anti-globalization label

[Brad DeLong]

>BDL:
>>  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.
>>
>>  You can't even agree whether the big problem is that the U.S.
>>  Congress does not exercise enough or exercises too little dominion
>>  over India...
>
>mbs:  Conoisseurs of debating tactics will note that BDL's paraphrase
>of the anti-glob movement is done mostly in procedural terms, whereas that
>of the neo-libs is in substantive terms.  The effect is to drain the AG's of
>content.

Wasn't my intention. I had thought that whether the world should be 
run from Washington (i.e., U.S. Congress and President decide on what 
other countries are allowed to export, whether Canada is allowed to 
have a cultural policy, what India's environmental policy should be) 
or not was a substantive point.

More broadly, however, I do think that the big problem with Seattle 
was precisely the absence of an image of utopia around which people 
could rally. And I think that the mainstream media, craven ignorant 
Republican boot-licking curs that they are, have picked up on that in 
calling it "anti-globalization"...

Brad DeLong