In a message dated 5/17/2006 11:38:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Cristobal S Ruiz wrote:
> this is typical of the apologists of neo-lib > policies in the third world I hate this. If a particular point made by Ulhas or anybody else here is flawed, factually or logically <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> I don't understand why are you "flaming" about this rather objective comment, the point being that highly sophisticated luxury consumption items such as cell phones, flat liquid screen TVs, internet use, computer games and similars are not indicators of economic development as housing, education, health and literacy are. The latter are the standard indicators used by the UN Development Program is its annual reports. The former are the standard signifiers of "growth" by the mainstream press such as The Economist , the FT or the WSJ reports on developing countries through the neo-lib lens. I also recall different ECLA studies linking the production of luxury items to highly skewed income distribution economies, which further inequalities as this developing countries concentrate in producing mass consumption goods but for markets which lack the masses (income) to support them. I really don't get your raging at all. Cristobal Senior
