it's a kind of a complex point.

i think she's missing it. the idea is that all that hegemony stuff is more effective if people are willing participants. i know i'm putting some words in there, but it's really the whole point; this sort of "peace research" is not about reversing the hegemony, it's about institutionalizing it.

so, are the actors using ideas about history and religion and other things to create chaos in the region? yes. to an extent. i think the american military has demonstrated it's ignorance about things a few times. for the most part, though, i think these things are intentional or at least made intentional when they're pointed out; the bush administration may not have foreseen the sectarian fallout, but the military presence in the region has sure done everything it can to use it as a divide and conquer technique. so, it seems naive to suggest that they don't know any better when they're clearly going out of their way to cause all kinds of mayhem.

but i think that's missing the actual point that he's making - what they don't realize is how much more successfully integrated these regions would be if less violent tactics were used to subdue them. and, to a major extent i think he's basically right. there has to be significant wealth redistribution in this region.

regardless of the back door politics that may or may not have gone into enacting and dismantling glass-steagall, the reason it was effective has less to do with trying to reduce speculation and more to do with putting rules on what can be used to speculate with. glass-steagall doesn't abolish the kind of wild financial behaviour that leads to these brutal crashes, it just protects certain types of savings from being gambled on.

the reason this is important is that the bailout is then only possibly used the way it's meant to be. bailouts were a type of socialism when they were brought in. if a bank is going to go under, the state steps in as a "lender of last resort" and keeps the bank afloat. but, why would the state do that? it shouldn't be to protect investors. not even the most ridiculous state capitalist would argue this is justified. it's to protect citizens that have their savings in the bank. this is the entire ethical and legal basis of bailout legislation, and it's not functional when the banking isn't separate.

now, if you separate the two types of banking, you can just go ahead and let the gamblers ruin themselves. the size of the institution is no longer relevant; the state has no obligation or mandate to protect investors.

this is very poorly understood by the general public - both activists and non-activists. glass-steagal is not a way to fix the banking system, but it is a way to stop bankers from gambling your savings off. i don't feel the interview helped to clarify the point.

i think a big part of the confusion is that people can't contemplate the idea that if you have money in a bank, and the bank goes under, that money no longer exists. banks are just viewed as these magical machines that produce money from the ether, relative to the totals we have in them. our totals are absolute. they cannot be modified.

but this is total ignorance.

i think the necessary educational component here needs to be in what actually happens to your money when you put it in a bank and why this is not a safe practice if bailout legislation is successfully reversed. that naturally leads into an explanation of why the continuing existence of bailout legislation is so hugely important to working people, and an explanation of the things that the banks are doing to abuse that social safety net.