in the nineteenth century, when it was virtually self-sufficient, its flagging manufacturing in order to create local jobs.
Not only the unions who supported Obama asking for a strong slice of the economic stimulus package for the U.S. manufacturing, but also Vice President Joe Biden defended neo-protectionist provisions (including the purchase of iron and steel U.S.) added by Congress ( The Independent , 2/2/09), which bristled hair Britain, Europe, Canada and China.
Nostalgically O’Grady explains how Britain benefited as anyone in the “cross-border integration of globalization.” Well, yes, “integration” to the Anglosphere and “disintegration” to others, such as Mexico, which, indeed, is the perfect example of economic suicide from adopting neoliberalism (really was imposed to Salinas Daddy Bush, after his electoral fraud).
Now from De la Madrid Hurtado, ie, for 27 years, not only stagnated in a mediocre “growth” of 2 percent (the lowest in Latin America), but worse, in its terminal phase, with calderonismo (the monstrous delamadridismo condensation, Salinas, and Foxism Zedillismo), and entered the negative territory, with all its hilarious how delusional gerenciocracia (the “government business” parasitic, the Cemex style).
What will happen from capital flows that used to take refuge in London, now that his prostrate speculative banking is insolvent? Who will replace their financial services, their insurance and their consultants who had become an inescapable addiction to the poor in spirit, who succumbed to the intoxication of deregulated financial globalization?
With the inevitable-globalization-is in the reductionist sense anglocentrista O’Grady, whether in our broader definition, more than three centuries of theological tyranny of free-Saxon cambismo die.
Until now it was possible to bury Adam Smith, Margaret Thatcher, Fredrich Hayek (with your clone liner: Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys) and Tony Blair (with his fleeting hallucination of the third way ). The tragedy is that at that time no one had managed to murder: committed suicide.