Keith Hudson wrote:
> in recent years inequality has been
> growing within the US and between developed and undeveloped countries.
>
> I don't think anybody denies this. It's unfortunate. More than that -- it's
> very disturbing. The sum of human suffering is enormous. But this is not
> the point.
>
> The point is that, proportionately, the sum of human suffering and
> deprivation was even more enormous before "Globalization Round I"
> (Friedman's term for economic development between 1800 and 1900), and then
> again before the present "Globalization Round II" (which he posits from
> about the end of the Cold War).
It is wrong and unscientific to infer from this that "Globalization" reduces
human suffering and deprivation. The globalization in Friedman's sense
*increases* inequality (as Keith admits above) and thus human suffering and
deprivation. That <<the sum of human suffering and deprivation was even
more enormous before "Globalization Round I">>, is due to OTHER factors,
namely technological and social progress since then. (It's already
misleading to call the development between 1800 and 1900 "Globalization".)
Keith's comparison reminds me of a recent German "study" which claimed
that Micro$oft's monopoly is beneficial to the economy. Why? Because it
compared the status quo with an economy without standards! Compared to
this, it's pretty trivial that the status quo is better, but that's the
wrong comparison. The correct comparison would have been to an economy
with *good* (compatible etc.) SW standards; and with this, the result of
the study would have been the opposite conclusion. (Btw, the "study" was
paid by M$..)
Similarly, if we want to assess whether Friedman's globalization (FG)
is beneficial, we have to compare the present (or future) situation
*with* FG to *without* FG. (instead of comparing future to past)
Note that I wrote FG, not globalization. The term "globalization" is
often being used in a misleading way, to make all opponents of FG look
like protectionistic Luddites or even far-right morons. Actually, there
are many aspects of globalization and many quite different possible ways of
globalization. What the protestors in Seattle, Quebec etc. are opposed to
is not globalization "per se" (worldwide cooperation and communication),
but _FG_: the globalization of the American system (or the Americanization
of the globe). Friedman and other PR hacks deliberately muddle this
crucial difference, selling FG as globalization per se (and "TINA"). This
way, Friedman&Co. manipulate public opinion against the opponents of FG.
In susceptible individuals, this leads to such ill-informed and insulting
allegations as...:
> Although anti-globalization protestors don't mean it, and although many of
> them are well-meaning people, I'm afraid that if they had their way it
> would actually be a case of "Pull the ladder up, Jack. I'm all right".
On the contrary -- if Friedman's Globalizers had their way, it will (ever
more) be a case of the rich saying "Pull the ladder up, Jack. I'm all right".
That's why they're doing this in the first place ! And that's what the
anti-_FG_ protestors are opposing !
Chris
