quote:
Originally posted by Jack, the Little Death:
A good point, Dave, but let me offer two possibilities for why that doesn't seem to be the case:

1) All that disruption and chaos does seem to have worked out okay, doesn't it? No, the real catastrophe for the business world right now (another thing it's impossible to get the mainstream news to talk about) is the total lack of faith in our economic systems, spreading like wildfire. Think about it, man. Andersen, and now Merrill-friggin'-Lynch?

Dude, we're dealing with paper money, and the paper no longer represents anything real. We all know that. Ever since the paper became materially worthless, it's only been worth the faith that the people have in the system. As that faith evaporates, so too does the system.

The way I see it, destroying the WTC might have been more like a kid who's been winning a game of checkers for a long time, and then suddenly sees himself losing. Given the maturity of the people involved -- they don't really seem to understand that the rest of us human beings are real -- is it so surprising that they would upend the checkerboard rather than admit defeat?

I mean, really look at what these scandals might mean to the world, if the mainstream press (with as vested an interest as anyone else in keeping the fundamental faith in the system alive) were to somehow be inspired to really run with the story? The true meaning of capitalism and economic darwinism might suddenly become very clear, even to those of us that have been reaping its benefits all along.

To put it another way -- sure, Rob might be really into this "survival of the fittest" thing right now, 'cause he's a reasonably bright guy with marketable skills, and he probably imagines himself in the "fittest" 25% or so, the guys that will survive. But what if it turns out that only the top 5% are actually going to be allowed to prosper? Or the top 1%? What if it becomes public knowledge, I mean a real part of the collective consciousness, that less than one-tenth of 1% of the world is gonna live like kings while the rest of us clean their toilets with our lungs?

I'm thinking that darwinism seems a whole lot less appealing, all of a sudden ...

2) It might simply be that you're smarter than Unocal. Also not hard to believe.
My answers:

1. Absolutely no way. Globalisation is the extension of capitalism into, well, the balance of the globe which doesn't have rampant free-for-all capitalism. This involves trust in the system. Which is why Andersen and Enron cause big multi-nationals so much in the way of a motherfucker of a headache. Institutions like banks and pension funds suddenly are suspicious about putting money into old stalwarts like GE. This is bad for the guys at the top, because a drop in share price makes it harder to justify the annual bonus, and affects the stock options value. Ruin the financial system, and the people in power - those with a vested interest in capitalism - are ruined.

I deal with multinationals daily (being a cog in the wheel, and little more, but in a position to see strategy) and there is nothing which would scare them more than a global meltdown.

Now, as I said, the only reason the global economy only took a count of 7 and not a KO is because primarily of reinforcement of systems in the lead up to Y2K. The Economist discussed it a few weeks back. It really does look like OBL did come very close to achieving his aim. And now everytime a broker hears about a plane crash, the sell orders flood in.

Secondly, globalisation (the thing short-sighted people in Western countries riot about for fear of losing their jobs to more competitive foreigners - like me) counts on the establishment of a middle class - a large body of people with consumer spending patterns. Which is why every company in the world right now is lubing up over China's 1.2 billion (the area I live in - South China - is the size of France with the same population). Shoving the world into a depression where only 1% of people live like kings is not in anyone's interest. Big business wants to improve the standard of living for everyone - not through altruism or anything so stupid as that, but because the more well-off people there are in the world, the more people will buy toasters, Gameboys, pick-up trucks with monster tyres and Clinique skin care. Paper money - consumer spending - is the biggest game in town. So, big business, not knowing what would happen if a plane went into the WTC, would not try to cause a recession by arranging for a plane to go into the WTC.

In respect of the Pentagon, The Time Trust posted that link in the Deep Questions boarde. It got me thinking until Roberto wisely pointed out that there were witnesses. A disinformation campaign on that level cannot be successful.

2. Modesty prevents me from agreeing with you. But answer me this - did the oil barons you say are behind this also arrange for the smoking gun video of OBL saying he only thought the top of the WTC tower would collape, not the entire building?