Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by VEDiCarlo on
Zoellick's use of "complacency" leads me to beg the question, complacency on whose part? To riff off of his post-WWII Marshall Plan comparison, it seems that instead of being complacent, the world's most powerful forces (1948: the US, 2000's: the G-8/G-20) have been overly involved in the narrowing of the global economy, rendering economic growth nearly impossible for developing nations. Yes, a multi-polar economy moves in the right direction (that is, away from US demands and toward global society), however a greater change may come from reigning in unwieldy multi-national corporations whose subversion of local economies creates prolonged and entrenched poverty. The complacency has been on the part of the international powers to not control MNC's, or perhaps this was not complacency at all, but active politics.

Plain text

  • Allowed HTML tags: <br> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.