Globalisation, Again

Politics International Politics
1

I’m always interested in this. It is becoming a source of increasingly bitter disagreement between “right” and “left”. On the one side, those that believe free trade and democracy and the institutions of the WTO and World Bank are good for global economic development and the environment.

And those that believe the WTO World Bank are basically evil henchmen of the rich countiries. And that free trade is as bad for the environment as capitalism is for the soul.

Here, for those interested in intelligent analysis, is a paper discussion globalisation and the environment.

papers.nber.org/papers/w10090.pdf

Conclusions are, broadly:

  1. “Good” effects from trade appear to dominate any “bad effects”
  2. The WTO has not prevented countries from following independent environmental policy - so long as policies do not unfairly discriminate between countries.
  3. Trade raises incomes and lowers pollution as proportion of income. under the right conditions, it raises environmental awareness (including democracy… proper institutions…
  4. There is, however, a need for multilateral global institutions, and there is some support for the better aspects of the Kyoto protocol, particular the idea of “pollution vouchers.”

For those who are convinced of the West’s culpability in polluting the world and using the WTO to bend economic development cynically in their own favour at the expense of the poor…

Well, I suggest you skip the above paper and move straight on to the absurd rhetoric and grossly distorted arguments…

2

From Saturday’s Jakarta Post:

An atlas of multinationals throws an unusual light on globalization

Nayan Chanda, Editor, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, New Haven

Some 9,356 multinationals have chosen Denmark as their home, followed closely by Germany Sure, the wealthiest ones (93 out of the top 100) are still located in the U.S., Japan, and Europe, but the automatic assumption that big multinationals are American is simply no longer true. In 1962 almost 60 percent of the world’s top 500 multinationals were American but by 1999 American corporations accounted for only 36 percent of the total.

thejakartapost.com

3

This is an interesting idea whose time may have come.

A free trade deal between the US and EU?

From the Observer no less?!http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1086344,00.html

A &100 billion plan to create a single market between Europe and the United States will be unveiled this week as part of a government effort to show that having a close relationship with America is worth jobs and money.

4

It’s not so simple IYBGF as to say globalization is supported by those on the right and opposed by those on the left. I would put Dubya on the right but he certainly opposed globalization when it came to protectionist steel tariffs that the WTO found unlawful.

bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ … 233734.htm

There are many issues and interests involved, both good and bad.

5

Well, absolutely. I thought I had put those comments in “” anyway, as they are seldom a good guide… perhaps I should have said it has become an area of controversy between clean-shaven grown-ups and the bearded youth…?

6

You’re correct, MT… its not always right v. left when it comes to globalization.

As an aside, although I initially favored the steel tariffs (being from Pittsburgh I had a brief, knee-jerk reaction), I was later dissappointed in them, and in Bush for pushing them. As another aside, this past summer, while visiting one of my buddies over at United States Steel in Pittsburgh, he told me, with utter contempt and disgust for them, that the steelworkers had decided not to endorse the candidacy of President Bush for the 2004 election. I know that generally speaking, nobody should make a decision re a candidate based on a single issue… but many do just this and it still amazed me that the steelworkers would stab Bush in the back this way.

7

One of the problems of globalization is that a lot of people are put out of work, but that’s supposed to be a worthwhile sacrifice for the long-term good of a country. Witness the recent demonstrations by thousands of employees of Chunghwa Telecom and other Taiwan government monopolies opposed to privatization of Taiwan’s industries.

That’s why Freedman in his great book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, explains that “sustainable globalization” calls for not just opening up the borders to free trade, but providing job training and other assistance for those who will suffer the bad effects.

8

You mean temporarily, right - or permanently?

Here’s another point. In essence trade between countries is not really different to trade within a country. At its very basic level, trade between New York and Taiwan is not really different to that between New York and California. So:

  1. Are jobs (temporarily) lost by one type of trade more important than those (temporarily) lost by the other? And

  2. If an economy can over time generate extra jobs for those who lost out because of trade between New York and California, why can’t it do the same for those lost to trade between New York and Taiwan?

9

I for one do not sympathize with the Chung Hwa Telecom workers.

For one, they provided years of lazy, bad service whilst protected by the government. When privatization and liberalization came up, these workers had more than a decade to prepare, go to classes, think about how they were going to earn their living, etc.

Second, protecting Chung Hwa Telecom workers penalizes workers at Ericcson, Nokia, Motorola and other telecom companies who might better be able to provide the services customers must currently rely upon Chung Hwa telecom for.

Okay and if protection for union workers why not for English teachers or Filipina maids? Just a thought. Seems that only unionized workers are getting these protections and special treatment.

Just for the record, I strongly disagree with farm subsidies (which by the way mostly go to corporations) and with the steel subsidies.

10

This was, I suppose, the rationale for the recent quotas imposed by the US on the import of bras. (Not, as the WSJ pointed out, jockey shorts - just bras.)

The question is, should the amply-bosomed be prepared to support the USA bra manufacturer at the expense not only of China’s bra makers, but also their own support?

11

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]One of the problems of globalization is that a lot of people are put out of work, but that’s supposed to be a worthwhile sacrifice for the long-term good of a country. Witness the recent demonstrations by thousands of employees of Chunghwa (Zhonghua) Telecom and other Taiwan government monopolies opposed to privatization of Taiwan’s industries.
[/quote]

I agree with Fred and his comments about Changhua and unions. And I would like to add–Aren’t we all supposed to be big boys and girls and look out for ourselves? And be proactive? And save and educate ourselves in case of a rainy day? Don’t we know that no job is permanent?

12

AHHHHHH but Flicka:

That would mean being personally responsible for our actions and we all know that is not possible. We are all VICTIMS of racial and class oppression. What the hell is wrong with you?

13

Not sure I agree with this analogy. I would say it is divide between people that know international development and the global economy (World Bank and WTO officials) and those who do not (well intentioned but misinformed protest groups). These protest groups run the gamut from left to right. Sex and business make the world go round and should be celebrated at every opportunity. More often than not, it is citizens from developed countries, not middle or lower income ones, that critique the World Bank and WTO. They do so because they want to protect their own union or small business job. It is these same rich countries that enact protectionist legislation that often hinders economic development in lower and middle income countries.

14

Chewy:

I agree with the thrust of your point but would like to cut one aspect off of your statement regarding the “well-intentioned.” Nope. I don’t believe that they are well intentioned at all. Why is this always used to preface ignorant people on the Left? When has anyone on the Right been labeled “well intentioned” when those who consider themselves better informed have disagreed? Was Reagan well intentioned when he stationed Pershing missiles in Europe? Is Bush well intentioned about bringing democracy to Iraq. No, those two are downright “evil” according to the “well intentioned.” Foremost in this brigade falls the “well-intentioned” Carter otherwise how else does one explain away his disastrous policies?

What the “well intentioned” here are can be defined as lazy intellectuals who possess arrogance about their abilities in inverse proportion to those actual abilities. How many of these well intentioned have even a basic understanding of economics? And for the small group that does, adhering to their “well intentioned” views merely seems indicative of the rampant narcissism that leads to stunted morality that achieves ultimate flailing frustration in moral relativism and nihilism.

This is why I found it so hilarious to see the “well intentioned” come to Latin America to “help” the “oppressed.” It was a comedy of errors that someone would do well to put to paper. Can anyone imagine that poorly dressed, ill-kept, wild haired, pot-smoking, tie-died suburban socialists will find favor with Latin American societies where even the poor have on a starched white shirt and dazzling clean hair, skin, hands, etc? Imagine them going to Nicaragua to “help” pick coffee or to Bolivia to “organize” the peasants before falling over laughing at efforts in even more developed countries such as Argentina, Brazil or Mexico. They were frustrated and bewildered to the point of hatred because they were not accepted. Why not? How could that be? They had the Che Guevera t-shirt, they supported Castro against the evil Americans and they were for organized labor, the peasants, the poor and against the Church. What went wrong? hahahah

The only place such “well-intentioned” get a warm welcome is Cuba but then the natives don’t really have the option to dissent with government policy there now do they?

15

You guys are being overly harsh and judgmental. Sure Chunghwa should be privatized notwithstanding the fact that thousands may be put out of work. It is a bloated, inefficient, overly-protected dinosaur that should be opened up to the free market for its own sake as well as Taiwan’s.

But those remarks about the workers are callous. The workers are just regular folks who are scared that they will lose their jobs and may be unfit to do anything else. And many of them may be right about that. Same goes for the steel workers, union employees and opponents of NAFTA, etc in the US.

Why no sympathy for folks who have done the best they could within the system for years and then are suddenly thrown out on the street in a new world that they might have trouble coping with? They’re only human. Would you have no sympathy if your father was an uneducated worker who was employed at a state-owned enterprise for 30 years, ever since he dropped out of high school and did his military service and was now faced with privatization? Why is it his fault that his employer was state-owned and inefficient? How could he have known that the world would change and the rug would be pulled out from under him?

The workers DO deserve our sympathy – and a helping hand through short-term unemployment benefits, job-retraining, resume assistance and other such programs – so they can get back on the horse and keep the economy running. It’s not their fault they’re out of work. And if we don’t help some of them, they may turn to drugs, alcohol, crime, domestic violence or suicide.

By throwing them out on the street don’t we have at least a moral obligation to give them not only our compassion but a little assistance to move forward for the good of all of us?

Nor do I understand your comments about intellectuals Fred. By his own protectionist policies, GW has resisted globalization and I would hardly call him an intellectual. For him it has been political. While he probably recognizes that free trade is a good thing economically, he’s got to walk a balancing act because he can’t afford to put too many US voters out of work, so he imposes unlawful tariffs on foreign goods. I’m not blaming him for that, just stating the facts. Any other president would be faced with the same dilemna.

16

MT:

George W may have to do what he has to do to get re-elected and I will vote for him for other reasons but he loses me when he pulls the same shit the Democrats do as in the following:

steel tariffs
farm subsidies
the fat pork in the new energy bill
Medicare (drug coverage)
etc.

I realize that it has to be give and take but I disagree STRONGLY with George W. on all these areas but he knows that he already has my vote so he can play around with socialism to nail his victory down. What can I do? Vote for Gore? Hillary? Hitler? Osama?

As to the Chung hwa workers, what have you been reading recently Michael Moore? If you could squeeze one more “folks” into your post, I will take my hat off to you. No, these are not folks if it comes at the expense of the “folks” at other telecom companies or of customers like me who had to put up with their high prices and bad service for TWO decades. Now the shoe is on the other foot and I will give them the same concern that they showed me when I did not want to pay NT$10,000 to bribe someone to hook me up to a phone, tried to call collect to the United States, paid 10 times more than I would have for the same phone call if made from say Hong Kong etc. etc. They had a DECADE to get ready for this. It has been a government plank since the early to mid-1990s. Guess what? You may lose your job in 10 years. Wanna start preparing now?

AND who will pay for that training? the same taxpayers that have lost their jobs and found new ones but who are not part of labor unions. The same life insurance salesmen that are driving cabs right now, the same middle aged trading company executives who are selling life insurance now while driving cabs part time etc. So how these people are any more deserving of my sympathy is beyond me. AND I do not believe that such efforts to stop the job losses will do anything but provide temporary relief before inflicting greater pain. If Taiwan had privatized Chung Hwa like it was supposed to years earlier then the layoffs would not have occurred smack dab in the middle of a recession but five to 10 years earlier when those workers would have had a much easier time finding new jobs and getting new skills and it is precisely because Taiwan put off reform that it is suffering (to a certain degree) on a macroeconomic level now.

17

[quote=“fred smith”]
I realize that it has to be give and take but I disagree STRONGLY with George W. on all these areas but he knows that he already has my vote so he can play around with socialism to nail his victory down. What can I do? Vote for Gore? Hillary? Hitler? Osama?[/quote]

In other news, Mr. Fred Smith has joined the rolls of Forumosa’s Communist Cell No. 42. A White House official spoke on the condition of anonymity, “We cannot tolerate dissent in this country not after 9-11 and the Patriot Act. If you’re not with the President every step of the way, then you’re against America. Still we will gladly take your vote.”

18

I’ve been inspired by the leftys’ use of comics to make political points… :smiling_imp:

19

There may be some truth to your cartoon Tigerman, in that globalization often brings jobs to underdeveloped countries, but it also brings exploitation and environmental disaster all too often by irresponsible multinationals. Here’s just a token few examples:

bhopal.com/review.htm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3001609.stm
victoria.indymedia.org/news/ … /18246.php
commondreams.org/headlines02/0920-02.htm
lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori … 10426.html
wsn.org/mining/bhp_runs.html
bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/5889612.htm
multinationalmonitor.org/mm2000/ … omics.html

20

sure, turn chunghua inside out. dump the old staffers. kill off the subsidies for the rice farmers. rice here is way too expensive anyway. let all the factories upgrade by relocating to mainland. quit catering to the fisherfolk too: the seafood are all polluted anyway. this years eels to japan and fish to europe and last years oysters can all be brought back and sold to the schools for feeding the kids or the troops. we can just all get our fish and carbs from china. but is not china even worse? anyway, NIMBY away…

but…what are the people to do when there are no jobs? when detroit had a similar problem a generation back, the gov’t put forward the warm hearted “move to where there is work” suggestion.

can we all just operate food carts outside the train station? should our daughters just eschew education and move straight into hooking as that is where the money is? she should just make money while she is still young and hot and save it up for when she starts to sag right?oh. the pimp is gonna get a slice (seen their arms…perhaps “slices”) of her take. can’t work on the rag. medical expenses (abortions, STDs) factor in and soon even hooking bears no fruit. if john has no money mary ain’t gonna get no tricks. oh, she should have known better and saved for a rainy day. stupid whore. soon we are but lesser hairy bonobos trading sex for fruit.

dump the farmers, fishers and communication folks for internationalized cheaper services. but…if the fishermen, growers and pushcart folks have no money who is gonna come to my bushiban? who is going to buy a new car when trains and buses are just as good? i can close my bushiban and get a taxi.

oh driving a taxi, the capitalists dream. be your own boss in a predatory market. whore the rates down to get a fare over that of the taxi next to you. cut your own throat to bleed HIM dry. when you are both spent and your taxi is too old (there are laws about such things) and don’t have the capital reserves for a new one, what to do?

oh yes, press your offspring for the downpayment money to keep up your loss-leader enterprise. that way, your daughter who is whoring her yourth away can subsidize the inefficent business plans of her economically inept elders.

everybody everywhere can work for lower and lower rates until there is no profit left to be turned. then we have no one to blame but ourselves: bad, ignorant strivers trying to get ahead. when we are broken toss us out the door and hire a younger, more naive model. all this world has these days is young, naive strivers willing to work for less. great for the owners of industryt but a raw deal for the same strivers in a short score of years.

such is but a sob story of one family writ large. writ large to the whole scheme of things. capitalism is a pyramid scheme. it is gonna expand as long as it can. stock shares are based upon a companies ability to access market growth. what happens when markets mature? find new ones. is it possible that someday there are going to be no new markets? when there are no more brown people to disdposses and take their lands for farming and reaching and mineral extraxtion? and then what happens to a system build for expansion when there is no more expansion?

you can defend capitalism with your fancy words and theories of economics all you want. economics is as much voodoo as science: last week’s jobless recovery is this week’s record growth spurt and things are rosier than ever. thank you dr. pangloss. under capitalism, never in the history of mankind has there been so many poor and resourceless people. the agarians relocate to the cities to access jobs. in doing so they spur their support systems and access to the land they may of had. they come, work for pesos and get turned out when they are too banged up.

upton sinclair to howard zinn to fast food nation…somethings never seem to change in the belly of the beast: the people born on third base grow up CONVINCED they earned a triple and sneer at the suckers who can’t even get in the park to get at bat.

what to do, what to do…i know what i am doing about it. relating it to you would take away my marketable, competitive edge.

the charioteer told arjuna what?