Privatisation appears superficially to create social and economic freedom through competitive choice. However, practical experience shows that without public control the focus on short-term gains undermines the long-term efficiencies of the system. The recent problems in the commercial financial system clearly demonstrate that long-term sustainability is impossible without some "balancing" mechanism (theoretically, the "free-market itself-although the evolution of giant global corporations undermines completely the possibility of markets operating as a self-correcting mechanism -due to the control such giants can excercize over both their customers and their suppliers).

Open systems are weak in internal connectivity -and so the feedback created through "action and reaction" is reletively weak. If one tries turning up the heating in a room with open windows then the temperature will probably hardly rise, despite the large amounts of warmth (and energy) being pumped into the room. However, if one closes all the windows then even a small amount of heat (such as the body temperature of the occupants) will cause the temperature in the room to rise.

In an area with a low level of population, "slash ans burn"  farming techniques will probably allow land areas to recover when the temporary settlement is abandoned.However, in an area with high population densities -it is likely that the land will have insuficient time to recover before being resettled. The "low-density" populated area thus operates as an "open" system with little noticable effects as a result of the human intervention -while the high-density population area acts as a closed system where the effectsd of intervention create a noticable "feedback" which will require some form of remedial action if the system is to remain sustainable.

In an economy based on a localised system of capitalised (mass) production of material goods -the finished goods must (due to production costs) logically always be more expensive than the materials from which they are made. So the producer of expensive finished products always has the financial advantage over the supplier of cheap raw materials. Exploiting ownership of the finished physical goods can be a profitable source of income -but ownership of the the factory can be even better -while ownership of the capital that finances the production can be even more profitable (provided the company being bankrolled does not collapse).

However, in an economy based on the global outsourcing of the production process, the danger of unintended "technology transfer" is always present. The design of the product and its production process needs to be revealed to the producer -but this also opens up the possibility of the finished product being sold by the manufacturer -to the detriment of those who initiated the process. Without the protected "ownership" of the design -it is difficult to claim "ownership"  of the finished product when produced by a third party who is outside the system of direct ownership. Under such a system, the economic value of the ownership of the product becomes subsidary to the economic value of the "ownership" of the design (as well as the investing capital). Outsourcing therefore forces a dematerialisation of ownership -away from the product and towards the capital and knowlege required to produce and market the product. It as if the "design" and not the physical production process has the ability to "reproduce" the finished product. The introduction of the computer into the production process only reinforces the process-because control of the production is then "outsourced" to a machine (which can be located anywhere when connected to a telphone line). This "digital" outsourcing is cearly more powerful when not only the design but also the finished product can be transmitted electronically. At this point -it should be clear that of the design has a higher economic value than the product itself -then the owner of the physical production process becomes analogue to the owner or producer of raw materials (under a system of localosed production). In other words, when the maximum value of the product is embedded in the design and not the finished object -then the manufacturer becomes simply the producer of raw materials for the marketing process. Under these conditions -all the owner of the manufacturing process remains just as subservient to the owners of the capital and the design as the owner of the raw materials and components was to the owner of the finished goods within the traditional industrialised production process.

The shift away from manufacturing and towards outsourcing implies a logical shift from a practical productive mode of operation to a more theoretical and supervisory one. This jump to a higher (meta) level of abstraction is part of a common pattern that is absolutely fundamental to western thought and practice.

Traditionally, universities were concerned with "educating" a small elite to deal with general abstractions so that they could operate creatively in innovatory situations which were "outside" normal conditions. Situations where the "operating conditions" were still unknown. It was their job to formulate the procedures required-and not simply to operate them.

This capability for abstraction has many practical advantages -but also its disadvantages. It offers a path to understanding -but can be abused:

• The Higher the "abstraction" the more removed it becomes from its original context

Do those with the most power to make changes within the system also suffer the consequences of those changes as much as those with less power to make such changes?

It is one thing to win the War -but can one also win the Peace?