| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/31 |
| 2003/10/11-12 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Finance/Investment] UID:10593 Activity:low |
10/10 Free trade can hurt developing countries:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994247
\_ All trade policies, in fact all government policies hurt someone
somewhere at someone else's expense. There is no perfect trade
policy. There is no perfect law. It's just a case of forming
policies that help this country without hurting others worse
than necessary.
\_ Boy they are really stretching data based on a mess
of assumptions. (especially the independence of obviously
not independent data). All the data really shows is that
rich countries are less corrupt than poor ones, which is
far from earth shattering. Take a look at their lame
http://www.newscientist.com/misc/popup_ns.jsp?id=ns99994247F1
Note that the "closed" economies GDP only goes up to 9.
Why did they include data on the US and UK then? (and the
rest above 9) because it gives them a much larger slope in
their "rich to poor" corruption curve. -phuqm
\_ The Economist comes to the same conclusion, though I have
not seen the data to back up their reasoning. -AMC
\_ The Economist has stated many times that the poor countries
are to benefit more from free trade than the rich countries,
that is, if the rich countries stop subsidizing and do remove
import barries on agricultural comodities, textiles, and other
goods that can be produced more cheaply in the developing
countries.
\_ yeah, so if you're in the middle class and "haven't
gotten yours," you should be concerned about globalization
\_ Everyone should be concerned with free trade. It is
to everyone's benefit and the very first thing everyone
should be concerned with is eliminating the above
mentioned barriers on agriculture that the US (and
other rich countries put up) and specifically the US
should stop giving nearly 100 Billion dollars to rich
corporate farmers like ADM. -phuqm
\_ yes, you are right. i agree. --aaron
\_ Aaron agrees with me. jeesh, i better rethink
This is a first ;) -phuqm
\_ ok, it will probably benefit the whole of
humanity, but will it benefit every individual?
\_ It will certainly benefit everyone who pays
taxes because the above-mentioned trade barriers
are raised with your taxes.
\_ The good of the many outweighs of the good of
the few.
\_ for the rest of our natural lives, the
"many" that you talk about will be people
who populate corporate boards, not the
peons in third-world countries
\_ Sucker.
\_ I don't care. -phqum
\_ Sure, but Ghana has no leverage or control over EU and
US farm policy. In the interim they have been better off
protecting nascent local industries until they can become
large enough to become export industries. This was
practiced with great success by Japan in the 60s, Hong
Kong in the 70s and Korea in the 80s. A wide open market
favors established industries to an overwhelming degree.
\_ and in the meanwhile.. the consumers will suffer. Also,
there are plenty examples where raising trade barriers
hurt the consumers (obviously) AND failed to make the
protected industries competitive.
\_ It is certainly a tricky balance to make. But those
countries that have successfuly made the jump from
developing nation to developed nation in the last
50 years all did it. Finding the right mix of
protectionism and unrestricted trade is hard or
everyone would have done it. The point is that
mindless devotion to the neoliberal model is bad
for developing countries. See Argentina, Russia
from 1991-1996 and many, many other examples.
mentioned barriers on agriculture that the US (and other
rich countries put up) and specifically the US should
stop giving nearly 100 Billion dollars to rich corporate
farmers like ADM. -phuqm
favors established industries to a great degree. |
| 5/31 |
|
| www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994247 If developing countries join the global economy too soon, they risk becoming trapped in a cycle of poverty and corruption, a new analysis suggests. A number of empirical studies have shown that poorer countries experience higher levels of corruption. Badly paid officials are easily tempted by bribes, the reasoning goes, while the well paid officials in richer nations risk losing their comfortable salaries if they are caught taking backhanders. But if corruption so bedevils developing nations, how do they escape and become rich? Daniele Paserman, an economist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and his colleagues say they have found a simple answer. If a poor country opens up its economy to the outside world too quickly, the flow of money across its borders encourages corruption, which in turn hampers growth. But those countries with closed economies can grow until they can afford to pay their officials well. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that free markets across borders encourage development and cut corruption. We are highlighting one of the dangers of being more open, says Paserman. Index of corruption Pasermans team tested the idea by gathering data on economic output in the late 1990s from 165 countries. They adopted a recently developed index of corruption, which pools the views of various organisations on how corrupt individual countries are. They then classified countries as open, western-style economies or closed economies. To do this they used several criteria, including the strength of each countrys black market, which always flourishes in closed economies. In open countries there was a strong link between poverty and corruption, with poor countries far more corrupt than rich ones. The most plausible explanation for this disparity, says Paserman, is that in a closed country, corrupt officials are obliged to spend their ill-gotten gains at home. Even if this money is spent on the black market, it still helps boost the nations economic growth. But in open nations, corrupt money leaves the country, doing nothing to relieve poverty, so encouraging more corruption. Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, a think tank based in London, UK, says developed countries could take some steps to help developing countries join the global economy. Forcing imported money to be placed within banks for a fixed period would help track dirty money and deter money laundering. |