Well, I appreciate the note of encouragement. I need much more work on the history of trade and interaction of duties/taxation to claim anything beyond peanut gallery noise making.
I think the revelation of a climate where deceit, chicanery and self-dealing fraud are the expected norm were expected by most if not all the '00 posters on CFZ. In fact, I myself lamented what I termed 'the financial rape of the masses' after having consumed a shot or two of Vodka.
We could argue that in any large population, there are going to be elements less savory. I think shunning the appropriate response, as we manage to identify these individuals. Yet I'm cautioned that we must allow the opportunity for individual reform and self growth.
On the other hand, if we were living in Burma, we might not even have a chance to discover the playing field is not level.
On your PNAC comments, I thought a bit more about the whitepapers you read, and offer for consideration. I don't know that the mention of a catalyzing event is sufficient to indite (indict). If it were so, would we not be obligated to hang Warren Buffet in the event of a radiological attack?
Afterall, he has offered up for consideration such a possible future event, and would benefit in terms of higher insurance/reinsurance rates should such an event occur.
That PNAC considered such is par for the course in 'scenario planning', which allows one to respond more quickly in light of environment shifts. So I would not doubt they sought to capitalize on such an event, but I would not subscribe to conspiracy theories placing them responsible. |
