Started by SysOut at 08:00pm May 23, 2002 BST

read first message for announcement (click TOP)

Ahhh! If only it were true!

<dreams on about a better world>

Yeah - Abolish the WTO, Tariffs for Everyone!!

For a moment there, I was about to re-evaluate everything I believed about western governments and corporations.

Well, seeing your views on other threads, that still could be a good idea.

Nah, I'd love to have a reason to re-evaluate what I think, but I haven't found one yet.

Ok, a query then - does trade liberalization benefit or hinder economic development?

If there was perfect trade liberalisation, it would benefit economic development, yes. But:

1) It is far from perfect. The rich countries dictate terms. The USA has slapped protective tariffs on steel, agriculture and a whole load of other products. As has Europe.

2)Economic development is not everything. A developing country needs to get it's infrastructure right before even thinking about economic growth. Forcing coutries to liberalise their health, education, water and electricity supplies when they are still developing makes poor people far poorer.

1). Agree - but, given the completely unequal balance of political, does it not therefore dictate the need for a multilateral organization to lower developed countries' tariff barriers?

2) How so? Does the import / export of goods and services affect how countries tax, provide social services, etc? Are you not confusing trade liberalization with government austerity budgeting and privatization?

1) It is far from perfect. The rich countries dictate terms. The USA has slapped protective tariffs on steel, agriculture and a whole load of other products. As has Europe.

This is a separate issue from trade liberalization. The IMF often forces austerity measures in order to give countries financial aid, but no one forces countries to privatize in order to trade.

No, countries are often given loans, with the condition that they must liberalise their water, electric system, healthcare and education systems. Then westen companies come in, take over the public services and the cost goes up, so people are left without basics. Countries often have no choice.

But I have argued about this so many times on GU that I can't be bothered re-stating arguments. Read George Soros, On globalization George Soros is hardly a left wing radical, and he makes a lot great points.

Again, you're talking about gov't deficit financing. What does that have to do with trade liberalization?

Actually, Soros doesn't talk at all about trade liberalization. His beef is with unregulated capital markets and its effect on gov't sovereignity.

I've just told you. That's what trade liberalisation is

Opening your markets. All your markets.

i no one forces countries to privatize in order to trade

Don't they? Well, Cuba has resisted so far. Is the trade embargo still in place? Venezuala resisted, there was a US backed coup. Iran nationalised it's oil industry - there was a westen backed coup.

#20 It's the same thing, or at least two sides of teh same coin

Trade and financial markets generate wealth effectively but cannot take care of other social needs.

A quote from Soros:

http://www.soros.org/textfiles/writings/103001_The_Free_Market_for_Hope.txt

Don't they? Well, Cuba has resisted so far. Is the trade embargo still in place? Venezuala resisted, there was a US backed coup. Iran nationalised it's oil industry - there was a westen backed coup.

This is a very skewed view of history. Following your logic, why isn't the US launching an embargo on Norway, with its publicly controlled oil?

Or England, when it nationalized its automotive industry, or France / Germany / UK / etc with their nationalized mass transit & public health systems, or India, with its 30 years of socialist policy, or every LDC that followed input substitution trade policies for over 20 years, or Brazil, with massively high tariff barriers on automobiles, computers, and many other goods, etc etc etc.