|
there are alot of problems with the bush period.
in terms of economic measurements, it was an extreme version of narrow-vision in that only the velocity of capital mattered. the social consequences of that movement, both in terms of the institutions that benefitted directly and even more in terms of the wider socio-economic situation...none of that was on the radar.
none of that was on the neoliberal radar more generally.
bad information yields incoherent outcomes. look around if you aren't sure of what incoherence means.
i still find it funny that people act as though clinton was somehow other than a neoliberal. he wasn't. the main difference between republican and democrat forms of neoliberalism was in the relation to multilateral agreements. clinton favored them. the bush people, like their republican predecessors, preferred bilateral forms. underneath this was a divergence in assumptions about power and empire. the democrats under clinton anyway preferred a more diffuse type of power; the neocons in particular preferred a more centralized form.
the last 30 years has been a period of unbroken neoliberal domination. the disaster that was the end of the bush period was the result of this domination.
it was compounded--and still is---by the incoherence of how neoliberals measure economic activity.
these measures are a direct expression of the logic of cowboy capitalism itself.
that's what caused the disaster that was the end of the bush administration.
what the bush people did to speed the plow was weaken the united states politically in such a radical way that the neoliberal order, which had been held together by american domination, came unravelled.
folk act like this is some purely economic crisis. that too is a reflection of incoherent ways of seeing things.
sometimes this stuff makes me laugh.
think the end of the hapsburgs and maybe it'll make you laugh too.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|