I don't think historical persons are as important as the historical circumstances they had a chance to exploit. A particular epoch manages to produce the particular scientist/polititian/philosopher to use the available information creatively or destructively - depending on the circumstances. They just add the individual variant to the given event. E.g. Germany lost one war, became strong again and still wanted share from the economic domination of the markets. The democratic left has been defeated - probably due to the victory of the undemocratic Stalin in the USSR - so the ruling class was too weak to rule, but the working class too weak to take over - such void is usually filled with totalitarian rule. Happened to be Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and Franco in Spain. Stalinism is a variation on this theme. The leader of the IMF is powerless without the support of the financial interests that make up that body. Don't hold your breath waiting for a basic income policy to be initiated from IMF leadership... Eva > Thomas: > > Your paragragph has sat in my E Mail - it seems like forerver. Why? I have > been toying with the significant man theory - though it could be a woman. > How often, for better or worse, is one person able to direct and influence > the lives of millions of people? Think of Pol Pot or Slobovan Milosvic or > Hitler. What would our world history have been like if they had just got > cancer? By the same token, how have the economies of the world been changed > Keynes, Friedman, Adam Smith and a significant book that grabs the times and > changes our course. > > What about others that didn't make it over the hump, Louis Reil, Fremont who > could have been President instead of Abraham Lincoln. Or Hiliare Belloc's > book, The Servile State. > > On one level, it seems that events progress from some sort of logical > planning and yet, often from a back play of history, it can be seen that a > significant person changed the whole directions of country's and its ideals. > Nelson Mandella is a good example - 27 years in prison and yet somehow, > against all odds he becomes a leader and continues to hold the highest > ideals. > > What is my point - I don't know. It's the anomaly of it that intrigues and > frustrates me. The original post led to a comment that the World Bank is > changing, not from internal policy discussions, not from direction from the > United States or United Nations, but because one man occupies the office > that was previously held by someone else. What happens when Alan Greenspan > has a health problem, does the world veer and devolve into economic chaos or > does the next Central Banker create the reality of a Basic Income and change > our world forever. It often seems like whoever is appointed or elected does > not even telegrapgh the changes they instigate and yet, all of sudden their > thoughts operate somehow to make world shaking changes. > > If anyone has any books to refer, I would be interested in their titles. > > Respectfully, > > Thomas Lunde > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
