Joseph Stiglitz, Do you think that his position, benefiting Latin America or underdeveloped countries?

Question

In his book, "Globalization and its Discontents", the approach of this Nobel Prize for Economics, notes:

"Globalization has favored greater difference between rich countries and those in developing the number of poor has increased dramatically on a global scale, while the rich are becoming increasingly."

"globalization favors the rich countries of hypocrisy by allowing them to force lower economic development to eliminate trade barriers from an economic policy unacceptable to the industrialized countries, or to maintain its front-tariff barriers to goods from developing countries, especially those in agriculture. "

What do you think of these two points.?

Answer 1

Stiglitz has had the opportunity to get an inside view of the mechanics of globalization. His points of view have a lot of credibility.  He's most likely correct.  Except for China and India, most other Third World countries have paid a high price for globalization.  Their infant industries can't compete against First World multinational corporations, and their workforce often gets minimal wages for their labor.

Answer 2

He's right, of course. How could you think otherwise, given his expertise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._S...

The question then becomes, what do we do about this state of affairs? That is where people differ. His answer is outlined in his book "Making Globalization Work"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Glob...

Others want to retreat from globalization behind barriers to trade; while still others (primarily among the rich) think there is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, continuing the way we have been.

(Since the rich are pretty much in control, there is little chance of anything that they see as being against their interests actually getting done, which is why most of Stiglitz's proposals won't be getting implemented. When he was at the World Bank, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury applied pressure to get him sacked.)

I would argue that over the long run, we'll all lose: the Earth just can't sustain the demands we are making on it. That means that even the richest countries will be seeing a major decline in standard of living in the decades ahead.

For economists, the only question will be how just how big the take remains and how it will be split. For the rest of us, the questions may have a wider focus.