>We neoliberals at least have broad agreement that developing-country
>governments are corrupt, by and large (East Asia excepted) lack the
>competence to run successful developmental states, and hence the best
>chance is to try to shrink them to keep them out of the way of
>economic development for a generation or so. We have broad agreement
>that maximizing economic contact--trade, investment, et cetera--is
>our best chance for accelerating technology transfer to poor
>economies and hence putting ourselves on the road to what may for the
>first time in history become a truly human world.
>
>
>Brad DeLong
I have absolutely no idea why I constantly pick fights with Brad, because I agree with him on roughly three quarters of everything. But this bit is worthy of adequacy.org (plug). Although it's true to say that the neoliberals are agreed on means, it is also true to say that the antis are in agreement that what we want is a truly human world, and the neoliberals aren't. As Bhagwati has recognised, the neoliberal camp is composed of good people like Brad, plus a lot of bad people who believe that getting corrupt third world states out of the way is the best means for enriching themselves and their employers at the expense of poor countries. The obvious test to determine which side of the line someone falls is whether they have anything good to say about TRIPS. Just like you can tell whether someone is a genuine libertarian or a republican flack by looking at whether they toed the line on hanging chads (Justin, convey my apologies for that jibe to Posner)
I'd also suggest that "neoliberal" is a bit of a misnomer itself, given that the policy position of Brad and his mates is profoundly technocratic and therefore antidemocratic (but not necessarily therefore evil). Using the weight of the USA to impose a set of political-economic prescriptions may be the right thing to do, but it strains the meaning a bit to have to pretend that it's liberal as well.
I'd also like to invite Brad to join in a discussion I'm having with a colleague as to why Argentina came through the 1990s so much worse than Brazil, following on from the comments he made about the failure of the IMF prescription in its poster-child Argentina having worrying implications for the whole school of thought. In Brazil it appears to me at least that the IMF have played a blinder during the 1990s; fair enough, it's still one of the most unequal societies on Earth, but at least it's now not a shrinking hyperinflationary economy as well. I think the key to this is probably a sort of Argentine exceptionalism; the autonomy given to the provincial governors in the post-1982 constitution makes is fundamentally impossible to impose a program from above, because you get taken to bits by populist regional governors. Which would imply that the neoliberal agenda is going to have to say that only some sorts of constitution are acceptable if it's going to work ... less than liberal.
hey ho hum, whatever.
------------------------------------
Gordon Fitch wrote:
>
>
> The function of the necktie is to reduce the flow of blood
> to the brain, thus making the office worker woozier, more
> complaisant and subservient.
A simple analysis of the sartorial acupressure involved reveals that this can't be true. If your tie is cutting off blood to your brain, that would imply that the knot was pressing on your carotid artery. This would have you wearing your tie-knot at a skew up toward your left ear; not a look which is tolerated in most offices, or indeed anywhere except City pubs around chucking-out time. In fact the tie knot sits on top of the voice-box, exercising its true function which is to make it slightly uncomfortable to talk. Since there are very few people in the world for whom a slight discouragement from opening their gobs isn't rather salutory, I say bring on the ties. On related lines, since an old rule of thumb in commercial negotiations is that "the first person to speak after the first concrete offer has been made will lose", I always make a point of tying an extra-firm half-windsor when contemplating any important negotiation (ie, any negotiation where the main or subsidiary topic of discussion is my salary).
Oh yeh, and call me Mr Cultural Studies, but it seems pretty clear to me that Michael Moore's baseball cap is a more or less conscious attempt to echo Fidel Castro's forage cap (which, when you come to think of it, is itself a bit ludicrous given the length of time elapsed since he's had any practical need to walk around in battle fatigues). He's picking his clothes in order to portray to the world the kind of person he thinks he is. And if there's anyone among us who doesn't do *that*, then I guess they can cast the first stone, although before doing so I'd be grateful if they passed on to me the list of popular left-wing authors and filmmakers which is apparently so long that we can afford to spend time and effort slagging off Moore for the way he looks.
dd
Get Your Free Email at http://www.al-islam.com