From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 05:04:41 MDT
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
> I can see anarcho-capitalist leaning, but anti globalization? Being against
> globalization doesnt seem to jive to well with a general hope that the
> standard of living will increase globally.
That is what they would like you to believe. The results are
somewhat different. The IMF itself put out a study some years
ago showing that countries it was active in actually had much
more economic failure and breakdown than before they were
involved. The general practices always put in place like
privitizing everyting, opening everything to foreign invest and
ownership, pegging the currency to the dollar sound like good
things generally. However, in case after case it has resulted
in all assets being owned by foreigners and the economy going
<TILT>. In some countries even water is owned by multinationals
who, looking for a profit, charge people several times what they
used to pay for such basics. The countries wealth flows out
very quickly but not a lot of wealth flows back in. We need to
go beyond the hype and look at cases.
> You wouldnt want people to
> freely choose to trade with the rest of the world?
Would you want France, Spain, Britain to have bought up most US
resources in the early 1800s? There is nothing about "freely
choosing" or choosing the amount and kind of trade when IMF
loans are pegged to wide-open markets with almost no
restrictions in place that might avoid economic rape. This
isn't free trade. It is international pillage disguised as
"free trade".
>Would you prefer to
> perpetuate the economic imbalances between 1st and 3rd world nations at the
> expense of the 3rd world nation laborers?
>
The economic imbalance is getting worse rather than better with
some of the current "globalization" practices. Don't believe
globalization is a general panacea. You have to look at the
specifics.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:00 MST