Praise of the Future by Mike Moore - Essay Example

Chossudovsky’s argument on the other hand, although pessimistic appears to be more realistic and appreciative of the world’s general state of affairs.

Michel Moore is optimistic in his general outlook and draws on the difficulties of the past and how the world has grown in a positive direction as a result. He takes the position that as a result of world wars and the great depression a ‘new system of global structures’ (Moore. P. 1) such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Trade Organization helped is available to those third world countries that cannot help themselves.

World conflicts have indeed resulted in the creation of global structures. But in the grand scheme of things they are powerless to eradicate poverty and the resulting health crisis. As Chossudovsky points out in his publication Globalization of Poverty ‘In the 1990s, famines at the local level have erupted in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and parts of Latin America; health clinics and schools have been closed down; hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education. In the Third World, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans, infectious diseases have been resurgent including tuberculosis, malaria, and cholera.’ (Chossudovsky. P1)
Moore argues that international solidarity is the key to lending aid to those less fortunate than ourselves and extols the virtue of trading with the lesser developed countries. He suggests buying coffee from Uganda and perhaps T-shirts from Bangladesh and goes on to say ‘embrace the outside world, not shun it.” (Moore. P.2) When societies are open to one another, they share their ideas and their culture. Moore offers the European Economics Community as an example of the results of opening one’s borders and endorsing free trade.

Moore concedes that free trade is not the entire answer to world poverty, but it provides a big part of the solution. Referring to a report released by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of Harvard University, Moore explained that ‘developing countries with open economies grew by 4’5% a year in the 1970s and the 1980s while those with closed economies grew by only 0.7% a year.’ (Moore pp.3-4)
Moore goes on to explain that thirty years ago, South Korea was as poverty-stricken as Ghana. Now it is as prosperous as Portugal. Portugal, he goes on to say is a wealthier country because of its involvement with the European Economics Community. Another example of free trade lending itself to a country’s enrichment and development is to be found in China, according to Moore. In ten years, China has seen ‘150 million people escape from poverty.’ (Moore p.4)
Chossudovsky, on the other hand, makes a stronger argument against the idea of openness and free trade. Global structures, he opines serve to manipulate trade figures and interfere with the democratic process of individual governments. ‘The manipulation of the figures on global poverty prevents national societies from understanding the consequences of a historical process initiated in the early 1980s with the onslaught of the debt crisis. This false consciousness has invaded all spheres of critical debate and discussion on the "free" market reforms. In turn, the intellectual myopia of mainstream economics prevents an understanding of the actual workings of global capitalism and its destructive impact on the livelihood of millions of people. International institutions including the United Nations follow suit, upholding the dominant economic discourse with little assessment of how economic restructuring backlashes on national societies, leading to the collapse of institutions and the escalation of social conflict.’ (Chossudovsky. Conclusion)

Chossudovsky recognizes that free trade is limited to the resources of the individual third-world country. He asks a poignant question. What if countries suffering from famine or natural disasters that are not possessed the means to produce material for trade? One cannot trade if one has nothing to trade. And even if an underdeveloped country has something to trade there is the global problem of the unfair distribution of wealth.
Mike Moore, not surprisingly has a very different opinion on the benefits of free trade as it relates to the poor. The poor he thinks does benefit from free and open trade. ‘It allows people to exploit their productive potential, assists economic growth, curtails arbitrary policy interventions and helps to insulate against shocks.’ (Moore.p.4)
Moore is also of the opinion that canceling third-world debt is another course open to the superpowers in the drive to eliminate global poverty. Chossudovsky doesn’t see how extinguishing a debt from a country that’s already bankrupt and disease-infested can contribute to creating jobs and income. The country doesn’t need one less debt to pay, but rather a means for deriving an income.
Of the two opposing opinions, Chossudovsky represents the more realistic view. His opinion is more reflective of the way the world is affected by poverty. Whereas Moore’s opinion, although based primarily on facts, tends to paint too unrealistic a picture of the nature and extent of world poverty.