Keith Hudson wrote: > Of course, all the above is assuming that the ordinary people of most of > the 100 poor countries of the world really do want to go down our > particular path.
... and since this assumption is wrong, your whole posting is moot. Hint: Globalization doesn't work, PERIOD. No "when..." conditions required! Or let me rephrase this: Globalization works __for the globalizers__, but not for the rest as the globalizers advertize it. Anyway, globalization is the wrong term. (see earlier postings) Ed Weick wrote: > Keith, I must say that you do start some of your posting rather > provocatively. Could globalization not as easily be about a number of other > things such as corporate power, taking advantage of dirt-cheap labour in > poor countries, and American hegemony? I don't know if you read my posting > on Joseph Stiglitz, but what he says sure makes it sound as though we are a > long way from Ricardo. I'm reading Noreena Hertz right now. Having read > about half the book, I still haven't come across Ricardo. Not a single > mention yet. I, like many other people in this strange world, am trying to > understand globalization. But I don't think I want to rely on the classical > economists. About all they can tell me is how nice it would be if everyone > behaved themselves. Agree. Keith's stories about Ricardo's iron law are about as useful for understanding the problems of globalization as Keith's stories about stone-age cave-men who exchange furs/bows are useful for understanding the traffic problems from 40-ton trucks. Chris
