TO: Tariq Siddiqui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Actually it is you who are argumentative for its own sake, arguing that no theory or concept is valid unless all conditions are met. Is this realistic in the real world? What is the alternative?
Regarding Dr. Jagdish Bhagwati, here is what you said: Tariq wrote: Returning to Jagdish Bhagwati. He has two main points: 1. Globalization is good for the world in the long run. 2. Globalization will reap benefits only if all parties (countries) commit to it fully. Both in my opinion are theories that have no definitive time frame for fulfillment. Dr. Bhagwati himself evades the answer, preferring to point out that benefits are not possible unless all countries commit to it fully. (End) To clarify in a way that even you cannot misunderstand (though I'm sure you will try), Dr. Bhagwati and I believe that globalization is good for the world in the short and long run. We also do not believe that benefits are not possible unless all countries commit to it fully. We believe that globalization is going on as we speak, that it will continue, and that any any movement towards the ideal is beneficial for those who choose to participate. There are no definitive time frames for any economic theory. Partial moves towards an ideal system are better than the alternative of government controls of economic decisions. Hybrid systems moving away from socialism are better than nothing, as China and India are proving. We believe that in a free society corporations make their decisions based on their need to stay competitive and maintain or increase profits. Others who do not have a direct investment in a corporation have to deal with the consequences, which sometimes causes disruptions, usually temporary. You have expressed "preferences" about what corporations should or should not do because of where their customers and markets are and the effects their decisions will have on jobs in one location or another. In another post today you say, "Yes, in the long run, and perhaps in an ideal world, free trade will have many, many benefits. But that is still a theory, since there is no "free trade" anywhere in the world, and we have not reached the year 2050 (?). What we have today is a pseudo-free trade where some industries are protected and some are not." There may not be "perfect" free trade anywhere due to politics, but the benefit of free trade is not a "theory", it has being going on in some form, pseudo or not, since the dawn of history, and those countries that participate more in even pseudo-free trading benefit more than those that do not. The absence of ideal conditions does not prevent a system from providing at least partial benefits. While no economic system is perfectly implemented as defined because of political reasons, the more free trade the better, the more free enterprise the better. Besides hoping for ideal conditions, which are never likely due to politics, or systems that are "perfect", what alternatives are there in the real world?
