From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 15:41:17 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.
The IMF, WTO and other organizations work hand in hand to
purportedly bring the benefits of technology and greater wealth
to developing countries. There is no clear division. The
policies for fully opening trade often work against these
country's interest because of lack of understanding of local
conditions and outside companies buying up and profiteering
local resources.
> 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
That is very much for the good and I certainly didn't intend to
imply otherwise. What I was getting at is that we need to be a
little careful when we speak of globalization as an unlimited
good. Some of the practices categorized as globalization are
not good and can be very detrimental to increasing the
well-being of developing countries. All people who speak
against globalization are not simply luddites.
> 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)
>
As currently practiced, I oppose some of it. There is often not
much way a developing country can have its resources owned and
controlled by foreign interests and profit from the experience.
IMF practices are tied quite strongly to WTO practices and
policies. Globalization that truly increases the wealth and
well-being of developing countries I support whole-heartedly.
Globalizing the economy of nations while leaving ownership of
the nations resources in the hands of its citizens I would
generally support more.
I am not totally enamored of globalization of laws and law
enforcement as some have proposed.
> "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.
>
Because the first multinational now owns the water and the
distribution system exclusively. There is no competition in
such situations.
> "We need to
> go beyond the hype and look at cases."
>
> Im all for empirical edification.
>
>
>>You wouldnt want people to
>>freely choose to trade with the rest of the world?
>>
>
> "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"."
>
> What alternative would you propose (not knowing enough about the ongoings of
> the IMF to speak intelligently about your comments)
>
Change the rules so that ownership of the resources does not
leave the country until at least the country has stabilized at
an improved level.
>
>>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."
>
> Some, but all? more people are still living longer than ever before, and
> even the poorest of the poor are getting 30% more calories per day then they
> were in the 1960's, and a smaller portion of the population is starving the
> ever before. Sounds like some progress is being made, perhaps some of the
> IMF's actions are slowing that progress, but I do believe that
> globalization, overall, is a beneficial thing, though Id certainly be
> interested in hearing evidence to the contrary.
>
I didn't say conditions overall weren't improving. What I am
saying is that the imbalance is increasing in many cases rather
than decreasing. And not just in the poorest nations.
Countries like Argentina were once fairly wealthy. Now they
totter from catastrophe to catastrophe.
> " Don't believe
> globalization is a general panacea. You have to look at the
> specifics."
>
> While there most certainly must be specific instances where people, groups
> of people, or nations are worse off this year than last, this decade then
> last, and this generation than last. The overall trend, globally, is for
> better and longer lives for everyone. So perhaps globalization as enacted
> by the IMF is lacking, but globalization in principle is not. I feel it is
> pretty reasonable to assume that if all countries were non-despotic and / or
> democratic and had open economic boarders that whole world would vastly
> benefit.
>
I do not believe that the overall trend justifies the many
deficiencies of what is currently included under globalization.
Nor do I believe that many pockets of people have improved very
significantly at all. Check out much of Africa for instance.
Freedom is certainly a great improvement. Open trade is usually
a great improvement as long as it is balanced so all/most of the
wealth doesn't flow out and internal ownership and participation
is maintained. Opening a developing country to the world
economy without some care results in delivering the lamb to the
wolves.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:02 MST