SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (20389)3/6/2002 3:01:15 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
which is the problem of who gets to make the decisions. They prefer, I assume, that corporate execs get to do so; I prefer democratically elected officials

It takes the Politicians to allow free trade, John. No argument there. They control the borders. The position of the Corporate exec is to demand free trade for what he buys, and protection for what he sells.

Here is a short piece from this months "Reason" on the long term effects of free trade.

No Poor Traders
Globalization debates
By Brian Doherty

According to the anti-globalization movement, the integration of the global economy is nothing more than a chance for the rich to fleece the poor. A recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that almost precisely the opposite is true: The best way to keep poor nations poor is to segregate them from the world economy.

Economists Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson examine data about world inequality, both within and between nations, from 1820 to the present. They chose 1820 as their starting point because it marked the emergence of what they contend is a truly global economy. "International commodity price convergence did not start until then," they write. "And [an] epochal move towards liberal policy (e.g., dismantling mercantilism) was manifested during that decade." Their analysis finds that "globalization favors all participants who liberalize, especially those who are newly industrializing, and penalizes those who choose not to liberalize, leaving them behind."

Lindert and Williamson concede that the research done so far cannot authoritatively isolate increased international trade (one of the defining characteristics of "globalization") from all other factors as the cause of rising incomes. But "though no one study can establish that trade openness has unambiguously helped the representative Third World economy," they write, "the preponderance of evidence supports this conclusion." They also note that no country that has been more protectionist in the 1990s than in the 1960s has simultaneously raised its standard of living.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext