I had a bit of the same reaction. In fact, it really goes far beyond just SSA. Most of Asia have enormous "hinterlands" - just India and China alone could keep foreign investors profitably busy for decades; even tigers like Thailand have only seen some provinces move into the semi-periphery; ditto for Latin America. Much the former Sov. Un. will probably be "outside the loop" when the capital destruction gets finished (don't forget, K can tear down in order to build up - which also raises the issue of war). Then there is the enormous space within each seemingly fully marketized space. In the '50s few of realized the potential for marketizing what was then household production. This process is not yet played out in the OECD countries, never mind the rest of the world. No doubt there yet more internal frontiers we have not yet thought of. Her point about fundamentals seemed well taken - but it might be a mistaken to assume that there no space left. At 12:21 PM 3/31/97 -0800, Karl Carlile wrote: >MICHAEL: But now that capital has embraced the entire >globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole. >Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task, >and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will >develop these ideas more fully in the future. > >KARL: If capital has embrtaced the entire globe how come there is so >little of it in sub-Saharan Africa. I raise this issue at least once >before and as far as I recall nobody responded to it. It is obvious >that sub-Saharn Africa is is not of significance to the ethno-centred >subscribers on this mailing list. > > > > > > Yours etc., > Karl > >
