<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
CA <br>
<br>
I rather like it because <i>it sounds like</i> McTim is for
specialisation in comparative advantage, as they use at the WTO -
ACTA, NAFTA, etc - so it has the virtue of consistency. And also
locates me, as a wannabe heterodox economist, in relation to what I
discern as the market orientated McTim (I have to be careful because
it seems like economic categorisations on this list are rather
casually and oft inappropriately used, a matter I would like to
avoid, since it is better to keep shut and be thought a fool than to
open one's mouth and leave no doubt). <br>
<br>
The internet may be universal, but its institutional infrastructure,
at CIR, is pretty much US based. <br>
<br>
Now, if the US has the institutional framework, and the rest of the
world must specialise in their comparative advantage, then it seems
to operate much like the early British policy to the US - free trade
in the name of comparative advantage was known by many USers as a
policy so that the UK could continue to be the then workshop of the
world, while the States would produce raw materials for the mother
country. <br>
<br>
It is no wonder there are often disagreements, as this relates to
first principles. If one steps outside of the free markets pantheon,
then it becomes clear that free trade type arguments have typically
been deployed by those in the lead to prevent others from rising up.
As the one US Congressman put it about free trade, the mantra they
could not accept was, 'do as I say, not as I did'... and the British
at the time were known to specialise in being rich while others
specialised in being poor. <br>
<br>
Now this argument may seem like a stretch, but theoretical felicity
requires *intrasystemically* that the 'market' be characterised by
large numbers of producers who are price takers, a case that is not
the case in many levels of the CIR - which suffers from state
'interference'. And this is relevant because of the way the
pragmatic (or ad hoc) deviations from the theoretical values basis,
for instance inclusion of public interest clauses, are needed as
comparators of the accomodation made. This is McTs pragmatism and
realism. Which intimates he is more a neoliberal than a
neoclassical; avoiding of course the entire point between philosophy
and ideology and the relative merits of both which leave
un-practical or un-technical people at a disadvantage. Of course one
need not point out that too technical or natural science a view
tends toward denying the fact that there is no objective Archimedean
point in matters social.<br>
<br>
In short, a market orientated approach is idealistic in its
conception of the CIR and Internet as a market (confusing what is
with what ought), and fails on its own terms. But as we see it has
traction because these types of ideas are pragmatically mercantalist
for those who currently hold the advantages. <br>
<br>
What a tangled web we weave...<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013/03/05 03:54 AM, Carlos A.
Afonso wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51355039.90700@cafonso.ca" type="cite">Now
this is a terrible comparison -- brie is French, the Internet the
last time I looked is universal... Calm down, McTim <span
class="moz-smiley-s1" title=":)"><span>:)</span></span>
<br>
<br>
--c.a.
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>