Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
A belated question: why should we calculate profits as a ratio of GDP, as Doug does? I don't think any country (other than the smaller W european countries) will have a high ratio? For the US obviously much less so, given the size of the domestic market. Why don't we look at the profit rates as return to domestic and foreign investment separately? Perhaps the numbers if available will show us something different. You can't extract too much out of really impoverished countries--it's already been done. However, the better off poorer countries (that are also growing) are likely to provide certain niches of high profitability. In this instance the Asian NICs and China clearly illustrate this. Lastly, when we look at capital inflows and outflows, we find that many developing and I might add impoversished countries at this time are really net exporters of capital. Past investments seem to provide a steady stream of income (this also included interest payments, royalties, and licensing fees, dividends, etc.) Cheers, anthony xxx Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor Comparative International Development University of WashingtonCampus Box 358436 1900 Commerce Street Tacoma, WA 98402, USA Phone: (253) 692-4462 Fax : (253) 692-5718 xxx On Thu, 6 May 2004, Doug Henwood wrote: > Charles Brown wrote: > > >CB: My thought on that is that the 30%-40% is the icing on the cake, and the > >icing is the "extra" profit ( so "super" means "extra" rather than > >"gigantic"; "above and beyond" the regular profit). I don't know if the > >concept of "margin" applies to this. The idea is that "super" means "extra" > >that wouldn't have been made had it not been invested in the "neo-globalist > >colonies ", because the return on investment domestically ( and in other > >rich countries) has been maxed out and begins to fall. > > Total profits from MNC investment in poor countries - all except the > rich industrial countries of Asia, Europe, and North America, plus > the Asian NICs - was about $25 billion in 2002, or about 0.25% of > U.S. GDP. That's a pretty thin layer of icing. > > Here are the rates of return (profits/capital stock) for some major > regions of the world for U.S. MNCs: > > 1982 2002 > all 12.0%8.1% > Canada6.7%7.3% > rich Europe 10.4%7.4% > rich Asia 7.9%9.1% > Asian NICs 22.4% 14.6% > rest of world19.5%7.4% >LatAm/Car 16.2%6.2% >China -6.1% 14.1% > > Note that returns are lower in the poorer countries than richer ones. > > >To reiterate the last part of what I just said, doesn't the return on > >investment in the U.S. and other rich countries begin to fall ( > >overproduction)after a certain point ? Then the investment in the poor > >countries "rescues" the rate of return from its falling rate in the > >imperialist centers. > > Pretty hard to see that in these stats. > > Total profits from foreign investment were $123 billion in 2002, or > just over 1% of U.S. GDP. That's not a gigantic number, and not much > bribing of the U.S. working class can be financed out of it. > > >Also, I can see that a lot of the Cold War might be motivated, not by some > >immediate opportunities for "extra" profit ( as I describe that above), but > >for longer term, strategic holding of territory for _future_ potential > >investment and profits. That wouldn't be irrational from the standpoint of > >the interests of the capitalist class, and would explain oocupations that do > >not yield significant profit today. > > The U.S. wants to keep the world safe for capitalism, no doubt about > it. Keynes remarks somewhere, in The General Theory I think, that > "liquidity" requires tremendous stability in the social and political > environment. The Pentagon certainly contributes to that. > > >Thanks for hangin' in there with me on this debate, Doug. > > My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First > World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is > something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the > argument, if someone wants to make it. > > >By the way, do hedge funds and other international financial institutions > >gather some of the booty ;and is that part of the statistics for profits > >from "foreign investments" ? > > Hedge funds and such aren't in these calculations; this is just > "productive" or "real" investment, not profits from pure financial > activities. Nor does it include debt service, which is about $400 > billion a year globally. That's a lot of money for the debtor > countries, but the GDP of the creditor countries is probably around > $25 billion. > > Doug >
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Doug Henwood wrote, >I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First >World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is >something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the >argument, if someone wants to make it. Depends first on what you mean by rich and poor. Political economy upholds the amount of revenues that are or could be raised. Dilke argued wealth was disposable time "and nothing more". I suppose that translates into per capita GDP versus per capita GPI. But second I think it is a mistake to assume that enrichment and/or impoverish represent or are represented by a transfer of funds from one place to another. A rich country's monopolization of resources, markets etc. can effectively deny access to those resources or markets even with no money changing hands. So how do we measure the absence of what might have been? It seems to me that it is not so much the poor who enrich the rich as the rich who impoverish the poor. And not always by taking away something that the poor formerly have. Sometimes by "giving" or selling them something that they were better off without: neo-colonial regimes, ill-conceived development projects, armaments, infant formula etc. You can do a lot of damage for relatively little profit. Because it is the first world that primarily does the valuing the dollar value of the transactions may be much smaller than their impacts. Would Coke's revenues exceed the royalties paid to all third world musicians? Maybe that question encapsulates too many of the qualitative imponderables. But whoops, there I go making those moral judgements that the free market prohibits me from making. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Bill Lear: How does one measure the opportunity cost of, say, 10 million slaughtered peasants over the last 40 years? You really need to expand your time-frame in order to make sense of this question. Like 400 years rather than 40. If it were not for the colonial exports of silver, gold, fur, sugar, timber, cotton, etc. through the 16th to 19th century, the industrial revolution would have not been possible. Once Europe and the USA go through this supercharged development, it gains a huge edge in technology. Thus, it can maintain a lead over the South based mainly on a pre-existing momentum. Once we arrive in the late 20th century, it matters little whether IBM makes more money in Great Britain than in Bangladesh. Foreshortening of history leads to foreshortening of politics obviously. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
On Thursday, May 6, 2004 at 16:11:31 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes: >... >My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First >World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is >something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the >argument, if someone wants to make it. >.. How does one measure the opportunity cost of, say, 10 million slaughtered peasants over the last 40 years? Bill
Re: The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)
Charles Brown wrote: CB: My thought on that is that the 30%-40% is the icing on the cake, and the icing is the "extra" profit ( so "super" means "extra" rather than "gigantic"; "above and beyond" the regular profit). I don't know if the concept of "margin" applies to this. The idea is that "super" means "extra" that wouldn't have been made had it not been invested in the "neo-globalist colonies ", because the return on investment domestically ( and in other rich countries) has been maxed out and begins to fall. Total profits from MNC investment in poor countries - all except the rich industrial countries of Asia, Europe, and North America, plus the Asian NICs - was about $25 billion in 2002, or about 0.25% of U.S. GDP. That's a pretty thin layer of icing. Here are the rates of return (profits/capital stock) for some major regions of the world for U.S. MNCs: 1982 2002 all 12.0%8.1% Canada6.7%7.3% rich Europe 10.4%7.4% rich Asia 7.9%9.1% Asian NICs 22.4% 14.6% rest of world19.5%7.4% LatAm/Car 16.2%6.2% China -6.1% 14.1% Note that returns are lower in the poorer countries than richer ones. To reiterate the last part of what I just said, doesn't the return on investment in the U.S. and other rich countries begin to fall ( overproduction)after a certain point ? Then the investment in the poor countries "rescues" the rate of return from its falling rate in the imperialist centers. Pretty hard to see that in these stats. Total profits from foreign investment were $123 billion in 2002, or just over 1% of U.S. GDP. That's not a gigantic number, and not much bribing of the U.S. working class can be financed out of it. Also, I can see that a lot of the Cold War might be motivated, not by some immediate opportunities for "extra" profit ( as I describe that above), but for longer term, strategic holding of territory for _future_ potential investment and profits. That wouldn't be irrational from the standpoint of the interests of the capitalist class, and would explain oocupations that do not yield significant profit today. The U.S. wants to keep the world safe for capitalism, no doubt about it. Keynes remarks somewhere, in The General Theory I think, that "liquidity" requires tremendous stability in the social and political environment. The Pentagon certainly contributes to that. Thanks for hangin' in there with me on this debate, Doug. My pleasure. I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is something I hear people assert pretty often. I'm open to the argument, if someone wants to make it. By the way, do hedge funds and other international financial institutions gather some of the booty ;and is that part of the statistics for profits from "foreign investments" ? Hedge funds and such aren't in these calculations; this is just "productive" or "real" investment, not profits from pure financial activities. Nor does it include debt service, which is about $400 billion a year globally. That's a lot of money for the debtor countries, but the GDP of the creditor countries is probably around $25 billion. Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: > > > > CB: Ok , how about just "profits" ? Why would U.S. imperialism and U.S. > based transnationals go through so much, invest so much in creating and > protecting capitalist relations of production outside of U.S. territory if > profits were not made there ? Profits are the _ultimate_ goal but never necessarily the immediate goal of capitalist action (particularly of the capitalist state, which among other things is the domain of intra-capitalist struggle). In any case, I can't answer your question with any certainty, but there are several obvious possible motives, none of which directly concern profits: 1. Insure against the rise of serious capitalist enemies. 2. Maintain control of natural resources. 3. Provide investment opportunity (even if at close to zero profits) for capital that can not other wise be invested at all. And so forth. But I think both you and Lou are too focused on demonstrating that capitalists are bad. That goes without saying. What needs to be demonstrated, always, is that capital cannot NOT do as it does. That was Lenin's point, against Kautsky who saw imperialism as an optional policy. And profits in any given context are an option, not a necessity. And if you review the various debates on lbo, marxism, & pen-l over the years you will also see that whenever a debate was grounded in merely empirical claims (a poll was or wasn't accurate, an economic statistic was or wasn't accurate, etc) the debate has simply gone nowhere. Carrol
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: CB: Ok , how about just "profits" ? Why would U.S. imperialism and U.S. based transnationals go through so much, invest so much in creating and protecting capitalist relations of production outside of U.S. territory if profits were not made there ? For sure, but 60-70% of those profits come from other rich countries, not the superexploited poor. Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Louis said: > I would suggest that when 20 percent of the households in the USA own 3 > or more cars and only 14 cars per 1,000 residents in Africa, the primary > contradiction--at least for the time being--will be between this > imperialist power and nations in the South. This is like saying: "men tend to be physically stronger than women". Absolutely true, but also absolutely meaningless when it comes to dealing with specific, localised situations. Grant.
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Grant Lee wrote: Capitalism _always_ means that a few people profit from the exploitation of a majority (i.e. wage earners): to extend your metaphor, there are plenty of workers in developed countries who can't afford SUVs, and otherwise benefit much less from the "blood of Nigerians" than do the Nigerian compradors and/or national bourgeoisie. Of course there are workers who can't afford SUV's, but car ownership in the USA and other wealthy nations is wildly disproportionate to that in the 3rd world. According to the World Resources Institute, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries had 70 percent of the world's automobiles. In is the United States, 58 percent of households owned two or more cars and 20 percent owned three or more. For every 1000 people in the OECD countries, 561 own cars. In the 3rd world, car ownership rates are far lower. In 1993 there were about 68 cars per 1,000 residents in Latin America and the Caribbean, 29 cars per 1,000 residents in East Asia and the Pacific and about 14 cars per 1,000 residents in Africa. I would suggest that when 20 percent of the households in the USA own 3 or more cars and only 14 cars per 1,000 residents in Africa, the primary contradiction--at least for the time being--will be between this imperialist power and nations in the South. This is not a particularly heterodox interpretation in Marxism, although it might not have been particularly embraced by the late Bill Warren and others. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Louis said: > In a technical sense the Afrikaner bourgeoisie exploited both white and > black workers, but what does that mean? Yes, a white diamond-cutter > produced surplus value, just as a black miner did but the white worker > would likely have a black gardener and maid. These people were the > social base of apartheid, just as many southern White small farmers and > workers backed slavery. > > In my opinion, the USA and its wealthier imperialist allies have an > apartheid like relationship to the rest of the world. I think we need to remember that capitalist political regimes (and regime change) can promote and/or assist classes and class strata, but governments _do_not_create_classes_. The rise of the Afrikaner capitalist stratum, in the 1950s and '60s, occurred in spite of and at the expense of the Anglo-South African ascendancy. Decades later, still under Apartheid, there were poor Afrikaners and a black middle class. The end of Apartheid allowed black capitalists to leapfrog two or three dominant strata. "IN 1976, Sam Molope, who had worked for a number of bakeries in the 1950s and 1960s, started his own bakery in Ga-Rankuwa with a R100 000 loan. He was confined to the township then because of apartheid laws which prohibited blacks from owning businesses in "white" areas. But despite the restrictions, Molope Bakeries grew into into a profitable business and is now one of the black empowerment success stories. Today he boasts a mill, three bakeries producing about 57 000 loaves of bread a day, and has been appointed sole supplier of apples, English muffins, birthday cakes, and sweets to McDonald's in sub-Saharan Africa." * * * * "Comparisons are often drawn with Afrikaner empowerment. Robin McGregor of McGregor Information Services, in a historical comparison, concludes that it took Afrikaner business over 20 years - from 1959 to 1980 - to achieve 10% control of the JSE, a level that black business has reached just four years after seriously entering the stock market. His own research estimates that as at February 1998 black investors had significant influence over 53 companies on the JSE with a market capitalisation of over R111-billion (10% of the JSE) - though his figures include all companies where shareholding is above 1%." Thabo Kobokoane, 1999?, "The road to empowerment" http://www.btimes.co.za/99/0425/survey/survey20.htm The fact that the white working class strata in South Africa is decidedly _not_better off under the ANC governments, [cf : Jeremy Seekings and Nicoli Nattrass, 2001, "Class, Distribution and Redistribution in Post-Apartheid South Africa", http://www.commerce.uct.ac.za/DPRU/seekings&nattrass.pdf ] should disabuse us of any remaining illusions about the nature of the new order and its agenda. Unless, of course, one subscribes to the idea that "the cake is too small" in South Africa. Or that the white workers should be punished in the place of white capitalists, who are doing quite nicely, it seems: "Some 98% of executive directors on Johannesburg's stock exchange-listed companies are white, according to the research group BusinessMap, and they preside over 97% of the exchange's total value. Whites comprise just 10% of the population of 45 million but they occupy around 80% of all corporate positions, said Bob Mattes, of the polling group Afrobarometer. A decade ago they occupied perhaps 99.9%. Paradoxically, those who retained good jobs and lifestyles tend to complain loudest about the ANC government's shortcomings. Executives who answered a questionnaire about crime, housing, education and other issues gave doom-laden, incorrect answers, prompting the publication of two books about good news in South Africa to stop the grumbling. One of apartheid's goals was to guarantee jobs and housing to poor white Afrikaners. Apartheid's demise ended their sinecures in state employment and heavily subsidised industries. Those without useful skills have struggled to find new jobs. They are among those begging at traffic lights. Others offer to tell a joke for 20p. While canvassing in recent weeks President Thabo Mbeki said he was surprised to find whites living in poverty. Many white farmers complain bitterly about the past decade with the end of state subsidies." [Rory Carroll, The Guardian, Tuesday April 13, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1190638,00.html ] More broadly speaking, I think it's fair to compare the South African experience to the developed world is fair (inasmuch as any analogy is "fair"). But, IMO, examining situations at the level of nations or ethnicities does not, _usually_, tell us as much about exploitation or oppression, as an examination of economic classes within particular states. The notion of exploitation being organised according to race, caste, gender, sexuality (etc), rather than economic class _per_se_, is also convenient to the aspirations of subordinate strata of the capitalist classes (i.e. strata organised according to
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Devine, James wrote: >In this view, the unequal exchange benefits the "core" workers at the expense of the "periphery" workers as a whole. However, both groups of workers are exploited by the capitalists (or, in the periphery, non-capitalist ruling classes).< I have no idea why there is so much controversy around this question, as if saying that North American workers benefit from the super-exploitation of workers in the South is something from the Weathermen. Marx, Engels and Lenin all concurred on this question, as can be documented in Lenin's 1916 "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism": >On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: "The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois 'respectability', which has grown deep into the bones of the workers Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all."< full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm In a technical sense the Afrikaner bourgeoisie exploited both white and black workers, but what does that mean? Yes, a white diamond-cutter produced surplus value, just as a black miner did but the white worker would likely have a black gardener and maid. These people were the social base of apartheid, just as many southern White small farmers and workers backed slavery. In my opinion, the USA and its wealthier imperialist allies have an apartheid like relationship to the rest of the world. It would be good if a large section of the white working class would begin to understand that the cheap oil that makes their SUV's feasible comes from the blood of Nigerians et al, but it would be best not to have any illusions over the matter. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: > > I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used > to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all > ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other > places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? > > With respect to England at that time, Marx and Engels lamented > bourgeoisified workers. > One can say that (part of) the U.S. working class is "bourgeoisified," and one can claim that there is a relationship between the u.s. standard of living and imperialism, and betweenthe working-class support for imperialism and that standard of living, _without_ appealing to the (I think fallacious) concept of "superprofits." U.S. workers _are_ exploited -- that is, they do _not_ (a) retain their own surplus labor and (b) receive _in addition_ part of the surplus labor produced by workers in China, India, etc. In fact that concept is a barrier to achieving an understanding of the mode of existence of modern capitalism (i.e., imperialism). Lenin & Luxemburg were correct in seeing the inseparability of "capitalism" and "imperialism," but the nature of that relationship needs further explication. Carrol
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
One idea is that of "unequal exchange." One version of this is as follows: in an imaginary world, labor-power would be totally mobile, as would capital. Thus, wages would be equalized around the world (for workers with similar skills, etc.) But compared to this counterfactual (hypothetical) world, labor-power isn't totally mobile, nor is capital, so that workers in high-productivity areas (the core) can claim higher wages without being undercut by the low wages in the periphery.(Productivity differences arise because capital isn't totally mobile.) Eventually, however, capital will move to the low-wage areas, so this situation is undermined (and to a lesser extent, cheap labor moves north). One might think of the high wage period as being from 1945 to (say) 1975 in the US, while the undermining is since then. In this view, the unequal exchange benefits the "core" workers at the expense of the "periphery" workers as a whole. However, both groups of workers are exploited by the capitalists (or, in the periphery, non-capitalist ruling classes). Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 5/4/2004 7:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag Charles Brown wrote: >I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used >to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all >? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other >places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? Yeah. Why not? Where do these superprofits from abroad come from, anyway? Which sector, what part of the world? Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Charles Brown wrote: I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? Yeah. Why not? Where do these superprofits from abroad come from, anyway? Which sector, what part of the world? Doug
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Very true, I needed reminding./Joanna Carrol Cox wrote: joanna bujes wrote: Possibly (and very funny), but the thing is, the profits still go to the US. This is a common shorthand, but it is probably best to avoid it. The "US" is not a profit center, and hence no profits go to "the US" as such, any more than the riches of India went to "England" as such. If "England" included those men, women, & children whose lives are summarized in the chapter on the working day in _Capital_, then there is a certain indifference to human suffering in referring to the profit "England" gained from the Indian empire. The same applies to "the US" today. I believe that it is worth some clumsiness of language or added verbosity to avoid bunching Walmart employees, the mentally ill living on on disability, and the actual recipients of those "profits" all under the same label, "The US." Carrol .
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Devine, James wrote: > given that the US does even worse, how can I boycott US goods? > you cannot. US goods are all made elsewhere. ;-) --ravi
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Possibly (and very funny), but the thing is, the profits still go to the US. ravi wrote: Devine, James wrote: given that the US does even worse, how can I boycott US goods? you cannot. US goods are all made elsewhere. ;-) --ravi .
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
joanna bujes wrote: > > Possibly (and very funny), but the thing is, the profits still go to the US. > This is a common shorthand, but it is probably best to avoid it. The "US" is not a profit center, and hence no profits go to "the US" as such, any more than the riches of India went to "England" as such. If "England" included those men, women, & children whose lives are summarized in the chapter on the working day in _Capital_, then there is a certain indifference to human suffering in referring to the profit "England" gained from the Indian empire. The same applies to "the US" today. I believe that it is worth some clumsiness of language or added verbosity to avoid bunching Walmart employees, the mentally ill living on on disability, and the actual recipients of those "profits" all under the same label, "The US." Carrol
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
didn't Bill O'Reilly decide that the Splendid Little War Against Iraq was a mistake? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > O'Reilly was concerned that Canada might harbor deserters > from our noble > ventures abroad -- perhaps even Navy Seals.
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
given that the US does even worse, how can I boycott US goods? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: ravi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag > > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > On Doug's list, people have been discussing that O'Reilly > says that we > > should boycott Canada and treat it as an enemy. > > > > here's a reason to boycott canada: > > http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/features/seal1.html > Seal Song: The Canadian Seal Slaughter > > --ravi >
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
O'Reilly was concerned that Canada might harbor deserters from our noble ventures abroad -- perhaps even Navy Seals. On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:06:17PM -0400, ravi wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > > On Doug's list, people have been discussing that O'Reilly says that we > > should boycott Canada and treat it as an enemy. > > > > here's a reason to boycott canada: > > http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/features/seal1.html > Seal Song: The Canadian Seal Slaughter > > --ravi -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Michael Perelman wrote: > On Doug's list, people have been discussing that O'Reilly says that we > should boycott Canada and treat it as an enemy. > here's a reason to boycott canada: http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/features/seal1.html Seal Song: The Canadian Seal Slaughter --ravi
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
On Doug's list, people have been discussing that O'Reilly says that we should boycott Canada and treat it as an enemy. Is Switzerland part of old Europe? Is there something subversive about the flag? On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:13:04PM -0700, Sabri Oncu wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/garden/29FLAG.html > > The flag's designer said that he received a call a few > months ago from his brother, asking him to submit a > proposal. The only guidelines, he said, were to > present Iraq as a Western country and to include > references to the past. He said his inspiration was > simple flags like those of Canada and Switzerland. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: The new Iraqi Flag
Sabri Oncu wrote: The flag's designer said that he received a call a few months ago from his brother, asking him to submit a proposal. The only guidelines, he said, were to present Iraq as a Western country and to include references to the past. He said his inspiration was simple flags like those of Canada and Switzerland. Another incident illustrating the perfect storm of arrogance, greed, & incompetence that characterize this operation. Joanna
