Re: What-if scenarios

[6155GUASTELL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Thanks to all for the prompt responses. It now appears that tri-polar
economic organization is prominent thought on the money side.

On the military side, I really do agree with Jim that our involvements
has been based on self-serving interests. Our governement has made
that clear many times for the benefit of nations suggesting that we
intervene in various places. Multiple interlaced linkages are clearly
important to prevent the type of tri-polarization that precipitated
WWII.

We still have unresolved the matter of cost sharing since US interests
are quickly becoming the interests of others. The IMF scenario, should
it be played out, will make the mutuality of interests all the more
important. At present the economic drain falls more on the US than on
the other economic powers; there appeared to be much tooth-pulling
(political dentistry?) to induce the others to kick in for the Gulf
War, as an example.

There is also the issue of monetary flow and general betterment of
the underdeveloped nations of the Southern Hemisphere. It would
appear that IMF had this matter in mind. (I've yet to read Paper #96,
but I'll get on it.) For the time being, have there been considerations
of allocation of military cost? Implications for the US economy if
the IMF or Woods scenarios come to pass?

--Stephen Guastello