At 07/12/02 11:06 -0500, you wrote:
touche.Chris Burford wrote:O'Neill with hindsight looks like the uncomfortable pathetic puppet of finance capital he was.Eh? Why did Wall Street rally on the announcement of his departure, after taking an early morning hit on the weak U.S. employment report? They never liked him. It'll be very interesting to see if Bush appoints a Wall Street guy to take his place, or another industrialist or political bagman instead.
Doug
A sweeping generalisation, while you are a stickler for the complexity of empirical fact. But he did represent finance capital rather than any sector of industrial capital did he not. His crass attempts to talk up the market are not very sophisticated for a servant of finance capital, but that was his goal.
Obviously I was making another point in my post about whether it was Bono who had really compromised his principles more, or placed himself in a more vulnerable position. In any contest about empirical facts around O'Neill I would not necessarily expect to win. But what sector of capitalism did he represent if it was not finance capital? Personal incompetence is a variable on another dimension.
I suppose it is really linked to what sector of capitalism his former boss serves. The oil connection is well established, but it is still essentially finance capital is it not?
Chris Burford
London
