Free Trade and Economic Globalization

[TimG]

Do they? Countries now rich never had any access to any other rich countries when they were growing over the last few hundred years. They had their own technology and resources and traded these with each other.

Not a remotely feasible option. People in developing countries know what the rich world has and they want it now. Do you really believe that you could tell a subsistence farmer in Africa that they embrace poverty because it is 'good for them'? It is a pretty condescending attitude.

Fairness doesn't have to mean charity (the traditional sense). We wouldn't be giving them a dime, we would simply not be taking from them as much as we had in an unequal manner.

Sorry. If we allow cheap goods to come into our market people here lose their jobs and livelyhoods. That causes real hardship and definitely costs us. The ONLY justification for allowing goods from poorer countries is because we can then sell goods back to them. That is how fair trade works. Edited August 12, 2012 by TimG

[carepov]

However, I disagree with your first sentence. Trade liberalization, and how every country goes about trade policy in general, is a major factor in poverty reduction. An example is China. Prior to 1979, China was much more "communist", and had a closed economy with so-so results, then beginning in 1979 they started liberalizing parts of their economy, though maintained government control in many respects in order to guide the economy. This balance helped them achieve the growth they've had in the last 2 decades.

I stand corrected and agree with you.

I'm not arguing GDP is better than HDI in determining the best country to live in (because it's not), I'm arguing that GDP is better in determining economic growth & the successes/failures of trade/economic policy. HDI even uses GDP in its formula as the primary tool to measure the economic prosperity of a given country.

...

By what other statistic other than GDP-per-capita would you think would be better in measuring economic growth/prosperity? You can't argue for HDI and against GDP per capita at the same time, because as I said HDI uses GDP per capita in its forumla order to calculate economic standard of living: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/calculator/. The UNDP agrees with me.

One thing that I learned from the links you provided is that there is neither a correlation nor causal link between the successes/failures of trade/economic policy and GDP per capita. I am not suggesting there is one with HDI either.

All I am saying is that in most countries HDI is improving and therefore poverty is being alleviated. In many countries (like China, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile) the HDI is improving as fast or faster upon the adoption of trade liberalization policies. NGOs should therefore stop claiming that trade liberalization increases poverty.

I don't think most NGOs claim that poverty is increasing, because as you point out this is simply false statistically. What many do argue is that the WTO slows economic growth for many developing countries, or in other words without the WTO and with more equal trade policies between developing and developed countries, most poor countries would grow in economy and human development as an even higher rate, which I agree with. I just don't see how developing countries having trade policies rammed down their throats by richer countries with little or no input is to their overall benefit.

I cannot say most, but there are too many:

1. The Agreement [FTAA] Will Increase Poverty and Inequality

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/FTAA/oppose

This website is full of misleading claims about trade, for example Mexicos deep economic integration with the U.S. may have seemed a blessing other governments wanted to share in 1994, but ten years later, it was proven to be a curse.

The HDI data suggests otherwise.

2. Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it is estimated that eight million Mexicans have fallen from the middle class into poverty. P.23

http://www.canadians.org/trade/documents/making_links_web.pdf

3. To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade.

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

4. …for the rest of the world, international trade arrangements and various economic policies still lead to the same result. Prosperity for a few has increased, as has poverty for the majority.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world

5. Trade robs poor people of a proper living, and keeps them trapped in poverty.

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade

6. WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/

These organizations aim to reduce poverty but all claim that poverty is increasing due to trade liberalization. This mis-information is impeding progress. I would argue that, thanks to this mis-information, most people that are sympathetic towards solving the problem of poverty have believe the myth of more trade = more poverty. People and NGOs are therefore advocating counter-productive policies like cancelling trade agreements and/or preventing/killing agreements like FTAA and Doha that could greatly help reduce poverty. Also, we are wasting our time on trade when more important causes of poverty go unaddressed, as per Jeffrey Sachs - End of Poverty.

IMO, the WTO is not an organization dedicated to the economic development of poor countries. It's an org designed by rich countries for the benefit of rich countries, under the guise of "economic growth for all". Many poor countries have been politically strong-armed into joining the WTO, and also join it because it's better to have a small voice at the table than having no voice at all.

…

My view on global trade is that developing countries should have equal say and equal terms of trade as rich countries do. Right now, they don't. The WTO entrenches this inequality in trading power because rich countries are able to call the shots, despite the WTO claiming to be fair and equal. I want trade justice. I don't want rich countries calling the shots and increasing their wealth at the expense of the poorest countries (whether through WTO or otherwise) because that is, in my opinion, morally reprehensible. Whether you agree with me that the WTO does this or not, I hope you agree with me on this basic point of wanting this trade justice?

Yes, I agree with the goal of trade justice that is exactly why I am in favour of the WTO. Without the WTO trade would be must less just than it is now. (I thought that we agreed to disagree:)) Anyways, can you point to a country (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm) where the standard of living declined after joining the WTO?

Edited August 14, 2012 by carepov

[Moonlight Graham]

All I am saying is that in most countries HDI is improving and therefore poverty is being alleviated. In many countries (like China, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile) the HDI is improving as fast or faster upon the adoption of trade liberalization policies. NGOs should therefore stop claiming that trade liberalization increases poverty.

I cannot say most, but there are too many:

1. “The Agreement [FTAA] Will Increase Poverty and Inequality”

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/FTAA/oppose

This website is full of misleading claims about trade, for example” Mexico’s deep economic integration with the U.S. may have seemed a blessing other governments wanted to share in 1994, but ten years later, it was proven to be a curse.”

The HDI data suggests otherwise.

2. “Since NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it is estimated that eight million Mexicans have fallen from the middle class into poverty.” P.23

http://www.canadians.org/trade/documents/making_links_web.pdf

3. “To attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization. As a result, it maintains the historic unequal rules of trade.”

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty

4. “…for the rest of the world, international trade arrangements and various economic policies still lead to the same result. Prosperity for a few has increased, as has poverty for the majority.”

http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world

5. “Trade robs poor people of a proper living, and keeps them trapped in poverty.”

http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade

6. “WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, un-transparent and non-accountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the world's people.”

http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/

These organizations aim to reduce poverty but all claim that poverty is increasing due to trade liberalization. This mis-information is impeding progress. I would argue that, thanks to this mis-information, most people that are sympathetic towards solving the problem of poverty have believe the myth of “more trade = more poverty”.

That global issues site is not an NGO, it's just a website. Also, the Oxfam link underneath that quote says "Trade generates incredible wealth, and links the lives of everyone on the planet. However, millions of people in poor countries are losing out because the rules controlling trade heavily favour the rich nations that set the rules". Generally, I agree with this.

Liberalized economies tends to increase income inequality. See the US over the last 30 years, where the top 1% have had their incomes (after-tax and adjusted for inflation) rise greatly while the bottom 99% have have had minimal to almost no growth: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/05/lindsay-tracking-the-one-percent/. Income inequality has also increased in most OECD countries: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/. The same is true in most developing countries, and developing countries have the by far the biggest income inequality gap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality. So while GDP growth & GDP-per-capita has gone up in most countries over the last 30 years, this growth has greatly benefited the rich with minimal benefits to the majority in most countries.

What I'm getting at is maybe these NGO's who claim poverty is getting worse due to trade liberalization are referring to not the overall GDP of countries, but of the incomes of the poorest in most countries. It may or may not be true that in many or some developing countries, income for the poorest people over the last 30 years or so may have not just stagnated as in the US but may have actually decreased (adjusted for inflation). Would be interesting to see some stats, since this is the crux of the argument IMO. On a quick look I couldn't find any, maybe you can.

That Oxfam page you linked has a case study in Chile: http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/real_lives/chile

"Chile is proud of its status as one of the most open countries in the world. It has signed 47 free trade agreements, including one with the US. Chile has seen an overall growth in its economy but behind this success story, there are some heavy costs.

The additional money does not reach the poorest people – in fact, the agreements have thrown them further into poverty. Although there are more temporary jobs, the quality of these jobs is not high.

In the agricultural industry, Chile exports products such as grapes (for wine), fruit, and salmon. The profit from this business ends up in the pockets of transnational companies while the women who work the fields get paid below minimum wage and are denied their labor rights. The trade created in Chile has lined the pockets of big business and increased insecurity for millions of women workers."

Only specific statistics on the income of the lower classes in Chile will prove if this claim is true/false.

Anyways, I agree with you in that NGO's shouldn't brush trade liberalization with such a broad negative stroke. Every free trade agreement is different, and will have different effects on different countries and different income groups & sectors within these countries, good and bad.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[dre]

The rich countries are already rich. If the poor countries want to get rich they need access to the rich countrys' markets. Why would any rich countries ever agree to that without getting something in return (which is usually access to the poor country's markets)? Are really arguing trade policy should be driven by charity as opposed to self interest?

THe "something in return" we are getting is cheap consumer goods, and the right to set up shop in the countries. Thats clearly reason enough for us, because western countries have gladly ran gigantic trade deficits with various different slave states.

As for your characterizing of these productive nations as "freeloaders"... the truth is the exact opposite. Gigantic ammounts of real goods are flowing from these countries to the west, and nothing is flowing in the other direction besides rapidly devaluing bits of paper. Not only do these countries provide all the stuff that we want want and need, but they loan us the money to buy it in the first place.

WE are the feeloaders.

[dre]

Yes, I agree with the goal of trade justice – that is exactly why I am in favour of the WTO. Without the WTO trade would be must less just than it is now. (I thought that we agreed to disagree:)) Anyways, can you point to a country (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm) where the standard of living declined after joining the WTO?

Thats a red herring because the standard of life has been increasing GLOBALLY for about 200 years. Its also a mistake to assume that either the WTO or free trade agreements in general are responsible for the trade you speak of. Trade between nations was already rapidly increasing before any of these things happened, and the massive flow of goods from east to west that we see right now (which is enhancing the standard of living in the east) is a temporary phenomenon caused by a large currency imbalance and lag in the floating exchange rate mechanism. As those countries become more productive eventually their currencies will appreciate relevant to ours and most of that trade will stop. A lot of it is only happening because those countries are keeping their currencies artificially low to begin with.

[carepov]

Thats a red herring because the standard of life has been increasing GLOBALLY for about 200 years. Its also a mistake to assume that either the WTO or free trade agreements in general are responsible for the trade you speak of. Trade between nations was already rapidly increasing before any of these things happened, and the massive flow of goods from east to west that we see right now (which is enhancing the standard of living in the east) is a temporary phenomenon caused by a large currency imbalance and lag in the floating exchange rate mechanism. As those countries become more productive eventually their currencies will appreciate relevant to ours and most of that trade will stop. A lot of it is only happening because those countries are keeping their currencies artificially low to begin with.

No this is not a red herring:

"The proportion of humankind living in poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years.”

http://www.teamstoendpoverty.org/wq_pages/en/visages/chiffres.php

I am not saying that WTO is responsible for this - I am just saying that people and NGOs that want to reduce poverty should stop spreading lies that obstruct us from understanding and solving the problem of poverty.

[carepov]

That global issues site is not an NGO, it's just a website.

You are correct. However, the website includes articles written by people that are concerned about poverty. The first step towards solving any problem is to understand the problem. The quotes I provided showed that the writers do not understand the problem because as you say:

I don't think most NGO's claim that poverty is increasing, because as you point out this is simply false statistically.

Also, the Oxfam link underneath that quote says "Trade generates incredible wealth, and links the lives of everyone on the planet. However, millions of people in poor countries are losing out because the rules controlling trade heavily favour the rich nations that set the rules". Generally, I agree with this.

Why do concerned people wrongly believe that poverty is increasing? I blame groups like Oxfam – the more I read their website on Trade the angrier I get about their misinformation, just after the quote you provided:

“World trade rules have been developed by the rich and powerful on the basis of their narrow commercial interests. Rich countries and powerful corporations have captured a disproportionate share of the benefits of trade, leaving developing countries and poor people worse off. Trade rules should be judged on their contribution to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability.

Instead of robbing half the world of a proper living, trade could help millions of poor farmers and workers in developing countries beat poverty, and change their lives for good.”

They are not at all being objective! Who is worse off? The hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty? Do you think that respect for Human Rights has been decreasing? Really?

“The United Nations Development Programme (undp) reminds us that poverty has been reduced more in the past 50 years than in the previous 500. Life expectancy in the developing world has risen by over 20 years, and living standards by 190 percent. Literacy is up 34 percent in China, 33 percent in India, 39 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 41 percent in North Africa. In the first half of the 20th century, there were but a handful of democracies, and the future seemed a contest between the twin totalitarianisms of fascism and communism. By the century’s end, 120 of the 192 governments in the world were electoral democracies. Never before in human history have so many people enjoyed the freedom of the market-place and the ballot box.”

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipg/02857.pdf

Liberalized economies tends to increase income inequality. See the US over the last 30 years, where the top 1% have had their incomes (after-tax and adjusted for inflation) rise greatly while the bottom 99% have have had minimal to almost no growth: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/05/lindsay-tracking-the-one-percent/. Income inequality has also increased in most OECD countries: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/income-inequality-around-the-world-is-a-failure-of-capitalism/238837/. The same is true in most developing countries, and developing countries have the by far the biggest income inequality gap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality. So while GDP growth & GDP-per-capita has gone up in most countries over the last 30 years, this growth has greatly benefited the rich with minimal benefits to the majority in most countries.

This is a bad argument for several reasons:

1. There is no established causal link between trade policies and equality. “While there is clear evidence that greater equality augments growth, there is much ignorance on how greater equality can be achieved.” P.53

http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/lessons1990s/chaps/02-Ch02_kl.pdf

2. There may or may not be an increase in inequality, selecting one country (USA) proves nothing. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_since_WWII.svg or http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/worldinequality.aspx

3. Equality is a valid concern however this thread is about poverty.

What I'm getting at is maybe these NGO's who claim poverty is getting worse due to trade liberalization are referring to not the overall GDP of countries, but of the incomes of the poorest in most countries. It may or may not be true that in many or some developing countries, income for the poorest people over the last 30 years or so may have not just stagnated as in the US but may have actually decreased (adjusted for inflation). Would be interesting to see some stats, since this is the crux of the argument IMO. On a quick look I couldn't find any, maybe you can.

What is true is that:

“-The proportion of humankind living in poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years.

-Literacy levels of adults in developing countries have increased from 48% in 1970 to 72% in 1998; income poverty has fallen from 29 to 24%, and nowadays only 14 rather than 20% of newborn babies are likely to die before reaching the age of 40 years.

-Over the past three decades the proportion of people with access to drinking water has almost doubled – from 36 to nearly 70%.

-Since 1960 infant mortality rates in developing countries have more than halved, and malnutrition rates have fallen by almost a third.

-Between 1960 and 1993 average life expectancy increased by more than a third in developing countries. Life expectancy now exceeds 70 years in 30 countries.”

http://www.teamstoendpoverty.org/wq_pages/en/visages/chiffres.php

What is unknown is the causal link, if any, between free trade and poverty.

That Oxfam page you linked has a case study in Chile: http://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/trade/real_lives/chile

Only specific statistics on the income of the lower classes in Chile will prove if this claim is true/false.

Oxfam says:

“The additional money does not reach the poorest people – in fact, the agreements have thrown them further into poverty.”

Yet, the data convincingly says otherwise!

“The reduction of poverty in the 1990 to 2006 period is impressive when poverty is measured in terms of an absolute criterion. The percentage of poor in the year 2006 was only one-third of the 1990 level, which represents a dramatic decline in poverty in a relatively short period of time.” P. 10

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5ksksbtdfshf.pdf?expires=1345477375&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=DD23C438E816329D5E70A63946641D2D

Again, this article has very interesting data about inequality (generally flat over 25 years) but notice that the focus is on government income distribution programs – not trade policy.

Anyways, I agree with you in that NGO's shouldn't brush trade liberalization with such a broad negative stroke. Every free trade agreement is different, and will have different effects on different countries and different income groups & sectors within these countries, good and bad.

NGOs like Oxfam are wrong and are doing the world and its poor a disservice by spreading myths about trade and poverty. Do you agree or disagree?

[dre]

No this is not a red herring:

"The proportion of humankind living in poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years.”

http://www.teamstoendpoverty.org/wq_pages/en/visages/chiffres.php

I am not saying that WTO is responsible for this - I am just saying that people and NGOs that want to reduce poverty should stop spreading lies that obstruct us from understanding and solving the problem of poverty.

None of that stops us from "solving the problem of poverty". We dont solve the problem because there is no political will to do so. Its not a priority and very few people care.

And you are confusing free trade with mercantilism.

[Michael Hardner]

None of that stops us from "solving the problem of poverty". We dont solve the problem because there is no political will to do so. Its not a priority and very few people care.

We should probably break poverty into more easily recognizable problems: inequality, lack of education, lack of healthcare, food, water etc.

'Poverty' is too generic a term to be useful, IMO.

[dre]

We should probably break poverty into more easily recognizable problems: inequality, lack of education, lack of healthcare, food, water etc.

'Poverty' is too generic a term to be useful, IMO.

I agree but this is about free trade. My point was that free trade and mercantilism are two different things. The biggest gains in standard of live have come in countries like China, and its rather silly to credit free trade for those gains. China privatized farming in about 1975 and embraced mercantilism shortly after that. By the time China joined the WTO its GDP has already increased by over 1000%.

In other words Chinese growth did not happen because of free trade. It happened because China embraced the same sort of mercantilism that worked for the west 200 years before the term "free trade" was ever coined. Free trade with China and their admission into the WTO did not happen until 2002 once China had the capacity to produce exports that people around the world desired, and their domestic market was already growing and becoming more attractive to foreign businessmen.

[carepov]

None of that stops us from "solving the problem of poverty". We dont solve the problem because there is no political will to do so. Its not a priority and very few people care.

Yes, there are very few people that care.

Many of the few people that do care are anti-poverty activists - and they do not seem to understand the problem as they are claiming that free trade agreements ( also "greedy multinational corporations") are causing an increase in poverty. This lack of understanding/misinformation is a hindrance/obstruction in implementing solutions that reduce poverty. For example:

-They are sometimes calling for actions that will do nothing to improve poverty or may even increase poverty

-They loose credibility and therefore their ability to persuade others to care and act

And you are confusing free trade with mercantilism.

Can you please explain?

[Michael Hardner]

I agree but this is about free trade. My point was that free trade and mercantilism are two different things. The biggest gains in standard of live have come in countries like China, and its rather silly to credit free trade for those gains. China privatized farming in about 1975 and embraced mercantilism shortly after that. By the time China joined the WTO its GDP has already increased by over 1000%.

Chinese exports are measured at anywhere from 10% to 40% of GDP. From significant... to the major driver of the economy.

[dre]

Chinese exports are measured at anywhere from 10% to 40% of GDP. From significant... to the major driver of the economy.

ok?

[eyeball]

Why do concerned people wrongly believe that poverty is increasing?

Speaking for myself I guess it depends on what you mean by impoverishment. What I see missing in the debate about increasing trade and GDP these last 200 years is much attention being paid to the fact there is an ongoing accelerating draw down of our planet's resources. We have come far and grown much because we've had a planet that's been relatively easy for the taking but that is changing. Our growth is unsustainable and will if it isn't already, outpace the technological change required to maintain our pace of growth.

The measure of impoverishment should include the store of goods and services our planet's ecosystems deliver but it doesn't, because our human economy basically regards the natural environment as being external and quite literally outside of it. It's a rather bizarre way of looking at the world really. Probably stems from religion.

Edited April 9, 2014 by eyeball

[August1991]

The measure of impoverishment should include the store of goods and services our planet's ecosystems deliver but it doesn't, because our human economy basically regards the natural environment as being external and quite literally outside of it.

eyeball, that is simply false.

Modern economies take into account the use of the ecosystem (to use your term). Foresters clearly have an interest in maintaining the forest so that they have something to harvest into the future. Do corporations only think of the immediate future and the quick buck? Certainly not. Shareholders presumably want to have something of value to leave to their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

eyeball, I'll concede one point however. If property is not defined, then resources are over-used. Just ask Newfoundland and Icelandic fisherman about their respective cod fisheries. Iceland had the wisdom years ago to define which fisherman owns what cod fish territory. Newfoundland's current situation is not caused by free markets; it is caused by their absence.

====

In 1974 or so, Dennis Meadows published a book "The Limits to Growth". It made a similar argument to yours that the Earth is a finite place with only so many resources. Meadows predicted that we would run out of all kinds of basic resources within decades - the 1980s, 1990s. (BTW, Jimmy Carter raised Meadows' book to an ideology - others later raised it to a modern religion.)

Meadows' prediction all turned out to be false. My simple explanation is that our Earth is a big place. A really big place. We're not running out of anything anytime soon. IMHO, religions of all sorts are typically based on zero-sum thinking. Modern environmentalism is the Western world's new religion.

============

Last point: In a world where billions of people now live better lives than their parents or grandparents, it is not comical but tragic to criticize free-trade, neo-liberalism or rant like Piketty about "inequality". As recently as a few decades ago, millions of people died of starvation on a regular basis. Such extreme poverty is a fact of the past.

More people live better lives than at anytime in human history. Why? Because market prices are a remarkable way for people to co-operate.

In a world of several billion people who live well, does it matter if one guy is a trillionaire?

Edited May 15, 2014 by August1991

[eyeball]

My simple explanation is that our Earth is a big place. A really big place.

It's also a little blue speck. Your simple view is the simplest way to externalize the impacts of our economy on the natural world - it's an old shtick, making it seem as if our economy is like a tiny little speck that is so small and insignificant that it couldn't possibly hurt the world.

eyeball, I'll concede one point however. If property is not defined, then resources are over-used. Just ask Newfoundland and Icelandic fisherman about their respective cod fisheries. Iceland had the wisdom years ago to define which fisherman owns what cod fish territory. Newfoundland's current situation is not caused by free markets; it is caused by their absence.

Replacing the tragedy of the commons with privatization results in the tragedy of enclosure, it doesn't change anything except to reduce the number of participants while inflating the financial side of the business of fishing. Instead of too many boats chasing too few fish you now have too many dollars chasing them. Managers are lobbied even harder to allow unsustainable harvests and the concentration of wealth and power only accelerates with predictable results.

In a world of several billion people who live well, does it matter if one guy is a trillionaire?

Damn right it matters...the last time I fished for halibut under our brave new system I was paid 15 cents per lb while the owner of the quota was paid 4 dollars.

[GostHacked]

eyeball, that is simply false.

Modern economies take into account the use of the ecosystem (to use your term). Foresters clearly have an interest in maintaining the forest so that they have something to harvest into the future. Do corporations only think of the immediate future and the quick buck?

Yes they will go for the quick buck. Shareholders demand it. But forests are still being chopped down faster than they can be planted and grown. Hows our water station? Hows the air pollution problem? Hows the land we grow food on?

Such extreme poverty is a fact of the past.

Any country currently in turmoil with civil unrest is already dealing with extreme poverty. Africa has come up the ranks a little, Libya was modernizing and one of the best developed countries in Africa before it got a dose of western freedom.

[dre]

I would assume that trade liberalization helps increase economic growth because:

1. That is conventional wisdom – more trade leads to more economic growth

2. Human development is improving; it is difficult to imagine increasing human development without increasing economic growth

Human development has improved steadily world wide for the last 200 years.

[carepov]

World economic growth has accelerated dramatically in recent decades, (see Figures 1 and 2):
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003271-the-expanding-economic-pie-grinding-poverty

Look at figure 6, those countries that have liberalized trade (globalized) the most have had the greatest growth and also the fastest human development.

I know, correlation does not prove causation, but IMO, this data disproves statements such as, "globalization is increasing poverty"

[August1991]

Replacing the tragedy of the commons with privatization results in the tragedy of enclosure, it doesn't change anything except to reduce the number of participants while inflating the financial side of the business of fishing.

WTF?

Eyeball, I understand why you object to paying for what you once considered a free-resource.

Well, I pay for my street parking in Montreal - and I think that you should pay for your access to fish.

[August1991]

It's also a little blue speck.

Zero-sum thinking.

[eyeball]

WTF?

Eyeball, I understand why you object to paying for what you once considered a free-resource.

Well, I pay for my street parking in Montreal - and I think that you should pay for your access to fish.

What do you mean WTF? It's not my fault you don't have the first clue about what Ottawa has done to much of your fishing resource August, that's entirely your responsibility. It's your resource after all.

I trust you're paying around $100 an hour to park in the street because that's probably what it would take to come close to approaching what I pay for access to fish. To really bring it home though, you'd have to pay it to some lucky bastard the government simply decided to give the street to..

Pay attention to what I said, which is that I had to pay some lucky bastard 4$ a lb for the opportunity to catch your fish that sold for $4.15. You say you understand why I would object to that? Do tell. I'm still trying to get my head around it all myself.

Edited May 21, 2014 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Zero-sum thinking.

Oh there's definitely not much left over once you've accounted for it all.