[Nettime-bold] RE: form

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

Dear Jeffrey,

Yes, it is quite a dialogue we are having! It is a kind of "dialoguing
with power," perhaps, or at least with potential! In any case, I as well
must admit being forced into examination--not of views so much as of the
decency I like to attribute myself.

But let us proceed to the questions in question.


I. The first concerns "Asia." In this case, when you speak of "Asia's"
benefitting from freedom of trade, you are considering the following
countries: South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

These so-called "Asian tigers" are often held up by the likes of Milton
Friedman as examples of how international trade freedom is a boon to the
middling, not just the rich. There are, however, some pieces missing from
this picture of those beautiful lands.

For one thing, the lands in question allowed their national industries to
develop in a sheltered, protected environment for a great many years. When
the restrictions were at long last removed, the industries were capable of
competing in the worldwide marketplace, at least for a few pleasant years.  
This is just like England, which also removed its market protections only
at the point when its industry was ready to compete and conquer and rule.

The picture for these four "winners" was decently rosy till the mid-'90s
crisis--which fairly pulverized the "tigers," but left nearly intact those
Asian countries that had not liberalized, but had chosen instead to
maintain all their market controls and develop as they saw fit. Today, in
fact, we find Chinese companies purchasing Japanese ones! (Please see
http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/feb98/asian.html.)

Much more unfortunately, many other countries that liberalized to the same
degree as South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand--usually at the
insistence of the IMF, the WTO's sister organization--suffered an entirely
more violent fate when flung into the global marketplace: their economies
could simply not stand the competition, and great misery has ensued for
the populace.

For as it turns out, the real aim behind the liberalization of Third-World
economies is not mainly to benefit those economies. Rather, it is to allow
First World companies to exploit them with as little fuss or muss as
possible; this aim is hidden behind a Marxoid "false shield" of theory.

(This may sound cynical, but I do think it's accurate. For example, the
WTO enables First-World countries to maintain strong protections for their
own industries, while insisting that developing countries lower theirs.  
How can this be seen as anything but criminal profiteering? In any case it
is is quite rude, given the damage to life and limb that most often
results.)


II. As for the interesting question of the WTO's history, it originated
neither in a primal conflict between rich and poor, nor as an outgrowth of
the East-West Conflict that lasted from 1945-1990.

The WTO's predecessor, the GATT, emerged as a "concept" organization just
after WWII: it would prevent nasty and powerful governments from
interfering with struggling private enterprises, thus encouraging peace.

The Cold War came to an end around 1990. Five years later, with the enemy
gone, the American "master plan" for the GATT was finally put into action:
it acquired enforcement abilities (the Dispute Settlement Body), dealt
with services as well as with goods (the GATS--loosening government
control over health, education, and energy rather than just shoes, ball
bearings, and cups), and in various other ways became much better able to
stop governments from regulating what corporations can do. The GATT thus
turned into the WTO.

Meanwhile, however, those same corporations that the GATT had intended to
help had grown dozens of times more powerful than they'd been in the '40s.
Today we are faced with a situation in which it is corporations that prey
on weak countries--and the WTO prevents their governments from reacting.

As for the effect of the Europe-U.S. split on the thriving of the WTO,
this is not such a big issue.  The cohesion of Europe and the U.S. is of
only minor importance to the WTO, as the commercial interests within those
entities can plow ahead regardless of politics. The WTO is strictly the
tool of those corporate entities, not of any national governments--and the
shift of power from the latter to the former is a trend that, as Karl
Polanyi predicted, is bursting asunder the seams of government
institutions or, in the case of the U.S., turning them wholesale into
appanages of the wealth drive.


III. What to do, what to do? Work in miasma, not work in miasma? Steer the
flow, work at the pivot? There are many other pivots, fortunately, as the
numerous World Bank officials who have resigned in disgust have found out.  
Why not work directly for something believably useful--some fine NGO, for
example--rather than something (WTO) whose track record has been proven
abysmal?

In any case, here we are deposited, at this point in our dialogue, at an
interesting juncture. On the one side there is you, postulant to the
corridors of might; on the other myself, having seen that that might is
corrupt, dissuading you from said postulance.

It is like a special movie in which there are two parties, one an eager
city youth, the other a sun-wizened cowboy, and between them an
interesting exchange of opinions, in which the cowboy says that
neoliberalism is bad for the world and, for that matter, for cowboys.

It is perhaps even more like a special movie in which a Soviet war hero
approaches a Thai fisherman and the fisherman explains to the hero that
neoliberalism is bad for the world and, for that matter, for fishermen.

Etc. In any case, I do hope that information has been or is being
conveyed! I do quite feel that it is.

With fervent hope bursting asunder all seams,
Hengy

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Wolf, Jeffrey wrote:

> Hengdorn:
> 
> Thank you for another installment in a dialogue that, I must confess, forces
> me to examine my own views quite rigorously. Let us begin with the two
> studies you cite (the first actually being a lecture), and the propositions
> you intend them to support. (I must confess that, due to time constraints, I
> skimmed rather than read them.) My principal objection to them would be that
> they fail to address counterfactual specutlations regarding the absence of
> the conditions they oppose. For example, how is one to measure the
> opportunity costs of lost productivity, and the corresponding decrease in
> standard of living, were tariffs and barriers to trade not reduced? Several
> years ago I saw Milton Friedman speak, where he claimed (albeit in an
> admittedly far from superb lecture) that Hong Kong enjoyed a far greater
> standard of living than Israel because it was more receptive to free trade
> policies. 
> 
> More generally, can I state that something - in this case, reducing tariffs
> and barriers - is always a positive thing? Hopefully by now I have
> established myself as the type of person who shies away from unqualified
> statements devoid of qualication such as that. I'm not even sure if they are
> usually or sometimes a good thing. The better questions are, "for whom," and
> "to what degree?"  It would seem folly not to note that the comparative
> regime - that of the protectionist state - need not be a utopia, either.
> Once more, many are going to suffer under either regime. The appropriate
> question might be: given the imperfect state of the world and the problems
> of either "ideal"-type regime, which is least iniquitable? For one thing, at
> least, it seems that under the liberalizing state plugged into the
> free-trade system, though, that middle-classes arise, and some improvements
> seem to occur (here my reference point is, of course, principally Asia).
> 
> The more interesting question is that, heretofore, we have seemed to
> consider the WTO in terms of North-South conflict or interaction, of that
> between the rich and the poor. The more accurate depiction might be as an
> outgrowth in the East-West Conflict that lasted from 1945-1990. As the
> current UN run-arounds illustrate, and as the article whose cite follows
> predicted, the Conflict's end also means an end to the alliance that
> endured. (http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/54/Walt.html). If the WTO
> is an outgrowth of that alliance, then perhaps the WTO's time has come as
> well? Of course, the opposite could transpire, too: the WTO could serve as
> another UN, a forum in which competing parties would adjudicate and settle
> disputes. 
> 
> Given that we seem to have referenced Marx a fair deal, it bears making a
> side-note that this would represent an inversion of Marx: rather than
> politics being an addendum or false shield (false consciousness or Gramscian
> hegemony?) for economics, here economics serves merely as an adjunct to
> politics. And in this context it may be useful to bring in the concept of
> politics, heretofore lacking for the most part in our discussion, in another
> context: free trade helps create more liberal states. How many military
> autocracies or oligarchies eventually transitioned to some form of
> democracy, fragile as they may be, when exposed to free trade?
> 
> "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" This is a great question. First, one must specify that the
> miasma is not some excessive, extreme case, such as the Nazis or the Khmer
> Rouge. Clearly, the WTO does not qualify as such. From there, it seems, once
> more Bismarck's quote about paddling on the river of time comes into play.
> Positioning onceself at the point in the water where one's paddle will gain
> the most leverage, and one can gain the most headway, in whichever direction
> one views as most desirable, given some appreciation (rough-hewn as it may
> be) of the various parties and their interests, seems to be the best one can
> do in an imperfect world.
> 
> Thank you for the links to the HR materials. I will send those off in the
> next day or so.
> 
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hengdorn Mæðford Sumatra-Bang [mailto:hengy@gatt.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:56 PM
> To: Wolf, Jeffrey
> Subject: RE: form
> 
> 
> 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