Re: humanitarian intervention in the world economy

Pat Gunning wrote
>
>Gernot, I am not sure what you mean by a world economy. Perhaps you
>could explain. Also, you might tell what, in your view, is the
>alternative way to guarantee everyone a right to an adequate standard of
>living. It is one thing to advocate destruction. It is another to find
>an adequate replacement for what has been destroyed.
>
>While you ponder this question, let me suggest that you consider the
>very substantial increases in standards of living that have occurred in
>countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, the
>countries of the European Union, the United States, and the gulf oil
>countries. These are some of the major participants in the international
>trading system. I assume that you have something else in mind when you
>write about the world economy.
>-- 
>Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
>Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
>Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
>http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm
>
>

Pat - you are right to ask for precise definitions of alternatives, even 
though Gernot's point was simple, and detailing alternatives was 
probably beyond the scope of the point made (ie humanitarian 
intervention in perspective).

The general thrust of proponents of neoliberal global capitalism is that 
there are opportunities for all provided you put in place appropriate
economic policies, undertake appropriate economic reforms ala IMF Code of
Conduct.
It is the 'unlimited and growing pie' view versus the 'limited pie' view.

But the world economic geography is far more complex.  

Japan has succeeded (by some measures at least) despite heavy protection 
of domestic markets.  

Malaysia is now highly critical of the neoliberal global economic agenda 
and has imposed currency trading restrictions - by the same man who 
lead Malaysia through its rapid economic growth phase.

The Gulf Oil states are only wealthy by virtue of their vast oil reserves, 
and would more than likely have standards of living akin to Egypt or 
Sudan were it not for the oil.

You give few examples (perhaps 25) of countries that have presumably 
succeeded through free-market capitalism.  There are many more 
countries that have not been unfriendly to private capital or global 
markets (Indonesia, Jamaica, Fiji, Costa Rica, Nigeria, Philippines, 
etc) but have not seen a significant rise in standards of living or 
reduction in absolute poverty.

But to diverge from the focus of absolute poverty, we must also include 
relative poverty, or equity in the discussion.

Economic development in South Korea, I have heard, has managed to 
preserve respectable levels of equity.  But generally speaking, neoliberal 
global capitalism tends to exacerbate inequity.

The US which has a Distibutional Equity of only 0.8 (Distributional Equity
is income of lowest 20% /income of highest 20% of population).

For comparison [1] (1995)
Africa		0.13
China +**	0.14
Latin Am		0.07	
Middle East	0.10
S + SE Asia	0.18
E. Europe	0.23
FSU		0.22
N. America	0.11
Pacific OECD	0.16
W. Europe	0.19

Only Latin America rates lower than US/North America in Distributional 
Equity.

The US is the champion of the neoliberal globalised economy.  It is 
highly likely that a continuation of this trend will see little or no 
impact on absolute poverty, and a huge increase in relative poverty.

It is foolish to argue for total equity (Distributional Equity of 100).  
but how about a minimum of 20 ?

The question of alternatives to the IMF model is complex because, in 
effect, no standard model is suitable for all cultures.  We must 
provide space for self-detemination and culture-specific 
economic/development strategies, while acknowledging many 
commonalities of sustainable development.

Finally, returning to the question of 'unlimited pie' versus 'limited pie' 
view, there are a number of limits coming into play now - CO2 
emissions, marine fisheries, natural habitat (species extinction rates), 
water, fertile soil.  These may be medium term limits or longterm limits.  
Either way, it means that, to a degree, the wealth of some nations is 
at the expense of the wealth of others.  The unlimited-pie justification 
of neoliberal economic globalisation is less defensible.  There needs to 
be a new systemic mechanism for wealth SHARING.

[1] Raskin P, Gallopin G, et al 'Bending the Curve Toward Global 
Sustainability - Report to the Global Scenario Group' (1998) page A8 
http://www.gsg.org