From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 10:21:55 MDT
"Dickey, Michael F" wrote:
>
> 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. "
>
> I am not reffering to the IMF specifically, more the process of expanding
> trade, which tends to increase wealth and decrease tribalistic hatreds and
> the violence that results from that. I am not familiar enough with the
> particulars of the IMF and maybe some of their actions have not paid off
> well. What about instances where countries the IMF was not involved, where
> countries independantly moved from economic isolation to democracy and
> joining the global economy? Maybe the problem with the IMF is it tries to
> centralize and control everything instead of letting the events happen of
> their own accord. Maybe you oppose the IMF's practicies, but do you oppose
> the principle of globalizing economies? (just curious)
The IMF is a tool of euro-socialism. It certainly isn't pro-free
markets.
>
> "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."
>
> If that is the case, then why doesnt another multinational come in and
> charge people less for the water? That is the essence of competition, and
> if it isnt occuring the most common reason throughoust history is that the
> resource was a government owned monopoly or the government is corrupt and
> allows only one company to control the resource.
Nor does this reflect whether the new multinational water is better or
not. It generally is, since the only reason the multis get involved is
when the investment needed is more than the local government is capable
of paying for, and the current water quality is deemed a health hazard
from either parasites or pollutants or both. Just because the water is
cheaper under the old system doesn't mean its better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:02 MST