The Washington Consenus beats all

This article in On Line Opinion, from the Institute for Globalisation eerily asserts, on the basis of very little evidence, that a totally globalised world will deliver the best of all outcomes. It's hard to know where to begin with stuff like this, especially when there is indeed a substantial amount of evidence backing up the benefits that flow from consumer choice and free flows of capital, goods and services. But a good start might be:

• not to assert that globalisation (in its full incarnation) is inevitable;
• not to confuse consumer sovereignty with citizen sovereignty, which this article does when it starts to discuss the 'contractual deficit' that has arisen because people are demanding more from their governments;
• to consider that rather than small government as an absolute panacea, that governments which tell the truth might be preferable in the first instance (eg not making outrageous claims for the benefits from trade deals, such as happened with the Uruguay Round - and others);
• not to conflate citizens' responsibilities towards their elected officials and each other with the apparent 'responsibility' to keep consuming, even if (rather bizarrely) they should consume fewer 'SUVs' and only take one holiday a year.

I note that the author is involved with Young Labour in the UK and is following an honourable tradition of accepting the precepts of Hayek and Friedman as if they were engraved in stone and therefore need to be adopted in the policy platform of every party.

The world - or, more accurately, the people in it - don't work quite that simply. That said, a little more truth, followed by action, from some governments in relation to their industry subsisidies would go a long way towards helping developing countries reliant on these goods for a living.

Well, this post pretty much sums up my dilemma about economic policy - the degree of economic liberalisation we have experienced in recent decades has worked pretty well hasn't it, and so more liberalisation will continue the trend.

I keep thinking about the

law of diminishing returns (although not in such an economic sense as portrayed here, maybe - do I mean unintended consequences)?