Originally posted by: Zebo
Liberals pushed globalization, why is this any surprise? Both parties have been co-opted by big business for campain contributions and wall street and press backing.
I prefer nobel prize winning in economics take on it who has no vested intrests because he can give $20000 speeches on his merit rather than positions of power he had and may have in the furture to sell out america.
This is a very indepth article however I think it highlights and explains when comparing reality and theory of Globaliztion, they are far apart. All the critizism of globalaztion are coming true and each one os proven in his article: Namly
1. The effect on the environment due to the over-consumption/throw-away model of most developed nations not allowing for much sustainable development.
2. Taking away influential decision-making from publicly elected governments to privately owned corporations.
3. Specific policies such as structural adjustment are criticized for undermining national sovereignty.
4. More poverty in third world
5. The stability of jobs, would also continue to fall as less regulation means that corporations can easily move from country to country in search of cheapest costs (and labor forces are often very expensive).
6. Only the wealthy nations will benefit, while the poorer ones will suffer the most in this. It will not just be poor people from developing nations, but poor people in industrialized countries too. For example, corporations are able to be freer to move around and avoid substantial taxes.
7. The way that the global financial system is structured benefits the 'core', compared to the 'periphery'. George Soros for example, is worth quoting at length:
8. Inequalities and gaps between those who have and those who do not is already shown to be rising in these early years of globalization.
9. Small Busineses being destroyed
And many many more all backed up by real statistics and leading economists.
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz's stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years -- that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries -- have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world's rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.
... Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended "picking it up, saying 'thank you very much' and dropping it straight in the garbage can."
... To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of "free-market fundamentalism" continues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government's collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.
... Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF's reputation than any other living economist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text
Then why won't the press report it? and why do they only show pro-globalizaion pundits to feed your mind?
both have 10X the substance and detail what the liberal wrote