RE: McQuaig

["Lynn Hauka" <lynn@evening-star.com>]

I somehow doubt this economy is floundering due to a more central control
than the U.S. That's a bit simplistic not to mention naive. Guess Alan
Greenspan hasn't yet figured out that he's the central control of the US
economy.

But why should I care? The Canadian economy may be floundering but I'm going
to make more money in my fourth year of business than I did in all three
previous years combined. Me me me! That's what counts. Right? I mean, in a
free market?

Cheers,
Lynn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noprivacy@essential.org [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
> Of Greg Peisert
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 4:41 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> Subject: RE: McQuaig
>
>
> Thank you Lynn, for your response. I may take a look at McQuaig's book on
> the Myth of Powerlessness in a Global Economy. I am always interested to
> see how those who come from countries where the economy is more centrally
> controlled, and therefore floundering with respect to the U.S.,
> attempt to
> justify their continuing in their failed policies. For example, McQuaig
> apparently disputes the notion that "governments cannot increase their
> expenditures on programs to eliminate poverty and unemployment."
> Here we go
> again. Back to the "New Deal."
>   I don't know how well the reviewer understands the issues that McQuaig
> addresses, but statements like "Canada's finance department and
> its central
> bank hold views that go further than even the U.S. Federal Reserve, which
> has permitted a small amount of inflation in the American economy to
> maintain a low unemployment rate." reveal an incredible naivete.
> The reason
> for the low U.S. unemployment rate is not because the Fed has
> "permitted a
> small amount of inflation." Not even (indeed, ESPECIALLY not) Alan
> Greenspan would make that ridiculous claim!
>   At any rate, I'll try to get to it. Take care.
>
> Best,
>
>   --Greg
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 12, 1999 3:57 PM, Lynn Hauka
> [SMTP:lynn@evening-star.com] wrote:
> > Well, Laura, you said it way better than I could so I'll just quietly go
> > erase the original email I was working on ;-)
> >
> > Greg, in the interest of opening one's mind, perhaps you would bend so
> far
> > as to read one or two works by a Canadian author Linda McQuaig. The two
> > books that come to my mind are The Cult of Impotence: Selling
> the Myth of
> > Powerlessness in the Global Economy (published in 98) and The Wealthy
> > Banker's Wife. She's written others but I've not read them. You can find
> > more information at
> >
> > http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/apr98/04_25_006.html
> > http://www.ionline.net/~activist/Columns/950531.html
> >
> > And in my open attempt to not merely present one side of my argument, I
> give
> > you the opinions of Conrad Black, a man whom I suspect would
> become your
> own
> > High Priest, or at least someone to natter with at cocktail time ;-)
> >
> > http://www.blackenvy.com/pages/src_K41.htm
> >
> > People matter, Greg. All people. The economy used to serve society. Now
> we,
> > as a society, somehow have become the servants, and the
> almighty buck is
> our
> > master. What madness, to have an economy that depends utterly on
> continuous
> > growth instead of some kind of sustainability.
> >
> > Lynn
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: noprivacy@essential.org
> [mailto:noprivacy@essential.org]On Behalf
> > > Of Laura Walker
> > >
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 1:11 PM
> > > To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY
> > > Subject: Re: WARNING: LONG, On Topic in the "Strategic" Sense
> > >
> > >
> > > Aum to the High Priest Peisert...
> > >
> > > The only difference between the rhetoric you espouse (and print
> > > pages of for
> > > the rest of us to swallow) is the party line you have chosen.
>  You are
> no
> > > different from any Democrat, Republican or any other politically
> > > affiliated
> > > individual, nor do your ideas smack of anything that even
> resembles NEW
> > > solutions to our problems.  These are hackneyed, overused, simplistic
> > > "intellectual" rhetoricisms that do nothing to solve the problems.
>  Your
> > > "ideas" are just as grounded in tired phrases and worn-out mantras as
> many
> > > of our current political leaders' are.
>