Newsgroup: it.politica.pds
Titolo: It is the end of globalization as we know it...

E' ormai da un po' di tempo che non delizio i miei piu' affezionati lettori
con esibizioni del mio genio. Per riparare a questa imperdonabile assenza,
vi posto un articolo apparso sull' ultimo numero dell' Economist, dove lo
storico giornale liberale si esibisce in una goffa ma opportuna inversione
di rotta su uno dei temi di maggiore interesse riguardo la globalizzazione:
quello del controllo dei capitali. L' Economist, da sempre orientato verso
una rigida applicazione delle dottrine di liberalizzazione piu' estreme
(formato FMI) ammette ora, e per la prima volta, che sistemi di controllo
del flusso del capitale per proteggere sistemi finanziari deboli sono
appropriati. E cita come esempio il caso del Cile (drin! drin!), dove nel
1998 fu applicata una vera e propria Tobin tax (drin! drin! drin!) che diede
risultati eccellenti. Sono certo, cari lettori, che ricorderete bene chi fu,
dalle colonne di questo NG, a proporre il caso del Cile a sostegno di una
applicazione mirata della Tobin tax in contrapposizione alla impostazione
velleitaria e massimalista di Attac e compagnia no-global cantante: mais
oui, c'est moi!
Sono certo che, grazie all' innegabile fiuto politico dei leaders no-global,
la campagna per la costruzione di un nuovo sistema finanziario globale si
giovera' del bandwagon effect provocato dall' inversione di rotta di questo
strategico opinion leader della comunita' finanziaria mondiale, e quindi
riuscira' a produrre risultati reali, oltre alle belle conversazioni che
accompagnano sempre i pranzi all' Arpége. D' accordo, si tratterebbe di
cominciare a fare politica, ma un po' di moto non ha mai ammazzato nessuno.
A presto, miei fedeli lettori!
JP
--------
A place for capital controls
May 1st 2003
From The Economist print edition
For many developing countries, unrestricted inflows of capital are an
avoidable danger
IF ANY cause commands the unswerving support of The Economist, it is that of
liberal trade. For as long as it has existed, this newspaper has championed
freedom of commerce across borders. Liberal trade, we have always argued,
advances prosperity, encourages peace among nations and is an indispensable
part of individual liberty. It seems natural to suppose that what goes for
trade in goods must go for trade in capital, in which case capital controls
would offend us as violently as, say, an import quota on bananas. The issues
have much in common, but they are not the same. Untidy as it may be,
economic liberals should acknowledge that capital controls-of a certain
restricted sort, and in certain cases-have a role.
Why is trade in capital different from trade in goods? For two main reasons.
First, international markets in capital are prone to error, whereas
international markets in goods are not. Second, the punishment for big
financial mistakes can be draconian, and tends to hurt innocent bystanders
as much as borrowers and lenders. Recent decades, and the 1990s most of all,
drove these points home with terrible clarity. Great tides of foreign
capital surged into East Asia and Latin America, and then abruptly reversed.
At a moment's notice, hitherto-successful economies were plunged deep into
recession.
These experiences served only to underline the lesson of previous financial
debacles. Yet it is a lesson that governments remain decidedly reluctant to
learn. Big inflows of foreign capital present developing countries with a
nearly irresistible opportunity to accelerate their economic development.
Where those flows are of foreign direct investment, they are all to the
good. But in other cases, disaster beckons unless a series of demanding
preconditions are met first (see our survey). A flood of capital into an
economy with immature and poorly regulated financial institutions can do
more harm than good.
Unquestionably, developing countries should strive to improve their
financial systems so that foreign capital can be successfully absorbed. Good
government, sophisticated financial firms, and regulators who are honest and
competent cannot eliminate the risk of financial calamity altogether, but
they can reduce it to bearable proportions. At that point a liberal regime
for international capital makes sense. The trouble is, many developing
countries are nowhere near that point.
Rich-country governments and, until recently, the International Monetary
Fund have often seemed reluctant to endorse this notion. One might say the
same of The Economist. This reluctance is defensible. Often, indeed
typically, governments have abused capital controls in ways that oppress
their citizens and do grave economic harm. It seems safer to frown on any
and all controls-and, in those cases where they have been used intelligently
and successfully, to acknowledge any success very grudgingly. But this is
dishonest. It is better to face up to the case for such rules in some
circumstances, and think hard about how to use them sensibly, with
restraint.
In from the cold
Experience suggests some rules. Refrain from blocking capital outflows
(tempting as this might be at times of crisis). Such measures are usually
oppressive, and deter future inflows of all kinds. Poor countries need all
the foreign direct investment they can get: let inflows of FDI be
unconfined. Other long-term inflows also pose little threat to stability.
The chief danger lies with heavy inflows of short-term capital, bank lending
above all. These can be difficult to stem, but many developing countries
would do well to emulate the successful experience of Chile, which has
imposed taxes on such inflows, with the rate of tax varying according to the
holding period.
In negotiating new free-trade arrangements with Chile (and with Singapore),
the United States has recently sought assurances of complete capital-account
liberalisation. Bitter experience suggests that such demands are a mistake.
It is past time to revise economic orthodoxy on this subject.

oui, c'est moi!
Congratulations... and i feel fine,  but mr. Keaton or mr. G.C.?
Leftorium, Il blog Riformista
http://clik.to/leftorium

 but mr. Keaton or mr. G.C.?
?
JP



Erano i tuoi "competitors" sul tema. Do you remember la querelle sulla
Tobin tax su base continentale che lasciava l'80% del ricavato nel
continente e il 20% a non meglio specificate entità per lo sviluppo
"equo e solidale" del 3° e 4° mondo?


 Erano i tuoi "competitors" sul tema.
Cazzo, e' vero. I due papalini. Chissa' che fine hanno fatto. Tra l' altro,
questa e' una tesi sostenuta anche dall' ormai troppo citato Stiglitz. Anche
outis dovrebbe felicitarsi di questa riuscita opera di persuasione, e sono
sicuro che lo farebbe se solo riuscisse a capire quello che ha letto di
Stiglitz.
JP

Mi riassumi un po la situazione JP?
Mi sono assentato e trovo solo risposte al tuo post......