From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 10:09:47 MST
Ron writes
> [Terry Colvin quotes Laurie Garrett]
> > I learned that the US economy is the primary drag
> > on the global economy, and only a handful of
> > nations have sufficient internal growth to thrive
> > when the US is stagnating.
> This seems to be a perception of the conference attendees
> but I wonder in what sense this is true:
I am skeptical that they'd have phrased it just that way.
> 1. Is it merely their perception whether true or untrue?
Of course.
> 2. Are they saying that the American Market is determinative
> of all the economies of the world?
Something like that. The biggest player does have the most
effect, but there is so much mutual influence that it seems
unwise to believe in a unique "source" of growth. The economies
of many countries around the world, especially in Europe, have
been pretty bad for a long time, much longer than America's.
Perhaps it's just that if the U.S. had been exempt from the
general downturn, things would be much better.
3. Are we supplying material that is vital to the economies
of the world?
Good question, and I wish I knew. On the one hand the answer
is obviously "yes" (that's what trade does), but the "vital-
material" you speak of could be more abstract, such as capital
or confidence.
Harvey writes
> Terry W. Colvin wrote,
> >
> > http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=938
> >
> >
> > http://www.topica.com/lists/psychohistory/read/message.html?mid=1711891071&sort=d&start=4389P€B
>
> This stuff is important for Americans to realize.
The first part of the former, and all of the latter were simply
objectively written pieces that appear to reveal a deeper level
of perceptions than we usually see (e.g., people shouting slogans
in the streets).
> Even if you believe it is all wrong, we must recognize why
> so much of the world dislikes us. Simply ascribing it to
> jealousy or religious fanatics is to ignore the issue.
Yes, that's so easy to do. But it's not necessarily important
to be liked. Instead, it's always a question of probing the
deepest that we can for what's really going on, and what the
effects of specific policies will turn out to be.
> Right or wrong, America has very poor PR. This needs to be
> fixed whether one agrees with the accuracy of the complaints
> or not.
Is PR really the right way to look at it? The influential
people around the world, i.e., the movers and shakers and
leaders of nations should be thought of as steely-eyed
bankers who'll in the final analysis make the best moves
for themselves. True, they often have to contend with
inconvenient emotions in their own populations---but then,
that's their role in their positions of leadership. I
think that they'd see right through "PR".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 10:08:36 MST