I'm actually surprised to see Steve launch into a critique of laissez-faire capitalism here on cypherpunks, of all places. One can admit that globalization has ill effects (mostly, bricks through windows of Starbucks thrown by bored, upper-middle-class, college-age protesters), certainly. But when responding to claims that factory workers in poorer countries are only being paid $2/hour or whatnot, it makes sense to ask: Is this worse than their other alternatives, like mud huts in villages?
To argue against people voluntarily entering into market-based transactions with each other is so a-economical and contrary to cypherpunk philosophies* -- wlel, I just don't think it's worth taking the time to go any further in a response. -Declan * = To the extent that there are any cypherpunk philosophies, of course. At 01:17 PM 10/20/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >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.
