Of course, the practice has been different
-- the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN have a veto and many
international economic organizations (the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank) are run on the principle of one-dollar-one-vote (voting rights are
linked to paid-in capital). However, even so, the post-1945 world
order was immeasurably better than the one that came before it. [This is how
this cocksucker survives in Cambridge and the World Bank, I suppose.]
There is actually a lot that countries can do to influence income
inequality. Many European countries, including Germany, France, Sweden and
Belgium are as unequal as (or occasionally even more so than) the US, before
they redistribute income through progressive tax and the welfare state. Because
they redistribute so much, the resulting inequalities in those countries are
much lower.
The point is that, even if the country gains overall from
globalization, there will always be losers, especially (although not exclusively) workers
who have skills that are not valued anymore.
In short, my preferred option would be a
more controlled form of globalization, based on far more restrictions on global
flows of capital and more restrictions on the flows of goods and services. Moreover, even
with these restrictions, there will inevitably be winners and losers,
and you need a stronger (not weaker) welfare state and other mechanisms through
which the losers from the process get compensated. Politically, such a policy
combination will require stronger voices for workers and citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment