Globalization/Anti-globalization: what are the arguments?

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by colour wolf *
**But for many countries, the reasons the economy collapsed is because of the loans that they received from other banks. This money is often used to buy weapons or line the pockets of those in power. Then when the country runs out of money again, the IMF comes in to ‘help.’ However the money the IMF loans is not to help the economy, but to pay off the banks that gave the bad loans in the first place. I ask again, who benefits from the money that the IMF lends? **

There is no question that moral hazard is an issue. It’s one that the IMF is well aware of and it’s one of the arguments in favour of setting up a procedure for sovereign bankruptcy.

Having said that, it is, indeed, the country that benefits from the money the IMF lends. In the typical HIPC case, a country will borrow piles of cash from private banks, by issuing bonds, etc. Now the idea here is supposed to be that the country takes that money and spends it in a way that will actually benefit the country’s economy. For example, the country might borrow 500,000,000 USD and use it to build a hydroelectric dam and an electricity grid. When it comes time to pay back the loan, the growth in GDP generated by the project is more than sufficient to make the payments.

What all too often happens, however, is that the vast majority of it gets stolen or wasted. When it comes time to pay the money back, there is no increased economic activity to carry the load so the payments have to come out of the pockets of the country’s already-poor citizens. This further suppresses economic activity and begins a downward spiral as larger and larger portions of GDP go to service the debt.

At this point, the country has two choices. It can simply default on its loans and tell the banks it won’t be paying them back, ever. This would, of course, eliminate the HIPC’s debt burden but would also cut them off completely from foreign capital for several years. It might, possibly, result in the seizure of some of the government’s foreign assets but it’s not like Citibank is going to organize an armed force to re-possess the country.

The problem is that most countries aren’t really crazy about adopting the juche idea. Being completely cut off from foreign capital would be an enormous economic disaster for a HIPC. Therefore, before they take such a step, they try and sort things out using the IMF.

One of the things things the IMF may insist on is an anti-corruption campaign. Obviously, this isn’t too popular with those among the country’s elite who stole the money in the first place. It’s some of these people who squeel the loudest about the “unfair” and “harsh” conditions imposed by the IMF.

It’s important to remember that, while we may argue about the details, in broad terms, the most of the IMF’s positions on stabilizing the economies of HIPCs aren’t all that controversial e.g. balance the budget, eliminate corruption, develop efficient markets. There’s room for a lively debate as to whether Argentina should dollarize. There’s not much room to argue that Kenya doesn’t need to eliminate corruption.

[Maeglin]

But for many countries, the reasons the economy collapsed is because of the loans that they received from other banks.

This is absolutely true. In the case of several Latin American countries, this excessive borrowing was concomitant with a complete failure in fiscal discipline. In 5 years in the mid-90s, the ratio of public debt to GDP in Argentina rose a staggering 12%, even though the economy was growing over 4% per year on average.

The chickens have come home to roost, I suppose. Combine the bubble of the mid-90s with massive failures of pegged exchange rates in the late 90s, and it should not come as an enormous surprise that Latin America is reaping an unpleasant harvest.

However the money the IMF loans is not to help the economy, but to pay off the banks that gave the bad loans in the first place. I ask again, who benefits from the money that the IMF lends?

While I am not about to make an argument that you should borrow from Peter to pay Paul, perhaps you should consider where the banks get the money they lend to governments in the first place, and what might happen to the economies of nations whose banks have to write off reams of bad debt.

Start with Japan.

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *

No. Some are set up by private money: either corporate or individual. The UN is an example of an international organization set up with taxpayer money. That’s why I like the fact that its deliberations are open to the public and a free press.

Oh, please, M; you’re already changing your story. Just in the last paragraph you said (quoted, actually) these very words:

This is important to remember b/c it does not report directly to either the citizens who finance it or those whose lives it affects.

That was you on the IMF. Well, that’s also true of the UN, **which does not report directly to either the citizens who finance it or those whose lives it affects. ** Now it’s “well, the UN has open deliberations.” I think that’s great, but you can watch them all you want and you still don’t get a vote. And it’s not as if the WTO or IMF are doing anything terribly secretive.

At the WTO, the negotations that lead up to agreements are all done behind closed doors, making it difficult–until it is too late–to see the influence of corporate and other special interests.

Again, I must reiterate; this is precisely the same as almost every other international treaty ever signed. It was true of the treaties that started the UN, NATO, the Arab League. It is true of pretty much every international agreement.

This should not be taken to mean I think we should just shrug off anything our government does that involves an international treaty, but this criticism is being levelled against the WTO as if it’s somehow a new, sinister development. You will have to remind me when the last time was that I got a vote on any international agreement my country signed. Ottawa’s not asking my opinion on Kyoto or the land mine ban or the ICC.

Look, I’m all for an honest examination of ANY international agreement, but “honest examination” is not well served by shrieking and waving one’s arms. I find the hysteria, frankly, sort of irritating.

"If a member of the WTO doesn’t like its rulings, they can ignore them, or leave the WTO, or try to get the rules changed or whatever it pleases. There would be consequences, to be sure; you’d get tariffed all to hell, if you don’t mind me using “tariff” as a verb. That’s the nature of international relations; you agree to cooperate or you don’t and take what comes either way. The existence of the WTO doesn’t change that. "

But this assumes that countries struggling to develop can manage without taking part in international trade and getting a seat at the table; attempting a kind of autarky perhaps. They can’t. In theory participation is voluntary. In practice it isn’t.

Well, jeez, M, then I’m a little confused as to what the alternatives are. This is a child’s complaint; I-don-wanna-but-I-hafta-but-I-can’t. On one hand the poor nations of the world are screwed if they do, and on the other hand, they’re screwed if they don’t.

The problem with poor nations here, if you step back for a moment and examine the real issue, is obviously not the WTO. It’s the fact that they’re poor; the’re screwed by BEING poor, not by the WTO (or the IMF.) You say they’re powerless NOT to join the WTO, but would be screwed if they didn’t. Would they be any better off if the WTO didn’t exist? I see no reason to believe they would be. I cannot imagine how being raked over the trade coals by every rich nation individually would be a better fate.

And hey, scores of nations have still opted not to join.

Globalization is here to stay: we are all “one world” as the saying goes. Those of us who are criticizing the status quo want to see more accountable deliberative and enforcement bodies.

Gee, so do I. The difference being that I don’t blame the WTO for the world’s ills simply because it has a specific purpose.

I don’t doubt it. And that really is the point. In a situation where there are vast inequalities of power, there needs to be full public accountability. Simple, no?

No. Public accountability is itself not simple. Do you really think the public at large in the USA, Canada, France, etc. are, if everyone is involved in the vote, going to vote for a trade deal that DOESN’T confer enormous, unbalanced influence on their own countries?

The demonstrator carrying the “I Hate Corporations” sign may be concerned about the plight of the Sudanese, but that’s a self-selecting group. The public at large may well be inclined to vote for protectionist policies that harm the Third World, and will be slow indeed to vote for aid packages. Voters tend to scream very loudly about the sins of other countries and turn a blind eye to their own. Ask a Canadian about the evils of the American embargo on Cuba and he’ll talk your ear off. Ask the same Canadian about the Canadian-sponsored genocide in Sudan and he won’t know what you’re talking about, because our press doesn’t like to mention that a Canadian corporation is paying for innocent people to be murdered with the tacit approval of our government. If you put it to a vote 99 Canadians out of 100 will approve of Canadian companies doing oil exploration overseas. They won’t bother to ask how many Sudanese children were shot to fill the tank on their Civic. But they WILL say the Americans are wrong to displace caribou to find oil. This is literally true; many more Canadians disapprove of disturbing caribou mating grounds to find oil than disapprove of a Canadian company helping to slaughter innocent human beings to find oil.

Now, put the WTO treaty before the Canadian public; what will they want? Protectionism. They’ll want Canadian farmers protected up the yingyang, and to hell with Third World farmers. They’ll want any industry that can get an ad on Hockey Night in Canada protected, and to hell with international trade - tariffs on steel! Softwood lumber! High tech! Low tech! Punish American investors! Don’t export water! Don’t import Budweiser!

And Canada’s a trade-heavy country. Imagine the same vote in France. What, allow imports of wheat? Je ne pense pas!

Some public accountability’s a good thing. A necessary thing. But be careful what you wish for.

The main protesters’ claim, as I understand it, is at the level of the citizen. Trade delegations are sent by poorer countries, sometimes under-qualified to even understand the terms of these agreements.

You know, I’ve got to think even poor nations have some qualified, educated people. These aren’t Indians trading Manhattan for beads.

In a democracy the citizenry is supposed to be sovereign. Insofar as trade agreements and their enforcement aren’t accountable to the public, citizens’ sovereignty is reduced.

I agree, but I disagree.

I think you are absolutely right in that accountability to the public is paramount. I could not agree more.

Where I disagree, however, is in the implication that this is somehow a particular concern with the WTO. It’s not - it’s true, in my view, of virtually everything the government does, and is generally LESS true of the WTO than many other government endeavors.

Look, I live in Canada. Our government does not consult the population on anything, for any reason. The federal government is shamelessly corrupt. Everything is porkbarrelry and politics. The government goes to virtually every length legally possible, and sometimes beyond, to keep its affairs secret. Inquiries and public accountability have become a hopeless, dreadful sham. Now, why would I, of the dozens and hundreds of things the government is involved in, zero in on our membership in the WTO?

At least the WTO has a Web site and is honest and upfront about what it does; for the most part, actually, it’s not secretive at all. I can’t even say that about my own government. And I live in a DEMOCRACY. I can’t even imagine how frustrating it must be to live in a less democratic nation. With all due respect, before I start worrying about WTO negotations, I would like my own government to explain how it “lost” a billion dollars creating porkbarrel projects in the ridings of its own caucus members. But they won’t tell us.

So don’t get me wrong here; public accountability’s good. But why is the WTO, of all things, subjected to all this vitriol? And why does the vitriol so often seem to be accompanied by the most profound, migraine-inducing ignorance? Yeah, I know, you and jshore have good links. And you seem to agree with me that we have domestic problems that need solving first…

Look; my objection here is not with the notion the general public should have input into this (and every other matter of government action.) My objections, as they have always been, deal with ignorance and dishonesty with respect to the function, purpose, and details of the WTO, or NAFTA for that matter. I see value in public input, but not when it’s baloney. And to be quite honest, most of the input I’ve seen (in general, not on the SDMB specifically) is baloney.

Ah–here’s the debate! Or should have been… So what are the really dumb points that Stiglitz makes “like anyone else”?

Let me get back to you this weekend with a new thread. This one deserves a little more room and I work until Sunday.

jshore:

Since you have such a bee in your bonnet about the claim that sovereignty is restricted, I hope you are consistent and get just as exercised when the Bush Administration apparently uses the same language to defend our decision not to be a party of various treaties.

(Shrug) I am consistent indeed. I think the Bush administration is dishonest if it claims signing such treaties reduces U.S. sovereignty. It’s ridiculous nonsense. I think that’s what you wanted to see me write.

I understand your distinction in a hypertechnical sense. But, I think the point is that being party to a treaty or part of the WTO does in fact involve a trade-off of sovereignty in a sense as long as one remains a party to it.

I disagree. I guess it depends how you define “sovereignty,” but in my view, I’m defining it is “the ability and right to exclusively, independently govern a permanent, defined territory.” To use your example, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does not impinge on sovereignty. The USA is voluntarily agreeing not to test nuclear weapons. They could opt, later on, to abandon this treaty. American sovereignty over America remains unquestioned.

An example of a treaty that does reduce sovereignty is the peace treaty Iraq signed to end the Gulf War, which reduces its ability to actually govern and control parts of Iraq. If the U.S. lost a war to Canada and agreed to hand Alaska over, that’s a loss of sovereignty. Agreeing not to raise a tariff on Eskimo bars, however, is not a loss of sovereignty.

[Maeglin]

Now, put the WTO treaty before the Canadian public; what will they want? Protectionism.

This still perplexes me. Why do people insist on “Buy American” or “Grow American” if it only means that the same American consumers are going to get fleeced?

Is this an example of rational ignorance???

[occ]

*Originally posted by ultrafilter *
*I’ve been in contact with a few people who do protests like these, and the one thing I’ve noticed is that they hate corporations. If it comes from a corporation, it’s Very Bad and to be avoided.

*The people I’ve talked to, not everyone who protests. **

The obsession with whether something is “corporate” or not is what grates on my nerves. There’s a local independant paper around my area, and their motto is something along the lines of “Providing Corporate-Free News!”. Personally, I’m not getting any real information out of these protests, as it’s so difficult to cut through the rhetoric.

[system]

Well, I am glad to have a near pure example of the non-reasoning which is behind these protests.

*Originally posted by colour wolf *
But for many countries, the reasons the economy collapsed is because of the loans that they received from other banks.

Loans do not cause economies to collapse, any more than they do companies.

What causes collapse is non-productive use of those loans. Wastage on prestige programs, or borrowing to support current consumption rather than productive investment.

Corruption, lack of transparency, barriers to economic development – as well as exogenous forces such as export product price declines or more generally declining overall terms of trade for various reasons.

This money is often used to buy weapons or line the pockets of those in power.

Corruption. Yep. Corruption. IMF and World Bank did not create corruption, indeed they have struggled to engage transparency programs. Of course, then they get accused of being neo-imperialist. Catch 22. Damned if they do. Damned if they don’t.

Then when the country runs out of money again, the IMF comes in to ‘help.’ However the money the IMF loans is not to help the economy, but to pay off the banks that gave the bad loans in the first place.

Wonderful, this is a great example of the ignorance behind the protests. Stop right there.

Well, sparky, they can default. Nobody can force a sovereign to repay.

Now, like in all credit situations, if you want to borrow again, defaulting makes it hard to do so, and hard to do so at reasonable rates.

Why the fuck should I lend to you if you’re not going to pay back? I am not going to. You can take a fucking hike, I’ll buy developed world bonds, where I have recourse in general.

You might then take your misplaced outrage and ask yourself, “why don’t more nations default, fuck the capitalist pigs.”

Many answers. the best one: without borrowing the country has to depend on current capital formation to fund investment (or even consumptive spending). For developing nations that is usually insufficient to cover current or near-future needs. Borrowing is an answer, if the borrowed funds allow future productivity gains which allow one to pay off the loan.

This, of course, often doesn’t work out very well. Or the borrower borrows for a stated reason, but the funds sort of seep away into the sand.

Private lenders got two choices, either they get repaid and continue lending, or they don’t get paid and they cut off the borrowers.

Perhaps going cold turkey would be good. I fail to see how getting cut off from capital markets makes the situation better. See North Korea. Brilliant example of your socialist development, self-funded and all that. Sorry about the famine, part of the great leap … backwards.

Now, of course another reason the responsible parties borrow is for corrupt reasons.

Again, what’s the fucking solution? Cut em off? Does that make things better? It’s certainly not my fault as an investor that say the Moroccans are corrupt. I think I can still do business, but … So you say, fuck it, cut em off.

And we then have economic collapse.

I ask again, who benefits from the money that the IMF lends? I think the IMF has recognized this problem to some extent, for example in Chad, where they have tried to force the Chadian government to use the money received from oil on social spending, rather than military hardware. Unfortunately, this has not been without problems , but at least there is some sign of progress.

International multilaterals have long tried to push governments to spend their money on productive investments – but these are sovereign nations, and in the end you can not force a sovereign to do anything. No magic wands here. And of course people with a congenital dislike of ‘capitalism’ etc. then call them imperialist.

No fucking easy answers. You need to educate yourself in economics and learn how the real world works.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, there have now been several cases where a corporation has used Chapter 11 to sue a government over an environmental law. One example being Crompton Corp suing because Canada banned lindane for canola crops, despite it being banned for use on Canola crops in the U.S.

I shall leave this inaccuracy to others.

Equal treatment issues.

As for Mandelstam:

Clueless, yes, I stand by that. Effective control in some meaningless economiclly clueless lefty “but the ‘people’ are left out” sense… WTO is set up on free trade principals, the advantage EU and US have in it are there greater resources in making cases, and until quite recently a greater willingness to have recourse to it. As developing cases suggest, slowly developing countries as getting on to the idea of leveraging collective action through WTO, pooling resources to make trade cases.

The issue is that trade cases, as trade itself, are complex and not easy to argue. One needs solid economic data, solid analysis and the resources to develop both in order to make a good case. Clearly the richer you are, the more you are able to do that in an effective manner. Influence through greater resources is just a fact of life. Don’t like, go live in a fantasy world of your choosing. The fact of the matter is, oomph counts, and trying to pretend power doesn’t talk is a non-solution. However, the structure of WTO provides, with proper use of its mechanisms a way to level the playing field. Pooling resources makes it easier to develop one’s case.

[dal_timgar]

globalization has been going on for 500 years. the question is, globalization in whose favor. the internaet makes it possible for everyone to participate in the globalization game via the distribution of information. why do politicians talk about education but noone ever suggests making accounting/personal finance mandatory. there are democratic and republican millionaire politicians, are we supposed to believe they don’t know accounting.

ASSETS - LIABILITIES = NET WORTH

damn, that is so dificult to understand. 5th grade arithmatic.

http://presidentjackson.no-ip.org/knavelacademy

globaly expose the dumb economists that don’t depreciate all of the automobiles in the world.

Dal Timgar

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Well, I am glad to have a near pure example of the non-reasoning which is behind these protests.

I’m glad to see that you oppose the anti-globalization folks. **Collounsbury **, I’ve gotten the impression that your work involves global commerce. Your position may be an example of the more general principle that people mostly support the leftist position on those issues where they lack personal expertise.

[system]

Ahhhh.

The obligatory dal timgar post on … never mind.

[Maeglin]

Your position may be an example of the more general principle that people mostly support the leftist position on those issues where they lack personal expertise.

I think this is misleading and unfair. It seems that people mostly support fringe positions on both sides of the political spectrum when they lack personal expertise.

Furthermore, I’d be hard pressed to determine which side behaves more foolishly with respect to agriculture and restraints on free trade. Both republicans and democrats were smashing Japanese cars with glee in the 1980s.

I tend to be politically liberal, don’t have an iota of experience in global commerce, and I’m not exactly a dirt-eating druid. So what exactly is this general principle?

[system]

*Originally posted by december *
**I’m glad to see that you oppose the anti-globalization folks. **Collounsbury **, I’ve gotten the impression that your work involves global commerce. Your position may be an example of the more general principle that people mostly support the leftist position on those issues where they lack personal expertise. **

Of course I oppose those clueles morons.

I also oppose the almost equally clueless rightwingers who adopt (a) hyper-simplistic econ 101 market fundamentalism (b) myopic idiotically misinformed know-nothing unilateralism.

My position is an example of the general principal that being informed in a well-rounded critical manner is a good thing, REGARDLESS OF IDEOLOGY so don’t fucking use it for your knee-jerk ideological blathering.

[dal_timgar]

have you noticed that the laws of physics are the same for capital goods, consumer goods, communist goods, socialist goods, fascist goods, hindu goods.

the laws of physics don’t care about words and philosophies.

wonder why?

Dal Timgar

[system]

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

[Mandelstam]

colour wolf, do not be put off or intimidated by Collounsbury. He has a bit of an, er, caffeine problem. After a while his surliness endears one and even his spelling begins to look quaint ;).

**RickJay **:

You appear to be confused about the meaning of accountability. When Joseph Stiglitz writes that the IMF doesn’t “report directly to” citizens he is not asking that such citizens become voting members of the IMF. (How could you read his book and come away with such an odd impression?) The UN or the US congress are accountable institutions because their deliberations are open, and their activities are made as transparent as possible. Trade negotations and related enforcement mechanisms can and should be made just as accountable.

And it’s not as if the WTO or IMF are doing anything terribly secretive."

Stiglitz feels very strongly otherwise; I hope you’ll forgive my taking his word over yours.

“This should not be taken to mean I think we should just shrug off anything our government does that involves an international treaty, but this criticism is being levelled against the WTO as if it’s somehow a new, sinister development. You will have to remind me when the last time was that I got a vote on any international agreement my country signed. Ottawa’s not asking my opinion on Kyoto or the land mine ban or the ICC.”

Again Rick, you’ve somehow confused yourself into believing that there is no level of accountability between secret meetings and tribunals, on the one hand, and voter referenda on the other. Do you think the Canadian Parliament should deliberate in secret simply because you don’t have a vote in it? (Actually, don’t answer that question; I’ve already seen what you think about the Canadian government ).

Trade negotations involve the economy, the environment and, increasingly, the legal infrastructure of sovereign nations. Allowing such far-reaching treaties to be negotiated in secret simply makes it easier for special interests (such as powerful corporations) to dominate. It’s as simple as that.

“Look, I’m all for an honest examination of ANY international agreement, but “honest examination” is not well served by shrieking and waving one’s arms. I find the hysteria, frankly, sort of irritating.”

Who is the hysterical shrieker in this instance? Stiglitz? Sen? Kuttner? Me? I find ignorant histrionics irritating as well. Which is precisely why I’d like to stick to expert arguments.

“I’m a little confused as to what the alternatives are. This is a child’s complaint; I-don-wanna-but-I-hafta-but-I-can’t. On one hand the poor nations of the world are screwed if they do, and on the other hand, they’re screwed if they don’t.”

I’m not surprised you’re confused since you seem to have eliminated any alternatives between the status quo and entire elimination of the status quo. Lots of reforms can be made. The IMF, for example, can become more accountable and can wean itself from its free-market dogmas. I gather Collounsbury himself support the latter.

“Would [poor nations] be any better off if the WTO didn’t exist?”

That is a false antithesis since I’m not arguing that the WTO shouldn’t exist. Actually though, there are nations that have been adversely affected by WTO policies, and still more by IMF loans.

Here’s another excerpt from Stiglitz on what’s occured via the WTO (and, for the 3rd time, he talks least about the WTO and most about the IMF):

*"While [advanced] countries had preached-and forced-the opening of the markets in the developing countries to their industrial products, they had continued to keep their markets closed to the products of the developing countries such as textiles and agriculture. While they preached that developing countries should not subsidize their industries, they continued to provide billions in subsidies to their own farmers, making it impossible for the developing countries to compete. While they preached the virtues of competitive markets, the US was quick to push for global cartels in steel… [S]o unfair has the trade agenda been that not only have the poorer countries not received a fair share of the benefits; the poorest region in the world Sub-Saharan Africa, was actually made worse off as a result of a the last round of trade negotiations.
These inequities have increasingly been recognized…[so that the recent Doha round in 2001] put on its agenda the redressing of some of these past imbalances. But there is a long way to go: the United States and the other advanced industrial countries only agreed to discussions; just to discuss redressing some of these imbalances was viewed as a concession." *

" The difference being that I don’t blame the WTO for the world’s ills simply because it has a specific purpose."

Who exactly is blaming the WTO for the world’s ills “simply because it has a specific purpose”? I would have thought that by now you’d have realized that the idea was to improve the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO so that achieve their specific purpose (to aid development via trade) rather than defeat it?

“Do you really think the public at large in the USA, Canada, France, etc. are, if everyone is involved in the vote, going to vote for a trade deal that DOESN’T confer enormous, unbalanced influence on their own countries?”

Again, this voting idea is an absurdity that you have fashioned for yourself. That aside, citizens, even when they do have a vote on the matter, often do often support things that are in their long term vs. short term interest. And they do often support public goods and even goods for others on humanitarian grounds. Your dim view of what people can be expected to support can’t explain how the world has managed to move from Hobbes’s hypothetical state of war, to societies with all kinds of publicly financed goods, including education, social safety nets, foreign aid etc.

I don’t say that human nature is perfect; naturally Canadians criticize the Americans more than themselves, etc. etc. Naturally people need to be educated about their longterm interests–as they have been about environmental issues, and as they are increasingly becoming about the importance of alleviating vast inequalities between rich and poor nations.

I will say this: I trust the self-interest of the citizens of a well-functioning democracy at least as much as I do the self-interest of corporations who stand to cash in directly. There should at the very least be a balance between the two as there would be if there were public accountability. I do think this is a simple step forward–were it politically possible.

*“Imagine the same vote in France. What, allow imports of wheat? Je ne pense pas!”

And yet via the EEC these kinds of decisions are made in and open and accountable fashion. It’s not a perfect system but it’s better than one than operates behind clsoed doors.

Some public accountability’s a good thing. A necessary thing. But be careful what you wish for.
“I think you are absolutely right in that accountability to the public is paramount. I could not agree more.”

I gather this seeming contradiction is to do with the misunderstanding about giving each citizen a vote in the WTO et.al.

“It’s [i.e. secrecy] not - it’s true, in my view, of virtually everything the government does, and is generally LESS true of the WTO than many other government endeavors.”

I can’t speak for Canada; but I know that Congress is openly debating the Iraq issue; so is the British Parliament. Dick Cheney’s unwillingness to reveal who whom he met with on energy is resulting (rightly so) in a huge public stink including litigation. What you say isn’t remotely true of the United States. I somehow doubt it’s true of Canada.

[Much fulminating about the evils of Canadian secrecy]

“At least the WTO has a Web site and is honest and upfront about what it does; for the most part, actually, it’s not secretive at all.”

Are you suggesting that the Canadian government has no website? Rick, I’ve taken part in several debates with you. And I’m gonna stop right here on this one. Because this is silliest stuff I’ve ever heard you say. Frankly, I think your embarrassing yourself on this one.

“So don’t get me wrong here; public accountability’s good. But why is the WTO, of all things, subjected to all this vitriol?”

Vitriol? Nah. It’s called criticism. Answer: Ummm… Because it affects a huge segment of the world’s population? How’s that for starters.

“And why does the vitriol so often seem to be accompanied by the most profound, migraine-inducing ignorance? Yeah, I know, you and jshore have good links. And you seem to agree with me that we have domestic problems that need solving first…”

To be honest, I’ve seen no shortage of migraine-inducing ignorance on the other side of this issue.

I’m not sure I do think that domestic problems need solving first; rather I don’t think that , in the US at any rate, you can distinguish between what’s wrong with US democracy and what’s wrong with the globalization status quo. In both cases there is too little citizen participation; too much corruption of the democratic process. Perhaps the beginnings of campaign finance reform will help that. I had hoped that the stock market bubble bursting and the recent corporate scandals would help it alot though the current warmongering is now dominating the public’s attention.

“Let me get back to you this weekend with a new thread. This one deserves a little more room and I work until Sunday.”

Till then, Rick.

[Mandelstam]

Sorry Rick, you’re “Be careful what you wish for” line appears to be written by me in what’s above. Unintentional. Also, clarification: when I say countries were harmed by IMF loans, I mean by the conditions that came along with them.

[colour_wolf]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Loans do not cause economies to collapse, any more than they do companies.

Thanks. What the hell did I say in the next goddamn sentence. Let’s see.

This money is often used to buy weapons or line the pockets of those in power

Of course the loans themselves don’t cause the economy to collapse, but the use of the loans. Was that obvious logical step too much for your towering intellect?

Wonderful, this is a great example of the ignorance behind the protests. Stop right there.
You might then take your misplaced outrage and ask yourself, “why don’t more nations default, fuck the capitalist pigs.”

Holy shit. What fucking outrage are you talking about? The only outrage I have right now is that someone is deliberately misreading what I said. I never even intimated that countries should be ‘cut off.’

Perhaps going cold turkey would be good. I fail to see how getting cut off from capital markets makes the situation better. See North Korea. Brilliant example of your socialist development, self-funded and all that. Sorry about the famine, part of the great leap … backwards.

MY socialist development? What the hell are you talking about? I guess you must think that

I ask again, who benefits from the money that the IMF lends?

means I’m some sort of rabid communist. Sorry, did you have a point?

Now, of course another reason the responsible parties borrow is for corrupt reasons.

And the award for stating the obvious goes to…

Again, what’s the fucking solution? Cut em off? Does that make things better? It’s certainly not my fault as an investor that say the Moroccans are corrupt. I think I can still do business, but … So you say, fuck it, cut em off.

I don’t have a ‘fucking solution.’ I was merely asking a question, hoping for some logical, well-thought out responses. I really wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. Where the hell did I even suggest that we should ‘cut them off’?

No fucking easy answers.

Isn’t that the point of Great Debates?

I shall leave this inaccuracy to others

Probably for the best.

Chris

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
You appear to be confused about the meaning of accountability. When Joseph Stiglitz writes that the IMF doesn’t “report directly to” citizens he is not asking that such citizens become voting members of the IMF. (How could you read his book and come away with such an odd impression?) The UN or the US congress are accountable institutions because their deliberations are open, and their activities are made as transparent as possible.

A) If you think the manner in which Congress or the UN operates are as transparent and as open as possible, boy, have I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you! I’ll give it to you for a thousand bucks.

B) My point stands, IMHO. Unless the meaning of the words “report directly” have changed since I learned them, the United Nations absolutely, inarguably, beyond any doubt or question does NOT report directly to the world populace. It reports directly to the member governments. (Congress does report directly to the populace. But when were we talking about Congress? IS Congress an international body created by treaty? No, so why the hell’s it brought up, anyway?) Those were your words and that’s what I replied to; don’t blame me for what you said. If you are now changing your story to “the UN is more transparent” I will grant that is somewhat true. But it’s not what you said, period. Don’t now change your story and say I’m wrong because I didn’t have the ESP to anticipate your changed version. At least give me time to catch up with you changing your terms.

Again Rick, you’ve somehow confused yourself into believing that there is no level of accountability between secret meetings and tribunals, on the one hand, and voter referenda on the other. Do you think the Canadian Parliament should deliberate in secret simply because you don’t have a vote in it?

Strictly speaking, M, they sort of do. I haven’t any idea what goes on in the Liberal caucus, which is where policy is actually determined and the critical deals are made. Trust me, I know Canadian politics. You don’t. Parliament is not a meaningful place of debate when a majority government is in power; it is simply a formality. In point of fact all government policy is set in the Prime Minister’s office, with some input from the cabinet and less from the caucus. There’s virtually no public accountability between elections.

Having said that, however, back off a bit. I have not specifically criticized Stiglitz or Sen’s points yet. Remember what I was originally replying to.

I’m not surprised you’re confused since you seem to have eliminated any alternatives between the status quo and entire elimination of the status quo.

Mandlestam, there’s no confusion here except your propensity for creating straw man arguments, logical leaps, and screwing up the distinction between making a point and criticizing it. I’m sorry, but remind me again where I have presented a false dillemma? I am not the one who eliminated all alternatives aside from Go or No Go. ** Michael Parenti** was. Remember him? You have constructed this entire mini-thread simply from my criticism of Parenti’s simplistic and invalid arguments.

I would have thought that by now you’d have realized that the idea was to improve the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO so that achieve their specific purpose (to aid development via trade) rather than defeat it?

Honest to God, Mandlestam, what thread are YOU reading, anyway? If you’ll refer to the OP, the thread was about the various motivations of anti-globalization protestors. Fine. zeva4 posted a quote from Michael Parenti, who parroted the usual baloney about how the WTO is attempting to take over the world. I criticized his fact-free and silly quote, and now all of a sudden I’m guilty of ignoring… what, exactly?

You’ve been blasting away at straw men like Charlton Heston on speed, and I admit I’ve been sucked into it to some extent, but just how did my simple and absolutely correct observation that Parenti is full of shit become a lack of realization that “the idea is to improve the World Bank”? Really? Whose idea? Yours? Okay, we’ll debate that, if you want, but I guess I didn’t realize that was part of the discussion. It’s not the thread topic and it’s not what you angrily replied to.

Since you’re having trouble following, let me reiterate; I’m not here to debate the merits of the WTO. (not in this thread, anyway.) Like I said, it’s for another thread. I’m here to discuss the motivations of WTO’s opponents - the specific topic of this thread, BTW - and I specifically, without any lack of clarity, was criticizing Michael Parenti’s comments and those who think along the same lines. I believe my criticisms are completely and inarguably correct. I freely admit many people have VALID, debatable criticisms of the WTO, IMF, or what have you. I have suggested I disagree with many of them, though unlike Parenti at least they’re valid and sensible. This does not in any way mean I think the WTO is a perfect, happy thing that delivers kisses and flowers to every living human.

Let us review:

“Michael Parenti is wrong. The WTO is not hideously evil and isn’t going to steal our sovereignty”
DOES NOT EQUAL
“The WTO is perfect.”

Are you going to defend Parenti? If not, just what was your point?

What you say isn’t remotely true of the United States. I somehow doubt it’s true of Canada.

(Talking here about secrecy in government.)

Mandlestam, if you actually, honestly believe that the U.S. government doesn’t make a lot of critical decisions behind closed doors… I don’t know what to say, really. I’m just flabbergasted.

Even subtracting the idiot conspiracy theories (“The Pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane!”) from the equation, anyone who thinks all U.S. government decisions and policies are openly made by agreement in Congress is living in a dream world of such elaborate construction I would suspect Frank Lloyd Wright designed it. Nobody’s this naive.

[Mandelstam]

Rick, thanks for replying at such length. I hope you won’t mind if I don’t respond point by point. I think you were confused by Stiglitz’s phrasing (“report directly”), and I regret that my first post seemed to be taking you on personally. I didn’t really mean that though I can understand why it seemed that way.

I am frustrated by this type of thread but my frustration has only ended up in my prolonging exactly the kind of thing I dislike.

I actually like you way too much to respond to your last (I mean that sincerely). I’ll be on the lookout if you start a Stiglitz thread over the weekend. .

colour wolf, since you’re new I just wanted to let you know that generally people don’t use, um, colorful language in Great Debates. Collounsbury is one of the few posters who does it with impunity because, well, because he’s such a one-of-a-kind. We’re also not supposed to insult each other, though, as you can see this thread has gotten a bit out of hand. The Pit is the place where you can really let loose (though, speaking for myself, I no longer enjoy that kind of thing).

I apologize for setting a bad example.

(I do like to tease Collounsbury though and I think he must like it as well because he never complains ;). )

After considering this thread at length I conclude the following:

that Collounsbury is the most convincing critic of free trade since Joseph Schumpeter;

that Truth Seeker has found a group of people he disdains more than feminist academics;

that Canada’s Liberal administration has the worst conceived since the reign of Caligula;

and that jshore is probably reading a good book right now.

I still recommend reading his links, though.

Regards all.

[Truth_Seeker]

Cheer up, Mandelstam, lots of anti-globalization protesters are feminist academics.

Since we’ve veered wildly off-topic anyway, I might as well respond to a few things.

**Trade negotations involve the economy, the environment and, increasingly, the legal infrastructure of sovereign nations. Allowing such far-reaching treaties to be negotiated in secret simply makes it easier for special interests (such as powerful corporations) to dominate. It’s as simple as that.

**
Negotiated in secret? Not hardly. I think what you really mean is that they are negotiated without the participation of NGOs. There are dozens of negotiators from 144 countries that meet over a period of years to hammer out the details of these agreements. This is complicated enough as it is without inviting The Black Block to offer their views on the details of anti-dumping rules. Anyway, at least in theory, these countries are supposed to be representing the interests of their people. When it comes right down to it, NGOs aren’t actually very democratic. They’re just a like-minded group with an ax to grind. They certainly have their place and many do excellent work. But why is it particularly democratic to give any particular group with an agenda a seat at the table, even if they claim to be self-appointed guardians of “the poor” or some such? Do you really think that, say, a French labour union is going to look out for anything except the interests of French workers?

**And yet via the EEC these kinds of decisions are made in and open and accountable fashion. It’s not a perfect system but it’s better than one than operates behind clsoed doors.

** Maybe it was that way in the EEC, but it sure isn’t that way in the EU. All the important decisions are made by the Counsel of Ministers usually at about 3:00 a.m. in an actual smoke-filled room. The Commission is incredibly opaque and, in effect, not accountable to anyone at all. People have been complaining about the EU’s “democracy deficit” for years.

By the way, Collounsbury, a simple “What Truth Seeker said” would have sufficed.

[Estilicon]

A lot of people in here must learn the difference between Western Civilazation and the degree of development. Why? Because my country, for example, is a thrird world nation but also a member of the not glorious West. It seems that the family does not recognize it’s poor cousins

Second it’s true there is a lot of corruption in Latin America, but also up there in the north. Some people ought to be ashamed of themselves. I will use U.S.A as an example (they are the worst of all) frontiers inward they behave rather well (I won’t get into the Enron scandal) but when they make buissness in, for example, Argentina they don’t hesitate to break the law. It’s the same double standard that we see regarding Human Rights.

Third the IMF. The short answer is that they are either very stupid or very smart… and thieves.
Argentina public spending did rise 63% in the 90, that’s true but what no one mentioned is that during those years interest rates growth 5 times. At the end (before our default) 1/3 of the budget went to paying the debt.
Another idiotic policy was pegging our currency to the dollar, specially at the moment when American economy was about to explode. The result was that our industries could not compete with anyone, exports went to hell and imports to heaven. The result is that in 1998 unemployment was 18%.
And while our fiscal situation wasn’t the best in the world, it wasn’t the worst either. Our deficit was 1.5% of our product. Not much. And that with out considering that another policy mandated by the I.M.F was the privatazation of social security (pensions) that money didn’t go to the state but to private corporations, with out that policy we would have a superavit.
All those policies were not only aproved but applauded by the IMF, in 1998 we were “the best pupil” (I’m quoting the directorate of the IMF) heaven was promised to us. Remember in that year our principal market, Brazil, devaluated. We didn’t, the IMF said that Brazil was dead and that we did the right thing in keeping the parity with the dollar. In fact what we did was shooting ourselves.
And remember till 1998 everytime the IMF spoke of “reforms” they mentioned my countrie as the example to follow, we had the highest quallification (remember the unmeployment of that year).
And now for the worst, IMF standard doctrine says that if a country is in difficulties it has to take “strong measures”, in that way markets will be pleased and investment will growth… and you know the rest. In 1999 a new goverment was elected, people began hoping again, the economy was beginning to recover, and the new goverment decided to help it with some strong measures, like cutting public employees salaries in a 13%. That was the beginning of the end during 1999, 2000 and 2001 the goverment tried to cut the deficit 7 times, each time the deficit went up instead because with less money in the streets, people consumed less and therefore there were less income in taxes. The last attempt was the so called “Zero deficit law”, the goverment said that Argentina would pay the debt and all other obligations (health, security, education, etc) would be payed if there was any money left. They thought that “confidence will return”, 5 months later the president had to quit amongst popular rebellion. His successor (a clown) declared default. Devaluaton followed.

In 2002 the crisis is the worst my county ever lived. We that are the biggest per capita producers of food in the world are living a situation no one ever dreamed… people are dying of hunger. What about the IMF? Now they say that we have to pay our debts with our reserves (till next year we have to pay 9.2 billions, our reserves ar 9.4 millions). No we have a grim choice we can use our reserves and will have hiperinfaltion or we can choose not to pay, in which case we’ll join Cuba, Lybia, etc…

Finally forget the “rescue packages” their only purpouse is to bail the investors out, when that is accomplished the countrie can go to hell.