so far, the Bushwhackers have succeeded in steering most of the benefits of empire in the direction of their fraction of the capitalists, while costs are borne by the vast majority. In the longer run, that may not be true. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
________________________________ From: PEN-L list on behalf of Doug Henwood Sent: Sat 2/26/2005 12:28 PM To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Oil & dollars John Exdell wrote: >But let's assume Henwood's point that whatever financial benefit the U.S. >reaps is more than offset by the expense of protecting it. That would >imply that the projection of U.S. military power in the Middle East has >additional motives, which it does -- e..g, the profits that are reaped by >oil industry contracts and other infrastructure development contracts. But >I don't think it implies that dollar supremacy cannot be one important motive. I normally don't like second-guessing the masters of empire, since they run the world and I'm just carping from the margins, but it may be that the Bush gang is stuck in some 19th century model of empire, and they may wildly overestimate the returns of controlling real estate and resources. Doug
