is curious, seeing as the alleged Western democratic societies, and clearly put his finger pointing to Uruguay, there is growing discontent with the free market, is accused of this being the great creator of all evils facing society and seek false messiah that promise a better life in this supposed paradise called .... XXI century socialism.
What is even more curious to see how in those societies, those who lived under socialist regimes, where everything belonged to everyone, nothing was nobody and no one was ... allegedly ... more than anyone, believe free trade and globalization is the salvation to their problems and the only way to survive in this world.
I transcribe below an interesting article by James A. Dorn, which develops this theme using the example of China.
China and capitalism.
According to a survey conducted GlobeScan in 2005 in 20 countries, the Chinese are the most believe that the market economy is the best system for the future of the world. No less that 74% of Chinese respondents opted for this response (and 71% of Americans, 43% of Russians, 36% of French). This is a surprising result, especially if we consider that, until 1979, China was the government who took each and every economic decision.
The sympathies of the Chinese by capitalism are also reflected in a study conducted last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs: 87% of respondents believed then that globalization was beneficial to his country, especially as he had of increased interconnection of different national economies. The Americans who claimed the same thing were only 60%, and only 54% of Indians.
not surprising that the Chinese support globalization because it has enabled China to open the world grow at advancing rapidly and substantially reduce poverty levels (each year leave the misery million Chinese). To broaden horizons and increase opportunities for people, globalization has pushed for the Communist Party give the green light to privatization and allow the market to function, all of which have positively impacted in civil society.
Today, the Chinese can own their homes, run your own business and seek employment in the private sector. All this was impossible and unthinkable in the days of autarky and central planning. Today, the Shanghai high school students studying in their textbooks globalization and economic reforms without having to deal with Mao.
Globalization has benefited China and the global economy. Although the changes have affected millions of Chinese workers, the Chicago Council survey reflected that 65% of Chinese respondents believed that international trade is beneficial to the job security of workers. This opinion was shared by only 30% of Americans.
Obviously, the purpose of trade is not to protect anyone's job, but to create wealth. And now the world is richer than it was a couple of decades. Trade liberalization, the information revolution and financial integration have been combined with pro-market reforms to ensure China and the rest of the world a splendid future.
One of the lessons they have learned the Chinese is that, in combating poverty, it is preferable to introduce the relevant institutional changes that receive foreign aid or abandoned interventionism. Not many decades ago, poverty was concentrated in Asia, not Africa. Today, things have changed substantially ... for Asians, and foreign aid has failed to improve the lives of the poorest Africans.
China has made much progress, but much still needs to be a market economy. It should expand the scope of property rights, increase transparency in its judicial system and allow the free flow of information. It should also make the yuan a fully convertible currency.
of little use to open the Communist Party of the capitalists and to amend the Constitution to provide protection to private property if justice is not independent. On the other hand, there is no free market without people equally free So China must also acquire political freedom. So, to put it soon, the challenge for China is to acquire a rule of law. JAMES A.
DORN, academic vice Cato Institute and director Cato Journal .
0 comments:
Post a Comment