Retribution not enough

[Steve Schear]

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.  I've read the reports of 
the many low wage sweat shop jobs, mainly performed by young women, in 
these countries and that their alternative is worse.  In a way one could 
portray their situations as dismal but not dire, sort of along the 
on-screen comments of Arthur to the prostitute is dinning with "... so you 
might say you're having a relatively good time?"

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.


>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.

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.

steve