To a large extend, this crisis was invented by international financial institutions, abetted by the "Liberal" government in Canada and the "Democratic" administration in the U.S.

These institutions were able to use their power as lenders to say to sovereign governments "You must abandon the program you were elected on and carry on the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that the voters who elected you voted AGAINST".

This, it seems to me, begs the obvious question:

Can we leave the financial sector in private hands, with no democratic control, with no agenda other than short-term rate of return for itself, and still have any hope of a progressive future?

Or is it now a political and social imperative that we place this sector under democratic control?

Hugo Chavez has successfully defied the demands for austerity, but was only able to do so because of his own oil reserves. This created the space for more social investment that now exists in Latin American countries. But if Chavez is overthrown, private finance will move in to take that space away.

How do we achieve democratic control of the international financial apparatus, and thus end the forcible imposition of austerity on countries who do not wish to have it?

And what chance is there of any progressive future if we don't achieve this or if we don't attempt it?

[ 09 November 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 09 November 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

a huge incentive for a business to become part of the American police state.

in 1980, my first job out of college, working in R&D at a wireless (radio) manufacturer, the Vice President of Manufacturing was summarily fired for counting 3 weeks of un-shipped production as shipped.