It did it in a very mild format.

William James wrote In reality, James asserts, the theory is a great deal more subtle.

Cuba underlined that the globalisation process had contributed to dismembering culture and development, and stressed that the privatisation of cultural productions had created instruments of manipulation.

This means that governments are judged not by their ability to outmaneuver legislatures, but by the quality of their policies.

This shrewdness not only keeps opponents off balance it also undercuts the relevance of US security assurances to allies and the value of building countervailing strategic partnerships in Asia.

In order to expand its reach, Tiwanaku exercised great political astuteness, creating colonies, fostering trade agreements (which made the other cultures rather dependent), and instituting state cults.

Indeed, misrepresentation by governments driven by the belief that political ingenuity can stabilize expectations is actually at the root of many financial crises.

If you think about the last three decades, the consumer has moved from savvy about marketing in the '90s, to gathering all these amazing social and search tools in this decade, but the one thing that has been holding them back is the ability to discriminate.

When I recall these events after 40 years, I see not only revolt, but also the great illusion that it might be possible to outfox the Kremlin and painlessly move society from communism to democracy.

This is important, because the traditional argument of last resort against capital controls has been that they could not be made to stick. Financial markets would always outsmart the policymakers.