I will not change the name, and I'm happy it actually annoys people (on dKos too). Hey, it even pissed off Armando, so it has to be a good name! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But if you insist on using linguistically inaccurate and racially charged terminology, that's your prerogative. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Populism over policy? In that case I think the two go together. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
you are the media you consume.
But maybe the Dutch disease is racist too according to the PC people? Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
kidding aside, focussing on the name is like the finger, not the moon.
remove and respectfully trash the package and enjoy the crunchy truth within!
in PC terms, poemless is right, i don't think the gravity of the situation demands that kind of purity, that's all.
of course if a better name were offered...
till then, we have to work with the best name we have so far, not the name we wish we had (that didn't tweak anyone), but don't have yet.
there's even a case to be made that the offensive quality might act as a barb, ensuring that the message holds on better.
or, you might lose some too, who would rather there were a less offensive name. the great unknown... The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
Financialization is a relatively new term used to discuss the emergence of a new form of capitalism in which financial markets dominate over the traditional industrial economy. Greta Krippner of the University of California - Los Angeles has written that "financialization" refers to a "pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production." In the Introduction to the 2006 book Financialization and the World Economy, editor Gerald A. Epstein wrote that some scholars have insisted on a much more narrow use of the term: the ascendancy of "shareholder value" as a mode of corporate governance; or the growing dominance of capital market financial systems over bank-based financial systems. Financialisation may be defined as: "the increasing dominance of the finance industry in the sum total of economic activity, of financial controllers in the management of corporations, of financial assets among total assets, of marketised securities and particularly equities among financial assets, of the stock market as a market for corporate control in determining corporate strategies, and of fluctuations in the stock market as a determinant of business cycles" (Dore 2002) More popularly, however, financialization is understood to mean the vastly expanded role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions in the operation of domestic and international economies. In his 2006 book, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, American writer and commentator Kevin Phillips presented financialization as "a process whereby financial services, broadly construed, take over the dominant economic, cultural, and political role in a national economy." (page 268). Philips consider that the financialization of the U.S. economy follows the same pattern that marked the beginning of the decline of Hapsburg Spain in the 16th century, the Dutch trading empire in the 18th century, and the British empire in the 19th century
Financialisation may be defined as: "the increasing dominance of the finance industry in the sum total of economic activity, of financial controllers in the management of corporations, of financial assets among total assets, of marketised securities and particularly equities among financial assets, of the stock market as a market for corporate control in determining corporate strategies, and of fluctuations in the stock market as a determinant of business cycles" (Dore 2002)
More popularly, however, financialization is understood to mean the vastly expanded role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors and financial institutions in the operation of domestic and international economies. In his 2006 book, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, American writer and commentator Kevin Phillips presented financialization as "a process whereby financial services, broadly construed, take over the dominant economic, cultural, and political role in a national economy." (page 268). Philips consider that the financialization of the U.S. economy follows the same pattern that marked the beginning of the decline of Hapsburg Spain in the 16th century, the Dutch trading empire in the 18th century, and the British empire in the 19th century
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
It would seem to stand to reason that an Anglo Disease would be a disease originating in and/or mainly afflicting the English-speaking world and/or the English language's sphere of soft power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo
The term Anglo is used as a prefix to indicate a relation to the Angles, England or the English people, as in the phrases 'Anglo-Saxon', 'Anglo-American', 'Anglo-Celtic', and 'Anglo-Indian'. It is often used alone, somewhat loosely, to refer to a person or people of English ethnicity in the The Americas, Australia and Southern Africa. It is also used, both in English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, to refer to Anglophone people of other European origins. Anglo is a Late Latin prefix used to denote "English-" in conjunction with another toponym or demonym. The word is derived from Anglia, the Latin name for England, and still the modern name of its eastern region. Anglia and England both mean "Land of the Angles", a Germanic people originating in the north German peninsula of Angeln.
In the United States, Anglo refers to White Americans who are not of Hispanic or French descent.
I too originally assumed Jerome's uasge was in reference to the English speaking world. That would at least make more sense. But a lot of people outside the US and UK are native speakers of English. And a lot of native speakers of English would be confused to find they are effectively "Anglo." Like, say, African-Americans. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
This is my first comment here, but I've lurked for a little while :). My understanding of the Anglo Disease concept is that it affects primarily the countries which share strong cultural and legal links with the US at this stage.
If the US is considered the epicentre of the disease (for obvious economic reasons), then the similar language, similar legal systems and strong political links favour the spread of the disease to countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia...
By contrast, the barrier to entry into other countries is higher precisely due to different legal, language and political realities, which affect the ability of companies to easily expand without changing their operating methods, which affect the ability of politicians to easily copy pieces of legislation from other countries, and which allow individuals to easily make business connections.
I also think the racial interpretation is really irrelevant, but not actually worth addressing in the terminology. Metaphorically, the Anglo(sphere) Disease (like many real diseases) is contagious, and is a strong hazard to anyone who lives within its economic reach, so it makes sense to label it by its cultural source. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
I hope you quit lurking for good! "Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
It addresses the circles of power in the US and the UK, regardless of ethnicity, as seen from non-English speaking countries (France, Germany Spain, Italy but also Russia, India, etc).
For USians, it may indeed have other meanings or even sound completely inadequate. But, well, this is not the first time words have different meanings on both sides of the pond. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
I'm not just arguing for the sake of argument. I really am wanting to understand what you're talking about when YOU say "Anglo." To me it sounds either ethnically distinct, when it isn't actually an ethnic matter, or like some outdated slang to refer to part of the world which you still see as implicitly connected, but whose inhabitants don't necessarily agree with you on that matter. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
French and German ancestry in the US means to be anglo, but while they may share same common genome pool, their culture is pretty different nowadays. And the focus of the anglo disease (propensity to take debt is at least one key point) is kind of a cultural habit. And while Afro-Americans often claim to have a different subculture than the American mainstream culture, I have never heard, that German, French, English, or Italian ancestry is taken as something giving enough input to form an own subculture (Irish is debatable).
But as I understand anglo-disease it is anyhow a country disease (because influenced largely by regulatory framework, overvaluation of real estate), not a person disease. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahrg
Is this place turning into DKos? Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
You don't like the label; I defend it while acknowledging some of your points; why do you feel any hostility in this? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If they don't like it in dKos, well, tough. They are all Americans, and even left-wing Americans are convinced that their native country is the soul of star-spangled goodness, sometimes led a little astray in its naive benevolence. They can't tolerate criticism of fundamentals, in whatever form. And dKos is not predominantly left wing.
(ducks)
The first is, I wonder if Jerôme's critique of "the Anglo disease" is even aimed primarily at UK and USA? I think these two countries are essentially immune to effective criticism of the fundamentals of the political and economic system that has evolved in recent decades (the history is surely much longer than that, and in the USA, relates to a long-noted love for the short con). If I were Jerôme, my aim would be to combat the triumphal and relentless drive of the UK and USA to export their corrupt and destructive model to the rest of the world.
The second is, the Province of Ontario announced earlier this week that they will establish protected areas in their northern boreal regions, in the amount of about one-quarter million square kilometers. This is a much bigger deal for me than the collapse of empires or financial houses of cards.
Well, the first part is not so much offensive as it is frustrating. My point was, just because people who define themselves against us use this term as some kind of slang they intuitively understand the meaning of, it does not mean that 1) it is linguistically accurate or 2) intuitively understood or accepted by those you are labelling. I don't even know what "Anglo-American" means. English American? White American? And what does being English, or white have to do with "Imperialists and all reactionaries are paper tigers"? Why not call it the "Reagan Thatcherite disease?" Because it is an economics matter at its core.
You and Jerome both say, if we don't like it tough. It's not the damned theory I don't like. It's the label. It has nothing to with intolerance of criticism. Is being "Anglo" the criticism hurled at us? No. Our system of finance is, and rightly so! I may be a commie, but even the most jingoistic American today will admit, yes, this economy is totally effed up due to some questionable practices. But that is precisely how many people here react when caught in a bit of a muddle. If an American points out your flawed logic, you can dismiss it as American whining and stubbornness. I frankly only care because, like everyone here, I'm betting the world would be a better place if people actually listened to Jerome. And Americans won't listen to him on this topic if he starts off up front by 1) labelling them with bizarre and inaccurate racial lingo from the Middle Ages and 2) saying "tough I don't care if it pisses you off." Because, uhm, that just normally doesn't work when you are trying to get people to see the light, to listen to you, to join your cause. Yes, sometimes you will piss off people for the right reasons. But pissing them off alone is not a signal of success or righteousness. Just ask all the people GWB has pissed off!! I think I will call this inability to accept that I am right and you are wrong "European Disease." Yeah, I know you're Canadian. But whatev. Vast generalizations and outdated historical associations are apparently given free reign on this blog nowadays. Plus, if I'm mad at you, it's my prerogative to call you whatever I want.
Now, that sounds kind of immature, doesn't it? Yes, it does. Because it is. Honestly, no one appreciates J more than I. No one wants people to listen to him more than I. Plus, I am personally indebted to him for any number of things, making me the last person who should go off on him. But we can all love Jerome and help him fight the good fight and retain our freedom to correct him in those very rare instances when he is not entirely correct or not making the best use of an opportunity. It's ok. If no one were willing to criticize him, he'd end up like Stalin, mad with power.
And really, you just can't go around saying things like "They are all Americans, and even left-wing Americans are convinced that their native country is the soul of star-spangled goodness, sometimes led a little astray in its naive benevolence. They can't tolerate criticism of fundamentals, in whatever form." and expect anyone in my country to listen to you. The minute people make generalizations like that about Russia, I smell a fish. Even if they are true. Because it's a lazy thinking borne of frustration. Its propaganda that fills up the holes in its logic with demonization of "them." We all think we're so immune to these things. That's America's Achilles heel - thinking we are immune to the problems that beset other nations, even when we display the same poor judgement. But no one is. If you think just because you are at ET or progressive or well-educated or even just right, you are immune, you are wrong. No one is right about everything. And no one is wrong about everything. This urge to see everything in black and white/ us and them/ good and bad ... it gets on my last nerve. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
