Hi Chris, To try and carry on an intelligent discussion with you is like being machine-gunned.
I'll confine myself to answering two of your rapid-fire responses from your message of 02/12/01 +0100: (KH) > and many of these > negotiators will have secret agendas on behalf of corporations. But, by and > large, the WTO *has* been reducing tariffs, world trade *has* been > expanding (CR) No doubt about that -- but that's the problem... (KH) > and even third world countries' populations *have* been > benefiting. Not by much, it's true -- but they'd be in much worse state > left to themselves without tariff relaxations. (CR) That's the big question. Where's your evidence (or logic explanation)? I refer to a recent World Bank Report. Here are some very simple and transparent figures and if you disbelieve them then I'll give up ever trying to persuade you by rational argument. First of all, divide the poor countries in the world into two parts, A and B. The A countries are those in which the ratio of trade to national income has risen. (This includes China, Mexico and India, accounting for 3 billion people.) The B countries are those in which the ratio of trade to national income has fallen. (This includes countries like Bangladesh and most of those in Africa, accounting for 2 billion people.) Since 1980, the per capita income of people in A countries has risen by 5% p.a. In the same period, the per capita income of people in B countries has fallen by 1% p.a. (For comparison, the per capita income of people in the rich countries has risen by 2%. In other words the rich countries will be caught up by the A countries.) Let's state the case even more simply. The poverty of most of the world is due to the persistence of an agrarian economy, continuing reliance on muscle-power and thus large families and overpopulation, and co-existing with varying degrees of royal/political/military/religious tyrannies. The rich (and the soon-to-be-rich A countries) are those in which people have managed to save and invest money in specialised industries or services, the products of which they have then traded with others. This is an immensely difficult task because it involves changing the culture in deep and wide-ranging ways. It took the first country about 300-400 years to make this change. It then became successively quicker in other countries. Nevertheless, it is still a difficult task, and those who protest against international business corporations (without reference to the goodies and the baddies among them) and against international trade are doing a terrible disservice to the remaining poor of the world who presently live on about 1US$ per day. Keith Hudson ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
