Super discussion! Thank you for the ideas. My question, is there a
listing somewhere that specifies the approximate dollar amounts of
surpluses or deficits that one can access? I know here in New Zealand that
figures are occasionally floated that NZ is now owing other countries a
huge amount of money, but disclaimers then appear that split the amounts
into public and private debts so that clarity is missing. Again however,
clarity may be too simplistic, I don't know. Anyway, I would treasure a
list of countries and the trade balance data regarding surpluses and
deficits and even better to get a series over time. bob gregory
At 11:28 1/03/2000 -0500, Ed Goertzen wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
Pacific Means Peace
Robert J. Gregory
School of Psychology
Massey University
Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND
Phone 64 6 350-5799 extension 2053
FAX 64 6 350-5673
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
