Keith Hudson wrote: > To try and carry on an intelligent discussion with you is like being > machine-gunned.
Naah... if you insist on a ballistic analogy (not suitable IMHO), a *marksman* would be appropriate: Brief and well-aimed shots. ;-) (in contrast to your long and deplaced machine-gunning...) But as they say at your beloved WTO: Time for the Next Round... <G> > > (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. The figures may be correct, but your interpretation of them is wrong, i.e. your argument isn't all that rational: > 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.) In the first quote above (>>>), you claimed that the *populations* have been benefiting, but now you talk about *country totals*. However, there's a big difference between a few rich --which do benefit from the WTO, no doubt about this-- and the many poor, whose exploitation gets worse. > 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. (Average) per capita income is a bad measure. A country of subsistence farmers (small landowners) and an economy mostly based on swapping goods (without cash exchange) of course has a lower per capita income than a country with a few super-rich and lots of starving landless people, but the former is clearly better for the majority. > Let's state the case even more simply. The problem is that you over-simplify things (as with your cavemen "trade" tales) to the point of missing (and diverting from) the real problems at hand. By just blissfully reading your neoliberal newspapers, you'll hardly manage to see thru their simplistic and misleading PR spin. > 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. If you look at who is in favor of the WTO and "Free" Trade, it becomes clear that they are only interested in their _own_ profits, not in the interests of the poor. It's the hypocrisy of "humanitarian bombings" (which happen to be advocated (and ordered) by the same guys). Chris
