Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 107







Post#2651 at 06-10-2002 03:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-10-2002, 03:49 PM #2651
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

What good does it do us if, when the people ask for bread, we give them nuts and bolts?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2652 at 06-10-2002 03:56 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-10-2002, 03:56 PM #2652
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

And is the bread you offer, real bread, or every word ......how does that go?

So Eric, why do you think that the next high will not be the American Empire?







Post#2653 at 06-10-2002 03:57 PM by Stonewall Patton [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 3,857]
---
06-10-2002, 03:57 PM #2653
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
3,857

On 2002-06-10 13:49, Eric A Meece wrote:

What good does it do us if, when the people ask for bread, we give them nuts and bolts?
Huh? Dude, is this bong-inspired? At least you're not talking about guns and butter though!









Post#2654 at 06-10-2002 04:10 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-10-2002, 04:10 PM #2654
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

And is the bread you offer, real bread, or every word ......how does that go?
A man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

So Eric, why do you think that the next high will not be the American Empire?
Simple answer: because the last high was. The next high will not be like the last one. Things change.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2655 at 06-11-2002 08:01 AM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2002, 08:01 AM #2655
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

No Eric, the last high was America's role as a superpower. There was another superpower at the time. There is not one now.

The trajectory of America as a world power has been to be bigger and stronger. And we have used our defeated adversaries as allies. NATO now includes Russia. I think "Empire" might be too small a word to describe the next high. I don't see anything to change that trajectory.







Post#2656 at 06-11-2002 09:23 AM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
06-11-2002, 09:23 AM #2656
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

America's rise to prominence starting in the late 1900's might compare historically to Europe's rise to prominence starting in the late 1400's and lasting almost 500 years.

Or it might not. My point is, just because people called the 20th century "America's Century" doesn't mean that America neccessarily will fall in relative power in the 21st. Some historical trends last for multiple centuries.

Current military technology requires a serious contender to maintain a viable military even in times of peace, because it takes so long to develop weapons systems now that a nation cannot wait to begin developing weapons after a war breaks out (as we did in WWII).

Very few world powers seem willing to invest the required capital during times of peace to ensure preparedness for war. Europe isn't, for example. In fact, America seems to stand alone in this willingness and capacity.

People complain about America becoming an Empire, but to me, it doesn't look like a forced thing, but a natural phenomenon. Again, no one blames a tree for growing tall, or gets angry because it casts a wide shadow.

Perhaps, at this stage in human history, a long era of Pax Americana could be required to set the stage for human development in an era of weapons of mass destruction.

Perhaps not.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-06-11 07:30 ]</font>







Post#2657 at 06-11-2002 10:19 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
06-11-2002, 10:19 AM #2657
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

The U.S. has the largest GDP in the world and has hegemony as a result. Europe is a collection of nations and cannot be compared to a single unified nation in terms of potential power.

It is only a matter of time before China achieves a larger GDP than the U.S. Just as the much larger US displaced Britain, so will China displace the U.S. In the same way that observers in the 1840's projected the US-Russian bipolar world of the 20th century; observers in the late 20th century could and did project eventual Chinese dominance.

I believe the US will maintain hegemony until the end of this cycle around 2060, after which it will pass to someone else, likely China. By then I expect English will have been adopted as world's semi-official langauge, though.

Life for ordinary Americans will probably be much better after the time of hegemony than it is now and so few Americans will miss the Empire.







Post#2658 at 06-11-2002 10:47 AM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
06-11-2002, 10:47 AM #2658
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-06-11 08:19, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
It is only a matter of time before China achieves a larger GDP than the U.S.
What you say is not unlikely. However, it may take a lot longer than you suggest.

The US economy is over ten times larger than that of China now, andd the US economy is growing, whereas many experts now believe that China's economy is currently shrinking. Even if these experts are wrong, it is clear that China's economy is not growing as fast as they led us to believe in years past. The inefficiencies of central economic planning are holding them back.

For China to take the lead, they must grow faster for decades, not just a few years and then sputter out, as they appear to be doing.

Nevertheless, China has the potential, yes. The key word is "eventually". The time scale is so long that predictions are difficult.

Why, in these sort of discussions, is India always left out? India will have a larger population than China soon, and their economy is growing.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-06-11 08:56 ]</font>







Post#2659 at 06-11-2002 10:54 AM by eric cumis [at joined Feb 2002 #posts 441]
---
06-11-2002, 10:54 AM #2659
Join Date
Feb 2002
Posts
441

On 2002-06-11 08:19, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
The U.S. has the largest GDP in the world and has hegemony as a result. Europe is a collection of nations and cannot be compared to a single unified nation in terms of potential power.
Perhaps, but my point was that Europe dominated the world for 500 years, not 100. North America is comparable to Europe now in terms of power. It is not impossible that North America could dominate for 500 years as Europe did in the past. And if North America dominates, that means the U.S. does.

(The GNP of the entire EU is roughly the same as the U.S. alone.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-06-11 08:58 ]</font>







Post#2660 at 06-11-2002 11:13 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
06-11-2002, 11:13 AM #2660
Guest

I guess in the Unraveling of the 1840's people projected a bipolar world of the 20th century with the US and Russia as dominant.

If America's role in the Unraveling of the 1990's is similar to Britain's role in the Unraveling of the 1840's, then it is likely that America will retain some sort of dominance until the next High which will be comparable to the period of the 1870's. The next Awakening will likely see the emergence of China and India as displacing powers just as the Awakening of the 1890's saw America, Germany, and Russia emerge to displace the power of Britain. China will probably surpass America's GDP in the 2030's or 2040's. Present projections show by 2010 but that's too early. India will probably surpass by 2060 or so. We might see a bipolar world emerge in the late 21st/early 22nd century Crisis with India and China as the top dominant powers. America will most likely be a second rate power by than like France or England now. Of course, I don't think that power relationships between India and China will mirror twentieth century Cold War trends necesarilly.

There is a decent chance that just as regional stability organizations such as NATO, EU, APEC, or OAU emerged in this cycle some comparable mechanism of global stability may emerge in the next saeculum. This cycle is really about the clash of regional cultures (Communist Eastern Europe vs. Capitalist Western Europe, West vs. Asia, Europe vs, North America, North vs. South, Islamism vs. West)and whichever groups of cultures can team up together will most likely win. If Islam allies itself with the powers of the Far East, especially China, this will be a nightmare for Western strategic planners. If OTOH the West is allied with the Orthodox East and Far East against Islam they may be the victors.







Post#2661 at 06-11-2002 11:28 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
06-11-2002, 11:28 AM #2661
Guest

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/49997.htm

Haravard loves Jihad according to Daniel Pipes

Sign of 3T ?







Post#2662 at 06-11-2002 01:08 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-11-2002, 01:08 PM #2662
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

This 500-year cycle of civilization, following the previous one of European dominance (circa 1400-1900), is about globalization of power, not American power. The trend was set by President Wilson at the very start of the cycle.

This last saeculum was about American power. Although the USA had a military rival at the start of it, the USA was by far the most dominant economy in the 1950s, and is no longer.

American power will wane in the next saeculum, because Americans will tire of supporting American hegemony. Many Americans do not support projection of our power around the world. Possible civil war and break up of the union will also mean the end of our hegemony.

Our reactionary economic and social policies will also lead to our decline. If our economy declines due to our short-sighted policies and approaches and environmental catastrophes we refuse to avert, we won't be able to support a large military. There are no guns without butter; at least as long as we remain mostly a democracy.

Other nations will start to ally against us because we are abusing our power. Too much power always leads to abuse. Bush now wants to strike first with nuclear weapons, and to impose our will on countries like Iraq. That policy will unite the world against us. If this kind of abuse doesn't happen now, I can't imagine that America could remain the world's only superpower for 500 years without it happening at some point. Power corrupts.

The answer will be to turn over power to global agencies, because they will have the means to keep national powers in bounds, and to solve global problems like the environment that can't be solved by states asserting their own power.

Remember, our era represents the development of a global civilization, and global institutions will increasingly be seen to make sense in a global civilization. Nation states will be seen more and more as the irrelevant anachronisms that they are.

China will not become the world's imperial superpower. It has no ambition to become such, and has never been interested in conquest or domination except of territories it considers its own. It and most other Far East nations do not have the psychology of conquest and expansion that we have. We are only projecting our limited, near-sighted view of reality onto them. Just because WE think there always has to be a top dog, and that it must be us if possible, does not mean other cultures and nations think that way. India certainly doesn't.

Besides, China has a much smaller economy than ours, and the gap will remain for centuries, not decades. I'm not sure central planning is the problem; they have adopted essentially a capitalist economy. But it remains mostly rural and will remain so for some time to come.

I could be wrong, and America will remain the world's superpower for 500 years. However, I doubt it, as the possibilities of building weapons exists around the world amongst many nations, whereas 500 years ago Europe had a monopoly on military and economic power and no other culture was remotely close until 1900. Only its own offspring was able eventually to challenge that power.

Now other powers exist around the globe, but the challenge is mainly economic. America is willing to shoulder the burden right now of superpower status, and other nations aren't. I doubt Americans will want to maintain that willingness when other nations do not. They will tire of the burden. It is not historically our role; it is a temporary condition created by the last Crisis.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#2663 at 06-11-2002 01:39 PM by monoghan [at Ohio joined Jun 2002 #posts 1,189]
---
06-11-2002, 01:39 PM #2663
Join Date
Jun 2002
Location
Ohio
Posts
1,189

China surpassing the US? China must first overcome the tendency of China to disintegrate into warlord factions. If the Chinese leadership believes that it must maintain central control, then it will fall.
If the basis of Chinese leadership is leadership by Chinese, then the best it can hope for is some level of independence from the global economy.

Recently, China has been taking the narcotic of export trade. The MFN status will only make that stronger. To the extent that Chinese political aims are unacceptable to the West, cutting off trade with China will cause a real internal crisis for China. And we can make anything China makes in the other Asian countries in 6 months for a 20% premium. So Walmart stock suffers, big deal.

The American empire will be world trade enforced by the American security forces. I don't see any unwillingness of the public to shirk away from that burden, even in peacetime, much less the war we are in.

The current war with radical Islam is to determine if Islam can be made safe for democracies to exist. If not, then it will be cordoned off from the rest of civilization. Other sources of oil will be available in the short term and non-oil energy in the longer. Except for the willingness to be martyrs and the oil, what challenge can the Muslim nations mount?

I don't see any alternative to world hegemony by America. At least not one that I would want to live in. So choose your hegemon---America or Islam?







Post#2664 at 06-11-2002 05:36 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
06-11-2002, 05:36 PM #2664
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-06-11 21:15 ]</font>







Post#2665 at 06-11-2002 07:27 PM by voltronx [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 78]
---
06-11-2002, 07:27 PM #2665
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
78

On 2002-06-07 20:12, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

because we've entered the Fourth Turning, i think. If Chandra had been found before 911, there'd have been a media circus not seen since the OJ debacle.
That's the talk I first saw on this matter a few pages ago, and that's what got me to wondering because once you think of it as a 3T vs. 4T aspect, it confuses me so much. I mean, even weeks after the towers fell we were already having Osama as a 3T celebrity, the coverage was being remarked on as 3T, as John Walker Lindh and the skating "scandal" were portrayed in a really Unravelling manner too, 3T "celebrity" in coverage, etc. Yet, after this, Chandra Levy isn't being treated the same way, almost like a move to less 3T instead of being more 3T. Life in general and things as a whole though have been going in the direction of less and less 4T and more and more 3T as time goes on, starting from September 11 and going day by day, then week by week, and month by month to becoming more "normal", more silly, more hype-ish, more focused on things unrelated to terrorism, more and more studies and statistics being revealed that show something didn't change. Why should news coverage be heading in the opposite direction? ???
"Now we meet in an abandoned studio."

Every time
I see you falling
I get down
On my knees
And pray







Post#2666 at 06-11-2002 10:37 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
06-11-2002, 10:37 PM #2666
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

On 2002-06-11 17:27, voltronx wrote:
On 2002-06-07 20:12, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

because we've entered the Fourth Turning, i think. If Chandra had been found before 911, there'd have been a media circus not seen since the OJ debacle.
That's the talk I first saw on this matter a few pages ago, and that's what got me to wondering because once you think of it as a 3T vs. 4T aspect, it confuses me so much. I mean, even weeks after the towers fell we were already having Osama as a 3T celebrity, the coverage was being remarked on as 3T, as John Walker Lindh and the skating "scandal" were portrayed in a really Unravelling manner too, 3T "celebrity" in coverage, etc. Yet, after this, Chandra Levy isn't being treated the same way, almost like a move to less 3T instead of being more 3T. Life in general and things as a whole though have been going in the direction of less and less 4T and more and more 3T as time goes on, starting from September 11 and going day by day, then week by week, and month by month to becoming more "normal", more silly, more hype-ish, more focused on things unrelated to terrorism, more and more studies and statistics being revealed that show something didn't change. Why should news coverage be heading in the opposite direction? ???
Because, as i've often said here, the mood of a new Turning takes awhile to crystallize even after the catalyst occurs.

Soldiers returning home from the War in 1946 worried deeply that a return to the 1930s was imminent, and for awhile with all the strikes it looked that way-- but beginning in '49 it was obvious to all that we were in a new age-- a First Turning.

The 2T didn't feel especially like an Awakening until 1967-68 even though the elements of the Consciousness Revolutin were quietly taking root almost immediately after the JFK Assassination.

The last Turning change to 3T started according to S&H in 1984, and possibly as early as Reagan's initial election in '80, but it wasn't until Challenger or so that the mood was solidly Unravelling.

So while it is possible that we're still 3T it is extremely possible that we are in 4T now, in the aftermath of 911. All the elements that could lead to an obvious Crisis mode are firmly in place-- more terrorist attacks in the planning stages, worsening environmental conditions, a new more upbeat direction in popular music, India and Pakistan on the brink of nuclear war, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process all but dead. Just because much of the superficial culture-- TV's Survivor for example-- still feels 3T only means that the Regeneracy hasn't yet been reached.

The treatment of Chandra Levy by the media is extremely 4T-like. It is an indication of what i believe is to come. Should more terrorist attacks occur, there were be millions of more people like Dr. and Mrs. Levy, left wondering what has become of their missing loved ones. There will be no media circus for them, as there was none for Chandra, nor for the victims of 911 being found this week in buildings surrounding what was once the Trade Center.







Post#2667 at 06-11-2002 11:28 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
06-11-2002, 11:28 PM #2667
Guest

This smells like 3T, but I still agree that we have turned and are now in the start of the 4T.

http://idolonfox.msn.com/home.htm

The real indicator will be when 'reality' TV and this kind of crap on the link starts to flop in the ratings.







Post#2668 at 06-12-2002 08:46 AM by jds1958xg [at joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,002]
---
06-12-2002, 08:46 AM #2668
Join Date
Jan 2002
Posts
1,002

Or else, if one party or the other sweeps the mid-term elections this year, then wins the White House (and both houses of Congress again) by a landslide in 2004, that will be a sure sign that we entered 4T last year. If neither happens, and especially if a Silent runs and narrowly wins (I heard Colin Powell's name mentioned at work in that regard), and Congressional majorities remain razor-thin, then it's still very much 3T, though well-primed for 4T to begin soon after.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-06-12 06:48 ]</font>







Post#2669 at 06-12-2002 10:41 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
06-12-2002, 10:41 PM #2669
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

On 2002-06-11 21:28, Earthshine wrote:
This smells like 3T, but I still agree that we have turned and are now in the start of the 4T.

http://idolonfox.msn.com/home.htm

The real indicator will be when 'reality' TV and this kind of crap on the link starts to flop in the ratings.
Such may have already begun. A few months back there were two new "reality"-style game shows....The Chamber, and The Chair (?). Both got amazing ratings which leveled off and...then both were suddenly cancelled. The reason: a deluge of complaints from the general public who thought that the TORTURE of human beings - even WILLING "victims" -- on television was in extremely poor taste.

Meanwhile, the once-ubiquitous "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" was reduced from four nights a week, to two, then one...and finally none. Even the wickedly clever "Weakest Link" has had to resort to pitting celebrities against each other (for their favorite charity, of course), in order to bolster its ratings.

3T or 4T?







Post#2670 at 06-13-2002 12:24 AM by Seminomad [at LA joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,379]
---
06-13-2002, 12:24 AM #2670
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
LA
Posts
2,379

On 2002-06-12 20:41, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
On 2002-06-11 21:28, Earthshine wrote:
This smells like 3T, but I still agree that we have turned and are now in the start of the 4T.

http://idolonfox.msn.com/home.htm

The real indicator will be when 'reality' TV and this kind of crap on the link starts to flop in the ratings.
Such may have already begun. A few months back there were two new "reality"-style game shows....The Chamber, and The Chair (?). Both got amazing ratings which leveled off and...then both were suddenly cancelled. The reason: a deluge of complaints from the general public who thought that the TORTURE of human beings - even WILLING "victims" -- on television was in extremely poor taste.

Meanwhile, the once-ubiquitous "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" was reduced from four nights a week, to two, then one...and finally none. Even the wickedly clever "Weakest Link" has had to resort to pitting celebrities against each other (for their favorite charity, of course), in order to bolster its ratings.

3T or 4T?
That isn't saying much... Millionaire lasted a solid 4 years (even if you're saying that it's totally gone now); longer than many other game shows that started in the mid to late 90s (remember Debt?) and Millionaire itself had celebrity episodes (which i considered to be hilariously ironic)







Post#2671 at 06-13-2002 12:32 AM by voltronx [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 78]
---
06-13-2002, 12:32 AM #2671
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
78

On 2002-06-08 05:12, firemind wrote:

The bigger story is that the discovery of Miss Levy's body where it was is strong evidence that the media's previous take on the entire affair was false: Condit is innocent (of murder, not of having an affair).

The reason is that Miss Levy's death now clearly fits a pattern followed by a known serial killer operating at the time of her disappearance. This serial killer attacked young women jogging in parks near where her body was found.
Interesting Firemind......you believe the original reason for the media's attraction was focused strictly on Gary Condit and his affair, and none of the 3T appeal was in the Chandra side of the equation? Once they took it away, the flies disappeared?

"Now we meet in an abandoned studio."

Every time
I see you falling
I get down
On my knees
And pray







Post#2672 at 06-13-2002 12:36 AM by Seminomad [at LA joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,379]
---
06-13-2002, 12:36 AM #2672
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
LA
Posts
2,379

On 2002-06-12 22:32, voltronx wrote:
On 2002-06-08 05:12, firemind wrote:

The bigger story is that the discovery of Miss Levy's body where it was is strong evidence that the media's previous take on the entire affair was false: Condit is innocent (of murder, not of having an affair).

The reason is that Miss Levy's death now clearly fits a pattern followed by a known serial killer operating at the time of her disappearance. This serial killer attacked young women jogging in parks near where her body was found.
Interesting Firemind......you believe the original reason for the media's attraction was focused strictly on Gary Condit and his affair, and none of the 3T appeal was in the Chandra side of the equation? Once they took it away, the flies disappeared?

I can believe that; after all, Rush Limbaugh had his focus on Gary "Con-did it" in august before i left for jarvard







Post#2673 at 06-13-2002 01:05 AM by voltronx [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 78]
---
06-13-2002, 01:05 AM #2673
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
78

HopefulCynic68 wrote:

These are the people who insist that difference between male and female is entirely learned, and that they can be made interchangable by education and 'sensitivity training' in the face of 5000 years of experience that says otherwise.
All right, this has been getting on me for quite a while. We don't have 5,000 years of evidence to know that differences between the sexes aren't created only by society. I thought I even learned about some woman in school who became a psychologist and became famous for discovering that gender-related differences were not inborn in people, and caused only by society. All we have from human history is women living within civilization, and even men who leave out into the wild were raised into civilization first. We never had any scientific experiments to see what men or women would be like if they were isolated and grew up outside of civilization. All we've got 5,000 years ago is ancient history that features women kept and raised very tightly and defeats the purpose of finding out what women would be like if they were left developing their personality to their own. So how can you know that the progressive-minded liberals are wrong on this one?

"Now we meet in an abandoned studio."

Every time
I see you falling
I get down
On my knees
And pray







Post#2674 at 06-15-2002 06:15 PM by Rain Man [at Bendigo, Australia joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,303]
---
06-15-2002, 06:15 PM #2674
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Bendigo, Australia
Posts
1,303

Here is a interesting sign, consumer confidence is still pretty low and has declined in the United States recently.


Consumer confidence plummets
By ANNA FENECH
16Jun02

American consumer confidence has plunged to its lowest level since the terrorist attacks, sending stocks on Wall St down.

The Dow Jones fell 28.59 points, or 0.3 per cent, to 9474.21, and fell 1.2 per cent over the week, it's fourth negative finishing week in succession.
The broadest market indicator, the Standard & Poor's 500, fell 2.29, or 0.2 per cent, to 1007.27, and lost two per cent over the week.

In a rare positive moment, the Nasdaq rose 7.88 points, or 0.5 per cent, to 1504.74 yesterday, but fell two per cent over the week.

Profit warnings from telecommunications companies such as Lucent and Sprint dragged the market down, while a new survey showed consumer confidence had fallen to its lowest level since the terrorist attacks of last year.

Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of US gross domestic product (GDP), so it is closely watched due to potential impact on company profits.

Analysts say the dramatic falls in the US sharemarket over the past month are eroding consumers' investment savings and their confidence. In the past month, the blue-chip Dow has lost nearly nine per cent, the Nasdaq is down 14 per cent, and the S&P 500 has lost nearly 10 per cent of its value.

Meanwhile, on the local market on Friday, the All Ordinaries closed 18.3 points down to 3246.4, driven by the US market.

News Corporation (whose subsidiary, News Ltd, publishes The Sunday Telegraph), fell 27c to $11.28, with analysts blaming the US economy from which the company derives two-thirds of its earnings. QBE Insurance dropped 12c to $6.66 and lost five per cent over the week on concerns about further losses from terrorist attacks.

Gold stocks did well after a bomb blast outside the UK Consulate in Pakistan. Sons of Gwalia gained 13c to $6.14, while Lihir Gold gained 2c to $1.43.

This week, financial markets will be focused on the release of June consumer sentiment figures. These will show how the two interest rate rises totalling half a per cent are affecting Australian consumers.







Post#2675 at 06-16-2002 07:54 AM by Starkk [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 61]
---
06-16-2002, 07:54 AM #2675
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
61

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ium_standoff_4

COLUMBIA, South Carolina - Gov. Jim Hodges ordered state troopers and other authorities to South Carolina's borders Friday to stop federal shipments of plutonium that could begin arriving from Colorado as early as this weekend.


"I order that the transportation of plutonium on South Carolina roads and highways is prohibited," Hodges said. "I order that any persons transporting plutonium shall not enter the state of South Carolina."

Hodges, who has vehemently opposed the shipments, read a statement declaring a state of emergency but refused to answer any questions about specific plans for roadblocks or other barricades at South Carolina's Savannah River Site, a nuclear weapons complex near Aiken.

On Thursday, a federal judge refused to block the shipments of weapons-grade plutonium. Hodges appealed the ruling and asked for a delay until the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) could hear the case.

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move the material from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

But Hodges has said he fears the government will end up leaving the plutonium permanently in South Carolina, making the state a tempting target for terrorists.

"The Department of Energy ( news - web sites) has broken promises, offered no assurances and left few options. Once plutonium arrives, it will never leave," Hodges said. "They want South Carolina to quietly become the nation's plutonium dumping ground."

The shipments legally could begin as early as this weekend, but U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. said Energy Department officials told him they would not start until after June 22.

A message left for an Energy Department spokesman was not immediately returned Friday afternoon.

Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites), in South Carolina on Friday for a fund-raiser, said the fuel-conversion program is important to ensure that plutonium "never falls into the wrong hands."

"This administration is totally committed to helping pass legislation to guarantee that South Carolina does not become a permanent storage site for plutonium," Cheney said.

Hodges, a Democrat who is up for re-election in the fall, has threatened for weeks to use troopers to block roads into the Savannah River Site and has vowed to lie in the road if necessary to stop the trucks.

Sid Gaulden, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Public Safety, said traffic would still flow along the state's roads. He acknowledged the department does not have enough resources to close every entry point to the state.

About 6 1/2 tons of plutonium are to be shipped from Colorado.

Federal officials have said the nuclear material would be under constant guard, and its path and time of arrival would be kept secret. They also say security at the Savannah River site is sound.

-----------------------------------------