Re: your views on globalization

Dear Richard:
In you latest posting, you said:
“This 'basic idea' has little to do with globalization, but is instead a
reference to David Ricardo's economic theories.  Have you 'taken the time to
read' those theories?  He
bases them on certain assumptions, which include full internalization of costs,
investment capital staying within national borders, and trade being balanced
between
each pair of nations.  None of these principles are characteristic of
globalization, nor
are any of them even being pursued as goals, not even in official rhetoric.”

Though the promoters of globalization might pursue many different goals, their
BASIC one is still the opening up of economies to foreign trade and any
resulting
benefits can only come from making use of comparative advantages. That such
ideas have first been expressed by David Ricardo is beside the point. By the
way, you
might have guessed, that his theories ate not completely unknown to me, since I
also
insist, that foreign trade should be BALANCED.

You then go on:
“The ~actual~ basic idea behind globalization - which is obvious from any
'objective
analysis' of either the realities of globalization or the motivations of those
promoting it - is to open up every economy to maximal exploitation by the
largest global
corporations."

I agree, that up to now, globalization’s benefits have accrued almost
exclusively to
TNCs. That is exactly why I made my PROPOSALS FOR A FAIRER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE BENEFITS OF GLOBALIZATION.

You finally said:
"You seem to have your own vision of what globalization ~should~ be about, in a
different world, but your vision as well does not conform to Ricardo's
assumptions.
In your hypothetical world, you still envision the South being dependent on
profit-hungry foreign investors to provide employment and 'other benefits'.
This has
nothing to do with 'comparative advantage' in the sense Ricardo used the term,
and it could only lead to debt-enslavement of the South, as we have in the real
world
today.”

My proposals are not intended for a different world, but could - and might -
have a
reasonable chance of being adopted in the not too distant future.  Unfortunately
most people, who participate in discussions on this or similar topics, seem to
be extremists who see everything in black or white .(E.g. the opnions, that came
forward in a recent forum on the subject, organized by the World Bank). Almost
none want to admit, that in the real world different shades of grey predominate

Coming back to my proposals, I recommend promoting private investments in
ventures that make use of a country’s comparative advantages, always
CONDITIONED ON BRINGING BENEFITS TO ALL PARTIES
CONCERNED and especially to workers in developing countries. Participating
TNG´s would be allowed to withdraw their yearly earnings, while conditions for
gradually repatriating their original investment would be negotiated in
beforehand.
Such a situation can hardly be called DEBT ENSLAVEMENT.

Regards     Paul