Globalisation

Turnip

Anti-globalisation protesters: It’s often claimed by these confused people (being diplomatic) that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is this supposed to be a shock? Why is it automatically thought to be a bad thing? People who work hard or who know how to make use of certain advantages get rewarded. They reinvest their money wisely and overall standards rise. It’s trickledown theory and it is the only realistic solution to the problem of how to balance democracy with the individual’s freedom to make as much money as he wants. I'm a reasonable guy. I'll give anyone a chance but I’m still waiting for a half decent explanation why according to them, globalisation is BAD. Something more articulate than smashing windows would do for a start.

DadaKopf

If trickle-down theory worked in practise then there wouldn't be a problem. The numbers show it doesn't work. I'm not going to claim I know exactly the reasons why globalisation isn't nice but I assume it has something to do with the fact that some people just have all the power and don't want to share.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
It’s trickledown theory and it is the only realistic solution to the problem of how to balance democracy with the individual’s freedom to make as much money as he wants.

The individual should only have freedom to make as much money as he or she wants while "playing" by a set of rules to ensure that capitalism is not exploitative - that the have-nots are not kept oppressed by the haves simply to ensure more favourable market conditions...which is often what we see happening.

Also, trickledown is not the only realistic theory. It is a theory designed by a culture who managed to rise to pre-eminence via the trickledown theory trying to claim that this is the best path for everyone else to follow because, hey, it worked for us.

The reality is that it didnt actually work very well for us, and its been a long and bloody struggle to get where we are today...which is far from ideal. Not only that, but the conditions which allowed trickle-down theory to work during western society's revent evolution no longer exist...meaning that there is even less reason to believe it is still an applicable model.

Perhaps what it boils down to is that some people are beginning to think that capitalism should have its limits, and that we should do something unthinkable like putting the welfare of humans and humanity first. Promoting sweatshops in poorer nations is not putting their welfare first. Its balancing profit against an argument that claims this hardship is a necessary step on the long road to well being - an argument I am unconvinced by.

I'm a reasonable guy. I'll give anyone a chance but I’m still waiting for a half decent explanation why according to them, globalisation is BAD. Something more articulate than smashing windows would do for a start.

Theres a multitude of reasons. Most often, the biggest opposition globalisation is that the "champions" of it almost - if not completely - all involved in predatory business practices, which are ultimately in no-ones interests except the company itself.

The welfare of society should not become subservient to capitalism. Capitalism should be a tool to allow society to prosper. Globalisation appears to be the exact opposite of that....that increasingly we see society's purpose being nothing more then to make capitalism work.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Turnip
Anti-globalisation protesters: ItÂ’s often claimed by these confused people (being diplomatic) that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is this supposed to be a shock? Why is it automatically thought to be a bad thing? People who work hard or who know how to make use of certain advantages get rewarded. They reinvest their money wisely and overall standards rise. ItÂ’s trickledown theory and it is the only realistic solution to the problem of how to balance democracy with the individualÂ’s freedom to make as much money as he wants. I'm a reasonable guy. I'll give anyone a chance but IÂ’m still waiting for a half decent explanation why according to them, globalisation is BAD. Something more articulate than smashing windows would do for a start.

More articulate than smashing a window? Try taking your head out of the soil and having a look. Here's a brief list of people who have serious issues with how the global political-economic system runs (and doesn't run) and the priorities it serves:

Oxfam , CAFOD , Focus on the Global South , Third World Network , World Development Movement , the EZLN (Zapatistas) , ATTAC ...

That's just off the top of my head, plus there's an endless amount of political parties, civil society groups and individuals around the world who don't have a handy web presence. And some fairly respected economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik .

Follow any of those links and you should find plenty of well thought-out and sourced argument, at least more well thought-out than your own contribution.

As DK points out, trickledown theory does not happen in practise, in fact the only proven way to achieve the effects of trickle-down is precisely the set of policies for redistribution and social supports that Reagan and Thatcher so eagerly dismantled in the name of economic freedom.

'Globalisation' (if you even accept that as an appropriate label for some very complex phenomena) is not a unitary process, so just about everybody can identify aspects of it that they would prefer to sustain and some they would prefer to be rid of. Does this mean that everybody is 'anti-globalisation'? No, that would be stupid; about as stupid as deciding that because as far as you can see you are doing pretty well out of what seems to be going on there's no need to change anything and anyone who disagrees is just a confused stick in the mud.

Zombrex

It’s often claimed by these confused people (being diplomatic) that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is this supposed to be a shock? Why is it automatically thought to be a bad thing?

I actually had to re-read this sentence a few times, cause it is such a stupid (being diplomatic) thing to say.

You don't think a system that makes people who are all ready rich, richer and makes poor people even poor is a bad thing?

People who work hard or who know how to make use of certain advantages get rewarded. They reinvest their money wisely and overall standards rise.

I always suspected that the Asian sweat shop workers, who work 16 hours a day for 50 cents (more than you have ever, or will ever work), were doing badly because of their poor investments on the stock market. Damn that Enron, it must have looked like such a better option than bread and water.

Globisation fails as a social/economic system because corportations don't give a flying fcuk about anything but making more money. The don't allow a trickle down system to happen in the first place, because they don't pay enough for there workers to spend casually, and they insist on Trade Free zones to produce the products in, which do not help the local areas they are based in.

Meh

Originally posted by Wicknight
You don't think a system that makes people who are all ready rich, richer and makes poor people even poor is a bad thing?

Correction: globalization makes rich people much richer, but it makes poor people richer as well (albeit not as rich as the rich people). But poor people still benefit from globalization. Just look at the benefits NAFTA has brought to Mexican workers.

If workers in the developing world aren't benefiting from globalization, why do they take jobs in factories? Why don't they stay at home on the farm? I agree that working conditions in many sweatshops need to be improved, but keep in mind that the conditions in domestically-owned factories in these countries are often even worse. The way to improve this isn't to ban foreign investment altogether. The governments of these countries, with UN encouragement, need to introduce proper rights for their workers.

If these anticapitalist protesters really wanted to improve things for people in the developing world, they'd focus their efforts on removing the obscene EU and US farm subsidies instead of fighting against free trade, the one thing that is actually helping the poor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,802270,00.html

Ms Hewitt told Labour's conference that the average cow in Europe received $2 (£1.30) a day in subsidies and other help from Brussels, twice the daily income of 1.2bn of the world's poorest people.

shotamoose

If these anticapitalist protesters really wanted to improve things for people in the developing world, they'd focus their efforts on removing the obscene EU and US farm subsidies instead of fighting against free trade, the one thing that is actually helping the poor.

Er, plenty of people of ARE protesting about that. The Trade Justice Movement in the UK, which includes Oxfam, War On Want, ActionAid, CAFOD and many more, have been vigorously campaigning for the elimination of First World agrosubsidies. Their protests regularly attract thousands and they've been an important part of so-called 'anti-globalisation' protests ever since I've been following them.

Subsidies for First World farmers should certainly be reduced, redirected and in some cases eliminated, but that does NOT mean that 'free trade is the one thing that is actually helping the poor'. Developing countries must be allowed protect their own markets where necessary, just as today's rich countries did when they were developing. Liberalisation works when it's targeted and thought-out, not when it's applied willy-nilly and ignored by the rich when it suits them.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
Correction: globalization makes rich people much richer, but it makes poor people richer as well (albeit not as rich as the rich people).

Well, this is a very complex area, but I don't think that's correct. According to the United Nations Development Programme's 2002 report on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs):

the incidence of extreme poverty is increasing in the LDCs as a whole. In the LDCs for which we have data, about 48 per cent of the population were living on less than $1 a day during 1965–1969, compared with 50 per cent during 1995–1999. This means that the number of people living in extreme poverty in the LDCs has more than doubled over the last thirty years, from 138 million in the second half of the 1960s to 307 million in the second half of the 1990s. The proportion of the population living on less than $2 a day was more or less the same in the second half of the 1990s as in the second half of the 1960s. This means that the number of people living on less than $2 a day in the LDCs has also more than doubled over the last thirty years.

As for the rest of the world, economies may be growing during the era of globalisation, but that doesn't mean they're growing because of globalisation. In fact, most of the world (and especially developing countries) experienced higher growth in the three decades after the second world war than they did after the mid-Seventies. The first period was characterised by what you might call national development projects, typically including policies on trade protection, import substitution and social protection; the second period is generally referred to as the era of globalisation, meaning liberalisation of trade and finance, expansion of international trade and production chains, and restructuring along free market lines. Maybe the conditions for the first type no longer exist, but it still produced better results.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
Well, this is a very complex area, but I don't think that's correct. According to the United Nations Development Programme's 2002 report on the Least Developed Countries (LDCs):

And those "Least Developed Countries" are the ones which have the least foreign investment and the least free trade. These are the countries that globalization has had the least effect on. These figures just prove my point. The LDC economies depend on exporting raw materials. If foreign companies were able to invest in these countries and built factories there to process these raw materials, a greater share of the profits would remain in these countries.

As for the rest of the world, economies may be growing during the era of globalisation, but that doesn't mean they're growing because of globalisation. In fact, most of the world (and especially developing countries) experienced higher growth in the three decades after the second world war than they did after the mid-Seventies. The first period was characterised by what you might call national development projects, typically including policies on trade protection, import substitution and social protection; the second period is generally referred to as the era of globalisation, meaning liberalisation of trade and finance, expansion of international trade and production chains, and restructuring along free market lines. Maybe the conditions for the first type no longer exist, but it still produced better results.

Counterexample: this country.

shotamoose

Yep, and it's an exception to a general trend.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
And those "Least Developed Countries" are the ones which have the least foreign investment and the least free trade. These are the countries that globalization has had the least effect on.

On the question of having the least free trade, the UNDP report goes on to say:

The fact that international relationships can play a major role in breaking the cycle of economic stagnation and generalized poverty has led some analysts to conclude that the key policy problem for LDCs is that they are not sufficiently integrated into the global economy. But this is a false inference. International trade is already of major importance in the economies of LDCs. During 1997-1998, exports and imports of goods and services constituted on average 43 per cent of their GDP. The average level of trade integration for the LDCs is around the same as the world average, and also almost the same as the average for the group of countries which have been identified in the recent World Bank report Globalization, Growth and Poverty as "more globalized developing countries". The average level of trade integration is actually higher than that of high-income OECD countries.

As for investment, certainly they get less than other countries, largely because they're extremely poor.

The LDC economies depend on exporting raw materials. If foreign companies were able to invest in these countries and built factories there to process these raw materials, a greater share of the profits would remain in these countries.

I'd agree that if foreign companies were to invest in these countries and export processed materials, growth and incomes would go up. But wholesale liberalisation won't be enough for the LDCs to attract private foreign investment, and that foreign investment is unlikely to be enough. They'll need to protect and put public investment into certain sectors and industries too. Just like we did.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
On the question of having the least free trade, the UNDP report goes on to say:

These LDCs still base their economies on exporting raw materials, like they did under colonialism. Due to trade barriers (both their own barriers and Western barriers), political instability, corruption and lack of infrastructure. they can't get foreign investment which would allow them to become more developed. Foreign investment and free trade isn't the problem, it's the solution.

You don't see highly globalized countries like Mexico, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines on that list of LDCs; instead you see countries which have no foreign investment like Chad and Cambodia. When was the last time you saw "Made in Chad" stamped on something you bought? You can't blame Cambodia's problems on multinational corporations...

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
You can't blame Cambodia's problems on multinational corporations...

No, you can't. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'd prefer to say that it's a lot more complicated than that. Colonialism old and new must take some of the blame for the problems of Cambodia and other LDCs but of course that's not the whole story.

You don't, indeed, see Mexico et al on the LDC list - I brought that up to counter your point about globalisation benefitting the poor - for a variety of reasons, including past history, natural and human resources, geographical and economic position, policy, etc. Are you saying Mexico, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia are middle-income rather than low-income countries 'because of globalisation'?

Another point is that all four of those countries you mention have been severely affected in the last ten years by financial crises which were arguably exacerbated or even brought on by over-zealous liberalisation of international capital flows. Whatever the reason, these financial contagions have been very frequent and extremely serious in the last ten years, the historic height of financial 'globalisation'.

Turnip

Originally posted by Wicknight

You don't think a system that makes people who are all ready rich, richer and makes poor people even poor is a bad thing?

Globisation fails as a social/economic system because corportations don't give a flying fcuk about anything but making more money.

I don't know what sort of a happy clappy hippy world you live in, but in the real world, businesses exist to make money and provide returns on investments. They are not charities. I applaud the work of NGO's but sometimes they work at cross purposes and become handy political tools for despots.

I'm not denying that there are valid criticisms but I still don't see how arguments for them are best presented by rioting and breaking windows. Start an anti-globalisation party or something and see how many votes you get. We have a free press, make use of it and try to bring the public over to your side through reason.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
in the real world, businesses exist to make money and provide returns on investments. They are not charities.

Yes, but it is equally true that there are rules which are suposed to limit how these companies make money. I mean....you couldnt exactly run a business which touted slavery as a cost-cutting measure.

While I would not necessarily agree that the worlds largest companies are only concerned about making money, I would say that many of them are concerned with bending and stretching the rules as far as possible in order to make money.

In the real world I live in, I see this as a problem. The intent of the law is supposed to be as important (if not moreso) then the letter of the law. I do not deem it acceptable for companies like Nike to contract work from companies who pay below the cost of living, and then to insist that not only is it not their fault or problem, but that they have no influence.

Consumers are equally to blame by either ignoring these issues, or simply accepting them as a fait accompli because "well, everyone is doing it".

I'm not denying that there are valid criticisms but I still don't see how arguments for them are best presented by rioting and breaking windows.

Fine - but this isnt where you started from. You asked what the problem with globalisation was anyway...and those "fair criticisms" that you accept are some of those problems.

I would be the first to agree that many of the anti-globalisation "protests" are counter-productive, and also that regardless of their productivity they are not an appropriate way to put a message forward.

Yes, it may be true that violent protest is the best way to make the world sit up and take notice quickly and effectively, but thats like saying that exploitation is the best way to make money quickly and effectively.

If an anti-globalisation movement is calling for the super-companies to be responsible for their actions, then it too must accept responsibility for its own actions.

jc

OLDYELLAR

ok i just saw this thread , and i have to do a project for college about globalisation , and i know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it , could somebody help me here?pm me some links or stick them up here , is there any good topics or is it a fairly general subject?
I am really caught here and its worth 30% so very important that i get this right ,any help at all would be grately appreciated.
thanking you kindly

bonkey

Originally posted by OLDYELLAR
ok i just saw this thread , and i have to do a project for college about globalisation , and i know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it , could somebody help me here?pm me some links or stick them up here , is there any good topics or is it a fairly general subject?

A good start would be to read No Logo by Naomi Klein.
While you should remember that it is almost entirely a one-sided book, its pretty informative.

jc

seedot

The discussions above illustrate some of the problems in dealing with the anti-globalisation protests in that they use an economic analysis which in its methodology and values is rejected by many of the protestors.

While the last 30 years have seen large growths in global trade and capital flows, we are only now aproaching the levels prior to WW1 on these measures (although the 19C globalisation was driven by imperialism and was of a different nature). As a counterpoise to No Logo, a good read is Paul Krugman who makes some convincing arguments for the economic benefits of free trade and globalisation. Have a look at globalisation and globaloney. So if you accept economics as the arbiter it's easy to make a case for the benefits of globalisation.

However, many of the protests focus on non-economic issues, beyond even wealth distribution and labour conditions. They look at the imposition of cultural homogeneity which is mandated by the current phase of global capitalism - common property rights (especially in intellectual property), the dismantling of non-market systems of public provision and the creation of a common world market for consumer goods. When French protestors smash a McDonalds they are trying to retain the link between culture, food and earth they are so proud of.

In many ways I believe this is due to resistance to the new forms of enclosure - the enclosure of information. When we talk about international trade in services, nothing moves from one country to another as part of the 'capital flow' but business know-how - yet access to this requires large returns to the TNC's who 'invest' in the services. Patents on seeds, restrictions on fair use of copyrighted material and removal of cultural and political barriers to trade (you can't vote for govt provided services as these are a barrier to trade) are all aspects of globalisation which protestors attempt to highlight.

To say the movement should use the free press misses the point - this press is now a marketing medium which is owned by the same companies that enforce other forms of global homogeneity (can somebody please explain the synergies in vivendi to me? It's a water company that owns TV, newspapers,film studios?). The focus on the WTO and IMF is in part a reaction to the decline of the nation state and the democratic political institutions as no elected govt now has the power to resist the forces of globalisation. The mass street demonstrations are in a tradition that goes back hundreds of years, most notably to the labour movements in the 19 century. When voting, media and many of the established structures are inaccessible, smashing windows can be the most articulate manner available to get your message across.

Disclaimer: I do work with Indymedia which means I am hopelessly biased and ill informed.

shotamoose

Originally posted by OLDYELLAR
ok i just saw this thread , and i have to do a project for college about globalisation , and i know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it , could somebody help me here?pm me some links or stick them up here , is there any good topics or is it a fairly general subject?
I am really caught here and its worth 30% so very important that i get this right ,any help at all would be grately appreciated.
thanking you kindly

Globalisation can be a very general topic, even an incoherent one. It can also mean just about anything you want it to mean, since some people have started to equate it with 'progress' in general. There's lots of approaches, lots of research programmes involved, so I'll try to give you a flavour of some of that.

Books. As far as I know people like Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck were the ones who popularised 'globalisation' in sociology - check out 'The Consequences of Modernity' and 'Runaway World' (Giddens) and 'What is Globalisation?' (Beck), though I haven't read them.

Of the ones I have read (bits of), the present 'classics' are considered to be
-'Global Transformations' by Held et al (there's a useful companion website - with a summary of the book here )
-The 'Information Age' trilogy by Manuel Castells , a huge, extremely detailed and very interesting account of the 'network society';
-'Development and Social Change' by Philip McMichael - a fairly radical critique from a rural development perspective. He advances the idea of the 'Globalization Project', ie a worldwide economic restructuring of states and societies in the interests of globalising capital;
-'Globalisation: Capitalism and its Alternatives' by Leslie Sklair - a VERY interesting application of Global Systems Theory (including the concept of the Transnational Capitalist Class), a kind of neo-Marxism, with vast amounts of detailed research and a useful chapter on alternatives.

Another I haven't read but which is pretty highly regarded are 'Has Globalization Gone Too Far' by Dani Rodrik. Philippe Legrain has written a book called 'Open World: the truth about globalization', which gives the case for free market globalization: IMO, Legrain is very articulate but limited by his economistic approach.

Martin Khor of the Third World Network wrote 'Rethinking Globalization', a rather technical but very rational and constructive collection of policy proposals to switch globalisation towards poverty reduction and genuine development.

For a good reader that collects lots of article-length pieces, try The Globalization Reader by Lechner and Boli.

Finally, check out the writings of Subcommandante Marcos of the Zapatistas in 'Our Word is Our Weapon' or online (try the articles at the top of the page). Also URL=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/9183/dignitysrevolt.html]Dignity's Revolt[/URL] by John Holloway, an excellent article putting the Zapatistas in the context of socialism and globalisation.

Obviously you're not going to read all of each of these books, but even if you glance through the back covers, introductions and, say first chapters, you'll get an idea of the key themes and debates.

Themes and arguments. If you ask me the first thing to do when addressing globalisation is to slice it up analytically, the better to understand it. My approach is to split the concept into a generic 'globalisation' - involving technological change and an increasing worldwide interdependence - and (like McMichael) a 'Globalization Project' involving the imposition of economic restructuring on societies in the interests of what Sklair calls the Transnational Capitalist Class. While there is some overlap and mutual causality, neither implies the other - the present model of globalisation is NOT the only possibility, and is inherently flawed and unworkable. If you follow this argument, be sure to mention the name of Karl Polanyi, whose 1944 book the Great Transformation argued that the experiment with the Gold Standard was a key cause of the two world wars.

Other perspectives on globalisation see it as primarily a process of 'de-territorialisation', ie the decreasing importance of place and borders. For some its not so much globalisation as 'internationalisation', just increasing links between nations and not much transformation of the societies within the borders. Cultural approaches try to identify whether globalisation implies cultural homogenization (cultures becoming more similar or monotone), heterogenization (the opposite) or hybridization (cultures cross-pollinating and producing new varieties). There's examples of all three. Arjun Appadurai has done some interesting work in this area.

Key themes consistently examined within globalisation studies include the effects of glob on the state (the concept and the reality), on the nation and nationalism, on democracy and on security (personal and public).

According to Leslie Sklair, capitalist globalisation inherently brings about two crises - a crisis of environmental degradation and a crisis of class polarisation. I'd add the crisis of political exclusion too, both in terms of nations and of international institutions. Sklair also argues that the best way to examine globalisation is in terms of a global system working in three spheres - the political, the economic and the culture-ideological. Being a bit of a Marxist, he tends to concentrate on production rather than aspects like financial liberalisation, which is crucial to understanding globalisation and development today.

Some other concepts keep cropping up in discussions about globalisation: 'openness' as a characteristic of individual, national and global life; 'freedom' and or versus 'responsibility' (the pamphlet "It's Democracy, Stupid" by the New Economics Foundation has an interesting discussion of how Karl Popper in fact opposed untrammelled 'freedom' in social or economic spheres); and the impact on personal morality.

Finally, I'd argue that any discussion of globalisation has to have power and power inequalities as central concepts. Too often, people on all sides of the debate seem to ignore that individuals and societies do not start from positions of equal power, and that there are in fact significant power structures affecting what goes on. Similarly, you've got to decide whether you think there's such things as transnational class structures and if so, how significant they are.

Hope that helps, if you want to ask anything else feel free to pm me. best of luck with the project.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seedot
The focus on the WTO and IMF is in part a reaction to the decline of the nation state and the democratic political institutions as no elected govt now has the power to resist the forces of globalisation.

Arse. No country has been forced to liberalise their economies by anyone. And there is nothing stopping them from regulating them again if they so wish.

The reason that these anti-globalisation types go on marches and riot and generally talk out of their arses is because they are too thick to be able to coherently articulate their objections and come up with rational, workable alternatives.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The reason that these anti-globalisation types go on marches and riot and generally talk out of their arses is because they are too thick to be able to coherently articulate their objections and come up with rational, workable alternatives.

See above. Are you blind?

The protesters engage in direct action and civil disobedience - how many good things emerged out of such a climate?

As shotamoose highlighted, the central issue is power (power structures) and the abuse of it. In attempting to move toward a more equal, just society (global or otherwise), civil disobedience/protesting has proven to be a positive force in redressing imbalances of power. The Suffragette movement is a case in point; for all their crazy protests and acts of civil disobedience, for all the damage they caused and the moral outrage they evoked, the simple fact is that the Suffragette movement was grounded in well argued liberal theory and the result was a redressing of a grievous imbalance of power with far-reaching effects.

Global justice protesters are no different. If anything, we protesters in the West are using our dominant political/economic position to help those who are abused by it by the West. All the anger in the world would be pointless without sound analysis and viable alternatives.

Civil disobedience is rarely acceptable (except to those involved) for its own sake. That's exactly why the global justice protests are deeply grounded in analysis and insulated by a whole battery of alternatives. Arguments are convincing for their own sake, not civil disobedience. That's how we can guage just how offensive any act of civil disobedience is. The protests today are not as explosive as those of the turn of the last century - they really are about drawing attention to injustices by showing how much opposition there is out there. What's wrong with that?

The alternatives suggested may be flawed, but more flawed than our present system? The answer to that question should be the result of a genuine dialogue between those in power and everyone else. But while the media continues to discredit the protesters by focusing on its image, the all important issues, analysis and alternatives are wallpapered over. For example, the European Social Forum recently held in Florence, an alternative summit to other 'establishment' economic fora but in no way an oppositionary event as such, was incorrectly portrayed as a protest and, predictably, news reporting focused on violence (which never even remotely happened). Conveniently, the purpose of the event and the ideas expressed by the many qualified speakers were overlooked.

Despite the fact that shotamoose has generously provided a raft of links to show how much real work is going on behind and among the protests, many are still unconvinced of the protests' worthiness. What I'm saying is that the media has (willingly or not) become complicit in reinforcing this negative, cynical image and that this attitude has to be urgently revised.

p

Originally posted by Turnip
Anti-globalisation protesters: It’s often claimed by these confused people (being diplomatic) that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Is this supposed to be a shock? Why is it automatically thought to be a bad thing? People who work hard or who know how to make use of certain advantages get rewarded. They reinvest their money wisely and overall standards rise.

Just to answer that one point.

There's nothing wrong with that, if it worked that way, that's not how it works.

Most of the people who control the vast majority of the world's weath didn't earn it. They inherited it.

You can never really stop inheritance, people will always want to give money to their kids. It's on of the most basic instincts. But you can try to level the playing field off as much as possible.

- Kevin

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by DadaKopf
See above. Are you blind?

No, just ignorant.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Arse. No country has been forced to liberalise their economies by anyone. And there is nothing stopping them from regulating them again if they so wish.

In 1999, Gerber Baby Foods used the WTO to suppress a law in Guatemala which encouraged mothers to bresat-feed. The law prohibited the use of labels which associated milk-substitutes with healthy, chubby babies, and also prevented manufacturers from giving free samples to mothers as an incentive. It also resticted manufacturers from specifically targetting young mothers in hospitals.

While every other manufacturer complied with the law upon its introduction in '96, Gerber refused to remove its smiley-baby-logo, and refused to carry a label stating that breast milk was superior.

When the WTO came into being in 95, Gerber dropped its initial line of appeal, and instead took Guatamala in front of the WTO on the grounds that the law undermined its trademark - a logo of a smiley baby. Under WTO law, corporate intellectual property rights have enough weight that Guatamela had no option but to drop its law, or face sanctions.

Sure - they weren't forced to drop the law. They had the option of dropping it, or getting their economy blasted back to the stone-age by WTO sanctions they couldnt afford.

Now, while this sounds not-too-unreasonable on teh surface, it should be taken into account that the use of baby-formula leads to an estimated 1.5 million deaths each year in developing nations (such as Guatemala) through incorrect preparation or use of contaminated water. It also leads to a less-well-developed immune system.

So what you're saying is not quite true. If a nation wants to have anything to do with the rest of the world, then it must play by the WTO's rules, and when corporations are able to get their voices heard in this manner.....we quickly see that these nations can be, and are forced to, play by rules which are not in their best interests, but which are more concentrated on the well-being of large corporate interests in developed nations.

In case anyone is interested, I got this story from Project Censored's book "Censored 2001". THe original story was reported in Environment and Health Weekly.

jc

Sand

If it *was* Gerbers logo then theres not much that can be said. I dont see why the Government couldnt have said , grand, Gerber can keep its logo. And slap a health warning regarding the superiourity of breast milk on each packet, like governments do for ciggarettes - as far as i know no cigarettes company has successfully managed to stop the smoking causes cancer warning, in the WTO or without. People tend to be hyper sensitive about their childrens health.

the use of baby-formula leads to an estimated 1.5 million deaths each year in developing nations (such as Guatemala) through incorrect preparation or use of contaminated water. It also leads to a less-well-developed immune system.

Gerber, once it provides clear instructions, is not responsible for incorrect preperation, nor is it responsible for water quality. Im no Gerber fanboy but, its not the use of baby formula that causes 1.5 million deaths each year, its incorrect preperation and contaminated water - and Id imagine contaminiated water kills far more than 1.5 million a year.

Most of the people who control the vast majority of the world's weath didn't earn it. They inherited it.

Actually as I understand it a survey of Americas millionaires found that the majority of them were self made - a fool and his money are soon parted. Bill Gates as I understand it went from making basic computers in his garage to signing an incredibly fortunate bussiness deal which made him one of , if not the richest man in the world.

sceptre

Originally posted by Sand
Bill Gates as I understand it went from making basic computers in his garage to signing an incredibly fortunate bussiness deal which made him one of , if not the richest man in the world.

Not quite true but close enough that we won't argue over it (I suspect you're mixing him up with Steve Jobs or Wozniak). Bill Gates however, had a substantial trust fund left to him by his grandfather - he was a millionaire before he started. (I'm not trying to start an OT discussion - just pointing out that he's a really bad example)

jd

Originally posted by Sand


Gerber, once it provides clear instructions, is not responsible for incorrect preperation, nor is it responsible for water quality. Im no Gerber fanboy but, its not the use of baby formula that causes 1.5 million deaths each year, its incorrect preperation and contaminated water - and Id imagine contaminiated water kills far more than 1.5 million a year.

We are talking about societies where a large proportion of the population are uneducated and functionally illiterate. It is immoral to exploit peoples ignorance

Von

The key issue, for me anyway, surrounding globalisation is sustainability. Mr.Bonkey hinted at it I think. Is neoliberal globalisation sustainable or not. No-one is going to declare publicly that they’re not in favour of sustainability since the opposite is ostensibly unsustainability and sustainability will mean different things to different people so in the future there's going to be a struggle for control of the meaning of the word, just as there are still arguments over the meanings of words like racism, democracy, liberalism etc.

What threatens the sustainability of the globe as a whole is the elimination of diversity as a basic phenomenon of life. Not only is this homogenization occuring in nature, putting the sustainability of the entire biosphere at risk and thus reducing the basis for organic life, it is also occurring at the cultural level as well, despite denials that there’s any connection between the levelling of the economic playing field and the levelling of cultures and ideas. This is patently and demonstrably false. The ideal of neoliberal globalisation is a single global space and a single global time on the premise that western market fundamentalist values, and its patterns of organizing time and space, alone have any validity.

Neoliberals will deny that globalisation is leading to global cultural homogeneity, and yet in practically the same breath, they’ll celebrate the triumph of market values over all competitors. This is just one of the many stupid things about them. Their response to a deadly global epidemic like AIDS is "f**k 'em they're wogs, if they can't pay then they can die." Pretty much the same response the british government took with the famine. Essentially they're throwbacks to the kind of
clitwitted scum William Hazlitt spent his life battling.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Arse. No country has been forced to liberalise their economies by anyone. And there is nothing stopping them from regulating them again if they so wish.

The reason that these anti-globalisation types go on marches and riot and generally talk out of their arses is because they are too thick to be able to coherently articulate their objections and come up with rational, workable alternatives.

I take it you couldn't be arsed getting the free book the Belgian PM produced and I provided a link to a while ago. He basically asked 'What's all this shouting?'. People from all over the world responded, including every major NGO, (even the evil communist group the Red Cross) and explained why they were upset. He bunged a selection of responses together with contributions from people like Owens Wiwa, Susan George, Clinton and Naomi Klein and made it available for free. It's as good a source as any for info about why people waste their time marching about and getting beaten up by the mussolini fan club.

And despite being a thicko who talks out his arse, Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for Economics and even wrote some
books. What has Biffa Bacon got on his mantelpiece? A trophy for winning 3rd place in the school egg and spoon race when he was 9 probably. And perhaps that failure is where all his bitterness, hatred for humanity and weird fantasies about having slaves can be traced back to.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
If it *was* Gerbers logo then theres not much that can be said. I dont see why the Government couldnt have said , grand, Gerber can keep its logo.

If they did, then the first thing which would have happened is that the law would have had to have been repealed anyway because it would be unequally applied and discriminatory between corporations.

People tend to be hyper sensitive about their childrens health.

Yes, and the ultra-national companies dont give a damn about other people's health and use organisations like the WTO to allow them to continue to make money out of other people's suffering.

Now, dont get me wrong - companies have been making money out of other people's suffering since business existed. However, in our so-called advancement as a society, we are supposed to be moving towards the concept of protecting all human life. We have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights for instance. Unfortunately, we also have a WTO, membership of which requires automatic acceptance of its rules and conditions, which effectively put corporate rights above human rights.

Forgive me if I feel that this is most categorically not a move in the right direction.

I have no objection to global-scale companies, as long as those companies are not using their size and muscle to better their bottom line to the detriment of other people's lives.

Gerber, once it provides clear instructions, is not responsible for incorrect preperation, nor is it responsible for water quality.

Well, under American law, if Gerber do not have a "not suitable for use with contaminated water" notice on it, they would be liable., as far as I was aware.

Im no Gerber fanboy but, its not the use of baby formula that causes 1.5 million deaths each year, its incorrect preperation and contaminated water - and Id imagine contaminiated water kills far more than 1.5 million a year.

Sure, and you don't see a problem selling this product into a nation where clean water is a rarity? Not only selling it, but aggressively promoting its sale (because developing nations was the best growth opportunity), even to the extent of fighting laws which sought to protect life because they impacted your bottom line?

Yes, they may not have broken any laws, but at the end of the day, Gerber are knowingly putting their bottom line ahead of health and safety in children in emerging nations. They actively promote their products in the West as a cleaner, neater solution to breastfeeding, and this worked for years until people started learning about the down-sides. And yet its ok to claw back those sales figures by targetting people less capable of making an educated determination (through lack of better education and information dissemination). Its not only OK, but its enforced by international Trade Law.

This is the core of the problem - or at least one core. Globalisation puts the corporate bottom line first, and with enough corporate might to hold entire nations to ransom.

Before the WTO, no-one could have challenged Guatemala's law. Gerber tried and failed. Since the WTO's inception, Gerber have had the decision revoked. Nations are now subservient to corporates, who's only interest is their profits...coupled with deniability of responsibility, as you so eloquently tried to already give to Gerber.

Von has also pointed out the associated problem of growth sustainability. Growth is not infinitely sustainable....but our corporate business model needs it to be. Now that western markets are reaching saturation in many areas, the only growth area is emerging nations. Their best interests are "obviously not as important as those of the western corporates who need to keep upping those figures.

Ultimately, globalisation is nothing more than the drawn-out death-throes of western commercial systems. Lets assume that globalisation cannot be stopped? What will happen? Ultimately, all markets will be saturated (maybe another few generations, but thats about it) and there will be no more scope for growth. At that point, if no sooner, humanity will learn the fallacy of sustainable growth. On a planet of finite resources, sustainable growth is an oxymoron. Hell, in a finite universe its an oxymoron...you just have a larger timescale to play with.

Sooner or later, the current economic models will fall. To me, the move against globalisation is fundamentally one where poeple recognise (one way or another) that following it to its ultimate conclusion is not in our best interests anyway.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Von
And despite being a thicko who talks out his arse, Joseph Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize for Economics and even wrote some
books.What has Biffa Bacon got on his mantelpiece? A trophy for winning 3rd place in the school egg and spoon race when he was 9 probably.

:):)

Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving??? Has he f**k!!! You know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us.

:):)

And besides, it was supposed to be my year, everyone knew that. I'd always suspected Fatty O'Brien glued his potato to the spoon, but never in my wildest dreams did I suspect he would stoop so low as to...etc. etc.

:):)

Disclaimer: This is intended as a "gag" post. I'm not actually being serious.

DadaKopf

you know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us

Oh, hmm. I thought Joseph Stiglitz was a Nobel Laureate and once prominent member of the World Bank before he was ejected for seeing the light. Surely a man with these credentials is living in the real world.

Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving???

If you're describing yourself here, I think you need to think about what you've just said.

Biffa, I think you're out of arguments.

Earthhorse

Isn't the culprit in all this the miss-application of the word "globalisation". I haven't read much on the topic myself but, much like capitalism, the phrase seems to be bandied about as a by word for corruption, greed and loose ethics. That's what most people in this thread seem to be arguing against and I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd argue for these things.

The two don't have to go hand in hand but, as bonkey pointed out, it's important to establish institutions that discourage them from doing so. Anyone who studies Economics should know that the subject is largely dedicated to stating how things are rather than how they ought to be and largely seeks to avoid putting social value statements on its conclusions. That is really a consideration for another science and any economist worth his salt will readily admit it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving??? Has he f**k!!! You know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us.

Ahhh.....

its all clear to me now.

I was of the impression that MoH was a computer game, but obviously it is a prerequisite to membership in the real world.

Damn. Guess that means that about 99.9% of the world's population dont live in the real world...

OR alternately, it could mean that Biffa has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.

I'm not sure which theory I favour most.....

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Oh, hmm. I thought Joseph Stiglitz was a Nobel Laureate and once prominent member of the World Bank before he was ejected for seeing the light. Surely a man with these credentials is living in the real world.

Oh dear. It seems I post so much utter shíte on this board that no one can tell anymore when I'm being serious and when I'm just joking.



I think I need to phrase my posts in a less blatantly troll-like manner from now on.

Biffa, I think you're out of arguments.

I would have thought my "No, just ignorant" comment would have made that quite clear.

EmilianoZapata

When South Africa attempted to import cheaper generic AIDS drugs they were hit with lawsuits from the major drug companies backed by the WTO. When Brazil attempted to do the same, the WTO dragged them in front of numerous tribunals.

All the above are the benefits of globalisation and free trade.

Just look at the benefits NAFTA has brought to Mexican workers.

Almost 75% of the Mexican population live under poverty still.
Real income is lower now than it was in 1994.
Unemployment is on the rise.

In 1991, a US waste management company Metalclad bought a closed down toxic waste treatment plant in Guadalcazar, Mexico in order to build a huge hazardous-waste dump promising to clean up the mess left there previously. When local authorities became worried about Metalclad not cleaning up the area and fearing groundwater contamination they refused to grant a building permit to Metalclad in 1995 by which NAFTA was in operation. Under "Clause 11" of the NAFTA agreement investors have the ability to sue government and this is exactly what Metalclad did winning $16.7m in "damages".

I don't see NAFTA bringing any benefits to Mexico besides increasing poverty and decreased power within the country itself.

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
All the above are the benefits of globalisation and free trade.

No, that's actually one of the drawbacks of current WTO rules. I believe there's a strong case to allow countries like this an exemption to use generic drugs.

Almost 75% of the Mexican population live under poverty still.
Real income is lower now than it was in 1994.

Links please? According to these people, Mexican real GDP has grown every year since 1997, except for a drop of 0.3% last year.

Unemployment is on therise.

No it isn't

I don't see NAFTA bringing any benefits to Mexico besides increasing poverty and decreased power within the country itself.

Obviously the Mexicans disagree with you -- otherwise why don't they just pull out of NAFTA? Last time I checked, Mexico was a democracy...

EmilianoZapata

No, that's actually one of the drawbacks of current WTO rules. I believe there's a strong case to allow countries like this an exemption to use generic drugs.

According to WTO rules, in times of a national crisis there is an exemption but it isn't followed. The only reason the pharmaceutical companies backed down was because of the public outrage and because they would have to have made their huge profits known to the public had they gone to court.

Links please? According to these people, Mexican real GDP has grown every year since 1997, except for a drop of 0.3% last year.

Real income does not depend on GDP, it depends on inflation.


Here

Here

Obviously the Mexicans disagree with you -- otherwise why don't they just pull out of NAFTA? Last time I checked, Mexico was a democracy...

Because as always free trade only benefits the rich and never the poor. As for Mexico being a democracy that is very debatable. Have you ever seen the poverty that the natives live in and the previous Mexican government (the PRI which reigned for over 60 years) did nothing to change it and so far neither has the new government.

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Real income does not depend on GDP, it depends on inflation.

The figure I linked to was "real GDP" i.e. adjusted for inflation.

Because as always free trade only benefits the rich and never the poor.

That's a very sweeping assertion. How would developed countries restricting imports from the developing world help the poor? How would tarriffs on imports (and thus higher prices) help the poor?

As for Mexico being a democracy that is very debatable. Have you ever seen the poverty that the natives live in and the previous Mexican government (the PRI which reigned for over 60 years) did nothing to change it and so far neither has the new government.

I agree, the Mexican government needs to make poverty a higher priority. But I fail to see how this is the fault of globalization. In fact, the World Bank is pressurizing Mexico to increase social spending.

EmilianoZapata

How would developed countries restricting imports from the developing world help the poor? How would tarriffs on imports (and thus higher prices) help the poor?

In 2001 (or 2000) Cuba had the highest growth in GDP in south or central America with no help from anyone else. Yet the countries that work on a free trade basis have minor increases and in some cases decreases. Just look at the effects free trade and the WTO has had on Argentina.

EmilianoZapata

As for the World Bank pressurising Mexico, can you really believe that they're doing that out of the good of their hearts when their own former Chief Economist speaks out against them?

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
In 2001 (or 2000) Cuba had the highest growth in GDP in south or central America with no help from anyone else. Yet the countries that work on a free trade basis have minor increases and in some cases decreases.

Are you seriously saying that the US trade embargo has been good for Cuba? You do realize the only people who agree with you are right-wing lunatics like Jesse Helms?

Just look at the effects free trade and the WTO has had on Argentina.

The WTO didn't tell Argentina to tie the peso to the dollar. The Argentine government decided to do that on its own. This arrangement worked well for a while, but inevitably the US and Argentine economies were too different for it to be sustainable. The resulting crisis was a result of Argentine government policies, not the IMF/WTO's fault. Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1721061.stm

Nice But Dim

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Anyone who studies Economics should know that the subject is largely dedicated to stating how things are rather than how they ought to be and largely seeks to avoid putting social value statements on its conclusions. That is really a consideration for another science and any economist worth his salt will readily admit it.

A lot of economic theory work considers the welfare effects of various factors and its unfair to suggest that the subject is purely static.

Broadly speaking Economics seeks to avoid defining just what we define as social value, and instead tries to point out the effect - for example we might expect price discrimination to benefit firms and low-value customers, but that it'll benefit high-value customers. I'm quite happy for Economics as a subject to leave it at that, and let policy makers make a decision as to just who's outcomes we should weight more in society.

By considering welfare effects Economics implicitly considers how things would change, and then leaves the decision whether to change up to policy makers. Its isn't only concerned with what's currently happening.

EmilianoZapata

Meh,

I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out that free trade and globalisation are not the saviours of the poor and there are other ways and Cuba is an example.

Sand

If they did, then the first thing which would have happened is that the law would have had to have been repealed anyway because it would be unequally applied and discriminatory between corporations.

If the other corporations could also prove a baby was their logo, and if the "WARNING-BREAST FEEDING IS BETTER FOR YOUR CHILD.....AND CHEAPER!!!" could somehow be proven to infringe the companies logo (please, if it is possible to get around this- tell the cigarrette companies- they would love to get rid of the bothersome health warning on every pack they sell).

I have no objection to global-scale companies, as long as those companies are not using their size and muscle to better their bottom line to the detriment of other people's lives.

I agree - I dont like the idea of dominant firms using their muscle/size to achieve anything. However Gerber is *not* holding a gun to the head of young poverty striken mothers to go and buy their products - if it can be shown that it is not healthy, inform the people - if they continue to take it anyway, then they see some benefit to it.

Well, under American law, if Gerber do not have a "not suitable for use with contaminated water" notice on it, they would be liable., as far as I was aware.

Yes and if they had a "not suitable for use with rat poison" notice on it theyd be liable as well, should people deviate from the instructions and mix it with some. Somewhere along the line we must assume people have a certain base level of intelligence that allows for recognising that contaminated water is not safe, regardless of what is mixed with. Id hate to live in a society where your served a cup of coffee and a 3 page waiver that boils down to "Warning- Coffee is hot". Were well on the way of course, but for another thread.

Sure, and you don't see a problem selling this product into a nation where clean water is a rarity? Not only selling it, but aggressively promoting its sale (because developing nations was the best growth opportunity), even to the extent of fighting laws which sought to protect life because they impacted your bottom line?

Damn those evil dilute orange companies trying to sell their accursed products to countries with no clean water, those electronic manufacturers trying to shove sony mindiscs down the throats of poor nations where electrical supply is patchy at best, etc etc

---

Gerber is trying to sell a good, which is *more* exspensive than breast feeding ( a real luxury in a poverty striken country perhaps), and as you say yourself isnt as safe, with even a basic public awareness campaign or a law requiring such companies to require basic health warnings on their goods Id imagine the sales would be far from healthy.

Ultimately, globalisation is nothing more than the drawn-out death-throes of western commercial systems. Lets assume that globalisation cannot be stopped? What will happen? Ultimately, all markets will be saturated (maybe another few generations, but thats about it) and there will be no more scope for growth. At that point, if no sooner, humanity will learn the fallacy of sustainable growth. On a planet of finite resources, sustainable growth is an oxymoron. Hell, in a finite universe its an oxymoron...you just have a larger timescale to play with.

400 years ago, economic development was primarily agrarian, 200 years ago coal, steel and manufacturing where the marked of growing industrialised nations, and now its high tech manufacturing and services that dominate in economic growth - there will always be scope for growth and there will always be markets faltering - mobile phones during the 90s is an example of growth, and ship building ( in the UK for example ) an example of decline - demand for new goods replaces demand for old. Growth in a market isnt finite by any reasonable measure as markets for any given good do not exist long enough to become wholly saturated - cars have been around for a hundred years now? What percentage of the world population owns one? Not a lot of people in Africa or Asia Id imagine. Before they become common place across the world its likely demand for them will falters and a new market- such as the provision of good private mass transit in urban areas - begin to grow.

When oil demand falls in the west you can bet the current oil companies will be amongst the biggest players in the provision of alternative energy - assuming their smart enough to recognise when the curtain is coming down on one market and opening on another.

Their response to a deadly global epidemic like AIDS is "f**k 'em they're wogs, if they can't pay then they can die."

Good god youre right, that was on p 67 of my economics textbook regarding the advantages of free trade!!!!!!

Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving??? Has he f**k!!! You know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us.

You know Ive seen some pretty unfunny attempts at satire in my life, one of the reasons i think its just sad and a sign of a deprived childhood. It should be funny. Now I dont know if youd call this satire but it is damn funny:D Actually, thats probably why it isnt:)

Biffa, I think you're out of arguments.

Sense of humour- Please call home, all is forgiven.

the phrase seems to be bandied about as a by word for corruption, greed and loose ethics. That's what most people in this thread seem to be arguing against and I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd argue for these things.

Yep thats the crux of the matter - when a leftie says globalism they mean neo colonialism ( you know where a firm sets up in a poor country and offers comparable wages ), slave ships packed to the brim crossing the ocean ( hell its not like anybody in those poor countries would work without having guns held to their heads ), 2 year olds working 23.5 hour shifts ( I read about it in No Logo ) and so on. This disregards that globalism is about opening markets and moving towards global free trade, free trade being recognised as an important cornerstone of economic growth. But by throwing enough mud the aforementioned leftie hopes economic arguments can be drowned out.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
This disregards that globalism is about opening markets and moving towards global free trade, free trade being recognised as an important cornerstone of economic growth.

Keep saying this as much as you like, but it won't make it true. Free trade is in no meaningful sense 'a cornerstone of economic growth'. To quote

There is no convincing evidence that trade liberalization is predictably associated with subsequent economic growth ... The only systematic relationship is that countries dismantle trade restrictions as they get richer, which accounts for the fact that most of today's rich countries embarked on economic growth behind protective barriers, which they subsequently lowered

As for nobody ever being 'forced' to liberalise, that's because they don't have to be forced (since the Cold War, anyway). Poorer countries are more structurally dependent than richer countries on international institutions, on foreign investment and on foreign states. This means that they suffer greater costs when they disagree with these parties on economic policy. It's a fact of life. So no, nobody forces them to liberalise, just like nobody forces you to obey the rules of the road. But you do, because you know what's good for you.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
To quote

Woohoo, a quote war!
Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty

Conclusion
While there is no simple one-to-one relationship between trade and poverty, the evidence seems to indicate that trade liberalization is generally a positive contributor to poverty alleviation—it allows people to
exploit their productive potential, assists economic growth, curtails arbitrary policy interventions and helps to insulate against shocks. However, most trade reforms will create some losers (some even in the long run), and poverty may be exacerbated temporarily. The appropriate policy response in those cases is to alleviate the hardships and facilitate adjustments rather than abandon the reform process.

Frankel, Jeffrey A. 1997.“ Determinants ofLong- term Growth.” Paper presented at the Meeting of the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation in Canada on November 20, 1997.

The paper concludes that, according to statistical studies, the strongest determinants of countries’long- term growth rates are investment in physical and human capital( especially investment in infrastructure and education), openness with respect to international trade and investment, and economic freedom. Macroeconomic stability, financial structure, and political and social stability are also important. Many East Asian countries have many of these characteristics in abundance, which explains their miracle growth rates of the past.

So no, nobody forces them to liberalise, just like nobody forces you to obey the rules of the road. But you do, because you know what's good for you.

I don't know about you, but if I don't obey the traffic laws, the police can use any means up to and including lethal force to make me obey them. There's no such coercion involved in free trade -- the EU isn't declaring war on the US because of Bush's steel tarriffs. You don't have to join the WTO if you don't want to.

DadaKopf

I don't think the use of the word 'coercion' is particularly helpful in this instance. You can wax lyrical about different types of freedoms and different tyes of constraints on those freedoms and not get anywhere but, be that as it may, the evidence speaks for itself, I think.

Is it not even a little contradictory that advocates of liberalisation and free-trade depend on monolithic systems of coercion in the forms of 'tough economic decisions' and 'political negotiations'? Can it ever be possible to support an ideology that claims one thing (freedom, equality, self-realisation) but delivers another (coercion, inequality, deprivation)?

Even Isaiah Berlin, one of the foremost champions of post-war liberalism, would heave at what's happening right now. The very idea of free-trade liberalisation itself is intrinsically corrupt. Berlin's idea of freedom (and associated forms of coercion) was so minimal and individualist that it couldn't guaruntee its own ideology and so it became a license for particular sections of society to ride on the backs of the peasants.

In fact, coercion is inescapable so in a sense it's a moot point. If we tried to escape coercion, nothing would change.

What people should be discussing is how just forms of coercion, or redistribution can be arranged to maximise self-realisation, fairness and equality and minimise exploitation and abuses of power. There's a clash of ideologies here and to talk of coercion versus non-coercion is meaningless.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
Woohoo, a quote war!

Yeah, let's dig our trenches.

The first paper you quote, by Ben-David, Winters and Nordstrom, is a WTO research paper, and there's a rather interesting analysis of it by the Third World Network here .

As you can see, the paper contains several important qualifications not really reflected in the passage you quote. Probably the most important is that the research is based on data from 25 high and middle income countries. Ben-David writes that

data limitations precluded the analysis of poor countries here—and it is far from obvious (at least to this author) that the impact of trade liberalization found on incomes in the middle and high-income countries could also be found in the poorest countries in the world.

Which I would have thought rather limits the usefulness of the conclusions drawn, since this conversation (and the passage you quote) have been focussing on poverty reduction.

Ben-David goes also says that

the results of this paper in no way imply that trade policy is the most important policy from a long-run growth perspective.

And:

In the case of the poorest coun-tries, a range of constraints to economic growth and development must be addressed if openness to trade is to have an impact on income levels and growth.

Winters later writes in the same document that

Openness probably needs several concomitant policies or conditions before it will generate growth

.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that Rodrik laid out in the article I linked to: trade liberalisation tends to come after development, not the other way around. Poor countries would be better served by strengthening their national economies and institutions.

For another good paper along these lines by Rodrik, see here .

As for the whole force argument, my point was that coercion and pressure no longer take the forms of physical force or the threat. Rather, countries are increasingly vulnerable to costs imposed by private companies, international institutions and foreign countries as a result of policy changes. Example: the state of Brazil's economy presently seems to hinge on how international investment markets feel about Lula's economic policy. Is anyone holding a gun to his head? No. But to a very important degree his room for maneuver (as a democratically elected state leader) is seriously constrained.

Turnip

Originally posted by Von
This is patently and demonstrably false. The ideal of neoliberal globalisation is a single global space and a single global time on the premise that western market fundamentalist values, and its patterns of organizing time and space, alone have any validity.

I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

Their response to a deadly global epidemic like AIDS is "f**k 'em they're wogs, if they can't pay then they can die." Pretty much the same response the british government took with the famine.

Comparing the Famine and economic conditions 150 years ago to anything that's happening today is just ridiculous. It's escapist nonsense. Irish people,especially those on the left, can't be objective about their own history.

Essentially they're throwbacks to the kind of
clitwitted scum William Hazlitt spent his life battling.

I'm too polite to say what you're a throwback to. :cool:

It's as good a source as any for info about why people waste their time marching about and getting beaten up by the mussolini fan club.

If they didn't riot and set out to damage property they wouldn't get beaten up by police. The police after all are human beings. You can only throw so many bricks and molotovs at them before they get a little bit angry.

DadaKopf

I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

Maybe you would but it's quite clear the majority of the world has a problem with that. It's a difficult nut to crack: is the neo-liberal agenda fuelled by these space-time-altering technologies or are the technologies fuelled by the neo-liberal agenda?

Cultural homogenisation is a worry but I'm not so pessamistic about it; clearly some places are becoming more similar while others are becoming more distinct as a result of globalisation. The real thorny issue is the perceived loss of cultural authenticity and control over one's own culture that this process entails. The UN was set up to protect this right but it's so far failed to do so.

Furthermore, homogenisation exemplifies the imperialist 'one size fits all' approach of the global system. One size most definitely does not fit all - why shouldn't each country or region be able to decide what kind of economy is best for them? Since the money is flowing mainly on one direction, south to north, the answer to this question is pretty plain for all to see.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

I think you misread the quote.

Its talking about western market values, not western cultural values.

I wasnt aware that democracy and human rights standards were western market ideals. In fact, looking at the tactics employed (or allegedly employed) by many leading western globalised companies, it is obvious that such paltry things as human rights values are not highly valued market values, but rather inconveniences that have to be worked around.

Of course, I could be misreading the quote, and you may be perfectly correct.

Originally posted by Sand

If the other corporations could also prove a baby was their logo, and if the "WARNING-BREAST FEEDING IS BETTER FOR YOUR CHILD.....AND CHEAPER!!!" could somehow be proven to infringe the companies logo (please, if it is possible to get around this- tell the cigarrette companies- they would love to get rid of the bothersome health warning on every pack they sell).

I assume you're not a smoker, Sand, but I think that you'll find if you look closely that the warnings on cigarette packets are printed on the box - at least in every nation I've been in. They are not applied after the fact by the government - they are applied by the producers, under legislative requirement that they do so - much like what the Guatemalan government wanted to do with substitute milk products.

The cigarette companies are, in fact, a sterling example of why Gerber should have been compelled to adhere to the law, not an example of why it wasnt their problem.

Somewhere along the line we must assume people have a certain base level of intelligence that allows for recognising that contaminated water is not safe, regardless of what is mixed with.

Yes, but to make that assumption, we must also assume a basic level of education, and/or a basic level of information dissemination infrastructure - both of which are patently absent in many emerging economies, such as the one in question.

This basic lack of education is the primary reason why the government took a stance against logo's as well as text. They know the problems of illiteracy within their nation, and accept that written warnings are useless to an illiterate person. Thus, if you have a product with a smiling baby on it, you are sending a visual implication as to the efficacity and purpose of this product. You can be damned sure that Gerber are equally aware of this....which is why it was so important to them.

Gerber's intellectual property was not being undermined. The government weren't preventing them from using it so that someone else could steal their hard word. They were preventing them from using it because it was misleading - far moreso than in a developed nation with high literacy. There is a difference.

I'm not suggesting that it should be replaced by anything implying unhealthiness. However, imagine if they had a registered "catchphrase" which made claims about being "for a healthier, happier baby". Once you put it in writing, you are straight away open to litigation based on false advertising because it can be shown that it is not healthier. However, because an image is deemed to be ambiguous enough, they can get away with it due to the vagaries of law.

Ultimately, we'll end up agreeing to disagree. You have faith in the western system of sales and marketing, and its accompanying law (embodied internationally by the WTO) and I feel that this cannot be uniformly applied to nations with entirely different levels of education, social structures, and so on. What seems clear and obvious to you may mean absolutely nothing to a person who does not have the benefits of your education and access to information. As far as the WTO is concerned, though, that doesnt matter. Extending western commercial markets to a global scale, and protecting them appropriately is more important, apparently.

jc