Ian McDonald
MONEY IS not the most important thing in life. The acquisition of money is not a worthy end in itself, but is a worthy means to achieving more fundamental life-objectives.
That underlying, life-enhancing assumption should influence all individual and institutional thinking. If making more money destroys the potential to achieve what is most important in the lives of people and nations let us be prepared to re-examine very carefully what is going on.
What are some of the things that matter more than money? A reasonably fair distribution of money is one - since an increase in money concentrated among a small percentage of the population is hardly a worthy or rational objective. A stable and uncorrupted environment is another good greater than money. Another is a society reasonably free of crime and violence and the constant trauma of insecurity.
Another is a culture of our own which we can cherish and maintain on par with others. Another is the creation of systems of support and opportunity through which all, not only the privileged, benefit and through which talent wherever it exists can flourish. If the acquisition of money feeds into achieving these greater human needs then it is good. If the relentless acquisition of money, far from assisting, actually contradicts the achievement of these ends then what, in the name of all that is fundamentally sacred and all that is best for humanity, are we doing?
MAKING MORE MONEY
Unbridled free trade, or "full openness to the global marketplace", is all about making the maximum amount of money. It is a concept beloved of mighty multinational corporations because their whole being is focused on making more money. It is a concept beloved of powerful and highly developed countries because they have already protected themselves into a position where they can generally benefit from 'openness' and because in such countries when the concept really doesn't favour them they have the clout to adjust it to suit themselves.
UNBRIDLED FREE TRADE
But unbridled free trade, "full openness to the marketplace", is not a concept which suits small and vulnerable countries with fragile and by no means fully developed economies and societies stressed to the breaking point. In such countries, unbridled 'freedom' becomes extreme risk and 'full openness' becomes dangerous exposure.
No sensible person can be conned into believing that one size fits all. So why should any sensible person be conned into believing that one concept suits all. In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a robber, who forced
travellers to lie on a bed and made them fit into it by stretching their limbs or cutting them down. As you can imagine a great number of his victims died. In world trade the Procrustean method is alive and well and as deadly as ever.
Let me draw together just a few of the inherent disadvantages which make it impossible for countries like ours to compete on a level playing field in the world economy.
Developed, diversified economies are naturally better positioned to benefit from 'free trade' compared with countries dependent on a few industries: if one or two businesses go to the wall, it hardly matters among so many, but in small countries it can be a mortal blow.
Subsidies, many of them subtly hidden, support businesses and whole industries in rich countries which still have the nerve to proclaim most loudly the need for free trade and pure market forces.
High interest rates are forced upon vulnerable countries to ensure fiscal rectitude when the one thing they need to compete and develop in a free trade environment is the low interest rates which developed countries are enjoying.
Developed countries are past masters at imposing non-tariff barriers - rigid quality standards, intricate bureaucratic requirements - whilst insisting that trade with them is tariff free and requires reciprocity. Our hypocrisy certainly cannot match theirs.
Strong, advanced economies - possessing science and technology developed to the cutting edge of modern methods in all the disciplines which business needs - must have their tongues firmly and cynically in their cheeks when they advocate free trade for small technologically immature economies which cannot possibly compete.
International trade negotiations, in aiming at greater openness in the global marketplace, should make due allowance for what fragile economies like those in the Caribbean need to become fully integrated into sustainable development. Certainly, if the structures of world trade were to accord in practice with such a principle, then Caribbean economies would become less risky and more predictable locations for investment.
Ian McDonald is an occasional contributor who lives and works in Georgetown, Guyana.
