Ideology (was Re: Profit and Loss)

[Jane Sweet]

Mike Weaver wrote:
> 
> For those who regard globalization as a myth and feel confident that the
> U.S. government is a supporter of democracy around the world, I recommend
> Promoting Polyarchy (Cambridge 1996) by William Robinson. He shows that the
> policy change by the U.S. from supporting dictatorships to promoting
> electoral democracy was designed to retain the elite-based and undemocratic
> status quo rather than to encourage mass aspirations for democratization.

I regard "globalization" as a myth. Thus far, not a single
poster here has come up with any facts to refute the facts I
have provided that prove "globalization" does not exist.
Regionalization we have. You mentioned the famines at the
turn of the last century. Why does the author turn to the
famines that occurred around 1900 to make claims that free
trade is not good policy? Isn't it because free trade, trade
was higher in 1900 then it is today? Isn't it because
markets were more open then? If there was more trade then
why are we now talking about this new "globalization" thing.
Trade is down, not up. Of course there is always an economic
aspect to famine, but to try to claim that famine was caused
by free trade and that free trade in the 21st century will
also cause famine is an argument that can't be supported. 


Also, those that support free trade do not necessarily feel
confident that the  U.S. government is a supporter of
democracy around the world. In fact I would argue that a
position that calls for less trade and more isolation
supports USA violations of  United Nation's resolutions and
international law. If Iraq and Cuba, to name but two
examples, were able to trade freely with the world and with
the USA life would better for all involved.