The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
Dear those concerned,
It is really a sad state of affairs, when either the tariffs are imposed on commodities from poor regions of the world at high prices, and when the opposite can be said when regions from the West set their products or produce at unheard of prices it is rather a shame.
When is the international monetary fund and those in the institution going to realize that one size does not fit all, meaning that just because the west can afford it does not mean the same can be said about poor or periphery nations can claim the same.
Lending money or putting sanctions are usually the outcome if anything the tariffs are set in a manner benefiting the one side only, and wonder why these nations in the poor regions lack any modernization or ways of paying of debts.
Whether a free market or command market, are two different fields to play on, what I mean by this as well is state intervention on the command market is usually the same outcome and decisions made by the executive powers. One has to produce or have to have technology in order to enter the game.....
Now how does the make sense when the poor regions which have not developed, supposed to compete which is the essence of laizzes - fair market economy.
This liberal approach is benefiting only the West, the beggar thy neighbor approach in periphery nations are just appalling. I wish to know how these nations are ever to pay their debts, if they have only one approach which is to borrow digging themselves deeper.
The sad thing about this especially for the periphery nations and this globalized world we live in, is that if the West sneezes the poor regions will get a cold, because of these policies. Like Karl Marx spoke of, labor and the time putting in work should equate to pay, thus if the government whether in public sector or just monetary and fiscal spending is hampered or rather the term pay cuts comes into the mind, how are the labors supposed to have a trickle down effect to spend their earnings into the economy.....???
How they supposed to get themselves out this vicious cycle of debt and poverty. I used to belief Public Private Partnerships (PPP) would relief the stress of the economy, but as you live more you learn more how the world operates and these policies usually have strings attached to aid.
How about the purchasing power parity (PPP) how can they ease the situation if the mass population lives under a dollar...?????