but if its in the hands of an elite, the distrubution of wealth does not flow to the entire population, that is what happenning in south-america right now: the majority is saying no to the neo-liberal policies as a response to the gap this created between the rich and the poor.

agricultural lobby is too strong in europe, countries like france and especially the netherlands will never, never accept openness to non-euro agricultural exports from abroad. it only takes one nation to block this kind of decision.

no doubt, but it has to break down barriers in the west if it wants to uphold credibility in the 3rd world. political decisions dont tend to wait until an instution reaches a certain agreement.

Just like cannibalism is no longer a part of Indonesia. Get my point?
Plus he's the one that started this whole comparison thing again.

Yeah, I don't care much for rotten.com.

Not at first, but the greater the economical development of the free market, the lower the labour pools, the higher the wages for the wage workers and in the end a small gap between rich and poor. This process is inevitable, the state can't sustain such drastic changes, they can either be done now, or later when the opportunity cost might be higher.

Yes, but the price of food is rising now, soon, the subsidies won't be binding and can be broken more easily.

Sure they do, Most Favoured Nation tariffs didn't go in to effect until the agreements of the WTO. Call me an institutional liberal if you will, but their significance shouldn't be undermined.

No, the strong gap between rich and poor is caused by the unequal devisions of the profit that is made. it is a question of property rights, and it being in the hand of the few who do not care for the masses. you have heard of the fact that in developing countries few hold all wealth while most liive in misery? trade liberalization is not a magical cure for this, politics are not banned from global trade.

are you seeing it happening? i dont see any mesures as these being even considered at the moment even though the crisis is serious enough for it. even if: as soon as the food prices stabalizes we will jump back to protectionism.

their significance is not irrelevant, no. but you cant look away from the fact that liberalism is losing ground in many developing countries as being as sacred as presented to them.

What a warped view.
It's true that there were problems in the past but no longer. The government is now stable and all groups are now about equal here or at least heading that way. Chinese run many good businesses that Indonesian Muslims and Christians use.
I'm in a Chinese run internet cafe at the moment and no one cares either way.
No one has a go at anyone for being Chinese or white, Muslim or non Muslim.

Indonesians are naturally open and friendly people who tend to welcome anyone.
Next week a group of US students will be visiting local schools. They are having a warm welcome prepared for them by the staff and the students I have spoken to today are excited to be able to meet them.
The old Indonesia has gone and the new Indonesia is a fine place to visit and live.
Not that many people here realize that the white bloke they see walking about is a Muslim but no one has a go at me. They do want to talk and make friends.

__________________
I'm a fluffy bunny and a Muslim

Are you trying to prove me right? The gap between rich an poor is much bigger in the developing world, where the markets have yet to develop (hence the name). With economic development, these problems of wages are answered by my paradigm.
Trade liberalization is the magic cure, in the words of Adam Smith, market price is the magical hand that guides markets to social optimums the majority of times. The rich only care for the masses as much as you and me. Do you work for the greater welfare of society, or for your own wages? The only difference is that the rich will donate much greater sums to causes than you. I don't see what you expect out of them, since most get 0 or near 0 economic profits as you do. Their labour is simply worth more. It's no unfair, in fact it's the only fair allocation of value.


Yes I see it happening, look at the current WTO talks.
And once the consumers have the experience of greater consumer welfare surpluses by the breaking down of international barrier, I wouldn't doubt major public opinions shifting against subsidies. The New Deal was only effective during economic struggle during the 1930's, there's no reason to say it would be re-introduced now all of a sudden.


What are you talking about? Liberalism has done nothing but gain grounds since the end of the Cold War. No one can escape it. Even if there is turmoil in certain parts due to market failures, alternatives to liberalism have not done better and are not initiated on a mass scale. These turbulences are growing pains if you will.

the neo-liberal principles of liberalizations have developed far more than they have in europe. there is no control on monopolies and no restrictions for those who own these industries. as for the rich donating great sums, charity is not a way to build any state, selfsufficiency is and government involvement is necessary. i dont know if you know this but in europe we pay taxes and therefore supply for the greater welfare of society.
the rich dont donate shit in these societies however, perhaps if they would they would have been able to counter chavez to be democratically elected.

you underestimate how a small country like the netherlands will never accept the challenges that the openness will bring towards our own agriculture. we export way more than we would in a liberalized global economy, and seeing that the biggest party has almost always been the farmer based party the acceptance of this is not going to happen any time soon, which is the same for other EU countries..

liberalism has improved global economy and is the best system if everyone accepts it and removes barriers. but that a ideal construction that excludes political interests and does not exist yet. vital decisions are made on the national level and if the third world doesnt experience them as satisfying than governments will emerge that reject neo-liberalism

Most natural monopolies don't need to be regulated in order to lose in the long run. Look at what's currently happening to Microsoft, monopolies are defeated by competing innovation and the drive of their eventual competitors. The market for agriculture is not at all a monopoly, it's the picture of a perfectly competitive market.
Lack of susbidies is not really imposing restriction on businesses, but businesses and people face the same restrictions; the law. If the law can't be enforced, businesses like anyone else will abuse the system.
Rich people in South America donate a lot more money than you think, especially drug lords and other actors in the illicit market since they need public support. That apart judging the entirety of neo liberalism on the trite perception of rich people in a single country makes no sense at all, especially considering they form such tiny minorities in developing countries.
Economic development does not grow on self-sufficiency but on open trade. If importing wheat is cheaper, it increases total economic welfare to liberalize the market and allow imports. No country is self-sufficient.

Again, the increase in price of foodstuff will soon make these subsidies non-binding. Plus, I doubt Holland will break away from the EU over agricultural production, if it does, it's Holland's lost foremost. Less farming will simply mean that these farmers will find work doing something that is more productive rather than keeping an industry on governmental life support. Lots of small countries make good economic plans without major exports, especially when they have the established infrastructure of the Dutch. You might have to cut a governmental program or two.....oh well, even better.

There's no rejecting neoliberalism. You can't just do away with it and establish an alternative. You either let "political interests" run deep and have a poor country, or you have an economically sustainable country with the withdrawal of the state. If these countries don't make the right decision at first, they will eventually.

monopolies are not cracking down by themselves, and political proces in latin america show that people arent going to wait for the 'long run'. decisions are made in presidential terms of 4 to 5 years, patience for a monopoly to crack down does not exist in democratic systems. saying drug lords supply the general welfare of colombia doesnt make a lot sense to me, especially considering there hardly is one.

the foodcrisis is a temporary problem and governments here are expecting for the wind to blow over, it will not tear down the trade barriers. the EU integration process shows that trade between countries is not made fair untill there is a higher institution that can enforce it. the WTO is groing in influence, but it is not quite there yet.
and it is not wether holland will break away from the EU, it is because countries like holland (also heavily agriculture based countries in eastern europe) will block decisionmaking favoring free trade on EU level. the farmer lobby is without doubt the strongest there is in brussels.
(oh and dutch farmers are bloody rich, they can sell their prices at a fixed rate and get subisidies to make exports cheaper. the dutch economy is still very agriculture based dispite its size)

yes, at the later stage perhaps this aspect will return in these countries, but the trend at this point in time is opposite, and even though you can question its rationale the fact is that different convictions than neo-liberalism are prevailing in latin america.

Monopolies do crack down on their own despite the lackof anti-trust laws being enforced.
I never said drug lords supply general welfare, trade always does that, merely that charity does exist in South America. Plus, I find your view of South America one that is affected by the "World Vision syndrome". Not everybody down there is a poor orphan that can't fend off for him.herself. There is still economic trade and development. Nationalization of production though, is not at all a viable solution.

Temporary problem is debatable, but even if it wasn't, temporary doesn't mean social change can't happen.
If those Dutch farmers are bloody rich off price mark ups and subsidies, that means that there must be a strong economic backbone to support the taxes involved and the increase of price. You don't need to enforcing instution to have fair trade. If you meant contract law, than local authorities in the involved parties have full authority to enforce contracts. If you meant price, price is only what one is willing to buy it at and what the other is willing to sell it at.