this is not really a choice if you run a country that is dominated by
debt service.
If you have no choice, than the AGOA is a clear, clear winner: you have
the structural adjustment program anyway, and better to have it with the
opportunity to export than to have it with one's exports
If one really wants the world to improve, one has to make an effort
to _change_ the balance of power. That involves _organizing_ people
to counteract the powers that be.
It does not mean that we say "oh, there's only one choice: a bogus
'free trade' bill that forces African countries to toe
Very nice article, Max. Brad tended to write about the Africa bill as if it
were choice between helping Africa or helping the United States. In fact, as
the article from the Progressive showed, the effect of the bill would be to
transform both Africa and United States to be more to the liking
Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower
tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose
neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it. I suspect you would
also. What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill?
Brad De Long
At 02:39 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote:
What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill?
No problem with Jesse Jackson's bill--save that 218 representatives
wouldn't vote for it.
so might makes right?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
At 02:38 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower
tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose
neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it.
Brad writes:
Shoddy argument.
As written, the
At 02:39 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote:
What was the problem with Jesse Jackson's bill?
No problem with Jesse Jackson's bill--save that 218 representatives
wouldn't vote for it.
so might makes right?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Say rather that
At 02:38 PM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote:
Brad, we're arguing at cross purposes. If the bill with were merely lower
tariffs, you would be correct. If the bill is going to be used to impose
neoliberal policies, then I would strenuously oppose it.
Brad writes:
Shoddy argument.
As written, the
