Rich wrote first:

> It is always tempting to simplify complex international problems,
> especially political-economy problems, by reducing them to a single
> issue like xenophobia.  It is not possible.  It is reductio ad absurdum;
> reducing to the absurd. 

And then:

> What is being driven in the present world is globalization, which is the
> concerted effort by some governments to equilibrate world economies by
> transferring the wealth and productive resources from the more affluent
> nations to the so-called underdeveloped nations.  The result of which is
> to compromise the prosperity and quality of life related thereto of the
> productive nations and enhance the prosperity and quality of life of the
> underdeveloped nations.  The architects of globalization consider
> socialism to be the most appropriate economic model to achieve global
> equilibration because it allows rapid intervention into such things as
> price controls, resource allocation, distribution of wealth and more.  

Which seems to be not much different from what's described above :)

Brazil is not a rich country, IMO mainly because the rich Brazilians didn't
realize for centuries (and I'm not sure many of them do realize this now)
that being a bit less rich in a rich country provides for a much richer
life than being a bit richer in a poor country. That's not socialism,
that's realism.

> My own view is that it requires a substantial restructuring of
> participating governments in order to continue implementing
> globalization, which will compromise collective social freedoms as well
> as individual freedom for centuries to come.  As presently implemented,
> globalization is illogical and economically unsound.

Maybe, but to prevent it requires substantial government intervention in
the form of tariffs and other "socialist" measures -- so you seem to be
caught (in your view) in a catch-22 :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist