So my question is Michel's
> interpretation very much a "police interpretation of
> history," one that Chomsky often makes as a result of
> the US defeat in Vietnam, undercover activity
> increased, or is the stock market affair really bigger
> than the Monica affair such that a convenient timing
> of aggressive imperialism to business difficulty
> mirrors the extent of the crisis and the way economics
> and politics will work closely together in this
> unipolar era.
However right Chossudovsky is about the US military-industrial complex, a
single day's stock movements don't matter one way or another in its
re-formation or reassertion. On the one hand, if markets are efficient (pace
EMH), then daily stock movements are a response to publicly available
information. In which case, it's hard to see how a "routine" bombing of Iraq
would matter all that much in the fortunes of military-industrial
contractors. If, on the other hand, markets are inefficient, and the
"routineness" of the bombing is either in question or belied by other
information that only some players have, then there's no easy way to gauge
what the markets are saying. Perhaps they are expressing a _wish_ that the
bombing wasn't routine, or that the routine bombings will become something
else.
I also wonder whether the world is unipolar, even if the U.S. is still its
hegemonic imperialist power.
Christian
