| | От | Александр |  |
| К | Даниил Завьялов |  |
| Дата | 04.04.2002 22:04:19 |  |
| Рубрики | Показатели; Хозяйство; |  |
Да все есть. Хоть у Хомского
>Написано у Вас хорошо и последовательно. Возможно даже это правда. Развернуть бы сказанное в статью: с хорошими примерами, ссылками, датами, цифрами, анализом законодательной базы, нормативных актов и отдельных соглашений, названиями вовлеченных компаний, государственных институтов и персоналий, динамикой процесса, разбивкой по этапам и т.д. и т.п.
"It was the effort of Haiti's first democratic government to alleviate the growing disaster that called forth Washington's hostility and the military coup and terror that followed. With ``democracy restored,'' USAID is withholding aid to ensure that cement and flour mills are privatized for the benefit of wealthy Haitians and foreign investors (Haitian ``Civil Society,'' according to the orders that accompanied the restoration of democracy), while barring expenditures for health and education. Agribusiness receives ample funding, but no resources are made available for peasant agriculture and handicrafts, which provide the income of the overwhelming majority of the population. Foreign-owned assembly plants that employ workers (mostly women) at well below subsistence pay under horrendous working conditions benefit from cheap electricity, subsidized by the generous supervisor. But for the Haitian poor - the general population - there can be no subsidies for electricity, fuel, water or food; these are prohibited by IMF rules on the principled grounds that they constitute ``price control.'' Before the ``reforms'' were instituted, local rice production supplied virtually all domestic needs, with important linkages to the domestic economy. Thanks to one-sided ``liberalization,'' it now provides only 50%, with the predictable effects on the economy. The liberalization is, crucially, one-sided. Haiti must ``reform,'' eliminating tariffs in accord with the stern principles of economic science - which, by some miracle of logic, exempt U.S. agribusiness; it continues to receive huge public subsidies, increased by the Reagan Administration to the point where they provided 40% of growers' gross incomes by 1987. The natural consequences are understood, and intended: a 1995 USAID report observes that the ``export-driven trade and investment policy'' that Washington mandates will ``relentlessly squeeze the domestic rice farmer,'' who will be forced to turn to the more rational pursuit of agroexport for the benefit of U.S. investors, in accord with the principles of rational expectations theory.[55]
By such methods, the most impoverished country in the hemisphere has been turned into a leading purchaser of U.S.-produced rice, enriching publicly-subsidized U.S. enterprises. Those lucky enough to have received a good Western education can doubtless explain that the benefits will trickle down to Haitian peasants and slumdwellers - ultimately. Africans may choose to follow a similar path, as currently advised by the leaders of ``global meliorism'' and local elites, and perhaps may see no choice under existing circumstances - a questionable judgment, I suspect. But if they do, it should be with eyes open. "
>Кстати, я уверен, что я святее Папы, но к делу это не относится.
Я кстати тоже. Особенно после фильма "Яды". ;)