The track record of governments resisting the transnational agenda has not
been good so far. Is there any evidence (besides this) that the pendulum is
beginning to swing in the other direction?
At 01:42 PM 1/22/98 PST, pete wrote:
> Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
>
>>From: Andr
From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Thank you for giving me this opportunity to think out loud
>@ 06:00 on a snowy morning
>[giant snip]
Thank you for your thoughtful responses Brad. I will incorporate
some of them into my thesis.
It seems to me that "thinking out loud" a
Jay Hanson wrote:
>
> From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I think the MAI is an attempt to wedge the gears of any possible
> >democratic governance before it become clear just what 100% free flow
> >of capital means. What it really means isI think I feel a rant
> >coming on and
jay> I have long been ambivalent about the MAI. These kinds of
jay> international agreements have the potential to contain the
jay> transnationals, which is something national governments can
jay> not do.
The problem with the MAI is that it commits signatories *not* to
contain the TNC, to submi
From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I think the MAI is an attempt to wedge the gears of any possible
>democratic governance before it become clear just what 100% free flow
>of capital means. What it really means isI think I feel a rant
>coming on and I want to keep this short. :-)
Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded:
>From: Andrea Durbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [csdgen] Financial Times Article on MAI
[...]
>---
>Source: Financial Times, Monday January 19, 1998 (page
From: pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Some business lobbyists are worried that strengthening labour
>>standards provisions in the MAI could make it harder for governments
>>to adopt policies designed to create more flexible labour markets.
>
>This is the best news I've yet heard in this long sordid
