Hi Kieth: Far be it for me to suggest that you have not been listening. The alternative as I understand it, (notwithstanding the unarticulated protests and activist opposition) is to re-impliment the Keynesian (Bretton Woods) solution to self balancing international trade and payments system.
Using that system, the creditor nations are penalised for their success and the debtor nations are subsidised for their inadequacy on a graduated ratio according to the extent of the imbalance. While that slows down the modernization of the undeveloped countries, it allows them time to become aculturated to the new technology and incorporate it into their value matrix. It also inhibits the corporate rape of counrtries, either through unpayable debt or foreign ownership of resources. At the same time it preserves the sovereignty of the nations. International trade has historically been under the control and guidance of the sovereign power, which had a vested interest in it. When international trade became an international market, (a distinction you refuse to acknowledge) the market took on a life of its own in complete disregard of any nation's national interest in preserving the needs of its people. The Bretton Woods Agreement was not in the best interests of the powerful multinational corporations, so the US obligingly changed the voting structure (and the mandate) of WB, IMF, etc. to $1.00 - one vote from one country one vote. Since the US held the majority of votes, and a veto, the outcome was, as they say, preordained. Regards Ed G At 12:05 PM 10/12/2001 +0000, you wrote: >By an amazing coincidence, since sending my message (Re: A Canadian >philosopher's views on the WTO) a few minutes ago, Joe Stiglitz has been >interviewed on a BBC Radio 4 discussion -- on his way to Stockholm to pick >up his Nobel Prize. > >Remember: Joe Stiglitz, the former Economist of the World Bank, is praised >by the anti-globalisers and the anti-transnational corporationers as their >hero and the "authority" for their views. > >Joe Stiglitz was quite clear about his views when questioned on the >programme. He is not against globalisation and world trade. Nor is he >against those large transnational corporations which are open and honest >about their finances. As he said quite specifically on the programme, the >South East Asian countries (the A countries of my previous message) have >already done well out of international trade and that many other poor >countries desperately need investment by large corporations. > >What he says is that lack of information is the true enemy and that it is >the incestuous, secret and preferential relationships of government >politicians with business leaders which disguise the true situation and >holds back prosperity for the ordinary person. In the case of the South >East Asia debacle in particular, he criticises the World Bank and IMF for >not clarifying these relationships before putting forward their remedies. > >Even though World Bank, the IMF and the WTO still have their faults which >need correcting, he most definitely wants them to continue. Indeed, they >are essential. > >Those who have been protesting on economic grounds (and supposedly on >behalf of the poor of the world) at Prague, Quebec, Geneva and other places >want to scrap these institutions altogether. But, as I have tediously >repeated on FW many times, what else do they suggest to help the poor >countries of the world? I haven't come across one single proposal so far. > >Keith Hudson >___________________________________________________________________ > >Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >___________________________________________________________________ > >
