|
Re: Economic theory and politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberty1776
Thanks for shedding some light on the issue. Still, I am not familuar with the regulations that the IMF demand. But, if markets are completly privitized as you claim, there are two things to consider. First, how were the services before the privitazation. Second, when an economy is shifting from a command economy to a market economy will doubtlessly cause some problems. It is likely that many people will want to go back to the old ways. For example, when Boris Yeltsin was elected after Gorbachev resigned, a the Communist Party recieved a third of the vote. This is because it really sucked in Russia after everything was deregulated. Now, however, things only suck (I think, if I remember correctly, Russia's per capita GNP is less than one tenth of America's). The distance from a command ecnonmy to a market economy is greater than the distance from a poor market economy to a rich market economy.
Now, as I said, I don't know much about third world countries, but this is my guess.
|
I agree that such a radical change from a command to a market economy will cause problems, and history shows that. The IMF's "conditionalities" for loans have required rapid and intense deregulation and privatization, despite the evidence that this "shock therapy" results in corruption and suffering. In other words, the complete removal of government from the economy, at least so quickly, is hugely problematic. I was just raising the point about the Third World in response to your advocacy of a complete laissez-faire system, of which I'm very skeptical.
__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne
|