Freethought & Rationalism Archive

George Oilwell · 05-19-2003, 05:52 AM

Quote:

The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.

I was wrong. Free market trade policies hurt the poor

Kinross · 05-19-2003, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Rich nations may be pre pared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.

Can't really call this a free market.

John Hancock · 05-19-2003, 08:08 AM

Ah yes, all the money under the present "goblerization" is directed into the coffers of government controling corporations. Government by and for the People.

Martin

Ruy Lopez · 05-19-2003, 08:11 AM

Adam's right; it's not the classical definition of a free market. And the author of the article is also correct, IMO.

One should wonder why many if not most 3rd world countries are preoccupied with earning foreign exchange(dollars) to pay for imports, pay for ever increasing dollar loans and to protect their local currency from speculative attack (unsuccessfully unfortunately).

Repetitive devaluations over the years result into mammoth debt service, larger dollar loans and more devaluations--like a never-ending spiral. One should ask, where did the North American, European and Japanese wealth come from? And where did the 3rd world wealth go? There is no wealth coming from outer space is there?

echidna · 05-19-2003, 05:59 PM

Good article & I agree with Byers.

Quote:

No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1% could generate around �43m - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.

Quote:

Rich nations may be prepared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.

The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.

If the international community is serious about improving conditions for developing nations, bodies such as the IMF & World Bank should be equally pressuring First World nations to reduce their own protectionism to be promoting imports from Third World Economies. But this is something First World lobby groups are unlikely to permit. French farmers are the cause of far more Third World poverty than Nike ever will be.

While Byers cites Taiwan & S.Korea as examples of successful protected industries, you could just about add every Asia Tiger to that list. Somehow economists have interpreted the success of the Asia Tigers as a victory for the Free Market. In reality they were anything but.

Using Japan as an example, early heavy protection of export industries has certainly been successful in building them into the world�s leading per capita economy. And yet now the long-term consequences of their subsidies are becoming apparent, that much of their industry is now inefficient and their economy is sagging badly.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2003, 08:08 AM	#3
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	Ah yes, all the money under the present "goblerization" is directed into the coffers of government controling corporations. Government by and for the People. Martin

05-19-2003, 08:11 AM	#4
Ruy Lopez Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Manila Posts: 5,516	Adam's right; it's not the classical definition of a free market. And the author of the article is also correct, IMO. One should wonder why many if not most 3rd world countries are preoccupied with earning foreign exchange(dollars) to pay for imports, pay for ever increasing dollar loans and to protect their local currency from speculative attack (unsuccessfully unfortunately). Repetitive devaluations over the years result into mammoth debt service, larger dollar loans and more devaluations--like a never-ending spiral. One should ask, where did the North American, European and Japanese wealth come from? And where did the 3rd world wealth go? There is no wealth coming from outer space is there?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.