[Nettime-bold] RE: form

[Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang <hengy@gatt.org>]

Dear Jeffrey,

Well, this is quite a discussion, this discussion of ours. And now we have
come to a question. There seems to be an uncertainty: is reducing tariffs
and barriers always a positive thing? usually? sometimes? Is it true, as
you say, that doing so "enables the world to be more productive and for
all to live more comfortably"?

I would like to suggest two sources of information which will help us to
generate a response.

First is the following lecture on detariffication regimes as applied to
Third World countries by far wealthier ones:
http://www.gatt.org/resources/agri-e.pdf. Although you will note that this
text is by no means in class-A condition, it may be sufficiently ripe to
transmit the urgency felt by the specialists.

As you can see, "comfortable" is not in the cards for some hapless
Third-Worlders!

But what of "productive"? A second document may give us a clue: the
partial list of statistics at http://www.gatt.org/trastat_e.html. It
emerges, sadly, that many barrier-lowering schemas--because they are de
facto imposed by the wealthiest countries upon the least wealthy--have as
beneficiaries only the former. "Productive" finds itself so oddly
defined--raw materials yes, manufactured materials no, etc.--that it
becomes tantamount to "best for the rich," and a mechanism for extracting
the most for the least from the poorest.

Protectionism (we can simply call it "sovereignty") then emerges as the
only possible line of defense against predation masquerading as
free-market theory.

But of course that (theory) is what we (WTO) exist to enforce.

This brings us to the second point of discussion to which we've been
brought: is it better for a young person to work within a corrupt and
putrefying miasma of once-good intentions rather than outside of same?
just because it (miasma) exists? "Men make history, but not in
circumstances of their own choosing," said Marx, as you note. But one
should not necessarily count on the production of positive history when
choosing to engage with miasma.

As Marx also said, "Military justice is to justice what military music is
to music" (especially germane in these days of free-market flex-fest,
don't you think?). Similarly, neoliberal thinking is to thinking what
torture is to compassion. Unfortunately, many universities today prefer
torture, and that is the greater pity in preparing the next generation of
leaders for a world of increasing inequality, more desperate poverty, and
new dangers of every last stripe.

As Marx didn't say, "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." And perhaps
the only thing one can lead a horse to is water, so if you insist on
joining in our cacophony, here is what you should do:

* download the form at http://www.gatt.org/resources/i_form_e.doc

* fill it out

* e-mail it to humanresources@wto.org.

Please keep me apprised of your progress.

With very best wishes,
Hengy

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:

> Hengdorn:
> 
> I: I shall start with your conclusion. There are three reasons I wish to
> work for the WTO/GATT:
> 
> First, I am reminded of a quote from Marx. Unfortunately it is unavailable
> to me right now, but it goes something like: "Men make history, but not as
> they like; they make it as they find it..." Basically, they deal with the
> pre-existing structures of power and exchange. The WTO represents those
> structures, and it seems likely to continue. Accordingly, it makes sense to
> work within it rather than to disclaim it entirely. Another quote, this one
> from Bismarck, to be found on the very last page of Kennedy's "Rise and Fall
> of the Great Powers," goes something like: "We are adrift on the river of
> time, but we can still paddle." Even if the WTO contains flaws, these flaws
> are streams within which we can still paddle, and these may be the most
> profitable and convenient means of arriving at a desired destination.
> 
> Second, when all is said and done, everything else being equal, I believe
> that free trade and exchange is a positive thing. Reducing tariffs and other
> barriers to trade is a positive thing. It enables the world to be more
> productive and for all to live more comfortably. There is no need for an
> either-or dichotomy between a completely neoliberal regime or a completely
> statist regime; there is room for a "third" (or fourth or fifth...) way as
> well, in which one can hopefully incorporate increased total prosperity with
> increased distributive and social justice. 
> 
> Third, the WTO is something I study currently in class in law school.
> International politics is something I studied as undergraduate in college.
> The world, its politics and its economics is something I try to stay abreast
> of constantly. These are the issues that drive me; these are the issues that
> intrigue me; they have since I was a boy around the age of eight, reading
> newsmagazines, and they will until my demise (whenever that shall be). The
> WTO is one of those places where the action is. It is where I would like to
> be. Moreover, I suppose any experience I would gain would be useful either
> working with the federal government (such as the Trade Representative's
> office), local government (helping state or municipal government arrange
> trade relations), or in private practice as an attorney. Conversely, should
> I continue with more schooling to obtain a doctorate and become an academic,
> real-world experience with a major multilateral NGO would be beneficial
> there as well. But once more, I wish to be where the action is, and the WTO
> certainly qualifies.
> 
> To answer your question explicitly, then, I do not really conceive of myself
> intending either to renew the WTO or to learn from its failures. This is
> because I find myself in accord with its basic premises, despite the
> difficulties our conversations have exposed these to possess. Ultimately, I
> make very modest claims. My goal would be simply to observe what I could, in
> recognition of my lack of relevant knowledge and experience. Should a
> thought occur to me that I think relevant and appropriate, naturally I will
> voice it. But for the most part, I would be conscientious of my limited role
> as "summer help," and simply remain grateful for the opportunity to watch a
> major NGO in action, and to store and assimilate it into my knowledge base
> for present and future use.
> 
> II: Second, with respect to health care, let me make the following two
> points.
> 
> The first is that you most certainly have my sympathies on this issue. As a
> middle-class university graduate student, I have been the beneficiary of
> excellent health care for all of my life, as have my family as well as many
> if not most or all of my friends. Yet I have never understood why others
> should be deprived of this solely on account of having less money. Certain
> things are held to be fundamental human rights worthy of preservation and
> accorded to all citizens, irrespective of their social status or economic
> capital; is not freedom from curable pain and discomfort one of these
> things? A good friend of mine who has read Richard Epstein's "Mortal Peril"
> warns me that this argument is easily-countered, and I must concede I myself
> can become rather susceptible (at least on an intellectual level) to
> libertarian arguments. That said, in sum, I support universal health care
> for all Americans, and regret that the Clinton Health Plan failed.
> 
> Which leads to my second point: are you sure unabashed plutocracy suffices
> as an explanation for "the ways things are?" I concur that policy outcomes
> reflect a combination of means, interest and strategies (and probably other
> variables as well), but these are muted, modified and transformed by
> collective action issues and the like. For example, organized labor in the
> US, even if in decline, still represents a substantial force with which to
> be reckoned. A more cynical me might question whether the absence of health
> care for the poorest Americans actually represents the abandonment, by
> unions, of their least-skilled, least-able fellow citizens. My more basic
> point, though, is that pure plunder by the plutocracy may be a somewhat
> crude model for understanding social phenomena.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang [mailto:hengy@gatt.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:28 PM
> To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> Subject: RE: form
> 
> 
> Dear Jeffrey,
> 
> Of course you are right--the rationales for wealth-mongering have always
> been complex and varied, and have never themselves directed the mongering:
> rather, the wealthy have always deployed these opportunely, flexibly, and
> with cleverness.
> 
> Indeed, it has never been a case of "God commands to cream the poor" or
> "Nature suggests to crush the unfortunate," but rather "We have found it
> correct to cream/crush the unfortunate poor, and Nature/God doth find this
> most meet." Let us thus place the hegemony where you say it belongs:  
> squarely upon the plutocracy, rather than on the orthodoxies that furnish
> its ever-shifting justification.
> 
> Your second point is also quite attractively put. Indeed, countries with
> governments that do things for people seem to have happier people; some
> concern and control by the state seems to be better (for people) than the
> law of the financial jungle.
> 
> But the "planned economy" I referred to, that characterizes today's most
> neoliberal countries, is not one planned by a state with the accord of its
> citizens, but rather is planned by the "winners," i.e. the largest
> corporations, precisely because of the democratic state's planned absence,
> an absence planned by those same corporations.
> 
> The health care system in the United States is an excellent example, where
> the largest HMOs have planned an absence of decent alternatives for all but
> the fairly well off, leaving everyone else with health care far below the
> standards of Western Europe or Japan, or, alternately, with no health care
> at all.
> 
> This is the law of the jungle writ small!
> 
> In any case, both of these points bring us back to the initial moments of
> this discussion of ours, in which I so brutally misunderstood your interest
> in the WTO's "vacant positions" as an interest in those intellectual
> contentions of ours that do not hold water, of which I cited two examples:
> our positions (a) that the abolition of government intervention will yield
> prosperity, and (b) that fewer laws against pollution will make the air
> cleaner.
> 
> Over the course of our speaking, you have been privy to the exposition of at
> least five or six more such positions that we at the WTO insist on yet that
> hold no water at all. And you have observed us wandering into the realms of
> absolute heresy to find an appropriate fundament, having lost our way
> everywhere else.
> 
> Under these conditions, with your eye so priviledgedly on our bankruptcy, I
> ask you now: what, given such corruptness as ours, might you see as useful
> or interesting in an engagement with us? Is there a way you might help us to
> hew a renewed plan of hope and/or action, something based more in reality
> than our ever-mired past footsteps? Or do you simply wish to learn what you
> can from our failures?
> 
> Any or all of these are acceptable. In each case, there can resound a clear
> "Why not?"
> 
> With an eye to the future, always, and despite all with hope, Hengy
> 
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> 
> > Hengdorn:
> > 
> > Your e-mail certainly raises issues on many levels. It is difficult to 
> > know where to begin. I will avoid discussions of Swedenborgiasm (sic), 
> > principally because I am unfamiliar with it. (Although, did you know 
> > that Daniel Burnham, a principal architect and developer of Chicago, 
> > who lived in my home suburb adjacent to the city, was an adherent?)
> > 
> > First, your intellectual history of the justification of 
> > wealth-exploitation is interesting. Basically you argue that God was a 
> > justification for wealth transfer until the mid-19th century, at which 
> > point Darwinism (or Nietzschean philosophy, I suppose) superseded the 
> > divine as a rationale for exploitation (might makes right). I am not 
> > sufficiently grounded in intellectual history to affirm or contradict 
> > this claim. You ascribe a considerable degree of hegemony to rather 
> > diverse orthodoxies, though. Is it possible that that these broad 
> > philosophies were accepted and utilized in more variegated and nuanced 
> > ways? For example, just to take an example for literature, "Crime and 
> > Punishment" ultimately seems a rebuttal to "Thus Spake Zarathustra," 
> > and maybe this exemplifies in microcosm the tension between accepting 
> > new rationalist, nihilist philosophies and clinging to the orthodoxy 
> > of the Church.
> > 
> > Second, you argue that the pre-eminent economies yield a fair degree 
> > of state intervention, and fail to conform to the lean, neo-classical 
> > model of an unfettered free hand. I tend to agree with you on this, 
> > but again the intellectual landscape is cluttered. Clearly certain 
> > states have higher levels of state intervention coupled with higher 
> > standards of living, lesser disparities in wealth distribution, etc. 
> > Yet there seems no absolute basis for justifying these economies as 
> > preferable per se. Yes, Japan has higher levels of state intervention. 
> > And yes, in many ways one might find Japan a preferable place to live 
> > (than the US). Needless to say, though, its financial sector is a 
> > shambles, as are several broad macroeconomic indices such as 
> > productivity, with implications for specific microeconomic sectors 
> > (like health care). Similarly, one might laud the German model of 
> > corporate governance. Yet its unemployment rate is far above that of 
> > the US. Who is to say what is the right trade-off? I whole-heartedly 
> > agree that the state has a role in preventing well-defined instances 
> > of market failure (such as promoting information transparency and 
> > preventing conflicts of interest in the US capital markets regulatory 
> > system), but anything beyond this seems a judgment call.
> > 
> > Once more, I think these are fascinating questions I love to delve 
> > into, and if I could gain further insight into them by working or 
> > interning this summer at the WTO, I would be thrilled.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang [mailto:hengy@gatt.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 6:38 PM
> > To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> > Subject: RE: form
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Jeffrey,
> > 
> > Wow. At this point, I must say, I am quite fiercely struck--as I think 
> > it would be impossible for any feeling soul (or thinking brain) not to
> > be--(a) by your enthusiasm and steadfastness, and (b) by the new name 
> > of the company for which you worked.
> > 
> > I think it is important to stumble upon this latter item (b) just for 
> > a moment, especially in view of your interest in the "emerging markets"
> > domain.
> > 
> > Let us look at things closely. The doctrine of market freedom is of 
> > course at its root intended to give license to the profitable 
> > activities of the most wealthy--especially within "emerging markets," 
> > i.e. among the domestic and remote poor, whether these be the peasants 
> > of 18th-century England or the teeming masses of today's Bangladesh.
> > 
> > For of course wealth-deriving activity has had to be justified in one 
> > way or another, especially to the "emerging markets" at whose expense 
> > it is often conducted. There is no point in announcing to the poor and 
> > to others that the wealthy need to be more wealthy than they currently 
> > are "just because"! You can see this! Always, there must be reasons, 
> > especially so far as convincing the "emerging markets" goes.
> > 
> > Until roughly the mid-19th century, these reasons and justifications 
> > were founded in the empyrean realm. Wealth, during this period, was a 
> > mark of divine favor, and the pursuit of wealth was therefore pleasing 
> > to the godhead in question. This of course mirrors the respect that 
> > folks in those olden times had for the godhead, whether they were 
> > scholars, politicians, military folk, or most importantly the "emerging
> markets"
> > themselves.
> > 
> > In the second period--after Darwin, roughly--the wealthification of 
> > the already wealthy was promoted as the only "natural" possibility, 
> > building on the "survival of the fittest" refrain that had by then 
> > lodged itself deep in the psyches of scholars, politicians, etc., as a 
> > likely bed for justification of anything whatsoever (including, of 
> > course, as it turned out, some of the 20th century's most gruesome 
> > excesses).
> > 
> > Finally, at the start of the 21st century, this model of natural 
> > justice in the human landscape has begun to reveal its age. It is now 
> > standard college fare that life in the natural world is based more on 
> > cooperation than on competition. It is also terribly clear that those 
> > modern economies most hewing to "Darwinian" neoliberalism have what 
> > can only be described as planned economies, with the "fittest" lording 
> > it over the rest in regal splendor and with the "least fit" puttering 
> > about the backwaters with no hope of ever attaining dry ground. In 
> > these settings there is neither competition nor cooperation, but only 
> > hierarchy, classification, and stasis.
> > 
> > Nature has never been like this, Jeffrey--neither for Darwin nor his 
> > successors. And so the "Darwinian" model no longer provides a useful 
> > ossature for championing the supremacy of wealth-deriving activities.
> >  
> > Ironically enough, it is becoming quite clear to many that the only 
> > such fundament possible may be precisely those empyrean realms 
> > forsworn by the wealth-apologists just after Darwin! For to judge from 
> > the detailed eyewitness accounts of August Swedenborg--the 
> > 18th-century predicter of the great Lisbon earthquake and founder of 
> > Swedenborgianism, which still has adepts in Pennsylvania--heaven is a 
> > series of perpetual hierarchies, flexible only in so far as is 
> > necessary, with each supernal ring admitting only those elements of 
> > inferior rings that further the plans of the Most High.
> > 
> > The ranks upon ranks of Swedenborg's angels are intended somehow to 
> > serve all humankind, rather than just the wealth of a small elite. But 
> > the basic layout of this heaven--a kind of rotisserie grill, or series 
> > of same--resembles today's corporate order far more than does the 
> > natural world.
> > 
> > Do you know if the flamboyant and eccentric CEO of "divine" is perhaps 
> > a Swedenborgian? Is he from Pennsylvania? These things are 
> > interesting, in a human-interest sort of way.
> > 
> > In any case, to sum up, I think this conjuncture--the presence on your 
> > resume of this item ("divine"), with your interest in how we interface 
> > with the "emerging markets" that are always, always in 
> > question--augurs a most productive relationship between us, in which 
> > much could be brought from one to the next, from next to the one, ad 
> > infinitum.
> > 
> > I say, let us begin. How would you like to do so? What is the first 
> > thing to do?
> > 
> > With every best hope,
> > Hengy
> > 
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Dear Hengdorn:
> > > 
> > > In response to your queries, "divine interVentures" (now just
> > > "divine") was of course a play on "divine interventions" and 
> > > emphasized that (at the time, at least) the company dispensed a fair 
> > > amount of venture capital. There is/was no "godhead," although the CEO 
> > > is flamboyant and eccentric, to say the least.
> > > 
> > > "Moot" Court simply means that students compete against each other 
> > > in
> > > advocacy competitions. The competition, then, is what is "moot;" the 
> > > outcome affects neither fictional plaintiff nor defendant (more 
> > > properly, appellant or appellee). As for "Green," that is simply the 
> > > person from whom the competition took its name.
> > > 
> > > I have a specific interest in emerging markets/developing countries,
> > > so any opportunities you know of within GATT/WTO for this summer would 
> > > be most appreciated. If you could forward the attached resume, or let 
> > > me know of the appropriate contact person, I would be most 
> > > appreciative. Even should you not know of someone within (or outside 
> > > of) GATT/WTO who works on emerging market issues, I would be rather 
> > > excited to engage in its overall work, be it with developed countries, 
> > > etc.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for taking the time to look over my resume,
> > > Jeff
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang
> > > To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> > > Cc: Population Center
> > > Sent: 2/5/2003 12:36 PM
> > > Subject: RE: form
> > > 
> > > Dear Jeffrey,
> > > 
> > > I enjoyed your resume very much. Is there really an enterprise that
> > > describes itself as "a divine interVentures company"? That is quite 
> > > funny! Imagine that as a common descriptor. "I work for a divine 
> > > interVentures company. Do you?" "I go to a divine interVentures 
> > > school."  "I am a divine
> > > interVentures type of person, really." "Have you met my divine
> > > interVentures wife?"
> > > 
> > > Is there some sort of godhead involved in "divine interVentures"? 
> > > Not?
> > > 
> > > I also like the fact that there is such a thing as a "Green Moot 
> > > Court
> > > Competition." What on earth is a "Green Moot Court"? What for that 
> > > matter is "moot" in this context? Perhaps we could imagine some 
> > > potential scenarios!
> > > 
> > > In any case, it is clear from your resume that you have substantial
> > > talents and knowledge. Probably greater than my own! This is certain 
> > > to my mind. It is also clear that in today's world, there is a very 
> > > great need for your kind of talents and knowledge. Most of the world's 
> > > poorest countries are trampled upon by wealthier countries every day 
> > > in the WTO because they lack your kind of expertise. This leads to 
> > > exacerbation of those poor countries' situation in today's difficult 
> > > world. Did you know that? It is quite very well documented. Moreover, 
> > > unfortunately, your kind
> > > of expertise permits the wealthier countries and companies to trample
> > > upon
> > > these poorest countries and populations as they desire. Well, that is
> > > the
> > > world today!
> > > 
> > > We can call this situation post-colonial, or, for simplicity,
> > > colonial.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps we could arrange to reverse this? Your sort of talents could
> > > help. But how specifically could we do so (reverse), according to you? 
> > > Perhaps you, Mr. Ixtabal-Mono and myself could arrange an entente 
> > > regarding this matter?
> > > 
> > > With the very best wishes,
> > > Hengy
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Dear Hengdorn:
> > > > 
> > > > I have attached a copy of my resume in lieu of the form which I
> > > > could
> > > not
> > > > seem to download. Please let me know if there are any suitable job
> > > openings
> > > > for this summer for which I might be qualified.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jeff
> > > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang [mailto:hengy@gatt.org]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 6:05 PM
> > > > To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> > > > Subject: RE: form
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > p.s. Oh!! I can see I have made another error. It was not you who
> > > referred
> > > > to "vacant positions," nor even "open positions"--it was another!! 
> > > > I
> > > have,
> > > > byzantinely, mixed up the two inboxes. Please forgive my 
> > > > confusion.
> > > Here
> > > > is the original question from the other interlocutor, so that you
> > > might
> > > > have insight into the answer and an understanding on how best to
> > > proceed:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dear Sir/ Madam,
> > > > > 
> > > > > could you possibly inform me about any vacant possitions within
> > > > > GATT
> > > 
> > > > > and WTO. Thank you in advance
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Dear Jeff,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Oh!! I am afraid there has been one of the most grotesque 
> > > > > misunderstandings of all time and all history!
> > > > > 
> > > > > You are now speaking about *open positions*--whereas before you
> > > > > were
> > > 
> > > > > speaking about *vacant positions.* It is clear from your 
> > > > > phrasing
> > > that
> > > > > in your mind, these are the same thing: to wit, jobs that are 
> > > > > free
> > > to
> > > > > be occupied (e.g. by you).  Whereas in *my* little mind, the
> > > > > former
> > > > > (*vacant
> > > > > positions*) referred to those stances taken by the WTO which are
> > > vacant of
> > > > > all substance and value! Now we can clearly see how "not on the
> > > > > same
> > > page"
> > > > > we were in this matter! Ha!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Clarifying the situation, then, I must reiterate that the two 
> > > > > categories I listed were intended to represent vacant (or empty)
> > > positions
> > > > (or stances)
> > > > > of the WTO, which are not to lead to any more fuss and widgeting
> > > about on
> > > > > the part of anyone whosoever, least of all you. Jeff, there are
> > > surely
> > > > > useful things to be done in this world, but not under the 
> > > > > rubrics
> > > > > I mentioned! You had best commit yourself to better methods of 
> > > > > using a
> > > 
> > > > > personal life!
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hope that this interests you!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Hengy
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The former area interest me more than the latter (i.e., the 
> > > > > > abolition of government determination of economies). In
> > > particular,
> > > > > > I am interested in emerging or developing countries, rather 
> > > > > > than developed or industrialized countries, although I am 
> > > > > > interested in
> > > 
> > > > > > both. I would be happy to work in any legal, financial or 
> > > > > > administrative capacity related to any such endeavors. Thus I
> > > would
> > > > > > be appreciative if you could inform me of any open positions 
> > > > > > in these fields.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Jeff
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang [mailto:hengy@gatt.org]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:50 AM
> > > > > > To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> > > > > > Cc: Population Center
> > > > > > Subject: RE: form
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dear Jeffrey Wolf,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you for your excellent question, and excuses for the 
> > > > > > great good lateness of my response. Your question arrived via 
> > > > > > the byzantine
> > > > excesses
> > > > > > of our internal routing contraptions, and I have only now been
> > > able to
> > > > > > phrase its response appropriately.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The WTO and the GATT, in that order, do, as you mightily
> > > > > > suggest,
> > > > > > have a number of vacant positions. If you would like details of
> > > the
> > > > > > relative vacancy of the two above things, then know 
> > > > > > henceforward that the WTO has a good number more vacant 
> > > > > > positions than the
> > > GATT,
> > > > > > although the GATT does not lack in these either.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I would like to suggest that the vacant positions of the WTO 
> > > > > > can potentially be headed by the following two items, although 
> > > > > > truly
> > > any
> > > > > > other items might likewise suffice:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * The abolition of government determination over the portions 
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > a
> > > 
> > > > > > nation's economy subject to market forces will benefit in the
> > > > > > long
> > > 
> > > > > > term all countries thus abolished, determinationwise. As you 
> > > > > > can perhaps guess from this phrasing, the position here stated 
> > > > > > has
> > > never
> > > > > > been verified, and there is even contrary evidence--all of 
> > > > > > which relegates it to the dustbin of vagueness at best.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * A higher degree of permissivity with regards to behavior in
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > matters economic, including those causing substantial pollution, 
> > > > > > will benefit the environment, as such permissivity will free
> > > greater
> > > > > > capital towards the improvement of same (the environment, not
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > capital). As this grammatical uncertainty intimates, this notion
> > > is
> > > > > > also quite vacant of substance and substantiability.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I would like to suggest that there is a great deal more
> > > information
> > > > > > to be
> > > > > > conveyed in the cirumstances, and would welcome inquiries
> > > regarding the
> > > > > > aspect or aspects of our operations that interest you most.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > With very best wishes,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Actually I was e-mailing regarding the Internship 
> > > > > > > Application
> > > Form
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > could you please send that?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Jeff
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Population Center [mailto:humanresources@gatt.org]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:27 PM
> > > > > > > To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: form
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Dear Jeff,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Best apologies for a clear mess. I hope you are speaking
> > > regarding
> > > > > > > the current attached form, which is to communicate 
> > > > > > > information regarding the organization.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If not please after perusing inform with more information.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Haarkkonen Ixtabal-Mono
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Dear Sir/Madam:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > I apologize, but I seem to be having trouble downloading 
> > > > > > > > the
> > > MS
> > > > > > > > Word version of the form. Could you please e-mail me a 
> > > > > > > > copy?
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Jeff
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 











_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold