The failure of the globalization: western hypocrisy

"The small developing nations are as small boat and with the fast liberalization of the markets wished by the Fmi, it has been as to put them in a sea in storm before the commander was ready and the lifesaving jackets were loaded on board". The West has persuaded the economies in phase of transition that the passage to the economy of market would have conducted them to a prosperity unprecedented: they have pushed the poor countries to eliminate commercial barriers, but they have maintained the proper ones preventing the agriculturists of the poor countries to compete with their subsidized commodities. The United States is the principal guilty: developing countries are damaged and American consumers had suffered increases of the prices. Moreover, the West has always held in hand the reins of the globalization, trying to draw advantage of it.
The main institutions of globalization are World Bank and Fmi; Fmi has failed in its mission: it has not furnished funds to the countries tormented by a serious economic contraction to allow its resumption helping them in the attempt to draw near to the full occupation and it has also failed in following missions, as to drive the transition of some countries from communism to economy of market. “The fundamental problem is the governance of the international economic institutions, governed by the representatives of the richest nations and by their affairs. Fmi thinks about having the monopoly of the good suggestions adopting an only approach and the way according to which it is approached to the poor Countries resembles to that of colonial dominators: the negotiations are to unique sense”. Very rigid politics are imposed to have helps and only more developed countries can ignore his suggestions.
Austerity, privatization and liberalization of markets were three pillars of the Washinghton Consensus, but they have been forced in times of execution: the austerity fiscal course to the extreme can bring to recession and to tall rates of interest that hinder the development, while private firms in competition can develop their functions in more efficient way: this is the matter for the privatization. According to the Fmi it is quickly very more important the privatization: it can be occupied in a second moment on competition and regulation. The privatization has not been brought before only to expenses of the consumers, but also of the workers,  reducing the places of employment: in industrialized countries the dismissal is mitigated by the safety of the indemnity of unemployment, in the countries less developed the unemployed don't turn him into a burden for the community and social costs are huge and can be revealed in the worse form of the externalities: urban violence, increase of the crime, social and politic contrasts, less education of children that must work, diffused anxiety. The privatization must consist in a program that parallelly create new opportunities to inevitable destruction of places of employment. If the government is corrupt, the privatization will hardly resolve the problem: the government that has managed ache the firm will be the same that will manage the privatization, "The true development is what worries him about the social stability."