Robert Tulip wrote: Grim, the reason why the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank so-called “force countries to participate in the world economy” is that those countries themselves wish to have access to financial credit, but their credit ratings are so bad that they cannot borrow except on Bank/Fund terms, which typically require basic standards of governance as lenders of last resort. Countries only go to the Bank and the Fund when they have previously stupidly borrowed large amounts of money and then wasted it or allowed their rulers to steal it. It is the "responsibility" that goes with the "rights" of sovereignty. I agree the World Bank is somewhat culpable though, in that over the years it has believed the lies that governments have told it when they said they would use their loans productively.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... yNcP&hl=en

Tip of the spear RT tip of the spear. Rationalize whatever will make you feel better, your words on the subject mean less and less to me as your 'practical merit' is unimaginative and prosaic. Step out of the box here RT, your grasp of history is as weak as your ability to look to the future. As again you deceptively blur the distinction between capitalism and neoliberalism as if nothing has already been said on the subject. Please try to remember that ignorance is ignorant.



http://www.globalissues.org/video/730/l ... d-part-two

I guess I should apologize for making the assumption that you are well enough informed to think realistically. My bad RT my bad.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your frank reply. I appreciate your depth of belief, passion, and knowledge on the subject. About South Korea, this is definitely the exception, not the rule. This information is from another previous thread about a similar subject:

President Camacho wrote:Every developing nation is using China as a model to grow - like India.

Imagine how much goods would cost if there were 2.4 billion people - who made the same amount you do, all bidding for the same goods you want to purchase. There's no way to fulfill the needs of all those people plus those of the rest of the globe. It's insanity. These countries need to be kept poor and backwards. They need to be exploited by not introducing globalization. We need to depress their wages and get them used to earning a living by mining their raw materials and selling to us for beads and trinkets.

A potential powerhouse like China must not grow and reap the benefits of globalization because that would mean their dangerous competition with us and, therefore, a new rival. For the same reason of "rival containment," they did this to Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, etc. Whats relevant here is that IF one, or all these countries, grew and became prosperous, OTHER countries would want to emulate these nations. This flux of increasing power of other nations is TOTALLY unacceptable. Basically for exactly the same reasons you have in your quote. There are certain exceptions where the U.S. has increased the power of other nations, but this is always the exception, not the rule. They did this with South Korea but ONLY to discredit North Korea and, therefore, communism. What better way to discredit it then by economically strangling North Korea, and making S. Korea more economically powerful. This will show the world that communism brings poverty and capitalism brings prosperity. In conclusion, I do agree that globalization should bring prosperity to the world, but as you even said, this is not the case.

bobby408 wrote:A potential powerhouse like China must not grow and reap the benefits of globalization because that would mean their dangerous competition with us and, therefore, a new rival. For the same reason of "rival containment," they did this to Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, etc. Whats relevant here is that IF one, or all these countries, grew and became prosperous, OTHER countries would want to emulate these nations. This flux of increasing power of other nations is TOTALLY unacceptable. ..There are certain exceptions where the U.S. has increased the power of other nations, but this is always the exception, not the rule. They did this with South Korea but ONLY to discredit North Korea and, therefore, communism. What better way to discredit it then by economically strangling North Korea, and making S. Korea more economically powerful. This will show the world that communism brings poverty and capitalism brings prosperity. In conclusion, I do agree that globalization should bring prosperity to the world, but as you even said, this is not the case.

No, South Korea's prosperity is not the result of the USA "making" it happen. It is the result of the Korean's own efforts and sound institutions. Any poor country that emulates South Korea's emphasis on hard work, sacrifice, saving, investment, education and rule of law can become rich, with the caveat that places with bad geography, for example land-locked African countries, or with mean neighbours, such as Gaza, face extreme barriers to their development.

It is in the interest of the USA for everyone to be rich. Abundance for all enables people to fulfill their potential through peaceful economic development rather than through crime and war. I can understand why you believe your conspiratorial ideas, and yes it is true that multinational corporations are often corrupt and exploitative. However, blaming the USA for poverty in Latin America ignores the extent to which poverty is entrenched by domestic institutions in those countries. The Spanish legacy of gross inequality was not imposed by the USA. The only thing "strangling" North Korea is its own incompetent government.

I disagree that the world cannot support universal wealth. In the next decades we will work out how to unlock the vast abundance of resources and energy in the world oceans so that human wealth and protection of the environment can go together.

RT

It is in the interest of the USA for everyone to be rich. Abundance for all enables people to fulfill their potential through peaceful economic development rather than through crime and war.

Hear, hear, Robert. I think this is a fine summary of U.S. economic policy respecting other nations. The U.S. A.I.D. Website, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_ ... index.html , expresses this policy in the following words: "Economic growth is key to transforming the developing world. It is the only way for poor countries to reduce and eventually do away with extreme poverty. Economic growth is the surest way for countries to generate the resources they need to weather global crises - from unstable markets for finance to those for energy and food - and to address their own illiteracy, poor health and other long-term development challenges."

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... rgK5tLilBw

US AID mission statement: about as deep as the shallow end. Next time just quote George Bush as your moral authority.

US AID mission statement: about as deep as the shallow end. Next time just quote George Bush as your moral authority.

Grim:

First, I cited the US AID statement as economic policy, not as moral authority. My understanding is that this discussion concerns economics, not ethics. Second, respecting the "depth" or substantiation of the ideas expressed in the US AID policy statement, those ideas appear to be consistent with the findings of a great deal of economics research. See, e.g., the text and sources cited in World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy Program Sourcebook, chapter 12 on macroeconomics (citations are on pages 24-27), http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/3360_chap12.pdf , and chapter 13 on trade policy (sources are on pages 52-57), http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/13876_chap13.pdf .

I disagree, anything dealing with national topics affecting numbers of people, "from unstable markets for finance to those for energy and food - and to address their own illiteracy, poor health and other long-term development challenges," has multifaceted ethical components...quite obviously.

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book ... 0300103052

The trouble is that even when you point out the problems it is easier for someone to disagree by simply repeating the ideals of the present which have caused the problems without any intelligent development of thought. For example the World Bank has dealt poorly with many of the developing nations they have purported to want to support financially. The best you can get out of them is the idea that the western model fits anywhere and that the best a nation can do is be a goods supplier for American interests or even better open up so the rich can buy their undervalued resources, despite all practical results of the World Bank system and similar to the contrary.

Robert,

I agree with you that the truth of "abundance for all is a must." That is a right and truthful maxim. But, for some reason, certain people in power do not implement their policies as such. I wish that our nation would act rationally, but they have not for some reason! I wish that the world was all right and that The USA WANTS to help other nations develop. But all the evidence AND facts point to the contrary. International opinion polls ALL throughout the world, minus here, have an extremely low opinion of the United States and almost all of them agree, even all our western buddies, say that the biggest obstacle to world prosperity is the United States. Look. Humans do not always do what is rational. But, as we have seen in most monarchies, is that when power is centralized, those in power become corrupt. Once they get intoxicated with that feeling of great power over people, they will do anything to keep that power! This is where the "tyrannic" element of monarchies comes from. The same is true when you have small group of people in power (in this case, less than 0.5% of the population). This is what is happening now, and has been happening since the birth of this country. We have been lucky the past almost 200 years. The institutions that our forefathers left us was intended to protect us from these tyrannical elements of government, through our constitution. Unfortunately, today's unique context and political institutions are vastly different from that of 1776. Our constitution has worked in past rough times to bring the interests of the people to the fore. This happened during the Jacksonian era, Lincoln's civil war, TR and progressivism, and the Great Depression with FDR. But today's institutions are sooo resistant to change. Change from what? Their current domination of resources AND the American political environment. It is sad that WHEN the American people find out the truth, it will be much too late, and they will only have themselves to blame because the rest of the world will be saying: We told you so...

Grim wrote:

The trouble is that even when you point out the problems it is easier for someone to disagree by simply repeating the ideals of the present which have caused the problems without any intelligent development of thought.

I believe that the dozens of scholarly works cited in the World Bank report do not simply "repeat[] the ideals of the present." Rather, they represent the results of research, much of it empirically based, on various aspects of economic development. Would you please explain the assertion that these dozens of scholarly works do not express "any intelligent development of thought"?