In a foreward that broadly endorses the report's conclusions, Commission president Romano Prodi distances the Commission from some parts of the report, saying it could not concur with all the study's analysis."In many respects, the findings will prove controversial, at least to those outside the circle of professional economists, contradicting as they do certain deeply held beliefs about the negative consequences of globalization," Prodi wrote.
Now ponder these two paragraphs for a minute. Are you, as I am, moved to ask "Is the Reuters reporter making Prodi and the Commission look like real bozos here, or have they really reached the level of bozosity implied by this paragraphical juxtaposition?"
It's a good question. Unfortunately, one that is impossible to answer given the data provided. The Prodi quote is entirely factually correct: all the rest is journalist's spin. The only way to find out how justified or otherwise that spin might be is to buy the report, and the journo knows fine well that none of his/her readers are going to do that.
Posted by: Iain J Coleman on July 09, 2002
Hey, if the EU listened to what economists had to say, then
Sorry, just stopped laughing.
Posted by: Ben Sheriff on July 09, 2002
I've run into some confused discussions on "globalization" before. It appears that different people use the term for different concepts, including genuine free trade and the oxymoron of managed free trade (WTO/NAFTA). The former "globalization" does indeed lift the general prosperity of those who trade; the latter is worse than the former but is better than intense protectionism.
My trade policy in a nutshell: I want Americans to be able to order stuff by mail, phone, or Internet from Astrakhan and Akron with the same amount of ease.
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson on July 12, 2002