Hi Wim:
In your post addressed to Roger you wrote:
> The problem is that trade with and
> investment in the countries that need it most is the least profitable and
> the most risky. If we leave it to 'the market' to distribute the benefits
> of globalization, this distribution will become more and more skewed. Aid
> -much more aid than now- is essential to offset this effect.
I'm not sure what you mean by "skewed." Is it your goal for everyone in
the world to have equal wealth? If not, what would be a satisfactory
"skewing" in your view? In other words, how wide should the gap be
between the rich and the poor to satisfy your global Utopia?
You also wrote:
>Central command by
> a modern state can be much more subtle than that of a peripheral or
> semi-peripheral state like China in 1949 or Russia in 1918.
Would you elucidate on what you mean by a "subtle" central command.
Is this a euphuism for European style socialism?
Finally, I notice you often use the terms "privileged" and
"underprivileged." When these terms are bandied about by liberals in the
U.S. they mean "the lucky rich" and "the unlucky poor." I wonder if they
have the same meaning in Europe?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:16 BST