Profit and loss

[Phil Wise]

jbor

please don't blame me for the vaguries of email!  I haven't carried on the
argument since we tucked it in; for some reason a message I assumed you had
already read and replied to suddenly turned up days after I posted it.  I
thought it had before.  I assume the date at the top of these posts is an
accurate record of when the message was sent - the message you are refering
to was sent Sunday afternoon NZ time, i.e. during not after the
conversation.

I could answer the below by pointing out that "received wisdom" usually
doesn't apply to comparisons of structure arcane enough to require some
study to understand, and observations (of which I invited refutation) of
similarities in a complex contemporary phenomenon.  The argument I essayed
WAS NOT MADE BY ANY OF THE PROTESTERS (THAT I HEARD).  Some of the back up
argumentation was, but was usually cased in such a way as to make this clear
(eg "the protesters were saying that...").  Which, by the way, does not make
it wrong.  For a good illustration of "received wisdom", in fact, I refer
interested parties to the final sentence of the first paragraph of jbor's
post below:

"And, it is these trade policies which have been and are crippling the
economies of developing nations and which are the cause of the immense gulf
in living standards between the First and Third Worlds"

an opinion to which jbor has every right, but which will remain "received
wisdom" until some analysis accompanies it.  Hence the frustration.

Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Profit and loss


>
> ----------
> >From: Doug Millison <DMillison at ftmg.net>
> >
>
> > Phil,
> > Welcome to the P-list according to "jbor"!
> > You've just demonstrated what it's been like for a lot of people to try
to
> > engage this voice in dialogue here on Pynchon-L over the past 2 years.
> > That's why so many folks now choose to ignore most if not all of what
"jbor"
> > says, so as to avoid being pulled into these smelly swamps of smarmy
> > dogmatism and flamebaiting.
>
> Seeing as Phil hasn't had the courtesy to put this one to bed I certainly
> will. The conversation between Phil and I ended very amicably offlist,
> though I was and am still alarmed at the dismissive tone used towards me
> onlist. But Phil's frustration was caused by the fact that I hadn't
> addressed the political concerns he expressed in his original post, i.e.
> that globalisation equals totalitarianism. Though under no compulsion to
> address all or any part of any post/s, the reason I didn't address his
> repetition of this false equation was because, as "received wisdom", it is
> merely empty propaganda, as the recent round of Mayday protests here have
> again illustrated. Whether or not the amassed thugs breaking stock market
> and government office windows and assaulting police are actually lobbying
> against low refugee intake quotas or genetically-modified foods or
> environmental destruction or union disempowerment they have banded
together
> under the anti-globalisation banner and are in fact *serving the interests
> of* extreme nationalist and corporate factions within the developed
nations
> who desire to retain current tariffs and levels of trade protectionism.
And,
> it is these trade policies which have been and are crippling the economies
> of developing nations and which are the cause of the immense gulf in
living
> standards between the First and Third Worlds.
>
> I think Doug's ongoing campaign of persecution, his attempts to enforce
list
> boycotts, his flip-flops on what topics are and aren't appropriate for
> discussion, and his belligerent manner, speak for themselves. He is a
petty
> would-be tyrant.
>
> best
>
>                             -------
>
>                 Unless we convince developing
>     countries that globalisation really does benefit them,
>       the backlash against it will become irresistible.
>       That would be a tragedy for the developing world,
>             and indeed for the world as a whole.
>                             (Kofi Annan, Seattle 30/11/2000)
>
>                             -------
>
>