Beautiful article however just to be honest after all that has gone on today, I just need to say "RESPONSIBILITY" has nothing to do with BEING SAVED. It is about "self-government" coming from each of us, and that appears to be the human problem.

The way we relate to eachother in Australia needs the greatest work.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

The protectionist vs free trade is an interesting debate.

Quite probably, the most important debate that exists in the world, as the effects flow into every other aspect of life, from conflict to the environment.

I'm somewhat torn. A pure free market system is better than a protectionist one that is manipulated for the benefit of a commercial oligarchy.

As an example, take the fanjul family in the US - quite probably, the largest beneficiary of welfare in the US with a stranglehold on sugar exports.

I support a minor degree of agricultural protectionism in Australia, but that's largely just because our competitors are doing it to a higher extent - actually, I'd like to see us peg our subsidies to a fraction rate of our prime competitors in an effort to encourage them to ditch their tariffs, while keeping ours lean and mean but competitive.

I can't ignore the fact however, that I'd prefer to see the subsidies scrapped.
On a global level, this would allow poor nations to achieve a real growth in exports. Their comparatively low labor costs would give them a real edge and provide an opportunity to lift them out of poverty.

Of course, even this isn't a panacea. The chief problem many third world nations have, is that it's impossible to create a viable business because a stable market doesn't exist.

To lift people out of poverty: how can you create a functioning business or even own land, when a coup or armed rebellion means that your achievements may be worthless? When red tape prevents a business from starting?

And make no mistake, with protectionism comes red tape and the associated handicap on small operators.

BUT!

There can be no denying that the result of capitalism is the aggregation of money and power into large businesses, which left unrestrained, will inevitably lead to cartels, duopolies and monopolies. These never function in the best interests of people or the planet.
Monopolies and cartels are the capitalist X factor that free market libertarians like to sidestep. Protectionism is necessary here.

Hi Dickie

thanx for your mellow response mate.
I was just curious.. your post sounded like you have a bit of a 'red' tinge :) but being an environmentalist.. it just means you are a sincere person who is rightly outraged over human greed etc and short sighted exploitation of the earths resources.. I totally agee with you, but my solution still stands.

You described the problem very well. I just don't see any other answer than for people to get their hearts rightly connected to our Maker and then realize that we have 'stewardship' of His world as a divinely given responsibility and duty.

I know it might sound kinda 'out there' to mention God in this context, but I'm looking around.. and round.. and round.. and I just don't see anything except many peoples many versions of fuzzy thinking...and they are all different, no single one having any more authority than another.

Which leads us to 'what next' ? I guess one might suggest 'science' will show us the way ahead. But sadly.. science, like the Slavery abolitionists, faces the problem 'repentance' actually addresses.. i.e. greed and human nature.

No matter which way one slices the cake..its still made of chocolate.

GANDHI.. another lesson.

1/ You can get rid of a 'restraining' Colonial power by non violent means.
2/ Once you have thrown off the leash of The Colonial master, you are free to kill uncountable thousands, even millions, as you then try to work out who is boss now.

3/ The racist and religous elements kept in check by the British, were then let out and given free reign... and ohhhhh how the Bengali's suffers from that.

So.....non violence may seem a good solution.. but only when the other side respects your views.. which Pakistan did not.

4/ Lesson 4= "Learn from the bigger historical picture, not just one small warm fuzzy parenthesis".

The only chaps that benefit from globalisation seems to be corrupt government officials, big multi-national corporations and 0.0005% of the people of China.

If we undo globalisation and regulate the current world monetary system to avoid currency speculation, most of the economic woes facing the world would go away. Less consumer goods produced means less natural resources needed, less pollution, etc.

Currently, about 72% of Americans are disillusioned with globalisation and Obama is riding high because he is for selective protectionism.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,527289,00.html

Philip

The most widely-used global poverty estimates are by Chen and Ravallion, whose most recent date cover 1981 to 2004:

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2007/04/16/000016406_20070416104010/Rendered/PDF/wps4211.pdf

Using the absolute poverty benchmark of $1 a day (in real, purchasing power parity adjusted 1993 US dollars), they estimates that between 1981 and 2004:

- Absolute poverty in China fell from 64% to 10% of the population, a drop of 505 million people

- Absolute poverty in India declined from 52% to 34% of the population, a drop of on 7 million people in absolute terms (because the population is growing) but a large relative gain;

- Absolute poverty across the developing world fell from 40% to 18% of the population, a decrease of 500 million people;

- In 2004, 970 million people in the developing world lived on less $! a day. If the 2004 poverty ratio was the same as 1981, there would be 2,150 million, or an additional 1,182 million.

These stats are both appalling and encouraging. Apalling, because so much acute poverty still exists. Encouraging, because so much real progress has been made in reducing it. The progress has not been even - South and East Asia has made most progress in reducing poverty, sub-Saharan Africa hardly any.

The evidence suggests strongly to me that globalisation is one of the key drivers of the poverty reductions that have been achieved. The reasons I believe that are:

- trade has been a very important factor in all the economies that have reduced poverty rapidly

- absence of trade and protectionism has been a characteristic of a majority, though not all, of the countries which have failed to reduce poverty

- all of the countries who have managed to accelerate poverty reduction during this period, such as India and Vietnam, saw economic growth and poverty reduction improving after trade liberalisation and deregulation policies were introduced.

Economic growth and poverty reduction are complex, and it may well be that trade liberalisation and deregulation alone are not always sufficient to deliver poverty reductions. But the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that they are a necessary part of the mix.

The $1 a day measurement is no longer a valid measurement and is a simplistic way of looking at poverty.

“We use data from over 500 household surveys spanning 100 countries.”

This would work out to 5 households per country. Surely, the sample size is too small to make any significant conclusion. It’s unbelievable coming from the World Bank.

Conditions have changed significantly in that there is a severe shortage of arable land, food, livestock. Food prices have rocketed and fuel prices are very high. For third world countries the damage caused by pollutants in the production process are not factored in

The passionate advocates of free trade, liberalization, deregulation, globalisation are almost always those big corrupt companies or their representatives that exploit people through unfair treaties, unfair working conditions. Their objective is to get wealth without work and profit with risks.

Recent financial crisis in Asia and Latin America have been taken advantaged of by the IMF and WB

"There is nothing new about what the IMF is doing in Asia. The policies being imposed on, say, South Korea, are remarkably similar to those imposed on most of the countries of Latin America, Africa, and South Asia. And the disastrous consequences of IMF policy are old news for the people of over 90 countries (containing over 80% of the world's population) which have been forced over the last 15 years to sign onto IMF structural adjustment programs (SAPs) or similar austerity packages. They know what the people of East Asia are just learning -- that the IMF's loans and its all-important certification of creditworthiness for international aid and investment are tied to cuts in spending on health and education, currency devaluation, rising interest rates, opening up to foreign ownership of domestic businesses, and the open-ended perpetuation of poverty."
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/015.html

What we want is fair trade and not free trade or globalisation. The proponents of free-trade have a hidden agenda.

We have only 14 years left to stop global warming, otherwise the damage done is irreversible. Voting out free-trade advocates will stop global warming