Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 May 2004 03:25:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1481 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
Snip onerous list, but look out, I've gone long again.
> Most of the problems of the third world countries that are doing poorly
> are attributable to lack of the rule of law, and lack of enforceable
> property rights in those countries. Claiming it's the first world's fault
> is, frankly, a bunch of warmed over socialist claptrap.
There is no doubt that rule of law and property rights are problems in some
places. As are local tinpots (which the first world tends to prop up in the
name of trade which abhors chaos). But even in countries where there is a rule
of law, and there are property rights, there is not prosperity of the sort the
first world flaunts. The few countries that do have major issues with rule of
law and property rights make for good mainstream media though. Very affirming
of the established model - 'Look what will happen to you if you don't do what
your authorities say is good for you.'
In the meantime our corporations and governments keep on using 'socialist
claptrap' as a dismissive precursor to doing exactly what's in the own best
interest, recklessly indifferent to the evident consequences for others outside
their constituencies, and externalising whatever costs they possibly can. A bit
like the US administration claiming that Iraq is capable of imminent lauch of
WMDs in order to secure stratgic oil supplies. And in many ways, this is what
they should do. That's what they're for. We each of us have to decide whether
its who we are though. And if we think that we are not people who would do
these things, then surely it is incumbent upon us to say so and do so, to
restrain or constrain our agents.
> The world needs more (good) globalization, not less. Ask the South Koreans if
> they'd like to go back 40 years or so...
I didn't say that globalisation was a something we should avoid. I simply said
we're doing some things very badly wrong.
And the South Koreans did not achieve their success by following the mandates
the first world generally foists upon the third, they did it by defending their
key industries from competition, promoting key exports in ways frowned upon by
the free trade first world, and by strictly contolling foreign investment.
South Korea is a poster boy for ignoring the World Bank and IMF, not
globalisation, and it can only do so with the support of the US. America has a
short list of countries it is prepared to support in this way.
> Now, if you want to talk about the failed policies of the IMF and the
> World Bank and how they contribute to the problems of debtor countries by
> stifling economic growth, or if you want to talk about the hypocrisy of
> first world countries talking about free trade while protecting their local
> agriculture (and thus denying markets to third world ag producers) via high
> subsidy, well then sure.
I thought I was talking about exactly this. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but
I really wanted to try to keep it short.
> But cut the rhetoric.
Without the flavour, I have noticed that most of the audience tends to find all
this stuff too dry to be palatable. And the mainstream media that defends our
current positioning is mercilous and scurrilous in their use of rhetoric. It
seems a bit precious to be complaining about this in contrast to the magnitude
of the issues.
> But spare the "systematically rapes" bit, unless you're willing to dig into
> how that came about, exactly...
Willing? I am dead set enthusiastic. Dig away. Please. Forget about what
sophistry the UN, IMF and World Bank cite as their goals and their intentions
and observe the systematic transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and the abject
failure in so many cases to actually leave countries better off.
Remember that the UN is controlled in every material sense by 5 countries.
Remember that the world's financial arrangements post World War II were
esatblished on the model insisted upon by the US over the completely different
approach and cautions put forward by the financially strapped British.
What point did you think I was missing?
Aristotle IIRC was the dude who said "We are what we repeatedly do". I can't
read summaries of the effects these policies repeatedly have, the demonstrated
consequences for rich and poor, the work of ex Chief Economist at the World Bank
Joseph Stiglitz, without finding the words systematic and rape wholly
appropriate. After your recent adept handling of the meanings and usages of
apologies, perhaps you could explain how the meanings or usages are
inappropriate:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/r/r0043300.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0974700.html
Or better yet, you could explain how the rest of the world should feel ok about
it, like you do.
> most of the IMF and World Bank policies are layable at the feet of the so
> called more 'progressive' administrations of 30 or 40 years ago rather than
> the reactionary ones of late. (Bush's idiotic steel tariff notwithstanding)
Let's agree on this for the moment. What difference does it make? I don't
understand why it is important to you to work out which administration to blame.
Do you feel better that the wealth of your lifestyle (and mine) was created by
destruction of other countries' economies sponsored by your country that has its
roots 30 or 40 years ago rather than today, in another administration than the
one you care to support? Destruction that continues apace right now?
Interesting stuff, this justice of yours. Does this mean that there is less of
a reason to stop it? That because it was happening before you were born, and
developed by a US administration to whose political views you do not subscribe,
you're free of any of the moral implications of your precedent following
behaviour?
Its this very indifference that prevents these issues from being addressed at
the global level.
And its the not addressing of them that has people blowing stuff up and killing
John's 'innocent' people.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
