Ed, I love it!
You said: "It also inhibits the corporate rape of countries, either through unpayable >debt or foreign ownership of resources. > >At the same time it preserves the sovereignty of the nations." It "preserves the sovereignty of nations" to put barriers to cheaper and better imports. It's a tough call, but when its a choice between letting their people have cheaper and better goods and maintaining the flow of cash from the protectionist corporations - their decision is to protect the sovereignty of the corporations. There again, it seems as if these sovereign nations must have been responsible for this corporate rape. If they responsible perhaps their sovereignty should be removed - then perhaps he raping would stop I've never really understood this "unpayable debt or foreign ownership of resources" except as we now know the sovereign were at the back of it. You don't have a debt until you borrow something. I could believe the peasants had overextended their credit cards, but is that what you mean? Or could it be these sovereign governments are so corrupt, they steal the money leaving their people with no benefit, but plenty of debt - which they can't pay anyway, so what does it matter? I know that the peasants are really overwrought about foreign ownership of their country's resources. Or perhaps they don't know much about it. Under the ownership of an American corporation, they live their lives working long hours for a subsistence wage. Perhaps the reason they don't realize their country has been sold from under them is because before the transfer they worked long hours for a subsistence wage. (That must have been arranged for them by their sovereign nation.) To think the WTO is condemned by the unthinking for trying to cut the corruption enjoyed by these sovereign nations. Oh, well! Harry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ed wrote: >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 ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
