and promoting economic and financial interactions on a global level.  Your product can be marketed and sold around the world, and products from around the world can be marketed and sold in your town.  It sounds utopian for both producers and consumers -- huge markets and nearly limitless choices -- but the Stiglitz approach here is to criticize how economic liberalization is being put into practice.  He's not alone; there has been a fair amount of grassroots opposition to this face of globalization.

By removing trade barriers, it is argued that countries can discover which of their industries and exports will compete viably in the global economy.  However, if a nation focuses solely on those industries, jobs will be lost in sectors that were traditionally strong domestically.  Once again, unemployment rears its ugly head.

WFR:  So, can it be said that a country has to have a strong internal structure before venturing out into the global market?

MC:  If you want to compete with the current powers, I'd say so; otherwise, you'll just get overrun by western MNCs and imperialistic governments.  Wal-Mart, of course, is the classic example, along with McDonalds, where powerful companies move in and wipe out the domestic competition that doesn't have the capital to compete.  Of course, it can be argued that these companies are simply providing consumers with what they want:  choice and the lowest prices.  However, if they undermine domestic cultural integrity and/or conduct heinous business practices, then we see the dark side of globalization, not morally or socially healthy capitalist competition.

Besides, the decks are stacked against smaller companies from less developed countries.  To compete, to innovate, countries need plenty of central capital and an entrepreneurial spirit.  However, many less developed countries lack a strong central banking system to provide investment capital, and lack a strong education system to teach and enlighten their citizens about entrepreneurial possibilities.

WFR:  Can liberalization work in the developing world?  Has it ever?

MC:  According to Stiglitz, it can:  like privatization, it has to be done slowly, with sequence, and a lot of planning.  As well, countries shouldn't have to bow to the pressures of the IMF to liberalize quickly.  The IMF believes that liberalization and opening trade barriers is the key to prosperity, but Stiglitz feels that the IMF pushes the same liberalization policies on countries that might require a different approach.  The IMF forces countries to adopt liberalization policies by insisting they be taken up or else the IMF will not authorize any bail-out or support loans.  Other similar forms of pressure are used elsewhere:  America refused to allow Chinese entry into the WTO unless trade concessions were made to help American trade interests.  Why should America have veto power in the "World" trade organization?

Stiglitz lists China as one example where a country slowly dismantled their trade barriers so a solid internal structure of industry and society could be set up.  While this is true, it appears that China is now looking to liberalize more rapidly.

WFR:  The section of the film on western hypocrisy was rather emotionally-driven.

MC:  Well, yeah, it's very easy to see where the anger from devel

oping countries is 

coming from. They are being pressured by the rich nations to open their borders to western exports, but these nations refuse to open their own borders to give the developing countries a chance to sell their goods and compete in the rich markets.  It reeks of colonial inequities through history.  Instead of conquering by guns, germs, or steel, it's conquering through global marketplace regulations that are weighed in favour of countries with the most developed resources.