Posted: Jul 14, 2010 6:06 am
Father O Rielly wrote:Ha Joon Chang makes a good case in his book, Bad Samaritans, that globalization and free trade are a bunch of nonsense. They are ideas that are supported by institutions like the IMF and World Bank, but they do so only in support of the interests of the rich, developed countries.
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the economics of trade. Yes, both rich and poor countries benefit from trade. The poor countries wouldn't trade if they didn't benefit from it. That's pretty much implicit.
A quick fact check: Is China better or worse off today compared to when it wasn't globalized? The answer to that should tell you who it is in fact that espouses nonsense.
Father O Rielly wrote:Leaving economic decisions to the market place does not work
How often are the store out of milk or toilett paper when you need it? The former East Bloc can tell you something about that.
Father O Rielly wrote:The US, Britain, and others, when they were on the steep slope of development themselves, were ardent supporters of tariffs and protectionism. Lack of regulation is of most benefit when a modern, affluent country is interested in profiting in a less developed region. Infant industries need time and support to grow, and those that are subjected to competition with major players too soon will not survive.
The US and the UK didn't have universal suffrage when they developed either. Would you suggest that universal suffrage is impossible for development?
Hong Kong didn't develop with protectionism, so your point that protectionism is necessary seems rather hollow.
Father O Rielly wrote:There may be some short-term benefits to free trade, and the free movement of capital around the world, but overall poorer countries tend to get stuck with the status quo.
Would Europe be better off without the EU? What about the free trade and free movement between Canada's provinces?