
Intellectual Property Rights block technology transfer and TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) promote monopolies on seeds and medicines and piracy of Third World biodiversity and indigenous knowledge.
That is why we had to fight WR Grace and USDA to revoke the Neem Patent, we had to fight Ricetec to prevent them claiming our basmati as their invention. And we have successfully fought
The rules of The World Trade Organization were designed to impoverish poor people and poor countries, transform their biodiversity and water commons into corporate property so that seed multi-national corporations like Monsanto could sell us our seeds for $1 tr. per year and water giants like Suez and Bechtel could sell us our water for another trillion. And the free trade rules of agriculture are robbing Indian peasants of $1 trillion per year through falling prices because of $400 billion subsidies in rich countries distorting trade by distorting prices.
This is not just a recipe for poverty, it is a recipe for genocide. In the free trade world that Bhagwati upholds, peasants sell kidneys to pay debt for poisons, displaced rural women sell their bodies to feed their children, hospitals become centers of organ theft, and India which sold the finest fabrics and tastiest spices to the world becomes the dumping ground for the toxic wste of 9/11 and the exploded and unexploded shells from the war in Afganistan and Iraq.
Free trade is becoming a mechanism to take our wealth, our biodiversity, our minerals, our brains and give us trash and toxic in exchange. It is an exchange of "bads" for "goods". This is not comparative advantage, it is loot. Which is why we say, "Our World is not for sale".
As managing editor
I am managing editor of Culture Kitchen and so should comment on this. Culture Kitchen is a pretty open forum that almost never prevents someone from expressing themsevles however they wish to. For example, profanity has been widely used here, with occasional complaint. I can think of only two cases of people who were banned specifically for offensiveness. One of them claimed that the relapse of Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was a sign from god that we all should vote for Hillary Clinton and the other was an anti-Semite who tried to claim that the Nazi movement in 1930's Germany was funded by Jews. You have to really push some serious buttons to get the editorial team intervening.
While I understand what you are saying, and I very much encourage your commenting on it here, I want to emphasize that "Demotard," though potentially offensive to some with disabilities (such as those Democrats who are values challenged, to cite one example) it is allowable on this site. That said, objections to it and discussions of it are also encouraged. We grow through such discussions and others can benefit from seeing it discussed here. As managing editor I am not in favor of removing this post because it gives the opportunity to discuss the very issue you bring up. Of course Liza is free to remove it or leave it, but editorial policy prefers all but the most intensly offensive of controversies to remain for discussion simply because such discussion is viewed as important. We actually routinely discuss and leave in place posts we do not like for just such reasons.
If you disagree with this policy, by all means lay into us. We encourage THAT as well ; -)