At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:42 PM 10/20/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
The direction of all recent administrations has been to expand globalization (i.e., interdependency) thus increasing economic risks and narrowing diplomatic choices. In the short term, and we have no idea what
When I speak of globalization, I mean removing barriers imposed by government to voluntary exchanges between consenting people. Sounds good to me.
Unfortunately, many citizens in the developing world are not party to these "voluntary" exchanges, but are directly affected.
So? Everyone *everywhere* is 'affected' by everyone elses' decisions. Everything you consume or make affects the global supply:demand and therefore price.
In the short term economic inequalities and human rights abuses may be exacerbated (e.g., the fate of rural mainland Chinese). The long-term effects of globalization are as yet unknown.
The effects of unfree localized trade are well known: regular folks see higher prices. Even if trade is global but unfree, they see artificial tariffs. To say nothing of the peasant who can't *choose* a better job in a factory because of unfree trade.
You seem to think of liberal global trade as a zero-sum game. This is an elementary error. Instead, liberal global trade is what economists would call an "expanding pie" where additional wealth is created.
Additionally, free trade leads to (purely voluntary, emergent) optimization. (If I can make X or Y, but you can make X but not Y cheaper, I'll make Y and you make X.) No one forces a farmer to the city to look for an industrial job. No one forces industrial folks to seek service jobs. Its economics and psychology.
Agreed, but wealth is only one measure of human happiness and the jury is still out on whether the vast majority of those indirectly affected by globalization will find it has been in their best interests.
Guess what: in a free society, no one is in charge of optimizing happiness. Well, each individual is responsible for their own. Since others can't tell what makes each individual happy, this is again optimal. \begin{asbestos} In a centrally-ruled (statist) society some elites decide what *should* make *others* happy. And forces everyone to pay for it. Not only doomed in reality, but immoral. \end{}