Okay.

Cheers, Sam.

I feel obliged to say something, partly because it was my idea to invite prof. Lingle to the talk (I heard you made a ‘polite’ inquiry about this), and partly because you are making a few false assertions. Both in terms of what happened at the talk and your own views on globalization.

First of all, during his ‘hysterical attack’ (or really the entire lecture) I think he mentioned the word ‘trade union’ once and at the time he was referring to trade unions in the US! Now there are other instances you have distorted a few things (him apologizing for being American for example) but I wont bother to get into all of them here.

Cris Lingle is a classical liberal and contrary to your statement, I don’t think there are enough people giving ‘free-market’ perspectives, in fact periodic rants against ‘neoliberlism’ (which really is a term mostly used on a critical sense, rather than a philosophy) is far too common.

Inherent contradictions with your understanding of the ‘open economy’ is quite apparent to anyone who reads the middle part of your post, and because of time constraints and just cos im not in the mood for it, I wont get into much into it. maybe i’ll do it later.

When someone gets around compiling a blogpost on the talk, I’ll post a link. Who knows I might even post an audio of the talk if I find the time to do it.

p.s – I also didn’t ask the ‘west’ to send him (in fact he lives in India) , but see maybe if he was an African woman, it might have helped after all. 🙂

Cheers
Deane.

“Would the cost of living be equalised across all countries? ”
Is this important? As long as there is a difference in demand to live in certain countries/cities (which will always exist), there will always be a difference in cost of living.
But, considering example of Central & Eastern Europe over the last 15 or so years, (where they have had a lot of growth after opening up their markets after the fall of communism) the difference between the “rich” and “poor” countries can decrease (but not necessarily so)

“Would local NGO workers receive similar packages to their international colleagues if their skills levels were equal”
Let’s look at the opposite situation. If I was a Voluntary migrant worker abroad (like how most Sri Lankans abroad are) then I would accept work at the same salary level as a local. Or maybe a bit less if it was a disadvantage that I did not know the local language.
On the other hand, if I was sent by a Sri Lankan company on a foreign posting, I would expect additional compensation for having to leave behind friends, family, home and culture.
When it comes to foreign expats in Sri Lanka, the situation gets worse because of socialist policies that has taxed “luxury” goods to subsidise “commodities”. This means that for a foreigner to enjoy the same standard of living they are used to, (otherwise how will you convince him to work here) their salaries have to be several times that of the average Sri Lankan.
Utopian thought, but if we could somehow get rid of the cross-subsidies without half the population dying of poverty, then we would actually have to pay local workers more (because the cheap stuff got expensive) and the expats less (than their current salaries) because the expensive stuff got cheaper.

“But it seems the global market place is an unfair place (unless I can find some good answers to the above questions).”
Sorry, but why does it have to be fair? After all, a closed market is not fair either.
Provided that the open market provides more benefits (by whatever metrics that society chooses to define benefits – economic prosperity, access to education, new technology, etc) than a closed one, it makes sense for that society to change.
(if you have a chance, read Hogfather by Terry Pratchett. At the end is a little discourse on how “fairness” and “justice” etc don’t really exist in any material sense, but we humans like to pretend that they do… which is all very good in that makes it easier for all of us to live together, but that doesn’t mean it really exists, and even less that anybody should care if we say that something is “unfair”)

Cheers
/Sifaan

“If borders were opened up to market forces, would people – especially from places like Sri Lanka – be able to cross in to Western borders freely, and live and work alongside their fellow humans as equals? Would they be required to health checks and a large bank balance before entering the United Kingdom?”
I too suffer from being treated like some outcast for carrying a Sri Lankan passport. But I thought that Sri Lankan passports have “pariah” status (one of 7 or so countries that even need visas to stay in the international transit area of most airports) because of the large number of illegal Sri Lankan migrants (either smuggled, or disappeared on a tourist visa) and therefore never considered that it was anything to do with our market (i.e. we are not one of the 7 poorest countries, or the 7 most closed markets)

“Would textile workers in Sri Lanka be paid the same wage as their peers in Italy?”
If textile workers in Sri Lanka were paid the same as in Italy, it would seriously distort our economy, because they would be earning more than most professionals. But it would be nice if our workers salary had the same purchasing power as their peers’.
In any case, I don’t see how this can happen in any way other than an open market?

First of all, I’m writing this comment because my perception of the presentation, and some of the incidents mentioned, are pretty much diametrically opposite… and I’m curious to know why this is so. Is it that Sam’s perception is negatively influenced because he didn’t agree with Lingle’s views, while my perception is more rosy because I tended to agree (except for the more controversial points that I am yet uncertain about)?

(I also have a few personal responses to some of the questions raised, but I’ll post them separately.)

“Lingle did acknowledge the existence of tariffs and subsidies for farmers in the United States and Europe, but unfortunately he did not contextualise this within his overall agenda of promoting the opening up of domestic markets.”
As I recall, he said he was against farm subsidies in the US/EU (because it distorts the market). Maybe he should have gone on to explain how those countries could get out of this system… ?

“Unfortunately for him, his tactic was exposed when he pointed at two young women in the audience wearing sleeveless tops. Lingle inquired if they would have been able to wear such clothing a few decades ago, and not waiting for a response, claimed their dress style as an indicator that Sri Lanka’s youth are obviously ‘modernising’ and desiring clothing that he ignorantly labelled as ‘Western’.”
This was a response to my question on the speed of cultural change and people’s ability to adapt to it. What he pointed out (or at least, what I heard at the other end of the room) was that some decades ago, it would not be acceptable for a girl to wear sleeveless tops and be seated next to a guy who is not her brother or husband. The fact that it is acceptable now is an example that cultural values are changing. I don’t remember if he phrased it as a question, but if it was, I’m sure it was a rhetorical question and so there was no need to wait for an answer 🙂
(of course there are variations in what is “acceptable” according to religious/ethnic subcultures and even family norms, but by-and-large I would accept it as a valid example of changing norms)

“Lingle was quickly reminded by the audience that not so long ago in Sri Lanka, the women moved around bare-breasted, contradicting his attempt to link dress sense with economic globalisation, which according to him, somehow delivers us with limitless freedoms such as being able to wear sleeveless tops.”
Bare-breasted women in Sri Lankan history is not a contradiction, just further evidence that cultural norms have been changing – and even that they can reverse direction.
But actually this was part of the comment that norms on what is “acceptable” clothing is more defined by Victorian standards that were imposed on us during Colonial times than what could be called “authentic” Sri Lankan norms.

“By the end of the talk, Lingle appeared frustrated and concluded by effectively apologising for being white and from the United States. He said he wished he was an “African woman” implying that we, the audience would have probably taken his ideas as gospel if he was brown-skinned.”
What I understood was that being a WAM (White American Male) meant that he was always confronted by anti-WAM prejudice (and at least anti-Americanism is on the rise thanks to George Bush’s wonderful work) and this means it’s harder to get his ideas across – because people extend the prejudice also towards his ideas.
If he had been an African women, it doesn’t imply that people would accept what he says as face value, but at least it does make it more likely that his ideas would be judged purely by their own merits.

Same event, but two very different perceptions…?

Cheers
/Sifaan