From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 09:39:45 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. "
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)
"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.
"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)
>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.
" 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.
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:02 MST