But if you insist on using linguistically inaccurate and racially charged terminology, that's your prerogative. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
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... ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
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 If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
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. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
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! "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
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. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
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. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
