Hi All:
As usual Wes Burt makes very good points.
Especially important is the one he makes about nations developing at their
own pace, integrating into the global economy. His paragraph follows my
comments.
It is unfortunate that so few people know the existance of an international
balance of payments surplus or deficit. To know of its existance might
prompt speculation of the consequences of those balancees.
Subsequent to the Seattle WTO Conference the attention of opponents to the
proposed globalization should direct their attention to what it is that
they do want, other than to merely oppose.
It is my contention that the opposition to globalization goes hand in hand
with informed people in many countries expressing a desire for their
national governments to protect them from the negative consequences of
globalization by a stronger reassertion of national soverignty and
integrity. That this flys in the face of NAFTA and the EU is self evident.
Conversly, the world has become so interactive that the raising of boarders
against trade and money flows is not feasable nor practical.
In my humble opinion, and in order to prevent future trade wars and
protectionism, and at the same time assure national control and
responibility for corporate activities, there are two balances that must be
struck.
The first is that the international balance of payments must be exactly
that. Currently the International Balance of Payments Deficit some
countries have is used to extract (read rape & clearcut) resources from the
deficit countries and to keep them economically captive. It is no different
than Collonialism and Imperialism, excerpt that it is conducted by Wall
Street (& BIS) instead of the NATO or Pentegon.
The second follows the first in that there must be an international balance
of trade in goods. By preventing the developing countries from importing
more than they can export, it prevents the economic destabilization of the
developing country. This excess of imports over exports results in the
import of manufactured goods that developing countries are not culturally
equipped to handle.
The byproduct of forcing a balance in trade and payments will have the
corollary effect of more correctly valuing the resources of resource
exporting countries.
This forcing of a balance was part of the now abandoned "Bretton Woods
Agreement" of 1944, since abandoned.
The forcing of a balance cannot happen at once at the international level.
It must happen by the governments of individual countries asserting their
responsibilities to their citizens by protecting them from foreign economic
aggression, either in trade or money. At the same time not cut off the
legitimate trade that improves the standard of living for the people of
trading countries.
I would suggest that the current imbalance of trade and payments be subject
to a tax that would provide an incentive toward a balance. The amount of
the tax would or should be set at a level that would not act as a barrier
but as a progressive inhibitor for any country to subjugate any other
country through the use of money or trade imbalance.
Another corollary benefit to the establishment of a balance would be that
it would inhibit the government of any nation in the developing and
underdeveloped countries from importing goods that the population are not
cuturally adapted to incorporate into their economy. It would also inhibit
the monetisation of a countries property and then exporting the ownership
to another non tax paying country.
I believe there is food for thought in the above.
Comment appreciated.
Ed G
=========================
WesBurt's paragraph
The simple solution which Douglas MacArthur allowed in Japan and John J.
McCloy allowed in Germany to facilitate the recovery of those nations from
the destruction of World War II may recommend itself to the WHIPs as a means
of closing the gap between today's first and third world nations. This simple
solution would allow all nations to converge at their own pace toward a
sustainable global social order. The freely emerging world order, whatever
it might turn out to be, would be much less affluent than Switzerland is
today but much more affluent than the former colonies of Spain are today,
after a century of struggle under the English/American public policy they
learned from the USA a century ago.
Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa
