美国康奈尔论文代写：破坏政策

Keywords:美国康奈尔论文代写

不是所有的发展中国家被迫这样破坏政策，那些已经被一些拉丁美洲国家实施，他们接近，和脆弱性的影响，美国，和他们的自由市场自由主义，他们作为一个发达国家，但不能简单地将出口批发其他任何期望成功。印度，例如，“选择了渐进和可控的自由化和淡化了对改革的“华盛顿共识”强调速度；结果，“新德里共识”，导致一个更稳定的结果，问题是严重的不显著，与数量较少（Cornia，2004：297），华盛顿共识没有国家强制实施很难反驳批评；在拉丁美洲美国，工资下降，利率上升，唯一的受益人是富裕的西方国家曾经贷款给他们，然后得到很高的利息，且公司再把钱放在银行账户在这些国家，迫使他们不得不保持高利率，这些国家又一次从中受益，事实上，由于利率的原因，它们的经济收缩了，因此他们别无选择，只能采取。这些经济体不仅没有从华盛顿共识中获益，他们实际上也因为试图实现它而受到伤害。呼吁智利作为其可以工作的证据是毫无意义的，因为智利也遭受了20世纪90年代的经济低迷，当它在20世纪70年代实施了市场改革，“华盛顿共识”的概念仍然是几十年后的未来。华盛顿共识在各个层面上都失败了；不管它是否与社会事件有关，它无法逃脱，它迫使人们进一步陷入贫困和痛苦，因为它与工会斗争，使通货膨胀下降。虽然如此，它未能以任何方式改善经济，更糟的是，它损害了他们的人为强迫高利率。批评是有效的；一致意见不。
美国康奈尔论文代写：破坏政策
Not all countries with developing economies were forced into such damaging policies as those that had to be implemented by a number of Latin American countries, with their proximity to, and vulnerability to influence from, the United States, and their free market liberalism which worked for them as a developed country, but could not simply be exported wholesale to others with any expectation of success. India, for example, “opted for gradual and controlled liberalization and downplayed the stress on the speed of reforms emphasized by the Washington Consensus”; the result, the ‘Delhi Consensus’, led to a far more stable end result, with problems which were dramatically less severe, and fewer in number (Cornia, 2004: 297).The criticism that the Washington Consensus fails to benefit the countries forced to implement it seems hard to refute; across Latin America, wages fell as interest rates rose, the sole beneficiary being the rich western nations which had loaned money to them, and then received high interest payments, and whose companies then parked money in bank accounts in those countries, forcing them to keep interest rates high, the countries of which again benefited none; indeed, their economies contracted due to the interest rates, which they were left with no choice but to adopt. Not only did these economies fail to benefit from the Washington Consensus, they were actually harmed by attempting to implement it. Calling on Chile as evidence that it could work is meaningless, as Chile also suffered from the downturn in the 1990s, and when it implemented its market reforms in the 1970s, the concept of the ‘Washington Consensus’ was still decades away in the future. The Washington Consensus failed on every level; whether or not it was concerned with social events, it cannot be escaped that it forced people further into poverty and misery, as it fought against labour unions which kept inflation down. As it did so, it failed to improve their economies in any way, and worse, it damaged them by forcing artificially high rates of interest. The criticism was valid; the consensus was not.