Rob Schaap wrote:
> G'day all,
>
> When globalists and antiglobalists do get to talk to each other, the debate
> usually gets to the third world, and the globalists usually smile
> indulgently and say look at the economic growth figures of such-and-such an
> LDC. If the antiglobalist answers that, s/he's immediately on the other's
> turf.
>
> Now, it occurs to me that capitalist development 'take-off' moments are
> marked by an appropriation of something - enclosure, and/or privatisation,
> and/or commodification of something (often a whole way of life) not
> formerly commodified. That means 'economic growth' can't help but be
> dramatic, as stuff without formal market value, and/or without formal
> profits, and/or without any recourse to market transactions at all could
> well equal zero on the national accounts. They suddenly appear on the
> accounts purely by virtue of a formal change of status, don't they? So, as
> the accounts soar, you actually get people losing their access to a
> livelihood, and/or public services and/or a tenable social network of
> collective-life-sustenance.
>
> Et voila! A potent accounting trick proves unfettered capitalism is in the
> interests of the world's poor whilst it actually starves 'em!
>
> Is that a correct answer for the antiglobalist to give? And, if so, is it
> a decisive answer?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
--
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu