Slashdot Mirror
Multinationals And Globalism
Many anti-globalization interests, Jay Walljasper writes in the latest Utne Reader, have coalesced in the belief that growing poverty, environmental destruction and social breakdown, with continuing bloodshed seen around the world, are the direct results of an international political and economic system that places most of the world's wealth and power in the hands of unaccountable and powerful corporations. "To these activists," writes Walljasper, "a new era of global peace and justice can be achieved by reinvigorating local communities and creating a new international system that promotes cooperation over competition."
Sounds great. In fact, it sounds like the early Wired Magazine manifestos about the Net, some of which I wrote. But would such a system work? Even if it did, who would pay for it and maintain it? And who will curb those corporations whose economic, lobbying and political power far outstrips any of those groups protesting their existence? Why would citizens in the west pay to "reinvigorate" local communities elsewhere and create a new international system? Globalism thrives on the contributions of corporations who want to profit from it, not from the efforts of governments or civic groups advancing democratic ideals.
The idea that globalism could even bolster those ideals is a view not widely held by fundamentalists or by certain educated elites in Europe and the United States. The institutions that to most minds represent the global economy -- the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization -- have become reviled and distrusted in these circles, their meetings developing into bloody standoffs. Political leaders in economically-advanced countries can no longer meet to talk about trade or economic issues without sparking riots.
The protesters opposing them represent a variety of causes, from the loss of good domestic jobs to the lowering of global wages to denouncing sweatshops to decrying environmental desctruction. They have quieter allies, too; even in prosperous Western economies, support for trade liberalization has declined and governments are accused of caving in to business interests. Liberal politicians from Bill Clinton to Britain's Tony Blair have expressed puzzlement and frustration at this sometimes anarchic, unthinking political fury; they claim such organizations are vital if wealth, technology and economic opportunity ever gets equitably distributed around the world.
Moreover, an editorial in the Economist magazine argues that anti-business protesters have their arguments upside down -- with genuinely dangerous consequences for the sometimes just causes they hope to advance. On the whole, says the Economist, stricter regulation of international business won't reduce profits. "What it may well do, though, by disabling markets in their civilizing role, is to give companies new opportunities to make even bigger profits at the expense of society at large." Companies pressured to increase wages will simply move, close overseas plants or charge more, thus make more profits. Afterwards, "The companies, having shafted their third world competition and protected their domestic markets, count their bigger profits (higher wage costs notwithstanding). And the third world workers displaced from locally-owned factories explain to their children why the West's new deal for the victims of capitalism requires them to starve."
If you follow these violent and confusing protests -- many now organized online -- you get the impression that some of these demonstrators confuse globalism with corporatism, since large companies are among the most vocal advocates of globalism and so far are its primary beneficiaries. The trappings of corporatism -- using technologies to create low wages and new markets, while suppressing individual enterprise and distinctive cultures -- have already encircled the world. McDonald's is much more symbolic of globalism than a small village in India getting wired for the Net, even though the latter may ultimately be more significant. And many political scientists equate Afghanistan's poverty, political extremism and instability to the fact that globalization hasn't yet reached the country.
The world's biggest companies sometimes appear more powerful than the world's biggest governments. (Microsoft's long and successful battle with the U.S. Justice Department is a good case in point). In the United States, they control our media and popular culture and are the primary contributors to the political system. Their lobbyists are the single most influential political force in Washington.
It's not surprising that many people feel instrinsically uncomfortable with globalism. Humanists aren't the spokespeople for globalization -- economic interests are. Corporations appear to be unchecked, and corporations have little inate social responsibility. They exist to generate profits, not advance social agendas or protect the environment, so they inevitably spark enormous resentment in foreign cultures whose citizens want jobs but are then puzzled by their own resulting lack of prosperity. These foreign workers also find that new globalizing technologies undermine their own national identities and religious and political values, all increasingly subsumed by the homogenized Disneyfication and Wal-Marting of the world that has swallowed up U.S. popular culture and countless small business, from pharmacies to family farms. The U.S. comes to seem like a remote, sometimes monstrous, always greedy and insensitive force.
But Giddens argues that democracy -- and the globalism inextricably linked with it -- is the most powerful emerging idea of the 21st century. Few states in the world don't call themselves democratic now, even when they aren't, like China and North Korea. In fact, the only countries are explicitly refer to themselves as non-democratic are the remaining semi-feudal monarchies or fundamentalist entities -- Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria.
Democracy's spread has now in fact created a bloody confrontation with fundamentalism, a holy war. Both sides refer to one another in evil blasphemers. Lost in this confrontation is the idea that Democracy isn't only about multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities. It's about the liberation of information, freedom of religious and cultural choice, and a brorader value system with a complex civic structure. Yet another good reason why multinationals ought not to appear more powerful than governments (they aren't) and become the sole face and voice of globalization.
Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Done.
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?
I can't believe anyone isn't ashamed of the first world running something that resembles so closely one of those paycheck loan places that litter the landscape.
Can someone please explain why this is acceptable behavior?
If we are going to have globalization of business profit making, should we not also have globalization of ethical awareness too ?
It is easy to dismiss this because it happens far away in another country, but the events of September 11th should have given us a heads-up that we need to pay close attention to the poorer parts of the world if we are to avoid our own destruction.
There are 34 pages from 'No Logo' available by following the Amazon link I have included above. Read them. You might not agree, but you will be better informed.
Realizing I'll get flamed to hell and back...
Please please please, all of you liberal, or socialist, or leftist, black-mask wearing protesters please read the Economist article.
Would you really stop large corporations? Would you really want to deny people in the 3rd world a chance to move ahead far more quickly than America ever did?
I totally agree that cultural homogenization is horrendous, but the vast majority of people the world over apparently don't agree! That doesn't prevent small, unique businesses and institutions from existing! There are still mom-and-pop ISPs out there! There are still small manufacturing companies!
Why do you folks insist that the world is coming to an end, and that multinationals are taking us there?? Reading too much cyberpunk fiction?
(note: I hate the homogeneity. I abhor Walmart, McD's, and their ilk. I'll buy by stuff from tiny stores when I can. Because I want to support local, unique business, even if that means I have to pay a few extra bucks. How about you?)
When man get all kinds of money and power, and try's upon time, it ends up getting shit upon.
^ that is what is called a given.
But that given can be proven false.
So, then, back in the day when the star ate some moon shit upon the earth ago....
Globalism is never a problem for anyone -- it allows competition to level the paying field for even the poorest nations as long as they have the people who want to work for it.
Where globalism, capitalism, and "Big Business" get ugly is when the government (any government) intervenes in any way: whether its a subsidy, a tariff, an embargo, even a bailout (a la airlines). The minute a government steals from the citizens in order to help a business, the system falls apart. Those who worked hard to make their business profitable get hurt for their smarts (Look at the airline industry, there are numerous airlines HIRING right now, and some of which who are still profitable). Instead, our government takes the biggest ones, with the worst track record of profitability, and bail them out, hurting the little guy who was making it work.
Big Business will always fail with no government intervention, eventually. 10 smaller companies in a co-op situation will always do better in the long run if they have the competitive edge and no sanctions to hurt them or subsidies to help the Big Business competition.
It's evident that totally free trade can "save the world." It's more evident that our country will never allow it. Sanctions against Iraq destroyed that country (NOT Saddam Hussein as the media and government portrays as the culprit). Sanctions and subsidies destroyed the wheat crop in Columbia, then destroyed the coffee crop. What was left? Coca. Now our government intervenes to destroy that crop.
In order to have a peaceful society, we need to get government ENTIRELY out of free trade. Let businesses and people deal with whomever they want, bar none. I can understand if government may want to limit arms sales, but other than that, I can see no reason to ever limit or subsidies trade or business of any kind. In a totally free economy, there will always be winners and losers. Unfortunately, government intervention makes losers into smaller losers, and the winners into big losers. Tell them to stay out, and you'll see happy people all over the world, able to buy and sell their wares at prices that they deem proper.
We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand and competition prevent that), or we'd have shortages (again, suppy and demand and competition would help), or we'd see our economy fail because other countries do it cheaper (they do, and better, sometimes its even our unions that make our businesses unprofitable, not necessarily our business tactics).
how can you say this?
people , who were protesting peacefully ,
in one case was shot , outright by those hired to protect multi national and globalization efforts and interests
the goal of globalization is still the same
the rich get richer and the poor
the people in my own city of vancouver were pepper sprayed on the Prime Minsiters authority
just because another known mass murder mr saharto
from indonesia was in town
if you know anything of world politics you know that canada and the u.s.a. have been exploiting indonesia for a looooong time
its obvious you dont though!
in seattle police officers were crying
cuz they were told to pepper spray and tear gas their own citizens, probably people they knew!
is this what democracy looks like?
go to http://www.zmag.org
and look around for globalization links
maybe youll learn something
back in the day we didnt have no old school
I am under the impression that a great part of the fustration felt by the demonstrators at G7 meetings (and others) is due to the fact that these meetings are held in private.
If there was a rule that all meetings involving representatives of a democracy must be open to inspection by the voters then I believe there would not be so much fustration.
Of course the reason these meetings are held in secret is that the G7 leaders (and others) are discussing and agreeing things that their voters would not agree with. So much for democracy.
And that's why I support those who fight to end globalisation! To keep the wogs in their place!
Best Slashdot Co
Goooooo Jet Blue. :)
:)
I love those planes with the leather seats all the way to the last row and each one has a little TV in the back of the one in front... outstanding. Now, when the hell are they coming to DC?
http://arcfour.com/unab-manifest.html Yes, it's a wily read...but keep in mind that this guy spent several years alone in a cabin. How together would you be?
In my experience, this is more true of the confused and lazy reporting about "anti-globalists" than of the actual activists.
The activists have sincere, complex concerns that don't reduce well to sound-bites. So the media reduces them to sound-bites anyway, for their own purposes, and then commentators use these sound-bites to complain that the activists are simplistic.
I mean, heck, if you get your information from the news media, you might have the impression that a coalition of government representatives working on regulating the global market is really an organization in favor of free trade.
Hell, even the Libertarians are falling for this one. A little hint for the Randoids: You get a bunch of governments together in a room to agree on a set of rules and regulations about the economy and I guarandamntee you that "free trade" isn't going to come out the other end.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Democracy's spread has now in fact created a bloody confrontation with fundamentalism...
I think Katz is overstating this here. Is democracy te cause? I would have to argue with him that the bloody confrontation is an unfortunate side effect, but not a direct consequence of democracy's spread. People act in differnet ways to new stimuli (in this case democracy) this doesn't mean that the new stimuli is always the cause. I believe the people involved are the cause.
To illustrate this point I would use the example of the Heavens Gate group. They all killed themselves to ride the light when Hailey's Comet came. Does that make their deaths a result of the comet? I would think not...
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
"Corporations appear to be unchecked, and corporations have little inate social responsibility. They exist to generate profits, not advance social agendas or protect the environment"
The same can be used to describe more than a few politicans, but in the U.S. and abroad.
This may be an unpopular idea, but it seems that one of the only ways to preserve local cultures is to somehow limit the expressive possibilities of global media. i.e. limits on corporate or mass-marketed speech. This happens in France with its film industry to some extent, IIRC.
Is this what we really want? Are thoughts/images/ideas produced by U.S. media automatically suspect or hegemonic? Eventually you will have, in any given country, the government or "cultural review board" decreeing that ideas developed within to be preferable to ideas developed outside the borders.
Hopefully I'm not the only one who finds this disturbing.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
A study contracted by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was released this month discussing the effects of globalization on poverty. One of the key points to the study was:
The evidence also shows that international income inequality has narrowed over the past 30 years when countries ' population sizes and the purchasing power of local incomes are considered. The very poorest countries now represent less than 8 per cent of the world 's population compared with just over 45 per cent in 1970.In countries that have embraced the opportunities created by integration with world markets, globalisation has enabled stronger income growth. But national policies have not always been sufficient to ensure that the benefits of this growth are enjoyed by all.
The study can be found at: www.dfat.gov.au/publications/globe_poverty/index.h tml
Democracy isn't only about multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities. It's about the liberation of information, freedom of religious and cultural choice, and a brorader value system with a complex civic structure
Democracy isn't about any of those things, although they may appear in a democratic society. Democracy is about government by the people. If the people don't want multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities, then democracy should reject them.
Will Someone please buy Katz a dictionary, so he'll stop trying to write his own.
What an interesting circular argument for lower wages the Economist has. The solution would probably be to impose a tariff for using sweatshop labor "wages" rather than a minimum wage law in the U.S.. What I mean by that is require all company employees to have a liveable wage for your product to be sold in the U.S., it doesn't even have to be a set number of $ but can be adjusted per-country based on a set standard of living for the work done.
For example, we could require Nike to pay those assembling their products in (I don't remember where Nike's operations are now) to be able to afford basic housing and food for themselves, a spouse, and a child on 40 hours of work.
As an added bonus, with this tariff structure we could provide incentives to the company to invest in public transportation (and other works) in that country to reduce pollution and improve communities.
What exactly is the point of this Katzian blurb? I can't for the life of me find it. Is he opposed to globalization? Is he for it? Is the just defining it? Or, is this just a stream-of-consciousness piece that happens to revolve around globalization?
I mean some of the Katz stuff has been strange but this is just bizarre stuff.
Anti-Globalism is only these organised people in Seattle and Milan, or the "Social Elite" WTF does that mean ?
Globalism is the driving of companies cultures and values down the throats of people. It is the logging in Canada which is allowed under NAFTA if not under previous Canadian Law. It is the proliferation of McDonalds, the illegal practices of Microsoft and the abject failure of the US goverment to do anything about either. It is the US complaining that Europe helps 3rd world nations by taxing their imports less than those of Dole.
And above all it is this....
It is the worlds largest economy being the world's largest polluter, with drawing from the GLOBAL organisation that was dealing with pollution. It is the US vetoing the concept of an internation court. It is the banning of the anti-chemical and biological weapons treaty by the US.
Quite simply Globalism as it now stands is the US trying to enforce its opinion as "globalism" and refusing to count the cost of its policies.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Number 347 -- "In fact, it sounds like the early Wired Magazine manifestos about the Net, some of which I wrote."
Real writers do not feel the need to refer to themselves constantly.
Real writers can lucidly get a point across; So JonKatz, are you in the Globalization is evil camp or the Globalization is not evil and going to happen anywy camp?
This
Because it's funny, and it might just piss the author off even more!
Ok, oblig disclaimer - I'm white, privately educated, English, live in Kensington, London, and once worked for Rupert Murdoch. Hence, on paper at least, I'm unusually evil.
Having said that...
Globalisation can only, in the end, work out as a force for good. I say In The End, so bear with me a second...
Klein's NoLogo theories (nicely offset by having her name in massive print, and her picture on the back, *sigh*) are nice, but forget the fact that Globalisation works on all levels: education included. As corporations spread across the world, so does the rest of the world come badck to the corporations. Sept11 is an extreme example of this, but so is the Globalisation'd media reporting on Nike sweatshops in Vietnam, or human rights abuses in China. Anything - anything at all - that forces connections between different cultures can only add to increased understanding.
Whether that understanding is developed in the first instance as a tool to exploit is somewhat irrelevent, because the same globalisation process is used by those who want to help.
You really only need look at the change in mindset that has been brought round by globalisation. Take a generation or two back - little knowledge of the rest of the world compared with today (well, at least in Europe).
A silly example: food. Look at food from 30 years ago: Spaghetti Bolognaise was an exotic dish in the UK. Now I can get Sushi at the corner shop. 30 years ago it was John Wayne, now it's John Woo.
Taco's hobby is obscure Japanese animation, my wife loves African guitar music. THAT is just as much globalisation as the spectre of nasty corporations.
And many political scientists equate Afghanistan's poverty, political extremism and instability to the fact that globalization hasn't yet reached the country.
I don't understand is why people think that government doing a mediocre job at current scope will perform equally or better at a worldwide scope. There are places in the Appalachian mountains where running water is uncommon. Why should Afghanistan or any other region be given special treatment? Capitalist, Christian, Islamic, etc ideologies all teach that you reap what you sow. They've sown war from their country's birth, and have nothing to show for it. America and Europe have a great deal because we've all worked for it. Globalism and socialism and communism are nothing more than mechanisms to redistribute wealth from people who have built it to people who do not deserve it.
I'm sorry if you don't agree, but fuck everyone who thinks that's a good idea. I'm keeping my car and my house and my computer.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
The engines of globalism such as the United Nations and the WTO do not answer to the public. The people running global organization are not elected. This is the primary reason why people feel alienated from globalization. The United Nations and the WTO are acting like world government bodies--yet they have no mandate from the citizens of the world. The authority vested in these bodies come from power, not from any social contract. As long as this state of affairs continues there will be dissent--and there should be.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
The problem with globalisation, or capitalisation, or anything is that people do not apply common sense when purchasing.
When I buy a bag of coffee grounds I automatically go for the fairtrade bag as I know the grower gets more money than the Kenco bag.
When I buy apples I buy British ones, not South African, as it makes no sense, to me, to kart apples half way round the world when we grow perfectly good ones at home.
When I buy clothes I try to establish where they were made before buying - and buy only from reputable manufacturers.
I'm not saying this is easy, theres not a label on Nikes saying 'sweat shop and child labour likely used to make these', but come on, if we don't buy the products the practices don't make them money.
I object to Time-Warner-AOL so I don't go to see films, I don't buy magazines or videos by that company if I can avoid it (I buy Fortune - shoot me!).
I buy 90% of my food from local, often farm, shops. It costs me a couple of extra hours a month in shopping time, and maybe 10% more. I don't drink Coke, I dont eat McD.
Apply a little common sense. If you think something is wrong have principles. Its not the companies that are at fault - its the man in the street for letting it happen.
Dont let Bush trash Alaska. Seriously. Don't!
What Oliphant means by "spatial structure" is that interaction, including mating, occurs only with individuals who were born near each other. This is a realistic first-order approximation of the structure of evolutionary history in most species -- allowing for Saussurean Communication as well as C to become stable within inbreeding groups.
PRIMORDIAL HYPOCRISY AND MIGRATION
Given the presence of Saussurean communication evolved in the presence of kin, the potential arises for successful mutations that combine D with signals that impute kinship thereby eliciting C from the recipients.
This is the primordial origin of the H strategy, and the C thereby elicited is first-order extended phenotypic cooperation.
However, given Oliphant's assumption of spatial structure, H quickly dies out as Saussurean communication and C are selected out of its environment and H individuals are interacting with other H individuals so frequently that the payoff for D sinks below the average payoffs of neighboring inbreeding groups not exhibiting H.
H, therefore, becomes stable only with ongoing migration to unexploited inbreeding groups.
Migratory behavior makes H persist.
Migration and H can therefore be considered codependent evolutionary strategies.
SYCOPHANT HYPOCRISY AND XENOPHOBIC TIT-FOR-TAT
Once migratory behavior has arisen (giving persistence to H) the complexity introduced by the iterated PD becomes necessary to explain global demographic stability. Global demographic stability can persist (even if Saussauran communication is globally sacrificed as a defensive measure against H signals) only if repeat encounters allow a TFT strategy to emerge based on recognition of individuals who have previously exhibited D behavior. Moreover, if the TFT must be xenophobic -- that is, the TFT must presume an unknown immigrant to be H and therefore initially exhibit D toward any unknown immigrant. The H immigrant must, therefore, evolve toward initial sycophantry: in the initial encounter, the immigrant H must unconditionally exhibit C despite the expectation of a non-reciprocal exploitative initial response.
This initial investment for H can pay off only if sufficient C is elicited in the host population to provide enough exploitable individuals to make up for the cost of initial sycophantry . Stable Saussarian communication in the host inbreeding group is crucial for this condition to be met -- otherwise all individuals of the host inbreeding group will D in their first interaction with the H immigrant, causing the H strategy to fail in that environment. Therefore, reputational Saussurean communication, elicited by initial sycophantry, is crucial to the persistence of H in the presence of xenophobic TFT.
The C elicited by reputational Saussurean communication in response to sycophantic H is second-order extended phenotypic cooperation.
Such second-order extended phenotypics is the origin of biologically pathogenic memes as weapons in genetic arms races and are, in the most primitive form, "recommendation" memes.
The existence of such second-order extended phenotypics means it is inevitable that the H individuals will evolve to emit false recommendation signals for themselves and "defamation" signals for members of the host population. Since it takes longer to receive TFT responses to a defamation (or false recommendation) signal than it does to actually exploit (or be exploited), the defamation signals will target individuals that are reacting to exploitation or are passing on warning memes from those who have been exploited. Defamation memes targeting the members of the host population that react to exploitation is a third-order extended phenotype, attacking the host population's TFT response and generating the equivalent of an extended phenotypic auto-immune deficiency within the host population.
Having stabilized enough of the nonkin inbreeding group in C- exhibiting TFT, H individuals will then exhibit D toward nonkin to recoup the costs of initial sycophantry and then continue to D so as to reap the primary benefits of the H strategy. Mass emigration ensues as the exploitable population diminishes to the point that the costs imposed by D-responses from the host population's TFT strategy (enhanced by reputational Sassurean communication which is also inhibited by second and third order extended phenotypes as described above) exceed the benefits of further exploitation.
HYPOCRITICAL PROMOTION OF GLOBAL MIGRATIONS
To this stage of evolution, only H populations are migrating, and the exploited populations are homogeneous inbreeding groups. As the genetic arms race continues, and the H strategy advances beyond the sycophant adaptations to extended phenotypic promotion of C and inhibition of TFT, there comes a point where it is advantageous to H individuals to promote random migrations in non-H populations.
The reason for this is that non-H populations, being dependent on spatial structure (kin selection) for the primary stability of C within their populations, as described above, become dependent on the extended phenotypic promotion of C provided by H individuals. The H individuals thereby remove the ability of non-H populations to sustain C within themselves in the absence of H extended phenotypic influence. This has the effect of extending time during which H populations can reap the benefits of their strategy subsequent to losses due to initial sycophantry. The tolerance of non-H populations for being exploited by H individuals dramatically increases since they are under the threat of other nonkin populations whose ability to invoke TFT to stabilize C with nonkin has been suppressed by the general suppression of their TFT phenotypes by the extended phenotypes of the H population.
CONCLUSION
Thus we can see that in addition to the theory that heterogenous populations make hypocrite populations less visible to an otherwise homogeneous population that may be preparing to expell them in a tit- for-tat reaction subsequent to hypocritical exploitation, there is an selective pressure for evolutionarily advanced hypocrite populations to promote immigration to homogeneous host populations subsequent to or in conjunction with defection against those populations: to create dependence on the presence of the hypocrite population, and its evolved (extended phenotypic) ability to elicit cooperative behavior in non-kin, thereby extending the time during which the pay off subsequent to initial defection may be reaped beyond the recovery of losses due to initial sycophantry.
Seastead this.
What it gave me was an admiration for the corporations, and how they will co-opt anything, even forces aiming at their own destruction.
When corporations do truly evil things, activist groups can act as checks and balances against them.
But it's important to note that if you want the people of desperately poor countries to thrive, they need to start at the bottom and work their way up. Rich countries don't spring up in a day; in early America, there were appalling working conditions, which gradually got better as the nation got richer. The same general pattern occured in Japan, South Korea and just about everywhere else that's prosperous now.
The nations that turned their back on capitalism and trade have fared far worse; consider India, most of Africa and the Middle East as examples. We complain about people being paid $ 0.50 a day for their work; in Afghanistan that would feel like wealth.
In the end, capitalism may be a terrible system, its main virtue being that every other system is worse. The way capitalism works is that people try and do as well as they can. If the jobs given by the multinational corporations were really bad, well, they can always try and find work elsewhere. Often the reason wages are so low is that there isn't work to be found. This is hardly the fault of multinational corporations!
I am not saying that multinationals are perfect, but this is an imperfect world, at best. The multinationals have provided opportunity in desolate places where opportunities are scarce.
And I must admit to disliking the homogination of the world, the McDonalds and Burger Kings and the like. The best way to fight this is simply not to eat there. The only way American culture and businesses can succeed is that people want their products. Somehow it doesn't seem like depriving people of what they want is going to make the world a better place.
It may be very colourful and very idealistic to protest the WTO and trade, but trade produces an improvement in the status of everyone in the world. If those poor people don't make our stuff, they'd probably be picking rice in a paddy, working 12 back-breaking hours a day.
D
it was genoa, not milan.
Firstly, Jon, many to most of the protesters, intellectual elites etc. involved in the anti-globalization movement are "reformed" socialists. Or, not so reformed, as the case may be. They're not going to address questions of who is going to "pay" for things, and how corporations are going to behave in their world order, because such things exist in a thought space which they don't occupy. When they say anti-globalization, what they *really* mean is internationalisation, from the far flung remote left fringe of the political spectrum. Not all of the people in the anti-globalization movement think this way, but the smart ones, the ones inclined to address hypothetical economic questions, are red as lenin.
The last time we had a really major downturn in the business cycle (I think for various reasons, primarily the fundamental self interest and lack of foresight on the part of W's handlers, that this one is going to be major) we (partially) averted the destruction of western, liberal, capitalist society through a significant redistribution of wealth and class power. I'm sure you're familiar with the new deal, the rise of unions, etc.
The real problem with the globalization of world capital is that it is heavily geared toward preventing this sort of correction from happening. Actual rightists are endangering, and not in an eventual sense, the survival of capitalism by stripping it of any ability to exert social conscience.
The reason that the American working class is still happy with their dwindling share of economic resources is not because they're numbed by television. It is because, in historial terms, they have it really good. The ratio of CEO pay to laborers pay is, yes, criminal. However, the american working class (by an large) have TVs and VCRs and shelter and plenty to eat; as long as that's the case they aren't going to be truly riled by how many Rolls Royces Bill Gates owns.
The only way for capitalism to survive is to enforce such a social contract, at the bare minimum, for the three fifths of the world's people who don't presently benefit from it.
While I agree that globalization promises many wonderful things, if we cannot have it on any terms that don't destroy the many, more wonderful and more vital, things which the mixed economics of the 20th Century have achieved; and could achieve in under developed countries if we exported it instead of a globalised corporate state, we have to put the brakes on.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
the reason people are unhappy with the way the system works is because we have constructed a system which aims to reward capital. The aim of the whole game is that the guys who have money today have more money tomorrow, and a bit more the day after that.
:-)
Anything else is just tacked on afterwards. But the problem is that the things tacked on afterwards are the things that make life worth living (like having a bit of control over your life, having a sense of self worth, community and so on).
Instead we get a capitalist system which is run by the minority for the benefit of the minority! Big surprise that it doesn't turn out with something that makes most people happy, but you are all so trapped inside the box that you don't dare question it!
I laugh (you gotta, and at least that's free
m
.. to an extent. If the meetings were not held in secret, it would silence people like me. Who would like to know what the ACTUAL agenda is for these meetings, in detail, and how it effects us.
There will still be protesters regardless, but it would shut up a vast majority of people. (at least my group who went to Quebec City).
in a nutshell this is why: "Sounds great. In fact, it sounds like the early Wired Magazine manifestos about the Net, some of which I wrote."
YOUARETHEWEAKESTLINK...GOOD-BYE!
communism == oppressive governmemt == low standard of living
socialism == oppressive regulation == low standard of living
social justice == state control over who makes what wages == same thing as lack of social mobility during the middle ages
capitalism == ability to improve the standard of living for you and your family
Many of our academic/government worker communist believers do not truely believe in communism. They talk about it but do nothing activly to get it adopted by the government. This is cowardly. You cannot be a communist believer if you:
1. own any stock or bonds --> you're helping private ownership of corporations --> this includes pension funds (e.g., TIAA-CREF, TRS)
2. work for anything other than the government --> including who your spouse and children work for
3. protest your property taxes instead of letting the government make the right decisions for you
4. listen to any news source other than official government sources
5. read/subscribe to any privately owned magazines/journals
The news out of the demonstrations was that thousands of people were protesting so-called "free trade" where representatives of powerful business interests met behind barricades to further the process of allowing multi-national corporations to flout national sovereignty through shadowy, unaccountable organizations that can overrule laws and regulations designed to protect laborers and consumers (i.e. people) as "anti-competitive."
Quite a number of these protesters promote the idea of "fair trade," i.e. globalism that raises the standard of living for the vast majority of the people on this planet through better working conditions, more healthful products, and a cleaner environment.
Mr. Katz, if you're gonna rag on people over vocabulary, at least get it right yourself
http://www.bhopal.com/
I, for one, get tired of hearing all this hub-bub about how large corporations are "supressing" local culture or somehow magically putting mom-and-pops out of business (with the implication that they're superior). The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, where these corporations prevail, the corporations are prevailing with the will and consent of each and every one of their customers. The local culture or shop may do one or two things better, but overall, the failing institutions are failing for a reason: the disruptive corporation/culture is providing something the individual prefers, on the aggregate. People don't go and do business with corporations that they think are worse; they shop the shops that do the best by them on the aggregate. These choices are made on a wide variety of grounds: speed, price, selection, quality of service, novelty, consistency, and so on. No matter what poor judgement you feel these choices are made with, they are just that, choices, many of them. Rather than allowing the individual to exercise free will, a vocal minority wants to regulate and legislate this choice out of existence.
It's the highest form of snobbery and arrogance. If you don't like the choices made, then try to enlighten the individuals; bring hard evidence to the table. If you feel the companies are succeeding because of unethical practices, then fight those unethical practices and/or push for greater transparency.....But do NOT try to assert your value system on other people by force and the rule of law. It's unfair and inefficient.
Fiction?
Fast becoming a contradiction of terms. Maybe the old world is coming to an end, and the new one, characterized by what until recently was known as cyberpunk "fiction", is just beginning.
And yes, the multinationals are taking us there. Anyone who hasn't noticed the increasing importance of business protection over consumer protection in this country in the last 5 years hasn't wanted to see it. Throw in a clamp-down of civil liberties in the wake of national disaster, and you've got yourself the premise for every cyberpunk "fiction" out there. What's missing is worldwide population collapse.
Which reminds me, where are all the Soviet smallpox samples? Present and accounted for, under lock and key? That's a relief.
but can you imagine the corporation backlash?
They'd jack up the price on everything...
they pay 10 cents a day to produce a $200 pair of sneakers...
if they'd pay $10 dollars a day. (guesstimate)...that comes out to $20,000 for that new pair of Air Jordans.
Sure my math is all funky, but you get the idea.
I like your idea though.
Sean D.
"Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
I posted this to the MS story. It's a bit about how huge MS is.
Don't be, it will all clear up in the next episode of "Soap", er JonKatz...
Seriously, though, it seems to me that the trend towards globalization at least partially stems from an economic fundamental: people (all of them) are trying to increase their utility (that's econ-speak for health, happiness, money, and everything you might want bundled into 1 quantifiable mathematical construct). This means that corporations want to go after other markets (to market their products, lower their costs, etc), and people in other countries see the prosperity in the west and in particular in the US and want to mimick it. I say this as a respectful resident alien (who invented that term? I'm pretty sure I have no antennae). It is a natural process that people will freely choose. The only way it will reverse is if by some miracle other markets become unattractive to corporations at the same time as their inhabitants' standard of living increases. This is a little bit of a contradiction...
Why don't they just accept our superior methods of existence? Look at us; We're built to last, our communications capabilities are far superior to theirs, we don't waste our resources on trivial games such as ceremonies, our military capabilities allow us to utterly destroy the Universe, etc.
Seriously, humans have a strange tendency to want to differenciate themselves from each other, whether through dress, language, operating systems, culinary tastes, or even fetishes. This, of course, hinders progress in that people's efforts aren't focused on promoting one subject, but creates a giant web that we all get entangled in. For example, Linux has many different distros. Sure, they're all Linux, but can you really have software intended to use one standard (*.gz) be compatible with another (*.rpm)? Yes, I know you can convert them, but think of the resources "wasted" developing the convertors. Globalism eventually promotes standards by which everyone who wishes to participate have to bide by. And those who willfully declines either get denounced as isolationist, backward, primitive, or other colourful adjectives.
As for the Economist promoting globalism, of course! One primary aspect of economics is to not waste resources (another is that resources are limited). Take, for example, the businesses trying to sell Linux as a commercial product. Notice how pretty much all of them have flopped or suffered? An economist would tell you the fact that Red Hat is competing with TurboLinux, SuSE, Mandrake, that there is a saturation of Linux distros are both causing potential customers much confusion as to which is right for them and preventing one company from becoming the flagship Linux distro to compete directly with Microsoft. Then again, maybe it's that darn pesky marketing at work again.
I appreciate the fact that Katz is willing to addresses globalism which is indeed a delicate subject.
However, I would point out that when he accuses the protesters of confusing globalization with corporatism, or more accurately, corporatization, he falls into the same trap that the major media falls into, sometimes accidentally, sometimes willfully. Are there individuals on the front-lines of the protest that oversimplify global politics? Of course, such is the nature of coalition. However, I would argue that the vast majority are not naive isolationists who wish to withdraw from the world stage.
It is a very different thing to wish that globalization was a more popularly controlled process than to wish it away entirely. It is certainly true that a broad spectrum of interests are marching under the flag of "anti-globalization", a term I find terribly misleading. Of late, I have seem people shifting the terminology to "anti-corporate globalism" which is a very different thing.
I think you will find that the vast majority of dissent is generated by people who do not wish to avoid globalism but who wish to have a say in its development.
I would also point out that the Economist article happily falls into the same trap of oversimplification. The author uses one broadly conceived hypothetical situation to "prove" that NGO and government intervention is doomed to "dire political consequences".
There can be no doubt that sometimes the protestors do not address the complexities of the new global politics and economy. However, the critics have a responsibility to elucidate the complexities of the situation, not simply to provide oversimplified counterpoint. We have the conventional media for that.
Globalism is a threat to the entire existance of mankind. September 11th is a small example of an attempt to restructure the United States into a single socialistic society, and then merging it with the other communistic regimes, thus forming a single world government, known as the New World Order. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban DID NOT DO IT. It wouldn't make any sense for them to attack the US, since over 90% of Afghanistan was destroyed by the Russians years ago, and the entire Taliban would just be committing suicide if they really did attack, considering the power difference between their forces and ours. Almost everyone in Afghanistan is dying; everybody is poverty stricken; almost all homes were destroyed including hospitals and food supply locations. This is PURE TRUTH. If you don't believe it, just think of where the planes that attacked on 9/11 came from. Not from Afghanistan. Not from Pakistan. From the US. The 'selected elite', higher officials who are simply greedy for power and money have been establishing a world government since the 20's. Humans naturally want a scapegoat for the attacks, and refuse to believe that their own country had any part in it. So what happens? The moment the planes hit, everybody started talking about Afghanistan. It never changed. It never will. It demonstrates the media's insane influence on the people. How about anthrax? Notice how only 5 people out of all the people in the entire country have died? Wow, that is a real killer. Yeah sure. Think of the media hype, portraying it as a devistating outbreak ready to kill everybody and everything. We are witnessing the outcome of years of MK-ULTRA mind control research which has been portrayed as being a 'conspiracy' even though there is almost too much proof of it. Society is being brainwashed into submitting to a soon-to-be communistic system. Sure, some of you might just laugh and say it's just a 'conspiracy theory'. Some of you might completely ignore any notion of higher governments. But what if it's been proven time and time again. What can you say about that?
I'll name some of the so-called higher organizations that control much of this. They all portray themselves as discussing 'international issues' even though it goes deeper than that. First, the United Nations was established to be a single world government under the viewpoint that it keeps peace (Vietnam? Kosovo? you call this peace?!). Above that is two equally powerful groups; the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission. Finally, above all, is the Bilderberg Group; a team of greedy, apocalyptic, insane, power-hungry bastards that all deserve to be imprisoned for life for committing treason against almost every country in existance. One guy I hate the most is David Rockefeller, part of the Rockefeller dynasty that has established most of this crap.
Quick facts:
-Aids never existed. It was proven in Spain by a doctor injecting himself with HIV-infected blood on national TV. It's the side affect of a treatment drug for HIV. HIV is a natural every-day occurrence too that is not a threat. Currently, AIDS is a billion-dollar industry.
-A cure for cancer was created in 1922, and is currently banned in the US because it has no side effects (weird, huh!). Cancer treatment is also a billion-dollar industry. Why do they do stuff like this? Because they make more money creating a problem than solving one. When you're greedy, what do you care only about? Money.
Visit my website dealing with all of this and more at http://www.tliquest.net/truth
God help us all...
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
Your point seems to be that "so long as a nation is willing to allow their citizens to be exploited, there will be healthy competition" -- instead of the idea being "so long as there is healthy competition, the playing field can be leveled". The fact is, governments can either work for or against healthy competition, capitalism can either work for or against healthy competition, and even "big business" can work for or against healthy competition. Gee, a theme here... leading to the further question of "what is healthy competition?"
My definition: healthy competition raises the level of all those participating in the competitive process -- which is where most big businesses and gov'ts fail. [Notice that I deliberately left out 'capitalists', because they are usually allied with one of the two other groups -- and it is often the capitalists who find ways of leveling the playing field -- by investing in the newer competitors to the established concerns.]
Then we come to the idea that taxes are something stolen from a citizen to help a business. Face it, in the 21st century, taxes are what we use to pay for services we all want, but usually with less efficiency and much more corruption than the private market would deliver. However -- no private company seems eager to provide an equality of services to all comers like fair governments are ostensibly supposed to do.
The system falls apart when instead of the common good, governments, capitalists, and big businesses only look to further their own interests, regardless of the damage done to those outside their respective domains. In other words, by participating in unhealthy competition in which one set of participants must lose (and lose regularly) in order for the other side to gain.
Thus my contention is that it isn't free trade that will "save the world", but equitable trade -- for example, that allows a well run farm in Iowa to get a fair price for his products without requiring that a well run farm in France go out of business. With true globalism -- both farms must improve to compete -- so the issue isn't trade -- but unfair trade -- which is where we come back into agreement.
IMO most multinational companies aren't interests in free trade-- they are interested in gaining unfair advantage for their own constituent interests. Usually making their alliance with government interests suspect at best and undeniably evil at worst.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
it's the chic thing, to say that one hates globalization and the destruction of culture. to hate ms and mcdonald's and everything else that becomes big. it's part of the socialist mindset against the upper class which we are all indoctrinated with at some point in our lives.
but.
i love mcdonald's. i would love to see a mcdonald's on every street in the world, giving hamburgers out for $.60, everywhere. hell, if they were everywhere, they might even drop to $.50.
i love the ability to go somewhere, get 4 hamburgers for less than $3, and get them in less than 5 minutes.
i just love mcdonald's. it's amazingly convenient and easy for me. what other measure should i use?
Organize boycotts, and create consumer awareness programs if you want the sweatshops to stop. They'll listen to the bucks, but probably won't listen to a bunch of angry tree huggers.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Keep in mind that most of the people in the world aren't going to differentiate between "innocent" American civilians and the American corporations (or government) behaving unethically and destructively in their countries. When the quick-buck guys have pushed the third world people they are exploiting too far, the retaliation of those people will be on your doorstep, no matter how "innocent" you feel like you may be.
If you want real insight to the various evils of globalization, read "Power Politics" by Arundhati Roy.
Roy writes from personal experience and research on the effects of globalization in India.
Most US citizens don't know how multinational corporations bribe local officials in third world countries to make business deals that are very bad for their countries. We benefit from globalization, while poor people in thirld world countries get screwed.
--Mark Watson www.markwatson.com (Open Source and Content)
Regardless of whether globalization is good or evil,
from the point of view of the little guy, globablization appears synonymous with the words 'You will be assimilated'
I won't discuss the issue, as I feel that the discussion that is already posted is VERY good. I hope that everyone will read some of the great responses to this article.
Here is a good website discussion the issues concerning world trade. They are against, mind you.
http://www.citizen.org/trade/index.cfm
This issue is far less complicated than people make it out to be. We don't live in an amoral vacuum--there are absolute rights and wrongs (goodness and evils) which define issues such as this. To deny the existance of an absolute truth and absolute moral standard is to declare one's own insanity by a mere logical fallacy. So given this construct, I think we all would agree that:
- Greed, the pursuit of excess beyond our own comfortable survival and at the expense of others, is wrong.
- Environmental gluttony, a form of greed of the earth's finite resources which as the human race we must respectfully steward, is wrong.
- Exploitation of human life for ones gain, yet another form of greed, is wrong.
- Constriction of human rights and freedoms for ones own gain or lust for power, such as performed by the Taliban or the riaa/mpaa/etc, is wrong.
So does this mean that "globalism" is good or bad? Neither. To generalize is to be an idiot. It's not globalism but the approach taken. If that approach is one of the philosophy that people matter and that ethics come before economics, there is nothing wrong with it. So for example, if a multinational corp. sets up business in a poverty stricken country and in the process of supporting itself, builds infrastructure in that country that improves the quality of life for its people--hence giving back to the community--this can only be seen as a very good thing. Does it usually happen this way? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it can't be done this way. So in the end, it all comes back to greed. It's as simple as that. So fight greed, not globalization.
- "But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
Corporations can be multinational and operate with legal rights throughout the world but it's really tough trying to do that as an individual. Why? Citizenship. There isn't a global right for people to travel, live and work anywhere they want to. We're all penned in to places, mostly defined by where we were born.
I've made it my life's passion to work and travel anywhere I can and clocked up a fair bunch of countries. Most of the time my work visa has been temporary but I do have the right now to work anywhere in the European Community and USA (with an option for Kenya). My kids can do that and also work/live in Japan. But not for long. When they reach 20, they'll have to decide if they want to be Japanese or not. If they do, at least in theory, Japan will be their one and only domicile and work zone. What a waste.
So, what's the deal? Well, why isn't there a global citizenship? Are we ever going to get to that point? Are countries an outmoded repressive system? Are we in a transition period away from countries where people can belong to meta groups instead of countries? There are a number of these groups than span country borders:
For example, as a highly educated individual, (cough) if I worked for a large multinational corporation I could quite easily be posted to virtually any country by that company and work there with little problem. Most countries allow intra-company transfer visas, sometimes with strings attached but if my company existed for the benefit of employees or if I just had a good manager then that could be my ticket to global working freedom.
Alternatively, another meta group is religion. Love it or hate it, reglious affiliation spans countries and can often be the glue that binds ex-pats, from all faiths when they're abroad. Belonging to the "kingdom of heaven" might well have a stronger resonance with a global worker abroad than the fact they were born in a dusty African country with a GDP less than Microsoft. Missionary visas also seem quite easy to get but obviously restrict your work possibilities and depending on your religion, the countries that'll accept you.
Culture also is a deep meta-country. Derived from countries but not necessarily tied to them, cultural affiliation can span the globe. Cultures don't even have to be the same to still be shared. Does a Brit feel closer to an Aussie in the USA than an American? Conversely, does a Kenyan feel closer to a Tansanian when in Chicago? I would say so (speaking from experience). To hell with the fact we're from different countries, we're 80% same culture and that's more than the other guy. (You'll have to pick your own affilitation, they're not universal but the rule still stands).
So, I envisage a world where countries will try and try to keep control and just keep on sticking it in the neck of the growing global citizenship. We might collect passports because we have to, and we might swear allegence here and then when we must, but we know we don't belong to old fashioned countries anymore. We're a new breed and hopefully, one day we'll be accepted as such.
It is indeed a problem. Perhaps if Jon could pick up a book, maybe something by ATTAC, we might get a less biased post.
Don't get me wrong. The problem is not that we shouldn't have global trade, or fewer barriers. The problem is that this subsidizes pollution, allows countries to push production to other countries without labor laws, and basically distorts the free and fair trade of goods on a level playing field.
In some countries they round up vagrants, imprison them, and make them work in prison sweat shops for 7 days a week, 12 to 16 hours a day. Some people are arrested for their religion and the same happens to them.
In some places they execute union members.
Get a grip, Jon. The world is more complex than the Commerce Department wants you to believe. There are Afghan kids of 6 and 7 sewing rugs in Pakistan that you use for your home this minute, working long hours. That is what global "free trade" means. Not your idyllic portrayal in your fancy books.
It's the real world.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
If by globalization you mean the spread of information and knowledge between nations, companies, individuals, etc. then that is a good thing. The sharing of knowledge from western industrialized countries with our less fortunate neighbors is obviously a good thing to do. But when you're talking about corporations and governments working to extend their control then that is a very bad thing.
Just as a monopoly is a bad thing, so is a single conglomerate, or a club of corporations, with their fingers in too many pies. Power should always be decentralized and spread as thinly as possible. When this is the case freedom is possible. When too much power is held in the hands of too few, tyrrany and abuse of that power is the result. This is why what is commonly called globalization is such a threat. The consolidation of power into the hands of a small group of corporations and governments whose goals and agenda's are too much aligned leaves anyone whose goals aren't the same very much out in the cold and possibly in great danger.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Multinationals can leap from country to country and avoid whatever laws that they don't like. Sweatshops are a prime example. If Country A cracks down on me for the way I run factory X, I'll just pack up and move to country B. Hell, I can stay in country A even and just hide my factory. --The US dept. of Labor estimates that 70% of US apparel factories violate labor law... they just can't catch the factories before they move to a new site.
Effectively governments have no power to eliminate sweatshops. If they crack down they just burden legitimate operators with excess regulation and audits while the real culprits go deeper into hiding or just move to another country that either doesn't want to crack down or can't afford to crack down (inspectors cost a lot of money because you have to pay them enough so that they can't be bribed).
So do we just give up and throw our hands up in the air -- market forces will be market forces...
Just because governments cannot stop sweatshops doesn't mean they can't be stopped. We have to realize that the monoliths of government, globalism, and the Man are just figments of our imagination.... we need to think about how to solve the problem without inventing a beast called globalism and without turning to the white night of government.
The student anti-sweatshop movement has been very successful not by petitioning for more laws -- but by getting colleges to think about who they are licensing their logos too. Many colleges now make the companies who want to make their "Threepeat" shirt prove that they aren't using sweatshops. This give a competitive advantage to legitimate apparel manufacturers over the crooked ones. This tactic sets up market forces instead of armed forces to regulate the industry.
These are the sorts of tactics we need to employ to fight what is evil in globalism and promote what is good. We need to forget coersive regulation and focus on subtler market based tactics.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Then 'ow did we get globalized?
The Corporations of America (angelic singing), eyes shining with profit margins, held forth a Trade Agreement which your government signed, signifying that you, Country ________, was to be whored out and globalized!
A waist is a terrible thing to mind. Hey, wait a minute...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
this is great for globalization, since ineffectual government avoids doing anything dramatic to multinationals, except the usual extortion/tax.
what's missing? the real goal should be liberty, not democracy. sure, democracy might be a means to liberty, but it's NOT THE GOAL. they're orthogonal - liberty is about policy (principles); democracy is about mechanism.
there's a "meta-politics" that's not being discussed - that's why this is such a fuzzy topic. why is terrorism wrong? what is the real conflict between the West and Taliban-style fundamentalism? the principle of individual liberty - that if you want to live a Wahabi life, you're perfectly free to do so in the West. you just can't coerce someone else into doing it. liberty/non-coercion is what we should be talking about, not democracy.
and this is relevant to the undercurrent of discussion about how the net will effect society in the future. it's obvious that strong crypto, peer-to-peer, net-communities are powerful forces that, in the absence of some kind of apocalypse of talibanhood, will become dominant. they have a sense of historic inevitability. they're also profoundly liberty-based, self-organizing, non-coercive. even anti-authoritarian. and globalizing.
but how can that be? wasn't seattle supposed to be the rise of a non-hierarchical, self-organized political force devoted to overthrowing globalization? there's a contradiction there: absence of hierarchically imposed limits are what permits these anti-globalization people to demonstrate. (and demonstration != democracy!) the anti-globalization freaks are opposed to commerce being the "working fluid" of globalization. it's not the multinationals that they oppose, it's the fact that MN's are based on an international currency market that in effect makes my 8-hours of labor in the West incomparable to 8 hours of labor by someone in the 3rd world. this seems irrational to me, or at least based on principles I don't share (ie, more "from each according to his ability" rather than "to each according to the market price of his ability").
if online/crypto is a globalizing force, it's not necessarily going to cause a redistribution of wealth, or a replacement of property as the measure of wealth. and that's the tip of another iceberg - that some people want ideas to become as ownable as property; not surprising, these "idea hegemonists" are large, Western, multinational corporations...
I'm missing something...
How does this article really relate to technology issues or gadgets and neat stuff out there
Capitalism is bad, no Capitalism is good, whatever... I'll read about it in the Village Voice... not Slashdot.
I suppose JonKatz refers to the demonstrations in Genoa, not Milan.
The problem isn't that people confuse the two, it's that the globalism that is emerging is based purely on a corporate model. The rules and regulations that govern the idea make it easier for multinationals to increase profits at the expense of their employees, while those same employees are totally prevented from being able to enjoy the same benefits. Meanwhile, similar regulations there to enforce environmental regulations are circumvented by these same "global" agreements untimately at the expense of us all.
I don't think it's the concept of Globalization per se that has labour, environmentalists, human rights activists etc up in arms, it's the fact that it's the multinationals that are calling the shots, (and the corporation controlled governments that play along), are trying to put into place agreements that place profits ahead of everything else. It's really the whole free trade versus fair trade debate on a larger scale.
Think about it...which version of the future would you rather enjoy, the Federation TNG version, or the Ferengi version?
Certainly, organizations like the Imf COULD serve a vital purpose, but that doesn't mean that they do. When the global financial institutions provide grants and loans only on condition that the country receiving the funds direct their economy in a manner that benefits corporate interests, it is criminal. Forcing a farmer away from subsistence farming into cash crops that are dependant upon fertilizer and seed stock purchases from 1st world agribusiness, not to mention forcing monoculture practices that promote infestation of pests, thereby encouraging dependance upon chemical pest control, is doing nothing other than funnel profits into corporate pockets at the expense of human quality of life. We should be providing funds to help those economies become self sufficient, not dependant upon our corporations.
Organizations like the WTO have the power to override local environmental legislation if it impacts corporate profits, under the guise of 'fair trade.' No one is going to convince me that organizations such as the IMF or WTO are essential to the well being of the world economy. They are nothing more than organization designed to strongarm smaller economies into funneling their limited funds right into corporate pockets
I do believe that globalization could be a good thing. Certainly, we want conditions in the 3rd world to improve, but I have yet to see evidence that the new world order does anything whatsoever towards that goal. I do see corporate support of Death Squads, green 'revolution' caused famine, and the violation of human rights wherever corporations have significant influence over 3rd world government. If our global economic organizations worked to PREVENT such conditions, then we might be onto something. Until then, however, I will be 100% opposed to corporatization and globalization. The goal should be an improvement on the human condition around the planet, not maximizing profits for the tiny fraction of people that actually benefit from these programs.
You don't have money? You ain't got no right. That's libertarianism.
No, that a gross misrepresentation. (but who would expect anything less)
Libertarianism isn't "he who has the most power (in this case money) wins." That's a form of anarchism. The little guy has just as many rights under libertariansim as the big guy. In fact, I'd argue that a big gov't gives more power to those with big $$$ since their $$$ influence those who make the laws. Why (if you live in the states) do you pay more for sugar than what it costs on the global market? Because the sugar industry (esp the Fanjuls) pays a LOT of money to both parties to keep the tariffs high. A bigger gov't is a gov't that can be bought.
It always amazes me how folks think that people who work for a corp work only in their self interest, yet people who work in the gov't only work for the greater good. Sorry, it just doesn't happen. People are people and they fall somewhere in between those extremes. Businesses spend a lot of money on PACs because THEY WORK. And there in lies your problem. A smaller gov't with tightly defined roles and responsibilities is less influenced than one with broad, arbitrary powers.
The only thing you're missing is some logic, who gives a flying fuck if they post something that doesn't interest you? I may not like HP's new mp3 thingey-ma-bobbie but I'm not gonna flame that thread just to make a point. If you'll look @ all the other posts it seems most /.'ers are quite interested in this so who cares? If you only want to read articles that relate to a) tech b)gadgets c)"neat stuff" don't even bother reading these. Go along your business and let us discuss the issues that matter to us.
It seems Mr. Katz is a little bit neurotic, he's reflecting on things that have already been laid out by prior intellects. Human beings are confined, like everything else on this planet, to their specific nature, globalism is people coming together and realizing that we think on common lines, and live in the same world. Corporations,on the other hand, are in this world to elevate risks from people, and hence, can do things that individuals cannot, and one of these things is explotation. Before any kind of system, whether it be humane or inhumane, can be laid down, there needs to be a framework for which it can lie upon, the simpliest sort of framework will surely arise from the basest form of existance, hence, one that is not natural and not confined to questions other than those concerning profits. Corporations are laying down an economic system througout all parts of the world, they're doing so out of their own self-interests, and with present disregard to humanity that is outside of their inc. domain. In the scheme of things, it's progress. We confuse corportisim with globalism because we're not truly global yet, we don't all speak the same language, we dont all use the same curency, yet we do all come from the same place, good old mother earth. Although greed is considered a bad thing, when it brings people together, which is what man is all about, it's truly a thing to beholden. As for the protests regarding the WTO, if these meetings aren't sinister, open them up to the public, why the hell not.
... at least the way its being implemented.
It's fairly amazing we can have this conversation about people protesting globalization, and no one has even bothered to look at what the protesters have to say. The pro-globalization propaganda machine has managed to re-define what the protest is about.
One of the primary reasons for protest is that the deals that are being made destroy the sovereignty of the people. These deals supercede your rights to self government, and put control of the laws in your community in the hands of foreign businessmen. Disputes are resolved in foreign courts where you have NO standing. US laws are now being challenged in courts where you are not represented.
This is a force for democracy? Give me a break. Katz seems to be talking about some theoretical Ayn Randian free market that simply doesn't exist in the real world.
I prefer the term "Randroid;" it rhymes with android.
The only thing I'd agree with in your list of moral "absolutes" is that you shouldn't constrict fundamental human rights and freedoms. But as much as I may hate the RIAA/MPAA cabal, I certainly wouldn't put them on a list of human-rights violators because they are trying to prevent folks from stealing media products that don't belong to them...
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
They did it again durring World War II. Every time it captured a piece of German technology, the US exploited it. Tha atom bomb--they didn't invent it, but we cajoled their scientists into creating it after they defected. The space race--the V2 was VASTLY supperior to Godards little rockes. When we captured their bases and convinced Von Warner to join us, we entered the space age long before we would have.
The US industrial-military complex has stollen every piece of IP it could get its hands on. It has been utterly ruthless in this regard, and THAT'S why it is top dog.
science is a religion
I posted this to the first Katz article, but it got buried.
The Associated Press
10/30/01 12:47 PM
GHENT, Belgium (AP) -- Global trade can help win the war against terrorism if the West spreads the wealth it generates more equitably, former President Clinton told a conference of globalization critics Tuesday.
"Not everyone who's angry is angry at the civilized world and wants to destroy it," Clinton said. "A lot are angry because they can't be a part of it."
Arguing for more globalization, not a retrenchment in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, Clinton said bringing terror suspect Osama bin Laden to justice is not enough.
"We need to reduce the pool of potential terrorists by increasing the number of potential partners in the 21st century world," he said.
He called on Western nations to foot the bill to raise living standards and improve education in the developing world to promote equal opportunity.
"Global trade is not bad, but there's not enough," Clinton said. "We need to spread the benefits and reduce the burdens quickly to all the people."
Clinton was invited to the University of Ghent by the current president of the European Union, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who has sought to organize a debate on "ethical globalization" ever since anti-globalization radicals rioted outside an EU summit in June.
Rather than the attacks overshadowing the discussion, speakers agreed that solving problems like the growing gap between rich and poor -- what Clinton called "the dark side" of globalization -- has become even more urgent.
"In a way, the Western world saw the price of poverty flashed up on its TV screens on Sept. 11," Verhofstadt said.
"Poor unstable countries and regions that fall prey to gangs of criminals" like bin Laden's al-Qaida network are part of the price, he said.
Some speakers expressed fears that the U.S.-led military response to the attacks would divert resources and attention from anti-poverty programs.
"It's a no-win situation for us," said Dr. Owens Wiwa, a Nigerian activist who expects a tougher time raising money for Africa's AIDS crisis.
Naomi Klein, a best-selling Canadian author and anti-corporate activist, said she was afraid the war atmosphere would make it harder to be publicly critical of globalization.
"People are afraid that being critical of the market is seen as being anti-American, even treasonous," she said.
But she said she felt that the needs of the poor and excluded would have to be addressed.
"It's become a security issue," she said.
------
On the Net:
http://www.eu2001.be
Oliver's army is here to stay Oliver's army are on their way And I would rather be anywhere else But here today
When you say that protesters confuse "globalization" with "corporatism," you are confusing the issue. Virtually no one (protesters or anyone in power) has a problem with globalization, per se. Everyone realizes that it's kind of like a freight train and therefore almost impossible to stop. Some people just don't like the direction of that train, or who the engineer is. You, yourself, even acknowledge that corporations can be more powerful than governments and do not always have the best interests of the majority of people at heart.
The architects of the global economy have little or no regard for the "third world" people that they are unconvincingly pretending to advocate. The "new" manufacturing jobs that are created in these countries have little or no protections for labor or the environment (the word new appears in quotes because many of these jobs used to belong to people from countries that otherwise take labor and environmental regulations seriously).
In the new global economy, workers and municipalities are pitted against each other in a perverse bidding war to see who can work the hardest for the least amount of compensation and who can allow corporations to pollute the most.
For the real face of the globalization freight train, consider Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement that allows corporations based in Mexico or Canada to sue states for lost profits resulting from environmental or labor regulation (do your homework, man). How are treaties designed to thwart lawmakers from protecting labor (not to mention the environment) supposed to be good for "third world" people or anyone else with a job? You might also wish to consider what the architects of globalization have done to the emerging economies of eastern Europe. Foreign manufacturers can compete openly with domestic manufacturers. On the surface, that sounds great. Unfortunately, because those domestic manufacturers had to adjust from a socialist economy to a free market economy, they really couldn't compete with already mature foreign competitors who were already running efficiently and knew a thing or two about marketing. Instead of giving local industries time to adjust to the new economy, the architects of it all (Bush I, Clinton, Yeltsin, etc) went to "cold bath" route because that was what was best for the already profitable corporations, and not for the local economies or the people who have to live there.
Maybe in a follow up article, you can explain how providing menial non-living-wage jobs, in toxic working conditions, with no opportunity for advanecment to people in impoverished countries is supposed to help them? This seems especially ridiculous given the current global economy that encourages companies to move their factories as soon as wages get too high or the other governmental policies are not to their liking.
Everyone (even the purple haired kids getting beaten up by the police) wants to see the world turn into that one Coca-cola commercial where all the kids are singing in perfect harmony. Unfortunately, that's not where we are headed right now.
I think the problem isn't a new one. Over time certain individuals, families and now corporations accumulate things. Many of those things are needed by people and many more of those things are merely wanted by people. The "haves" realize the leverage they have and use it to in debt the "havenots". They also create a system of laws to support and perpetuate this arrangement. The only thing preventing this from becoming slavery is opportunity. Opportunity is what has made America and Americans free, if that ever fades, then so will our freedom.
Eventually, opportunity is lessened by using up our natural resources and growing our population, we should have enough resources to go around for a few billion more people, but we must make sure that our laws don't begin to exclude people from society if they don't "buy" into the dominant culture.
You have an interesting definition of "common sense."
You claim that people don't apply "common sense" when making purchases. Then you proceed to provide examples of how you base your purchasing decisions on how they will (indirectly and, taken on their own, infinitesimally) impact large, distant organizations and/or issues... presumably this is the sort of "common sense" which you are advocating.
These decisions may or may not make sense from a large-scale, aggregate perspective. But for an individual they would seem counterproductive (compared to buying based on basic price and value) unless you account for the intangible sense of satisfaction which you presumably gain.
Since "common sense" is usually a quality posessed (or not) by individuals rather than whole populations, and since accounting for intangible feelings seems a bit outside of its boundaries, I submit that you ought to choose a different lament than people's lack of "common sense."
-AC
Thanks for the article, I haven't seen much of Clinton in the news lately but it's nice to see he's still getting out.
In the old days, Marxism was about redistributing social power through its most manifest material representation: the means of production (e.g., factories, foundries, places of business, etc.). In an information economy, redistributing power is that much harder to comprehend. So what if the working class seized every factory in the US today? Would that be enough to really take power in that society? Probably not.
Assertions about "democracy" in the West are pitiful. Westerners have as much control over who's elected and their policies as they do over what TV shows are kept and what are not. Lone Gunmen, anyone?
What liberals and social democrats like Katz don't get is that social justice is not fundamentally about helping the poor with hand-outs, debt reduction, or welfare -- it's about giving them back their power as human beings. The intentions may be good (in some cases), but giving back pennies to Africa, Asia, South America, etc., while Western multinationals continue to do their utmost to underdevelop these nations does nothing substantial to help them long-term; and it fosters hostility.
What happens if even the best of globalism is successful? We're still stuck with an economic model that puts profit before people. The rich will be much richer, but the poor will be about the same. If markets don't continue to expand, profits will suffer. How can markets continue to expand when all potential markets have been identified and penetrated (which is the goal of globalization)? Duh, they can't.
We'll go back to a brutal capitalism where profits are produced by any means necessary. Just look at the massive layoffs in the tech sector now. That's the future when globalization is complete. I'm not saying a command economy is the answer, but neither is globalization.
Look at it this way: If you want to keep big business "small" the libertarian way is the only way: we want to cut copyright down to 7+7 years MAXIMUM.
This is why libertarians can be hard to argue with. Put ten of them in a room, and you'll get ten different definitions. I've heard libertarians say everything about IP (for example) from "it is an illegal government enforced monopoly", to "it is necessary, but should be more limited, per the consitution," up to "Intellectual property should be just like real property, with absolute property rights for the copyright/patent holder."
Your IP concept sounds reasonable to me actually, assuming my fair use rights are still protected during the 7+7 period. Is this the actual LP belief?
I still maintain that libertarianism as a whole has precisely the the same flaws as pure socialism, just on the other extreme. They both require incredible faith in human nature. With Socialism, the belief that everyone will do their fair share, and with Libertarianism that everyone will always behave rationally and have perfect information. Here in the real world, we know neither will work in practice, and that is why successful nations have a healthy mix of the two philosophies.
We have people on one side, saying globalization is the only way for third-world countries to climb into the light of financial security is globalization and free trade.
We have people on the other side, saying large companies exploit the resoruces and workforces of small countries, all in the name of profit.
Guess what? They're both right.
One facet of lassez-faire economics is that "capital goes where it is respected and appreciated." If a country's government promises that investments won't be stolen or confiscated, and backs up those oaths, then investments will be made and industry will develop. If investors fear the loss of their capital (especially when other investors have had assets nationalized previously), they will invest in business elsewhere, and that country will not have the opportunity to build industry. Government-sponsored industry growth works about as well as government-sponsored projects anywhere -- poorly. It takes the watchful eye of someone risking his own assets to run a truly successful business.
*gasp* But then the big corporations move in, building factories, mining out the land, paying piss-poor wages, exploiting the country! The free market doesn't work! We can't let these things happen!
I don't deny these incidents happen. But the fact is, they don't happen because of the free market. Many large corporations are mercenary in protecting their interests, and happily exploit corruptible government officials to further their bottom lines. When soldiers move in to suppress labor actions, or land is confiscated to build factories, this isn't an action of lassez-faire economics but of government interference.
It is easy to heap blame on the companies involved in such activities, but that wouldn't be the proper target for eliminating the problem. If graft and greed are the rules of the game, a corporation that won't play can't compete with one who does. Without the cooperation of corrupt officials, and a governmental system able to carry out the deeds, this interference couldn't happen.
The libertarian solution would therefore be to open a free market in property and labor and keep it open, while limiting the scope of a country's government to a point where its resources could not be misused to exploit its citizens.
Let me add that this is opposed to the World Bank's solution, which is to simply throw cash at governments, while trying to impose rules that keep them from confiscating capital. This replaces voluntary investments, where capitalists would be making sure their assets were used in the most effective ways, with involuntary investments (of tax revenues, yours and mine no less) that the government has no personal interest in protecting. And then they wonder why their intervention flops.
Those who oppose government oppose democracy. Without government we simply allow the rich to rule the poor.
Please, before posting your rambling manifestos about the vile evils that abound in a future of globalization, do a little research and try and see both sides of the argument.
Here's a quick history lesson. England's empire was built with the idea that raw materials (cotton, sugar, spices, ores) would be cheaply exported from its colonies back to the homeland by a group of powerful corporations (such as the hated "East India Company" whose tea was dumped over board in Boston harbor). To this end it forbid/discouraged the manufacture of these resources domestically. So no cotton was weaved in the states but raw cotton was sent to England, and if you wanted to buy a shirt you'd have to import it from there. Moreover, farmers in America (and later colonies) had to sell their crops to chartered conglomerates who controlled prices, and when they placed orders for manufactured goods, they had little control about the price or quality of what was shipped to them. Washington once ordered a carriage, and by the time it arrived, he opened a door and the whole door came off in his hand. Many people were very pissed and had a revolution.
Immediately afterwards, large tarrifs and sometimes embargoes were passed so that the states could develop their own industries. That is how the US developed. In the industrial revolution, especially. There was lots of cronyism, but it was aimed towards the native conglomerates as opposed to the foreign ones. Carnegie went to Europe where the Bessemer process for smelting steel had just been invented and when he returned to the states, congress passed high tariffs against european steel. Carnegie then began to build native steel plants, married the daughter of the secretary of the Navy, and another "self-made" billionaire was born. We got a steel navy and lots of factory jobs out of the deal. So, a lot of cronyism, but directed at national interests, helped to develop our economy. Another example: England banned Indian textiles because it couldn't compete on price, then they conquered the country, burned down all the cotton "gins", cut the thumbs of the home-weavers, and reimported massive amounts of cotton back home. Then, and _only_ then, did they proclaim the need for "open" markets. Wars were similarly fought to "open" china. You do your own research.
So the story is the same. All countries which have _ever_ developed _any_ industry have done it with large govt. subsidy as well as a protective wall of tarrifs. I challenge you to cite just _one_ example of this not happening (wheras I have cited several examples when this did happen). The examples of the Asian tigers, as well as china, shows this playing out in the 20th century. Those nations which followed a "neoliberal" process have all ended up in shambles. Before nafta, 25% of mexico lived below the poverty line. That figure is now 50%. You can look at Indonesia, central america, brazil, the congo for more examples.
Now, we (the US) are doing the same thing to much of the third world that England has done to us:
We forbid or overthrow their govts. if they try to control their own resources (i.e. Iran nationalizing the foreign imposed oil "company" which has a monopoly on extracting oil, or Zaire taking the diamond monopoly from DeBeers, etc.)
We try to prevent them from raising tarrifs to protect their own industries (like the US forced on Japanese automakers, or the steel example citied above, or the ban on mexican tomatoes we had just a few years ago, or the current tarrifs against lamb from new zealand).
We punish those (foreigners) who subsidize their domestic companies. Note that the US still gives many billions to _our_ farmers, accounting for about half of median farm-owners' incomes. US corps pay only 10% of govt. expenditures. Recall the bailouts of chrysler or the many subsidies that we pour into high-tech sectors and aerospace. The 70 billion we're giving US comapanies now because of 9/11 is another example of this double standard.
The above are the policies. We don't have colonies such as Britain, but we enforce these policies on the rest of the world through our military (we put "our guys" in power) in some cases and purely institutional pressures in other cases:
IP laws allow us to monopolize key technologies.
Large syndicates such as cargill engage in price-fixing for many raw materials.
the "loans" US taxpayers send to third world dictators (many of whom we've put in power) make the third world reliant on us and institutions such as the IMF. In order to get more loans to cover the interest, we force them to engage in the economically suicidal practices cited above, thereby insuring that they will remain dependant on future loans, and so not develop independent economic policies.
free flow of foreign capital ensures that investments flee at the first sign of economic nationalism.
One significant difference is that while England assembled the raw materials at home which provided more higher paying jobs and gave birth to their middle class, modern conglomerates use the sweatshops in the third world. These are far from "heavy handed" laws such as minimum wage and environmental protection. So that we in the US don't even get the benefits that the British got 150 years ago.
This is why many oppose "globalization" as it's practiced today. It has nothing to do with trade and comparative advantage. It's just the modern version of the East India Company wrecking havoc on both our own country and on the third world.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
The race to the bottom has begun. The current state of affairs is only the begining.
I think what bothers me to NO end about Jon Katz' views is the very fact that he wants a return to provincialism.
This, IMHO, is an extremely stupid idea. All this does is create xenophobia, and you know that leads to too many ugly wars in human recorded history.
Maybe Katz needs to read three books by Alvin Toffler--Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Powershift. Toffler's views on the rapidly changing world are some of the MOST insightful I've ever read.
Indeed, The Third Wave rightfully predicted that changes in technology will cause all kinds of changes to the world. The very existance of the Internet has meant political views drowned out in the daily newspapers and television networks in the past are being heard. Why do you think political web sites catering to almost every political group are springing up on the Internet like mushrooms after a rainstorm? The Third Wave also predicted that multinational corporations will quickly change to adopt to new conditions; look at how General Electric is so amazingly successful in everything from jet engines all the way to corporate financing.
What Jon Katz is talking about are groups of small, but very visible people trying to turn back the Third Wave of change to humanity; in the longer run, these groups too will have to adapt to this new reality.
is that given the comparative advantage argument, some countries will be left making the toys and not-so-attractive products that don't have potential to improve upon.
But would such a system work? Even if it did, who would pay for it and maintain it?
Not the corporations, obviously. The fact that Katz calls these corporations "unaccountable entities" only obviates the problem at hand. The people who run these corporations are unaccountable -- by law!
An alternative system would have to paid for and built by those individuals who wanted it. (see next point)
And who will curb those corporations whose economic, lobbying and political power far outstrips any of those groups protesting their existence?
Who curbs corporations!? Am I missing the point, or is this too obvious? Consumers curb corporations -- who else? Educated consumers curb corporations extremely well -- just as they do governments (South Africa). The lobbying power of corporations only outstrips an ignorant populace -- not an educated one. In fact, the lobbying power of a corporation has never outstripped an educated public. The protests are absolutely critical in that they are waking people up to the problem at hand -- an education begins whens you realize that there is a problem. Only then can you solve it.
Why would citizens in the west pay to "reinvigorate" local communities elsewhere and create a new international system?
Terrorism and war. We have the money, and making sure that other parts of the world have freedom and economic stability means we have to worry less about someone attacking us -- not because we have something -- but because they have nothing. Only someone with nothing to lose lashes out at someone in violence.
Globalism thrives on the contributions of corporations who want to profit from it, not from the efforts of governments or civic groups advancing democratic ideals.
There are two ways globalism can happen -- only one of which is paid for by corporations. The second way that globalism thrives is through governments and civic groups advancing democratic ideals. Granted, no one is really doing that yet, but optimism isn't unwarranted.
Bollocks! Perhaps there are some other factors at play, like the fact that the USSR bombed them into the ground. Saying that Afghanistan would be doing okay if they embraced capitalism is really, really stupid.
Well, here in the US they certainly have undue influence, as Katz noted when he mentioned their unequaled lobbying power and political funding. Just look at most of the legislation for the 1st 6 months by Bush. Most of it was for the benefit of Corporations (not that Clinton was much better).
And corporations are increasing their power over the people - us, the ones who vote... Like that provision in NAFTA that allows corporations to sue governments, if their laws decrease the corp's profits. And it has been used and upheld in court. So the taxpayer has to pay money to a corporation because they have a law to keep contamination out of their drinking water!
*that* gives corporations power over government.
Those are the types of "free trade" agreements that many people oppose.
I'm in the process of determining where I stand on this issue. However, regardless of which side I eventually choose, one fact will remain against globalization:
If an economic entity is multinational, its goal of profit will eventually come into conflict with the geographically narrower national interests in the countries it resides.
The proof is fairly obvious, and I don't think I need to go into a whole lot of detail, but just as an example, a multinational entity would contribute to a political candidate's camaign fund based solely on that candidate's ties with the other countries that entity resides in (Mega Corp. would contribute to John Doe's US Presidential campaign just because John would likely normalize trade with Iraq, and Mega Corp. does business in Iraq.) Long-term national security would take a back seat to fourth quarter profits.
I hope you get my meaning. I think I would feel better about multi-nationals if they were prohibited from influencing any national policy. (Actually, I'd feel better about corporations in general if they kept out of all politics - national or regional.)
then the real fun begins... we export the sales, too.
When was the big growth in America? During the 50's, when no one had the toys.
Who currently doesn't have the toys? Third-world nations that are going first-world.
Where will the big markets be in the near future? India and China.
What will happen? First, product manufacturing goes to those nations. Cheap labour. Second, sales go to those nations: newly-wealthy population wanting the toys they've been making. Third: America goes TitsUp.Com, because no one here is making money (the jobs fled) and no one here can buy toys cheaply (the sales fled).
Whoo-hoo! What fuN!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Please post your Dada Engine script so the rest of us can learn from your technique.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
but weren't protest in Genova instead of Milan? Ahh.. american geography :)
I read the Katz article and I am at a loss as to what the actual point was. Is he for/against multinationals? What does this have to do with our current war, recession, or the troubles in Caladonia?
Beware the wood elf!!!
Would you really want to deny people in the 3rd world a chance to move ahead far more quickly than America ever did?
Do you call Nike's sweatshops and government assisted oppression of attempts to break them "moving ahead far more quickly than America ever did?"
Yup. They are moving along faster. Nobody said they got to skip steps. Nike is a good example of this. They have to keep moving sweat shops to more and more primitive countries. In the 60's it was "made in Japan". Now it's *way* to expensive to manufacture things in Japan. Cheap labor moved to Korea, got too expensive, moved to Malaysia (where it still is AFAIK). I think Korea got through the most brutish part of the industrial revolution a lot faster than the US or UK did.
Sure they still have some sweatshops in places like Korea, but so do we. Some of the worlds worst sweatshops are 1/2 hour from me in downtown LA's jewelry and garment districts. Overall and over the long term it's more positive than negative. The people working in those sweatshops (excluding the outright slaves) are there because they think it's the best way, for right now, for them to get ahead and make a better life for their children. In a lot of cases they are probably right.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Thus my contention is that it isn't free trade that will "save the world", but equitable trade -- for example, that allows a well run farm in Iowa to get a fair price for his products without requiring that a well run farm in France go out of business.
Well, here is the point, while people are running socialist-supported farms in Iowa and France, people in Africa who could be farming are living in squalid poverty because of trade barriers.
Infact, people in France have the "gaul" to complain about globalization when it is these trade barriers that are keeping an incredible trade in foodstuffs from Africa to Europe from happening. Screw them!
Maybe the people in Iowa and France should go work doing infosecurity or something. Why the hell should our tax dollars go to support inefficient family farms? We don't support the family automobile maker any more.
A relative of mine built a plastic bag company in El Salvador from the ground up. Now that the damn government there has finally woken up to the fact that it is good for him to export, he's able to expand and hire workers. These people would be toiling in the fields or just walking around San Salvador aimlessly if it wasn't for his factory.
Most anti-globalists have no clue about business or economics. Profit is good for everyone, it means that value is being created.
Every economic exchange is positive, it means that both sides are getting something more from the deal. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen.
The opening of borders only improves the corporate stance in reducing environmental and labor protections; If you don't let us do this, we'll open up shop in Thailand instead. This causes the degradation of all protective laws, guarding civil rights, therefore creating places like the "Free Trade Zones" in which people are physically chained to their work area for 12+ hours straight.
Corporations are tyrannical structures, by nature and definition. Profit is their goal. If they are telling you, en masse, that something is bad, then you should really think about why so much money is being spent on those advertisments. Corporations don't work for the good of the people, they work for profit. If they spend money on something, it's because they intend to make even more money from that investment.
What's good for corporations, isn't necessarily good for people. It wouldn't be so difficult to see, except for the fact that it's right under our noses...
I agree with your comment that there are simply not enough raw materials ON EARTH for these things. One more reason it's past time to enlarge the pie. Jovian planets are basically *made* of hydrocarbons, many asteriods are big hunks of decent grade metals, etc, etc.
PS: figuring in exponential growth we don't have the recources to live like starving peasants either.
garyr
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Viva la Raza.
Speak on my brother. Its time to end the oppression perpetrated by the man on our brothers and sisters in the third world.
We should close down the world bank, and nationalize all resources. Return power from which it came -- the people.
We don't need no stinking capital. Just brothers and sisters working together for the cause of ending hate and propogating love. Together, we can make this world a better place.
But to do that, we must come together in unity. I must know my brother, before I can love my brother.
Thus, we make the following demands:
(1) Remove your greedy mercantilists from our society, and return our factories.
(2) Remove your facist military from our lands. We promote a new regime of peace.
(3) Give us our forty acres and a mule. It was promised by your president for all that lived in slaver-- as we have done. We will take payment in forgiveness of all outstanding debts.
(4) Provide us with good housing for all citizens.
(5) Build decent schools so that we may educate our kids.
Signed The New Media, anti-globalism, anti-columbine reaction Party.
The main problem with globalised business is that there are no global authorities who have power over these businesses. For 'globalisation' to work, everything needs to be global - governments, aid organisations and courts, as well as corporations.
As heard at Melbourne S11 protest - "I don't care so much that they're taking jobs from here, we can get welfare, but when they take them from us and give them to people who they can pay slave wages, and destroy the environment at the same time, that's problematic"
Power should never be THAT consolidated. If there is one lesson that is proven time and again throughout the history of mankind, it is that power corrupts man.
We shouldn't be allowing SO much power to conglomerate in the hands of so few people. It's far too dangerous.
Plain and simple.
It's amazing how many American and European bourgeois here know what's best for the third world. Have you even ever visited a third world country, beyond the Club Med's if they had one? If not, I wouldn't have the chutzpah to open my mouth and pontificate on what they do or do not need. If you want to know, ask the democratic people's organizations in these places and they'll tell you.
c .a ctivism.progressive
One funny thing in reading all of the replies are the the people in the high-rated posts on this thread complaining that people in the third world are whiny for complaining about not getting bathroom breaks and that "if 'they' don't want third world debt, DON'T BORROW IT", plus many other posts derogatory of people who live in third world countries. So this is the attitude of the people who are _supporting_ globalization? The "fuck 'em, we're just going to globalize them"? Well, with that kind of attitude, and the provocative US army bases around the world (in Guantanemo Bay, Okinawa, Saudi Arabia, Vieques, Germany etc. etc.), you can't be surprised at the sometimes violent reaction people have to that kind of imperialism and colonialism.
Speaking of bathroom breaks and people talking about the "efficiency of the marketplace" ruling supreme, you are truly living in a fantasy world. The main problem is not bathroom breaks, the main problem is that people who advocate organizing unions in these countries are KILLED. Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria, anywhere you see big corporations (Nike, Shell etc.) you'll see a lot of dead labor activists. So please include the caveat "efficient markets, which means killing labor leaders once in a while" in your analysis. If you want to read some stories, go to
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=mis
and type something like "labor killed". You'll get lots of wonderful stories about corporate efficiency from around the world.
This is NOT democracy. Killing labor organizers is not democracy. It happened regularly in the US and Europe until about the 1930's when the NLRB was created to mediate corporate/labor disputes and other measures. Some of these so-called democracies have labor leaders killed regularly.
I can't explain the whole anti-globalization movement in a short post, so I'll get to the money borrowing. So "they" borrowed the money but "they" don't want to pay it back, huh? Are you sure the people who the money was lent to are the ones being asked to re-pay it? I'm not. How was the money given to them, was it divided up evenly among the population? Was it used to build and improve roads in rural areas? You've got to be kidding me. The money was handed over from the bourgeois of the US and Europe to the bourgeois of third world countries. Who knows what they did with it, they didn't spend it to improve the lot of the majority of the country, that's for sure. That's who's being asked to pay for it now though. The World Bank plan for repaying debt is simply to "globalize" the country. First, utilities like water, electricity, railroads etc. are privatized, another word for handing control of them to foreign corporations. Taxes are raised, social welfare is cut in order to repay the debt. Laws which allow labor unions and the like are ordered by the WTO to be revoked in order to allow a "flexible workplace".
Let's face it, JonKatz is really quite repetitive. If I see JonKatz write the word "Columbine" one more time, I might just go get a handgun and go shooting some schoolchildren. Likewise, hearing his WTC related bullshit makes me want to fly a jumbo into his apartment.
This is pretty bad already, right? But no, it gets worse. JonKatz insists on posting his drivel in multiple parts, meaning he wastes twice as much front page space and gets flamed twice as much (not such a bad thing - I enjoy browsing the comments to a JonKatz story at -1). This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Even the trolls would agree that it's better to concentrate all the trolling into one JonKatz article, I'm sure.
Also, let's not forget the real reason things get chopped into multiple parts - suspense. If something is good, people will come back for more, and multiple parts can be justified. In the case of JonKatz, however, no one wants second helpings, and he would be better off dumping all his opinionated garbage in one go.
Anyway, that's my opinion. Feel free to mod me down if you disagree.
I'm just waiting on a true UN or WTC tax so I can start a revolution.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
I totally agree that cultural homogenization is horrendous, but the vast majority of people the world over apparently don't agree! That doesn't prevent small, unique businesses and institutions from existing! There are still mom-and-pop ISPs out there! There are still small manufacturing companies!
Why do you folks insist that the world is coming to an end, and that multinationals are taking us there?? Reading too much cyberpunk fiction?
If you call the Wall Street Journal "cyberpunk fiction," then yes, I apparently read it one too many times. They ran an article not but a couple months ago regarding the degree to which WalMart has virtually wiped out small business in Mexico. I mention this because it not only is contradictory to your belief that small business will prevail, but also provides some evidence that multinationals taking over business prospects actually destroys the choice we have in purchasing from small business.
While choice in what I can purchase is not what I consider to have anything to do with democracy, it seems that most of the world thinks capitalism and democracy are the same thing, and thus what you are able to choose to buy is a big deal...
I would argue that the expansion of large multinational corporations and this wiping out of small businesses that is occurring not only destroys the freedom to choose where we would like to buy things from, but also destroys our own say in the "democratic" government by which we are ruled. Why? As JonKatz points out, the largest political force isn't the people of the US, it's the corporations. Our own cherished democracy (although moreso a repbulic if you ask me) is being harmed as a result, which can be seen as it takes thousands of activists getting tear-gassed and shot at in order for anyone to listen to their peaceful demostrations and voices about the abhorent things going on in the world behind the scenes.
Perhaps campaign finance reform is more what is in order, but in any case, I'd rather not be under the governance of WalMart or McDonald's to even the slightest degree.
(Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal requires you to have a subscription in order to view any of their articles online, and in particular those older than 30 days... As such, I can't cite the article, but I do promise it was in there if you care to visit your local library or have a subscription yourself and are able to login to WSJ's site.)
"Try that in Windows!"
As soon as I saw this blatant troll headline, I new it was the odiferous work of that most cunning of ass-burglers, that most infamous of penis buffers, that rabbit raper of a child-man, JonKatz.
Why does meta moderation not apply to articles posted? The answer is simple. CmdrTaco and his cousin-brother Michael have conspired to create the ultimate forum for biased censorship and control of the masses: Slashcrap.
--
$ chown -R us:us yourbase
That's what I was going to say! =)
"Try that in Windows!"
"THE GLOBAL military reach of the US, with the support of its allies, is the flip side of the power of the multinational corporations that have spread their tentacles across the world. Former US State Department official Francis Fukuyama wrote in the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center, "Microsoft or Goldman Sachs will not send aircraft carriers to the Gulf to track down Osama Bin Laden-only the US military will."
The multinationals, powerful states and international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank are locked together in maintaining the capitalist system. That system means that every day 19,000 children die in the Third World from undernourishment and disease caused by debt repayments to the bankers. Their deaths are no more accidental than were the deaths in Manhattan.
Presiding over the system that kills them are a few hundred multinationals and a few hundred billionaires. The business magazine Forbes published a list of 482 billionaires. It shows that the top 200 of them have $1.1 trillion of assets. The top three have the equivalent wealth of the 48 poorest countries.
The wealth of these individuals depends on their ownership of shares in the great corporations. Today some 200 multinationals, run by a few hundred super-rich people and a few thousand more rich hangers-on, have a combined turnover equal to more than a quarter of the world's output. The five biggest multinationals, run by perhaps 40 people, have greater output than the Middle East and Africa combined, and twice the output of all of South Asia. The few individuals at the top make decisions about what is produced, who has jobs, where money moves and who is consigned to poverty. That affects the lives of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people.
Most of the billionaires and most of the biggest multinationals are based in the US. They are not typical of people in the US as a whole. Some 60 percent of families in the US have seen no increase in their real incomes since the mid-1970s, despite a rise in the number of family members working and an increase in the average working year of over 160 hours. One in eight Americans now live below the poverty line, and nearly 45 million are without health insurance.
By contrast the CEOs (top bosses) of large companies have seen their wealth rocket. They got 42 times as much as the average factory worker in 1980. According to Business Week, by 1990 they were getting 85 times as much, and by 1998 it was 419 times as much.
It is these people who determine the polices of US governments, whether Republican or Democrat. They financed the bulk of the $3 billion spent on the last presidential election campaign. The links run deeper. They provide most of the members of US government cabinets. Through them they determine both US military policy and the behaviour of bodies such as the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organisation.
That's why we have seen the monstrous growth of US military power alongside the widening grip of the multinationals and the imposition of neo-liberal policies, which in the Third World especially have brought so much destruction. Forty percent of sub-Saharan Africa's population-that's 290 million people-live in absolute poverty, on less than $1 (70p) a day.
Bush's "crusade" is designed to increase still further the power of those who are responsible for such obscenities. It will make it easier for the IMF and World Bank to impose Structural Adjustment Programs on weaker countries, which will face US military might if they refuse to comply. It will strengthen the hand of the multinationals. As Thomas Friedman, a journalist close to the US State Department, said a decade ago, "The hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US army, air force, navy and marine corps."
This system which kills even when it is supposedly at peace and constantly generates war is not new. A century ago it became known as imperialism. That word fits today. The drive for global economic and military dominance plunged the world into two world wars last century. It lay behind the countless interventions by great powers, protecting the interests of their corporations, in weaker countries.
That is why the struggle to oppose wars has always been linked to the struggle against the capitalist system that has now brought us a new imperialism - bigger corporations, more obscene weapons, more wars, and greater inequality across the globe.
The protests outside summit meetings of the G8 or the IMF are what most people think of as the anti-capitalist movement. But those demonstrations are linked to another movement - the series of mass strikes against the IMF and its policies. Here the list is as long as it is for the demonstrations. It includes Argentina, Brazil, Zambia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Nigeria, South Africa, Honduras, Paraguay, Bolivia, Mexico and more.
What unites all these movements is hatred of the present murderous setup and a signpost towards something better. It is a protest against the people who will stop at nothing to maintain the flow of profit, the people who are comfortable with a world where 19,000 children die every day because of the debt system. It is a cry of rage against the fact that 900 million people are malnourished while the world's richest 200 people have doubled their wealth in the last five years. It is a defiant insistence that another world is possible, and necessary. We can have cooperation, peace and wealth enough for everyone's needs if there is genuine democratic control from below of global wealth and resources."
Excerpted from here.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
The people/organizations that set the rules will set them in such a way that they benefit themselves. They may, or may not, also help someone else. Usually they do. At least their friends.
Evil? No, not really. But it can O But Definitely take forms that are a long stretch short of desireable to me, and to those that I tend to identify with. But evil isn't scheming for advantage for your side. Evil is scheming to put the other guy down without regard to whether or not it helps you. (As Good is scheming to help them, without counting whether or not it helps you.)
Good and Evil are rare. They happen, but immorality (e.g., scheming for one's own benefit without counting the cost to others) is much more common. And Globalism as practiced by big business seems to be definitely immoral by this definition.
This doesn't mean that all people will find the effects vile. (Even evil intentions can only occasionally accomplish that.) But it definitely means that there's a good chance that more than 50% of all people will be disadvantaged by any particular plan that these forces put into action. And after this happens a few times, one doesn't wait to figure out whether or not this time will be beneficial. An automatic check response is much quicker and safer. (They never conspire in your favor!)
Quick check: Sight unseen, and without reading the license: Would you buy a new product from Microsoft?
But Microsoft has a better track record than many of the WTC members. And that's why there are protests.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Perhaps there are some other factors at play, like the fact that the USSR bombed them into the ground.
Western Europe did okay after Nazi Germany bombed them into the ground.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
He mentions that a globalist economy could be the only way to save the world from poverty and environmental problems.
I can not agree. A globalist economy is not an economy made for the entire world, it is an economy based on controlling the entire world. The corporations (and some national states (don't wanna mention any...)) have understood this and covers their hunger for profit behind a shell: "we just want to make the world one again, remove borders and so on."
I agree that if we're going to remove poverty and really do something about environmental issues, we need to think globally. Each nation cannot, any longer, be held responsible for its poverty or environmental problems.
But letting the corporations, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank and the richest nations control this development is actually a step towards the exact opposite than those goals. This will lead to even greater poverty - and uncontrollable destruction of nature.
If the companies get more power, wages will decrease, not increase. If the companies get more power, they will cut more trees today
(money today is more worth than money tomorrow).
Companies are made simply to earn money, not to take care of any poor people or Mother Nature. Remember that. We, the people of the world, must take control of its development. We cannot leave it to the politicians, the governments or the companies.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Clearly this writer forgets several of the conditions currently not present that were present during the industrialization of todays world economic powers (aside from the asian tigers)...
First of all, the competetive international economic system attempts to squeeze out newly developing countries. It is simple economic policy to do so. The United States, Western Europe, etc... enjoyed relatively few competitors and innumerable untapped markets in their initial industrialization - quite unlike the current economic playing field facing under or undeveloped countries.
Secondly, developing countries are expected to meet social expectations that were not essential in our industrialization. Certainly no international economic actor would accept the products of a country which is using slavery to drive their economic industrialization. Or, perhaps, the refusal to purchase sweatshop labor produced products presents a similar case. Environmental restrictions, international compliance, and international trade law all make it more difficult and expensive to industrialize - far worse than the economic environment which was fertile for industrialization in the mid to late 1800's
Industrialization in these countries is not something that can be accomplished alone. Rather, it will be through the joint efforts of industrialized countries to act on the benefits of another country rather than their own.
it isn't the activists who have revised the term globalism, rather it is the corporations who have defined it.
The Economist piece is worth reading, the economist usually is worth reading, Kats is usually not worth reading. So lets pretend that we just had a link to the articles in the Economist, BBC, etc. etc.
I have very little sympathy with either side of the slashdot 'debate'. The liberweenie 'corporations are the absolute good' view is infantile. Equally infantile is the 'corporations are absolute evil view'. These are not two poles of the argument, they are actually the same argument which really has more to do with the ego of the person making the statement. There really is no difference between most of the Libertarians, Trotskyites or 'anti-globalists', any more than there is a difference between different varieties of religious bigott. All beliefs in absolute revealled truth are bogus and as Karl Popper pointed out are the enemies of the open society.
The policies of the third world countries are no different at the topmost level of abstraction than those of the West, their priority is to do the best for their country. To that end various ideological dogmas may be used as rhetoric, the reality is for the most part more pragmatic.
Immediately after the second world war the whole of the West was a command economy. There was simply no other alternative, if the war was to be won 40% of the GNP had to be redirected towards military spending. The US was no different to Europe in this, the only rhetorical difference was that the word 'socialism' was never used.
It took the West something like 20 years to dismantle most of the command economy. A command economy is only efficient in the short term and then for only very narrow short term goals.
The leaders of the third world are not the morons that many posters appear to believe. Empirically it takes a lot more brains to become the leader of the average Third world or post-communist european country than President of the US.
There is no real disagreement that the ideal for the third world would be to establish a free market system supported by a modern idustrial base. The problem is that you can't get there by simply declaring your country to be a free market. You have to achieve a certain level of prosperity before the surplus capital is available to make the free market work.
Last month the US government gave its airline industry a $15 billion government handout. The 'stimulus' (i.e. pork) bill that just passed the house gives $25 billion in backdated tax cuts to large corporations, in particular Texan oil companies. It is therefore somewhat rich for the US to go preaching the wonders of the free market.
The third world has been complaining about the vast cost of AIDs drugs for five years. The US has been insisting that the rights of the patent holders come before the lives of Aids victims in the third world. But when the US and Canada decide that they need to build a stockpile of Cipro the threat of voiding Bayer's patent rights is made within days.
Before the war on terror Unilateralism was the policy of the day. The Bush administration did not think it needed foreign support. The US army could crush any other and the ABM shield would shortly eliminate any threat of nuclear blackmail. To the extent the US had a foreign policy it was determined by campaign contribution bribes.
Now the world is very different. The US suddenly needs friends in places it did not care existed. The national interest is suddenly more important than the narrow corporate interest.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Even here in America, not everyone wants all those things - why would anyone? I say the few that do are welcome to them. I have to say your argument sounds like an ill-thought rant against consumerism without understanding human nature.
Also, just going by your list one could say that eventually we can have a DVD/VCR/stereo/walkman/phone/pager/PDA all in one device. Then just ditch the lawn mower/snowmobile/yacht/kitchen stuff, and you only need a 1500 sqaure foot house. You run the cars off of hydrogen and everyone should be able to have everything they want from the "utopian" list you have outlined.
You seem to think of the earth as a closed system (pie). Not true - we receive energy from the sun and some raw material in the form of asteroids.
Personally, I've never understood how anyone can think of wealth as a zero-sum game, since things can be recycled and even the definition of "wealth" changes from person to person.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why do you folks insist that the world is coming to an end, and that multinationals are taking us there?? Reading too much cyberpunk fiction?
No, too much reading the Economist.
The most basic principle is this : there are some things, which are important to people, which don't turn a profit. If you create a system where turning a profit is the only motivating factor, you'll create a system where those important things are not done, or are done poorly. Environmental security is one such thing, so are worker protections. The WTO is a formalization of such a system. It can be (and has been, and will continue to be) used to freeze protesting countries which out of trade relationships which they are dependent upon. In just such a way soverign national laws can be trumped by the judgements of an unaccountable, international body who's overriding intereset is profit.
If that doesn't terrify you, then either you don't understand, or you're hoping to make money.
You're naivete about the situtation is also frightening. Do you really think that corporations are trying to give the 3rd world a leg up? Do you see them lowering prices for necessary because they want to help people? Or do you see them profiteering at every turn and taking advantage of lax labor and evironmental regulation to increase their profit margin? Obviously they're doing it because it makes their bottom line look better.
I totally agree that cultural homogenization is horrendous, but the vast majority of people the world over apparently don't agree!
Bullshit. If you keep a dog in a cage and you only give it dirty water to drink, can you conclude that it prefers dirty water? WalMart, for example, can (and does) move into a community and run it's business at a loss for as long as it takes to starve out smaller businesses.
What I find puzzling is how anyone could understand the basic tenets of capitalism, see the movement towards globalizing and unifying trade relationships, and yet *not* see this as a catastrophe in the making.
One thing many people fail to asses is that the anti-globalist organisation is in fact violence free in it's essence. Much like Marxism you could say, it stands for a general awakening, a reveille the french say, of just common sense. It wants to bring back the power to the consumer, and restore the balance of power, in favour to the people instead of to the companies. One could remark that there is probably nothing more beautifull to the movement than a new-born fight to regain the rights and 'values' of the people. In fact, the anti-globalist's movement is a global movement around the world. There is nothing anti-global to it. It's like greanpeace and the WWF.
Of course, what happened in Milan and Helsinki is not what the movement is about. Those events were programmed by trouble-makers that seized the opportunity to pick a fight and express their general malcontentcy, while remaining virtually incognito under the unfamiliar umbrella of so many other unknown organisations that meant no harm, except to the present system.
You could say that, in many regards, Bin Laden has used the political and econmical structures of financial power to his advantage, and the globalists were (and are) warning against exactly that kind of a system, where sense of the word 'control' is taboo'd, except when it's about people's consumer behaviours. If you hold meetings between steel barred fences about economical issues and there's a crowd yelling outside, I get can't help but think about a book written a long time ago, which was perceived as groundbreaking and very important at it's time, called 'Brave New World'. Have we simply forgotten our arts and sciences, our good common sense? Have we morphed into brainless consumers that are addicted to TV's and MacDonnalds more than anything else? Does everybody just care about anything but our family and our job and hollidays? If we care about tomorrow's world, the world our children have to deal with, then in my opinion it would simply be totally irresponsible to the 'just stick with your own life is good enough for me' attitude. Granted, there's not much you can do, but a positive attitude is worth much more than you can possibly imagine. And that positive attitude, that anger about what's wrong with the world, that calling for change, is what the globalists are truely about.
Democracy's spread has now in fact created a bloody confrontation with fundamentalism, a holy war. Both sides refer to one another in evil blasphemers. Lost in this confrontation is the idea that Democracy isn't only about multi-national markets, cheap labor and business opportunities...[..]
This probably the most horendous statement in this provocative and therefor worthless assessment of Mr. John Katz, who I normally do not disrespect at all. In case Katz had fallen asleep, the war is firstly not against fundamentalism, but against terrorism. If the war is against fundamentalism, why don't we start arresting Amish people, Christian Tv networks and more of this kind of shit first.. I mean, if the war is against fundamentalism, then the war is against a kind of patriotism that does happen to be in line with the kind of patriotism US citizens stand for. And who are we to draw a line for the good and bad, who are we to proclaim a culture better or worse than the other. Katz rethori is intentionally provocative, and he wants discussion on topics that are indeed important, but by relentlessly draggin attention to these issues, people get even more black/white and you end up with the very fundamentalism we are supposed to be at war with. Sorry John no hard feelings. Next time, do one better for me.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
..is against a kind of patriotism that does happen to be in line with the kind of patriotism US citizens stand for.
Ahem, I meant "..a kind of patriotism that does NOT happen to be in line with etc.. ". Sorry if I offended the US with this, the opposite sentence is not as offensive but it does adequately depict the issue that the US is kind-of playing policeman in the world and is obliging other countries to stick to it's rules, it's judgement of right and wrong. And that, imho, is wrong. I wouldn't vote for that.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
I want to state a strictly libertarian position on the existence of corporations, in response to accusations that a libertarian policy would allow corporations to run rampant over the interests of private citizens.
I believe that under a libertarian government, the entity we know as the corporation would not exist. This is simply because a "corporation" is an entity which exists only by virtue of certain laws, laws which has nothing to do with protecting the rights and sovreignty of individuals. Under a strictly libertarian government, the entities which act as corporations today would be reduced to groups of private individuals, and the people who run them would not enjoy the immunities given to people who run corporations today.
What economical value do those local cultures have? Little to none (outside the simple folklore market). Hence their decline in the face of globalization. Does it mean they're not worth protecting?
They are worth protecting, but the protection has to come from within - how can you protect a culture when the children don't want to stay within it anymore? Are you going to place the culture in an enclosed zoo and keep all outside communication from it?
I am an individual because of my own choices. If an Afgani lifestyle started spreading I would care just as much as if, say, a Care Bare/Pokemon/Harry Potter lifestyle spread across the country - I'd continue to do whatever I do, though I might be sad if all you could buy was Kefir instead of milk.
I'm not saying I don't want to see other cultures preserved, I just don't think I can or should do that for them.
As for the cheap/commodity argument - I think that's only partly right. People either go for price, or they go for quality. The shops that get creamed by ultra-low priced things are those offering a product that is not as well priced but also not of great quality.
I see a lot of custom shops doing pretty well even now, seeling things like hand-made paper that I COULD buy elsewhere but not get nearly the same quality.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So the situation is more like, they borrow money to go to college, then find out the only reason they have to borrow money from you is because you murdered their father and took all his money.
I lived for three years on the border between two African countries and saw first hand the problems which borders spawn: smuggling of goods _and_ people, rebel activity, water disputes, fragmentation of traditional societies, etc. So in principle I'm all for globalism.
But, the globalism we hear so much about is not going to help much. This globalism is the bastard son of mutli-national corporations and the governments which stand to benefit from their activities. And they of course will always protect their own interests.
Using Open Source analogies, globalization means free beer (or damn near) for developed countries. It actually, as several posts have pointed out, hinders free speech of those in developing countries. Globalization should be an open process, not one which has to be done from inside a fortress.
They certainly aren't doing okay embracing whatever they're embracing now. And I don't even mean our attacks; It's been ten years since the Russians left, and nobody can claim Afghanistan prospered. Instead, competing factions tore the country apart until the Taliban came in.
A good counter-example is the Korean war, whch destroyed South Korean infrastructure. The South Koreans got up, dusted themselves off and went to work in a capitalistic, export-oriented style. The result: A rich nation.
Name a nation rendered worse off due to development of a free economy, and I might be willing to pay more attention. Would Afghanistan have been better off if it had put its effort into making things others want instead of factional fighting? You tell me, but the answer seems obvious.
D
My anus write better stories.
Sounds great. In fact, it sounds like the early Wired Magazine manifestos about the Net, some of which I wrote.
That is just perfect...it really does show how much JonKatz knows about what he is talking about. I was looking at the predictions of the future in cover stories of the wired magazines in the last few years, and without exception, they are so far off base it is hilarious.
For example, the huge breakthrough push technology was going to be, the proclaimation in March 2000 that the market is hotter than ever, and the cover story on how great Loudcloud is going to be. Hilarity ensues on every cover story!
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Dress up as Native Americans and destroy private property on board several ships in Boston Harbor?
Stage a demonstration in Berlin, Germany that ultimately leads to the total destruction of a multi-billion dollar piece of public property?
Oh what the hell... If our democtratic governments want to be up front about what they're doing in those closed rooms, instead of keeping all negotiation details secret (from their own citizens!!)... Then I'm sure you won't have people (peacefully) protesting, and the idiots and anarchists that generally plague large peaceful protests won't have any place to go.
But what the hell... If it's legal and it's being carried out by our governments, it must be in our interest, I suppose.
Then quit, you motherfucker.
Look at the internet porn industry. The mom and pop porn websites havent gone out of business. If i want japenese porn, hientia, african, russia, swedish, or even Beasiailty porn i can get it. Porn has been a head of the times for a long time just look how it took over the internet. And im damned happy that i can get porn with dwaves giving it to a 7 foot russian shemale.
This was meant to be funny but in some way has truth to it....
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Jon,
You're not alone in mischaracterizing the so-called anti-globalization folks. The media never seem to get it right, and I'd like to think that's just some kind of socio-political dyslexia or something.
The folks attacking "Free Trade" (as it's bandied about by corporatist Republicans and techno-corporatist Democrats) want first-world firms held to standards of conduct of their host countries instead of letting them rape and plunder to the degree that corrupt regimes might allow them to in developing nations.
Paying decent wages, being responsible in environmental matters, honoring basic labor rights all cost money. This should come out of the ample margins made by transnationals in the developing nations.
The opposition to the WTO and the FTAA now under negotiation is based on those institutions explicitly excluding these issues and focusing only on the rights of capital. In Quebec City, there were some intestinal grumblings about holding host nations to ILO standards, but that's both ineffective and insincere. Supposedly, the secret FTAA documents were supposed to have been made available after the Apr 22 meetings, after they were translated from the Spanish. Nothing yet.
Also, the institutions like WTO use tribunals with authority over national governments to adjudicate "trade disputes." This means that if your town passes an ordinance to boycott products from country X because of its human rights abuses, country X could if it chose sue your town government in the WTO for imposing non-tariff barriers to trade. And the WTO court would not take human rights issues into account in its deliberations, and there'd be no appeal even if damages were assessed.
Jon, drop the techno-utopia stuff. There are some much more basic issues at stake here. Of course the "anti-globalization" folks want global exchanges of ideas and of information, but people need the rights and material subsistence to be able to make use of them. If this globalization is just for the elite 10 or 15 percent of the planet, what the fuck good is it?
Dave
Perhaps you should try talking with so many less newspeak words. Your article means nothing but a bunch of jibberish!
Stop trying to look so smart!
I originally found Slashdot because of a Katz post, and it bothered me when anyone ridiculed his posts. But now I understand...
JonKatz is an idiot who does more harm than good.
He is just knowledgeable enough, and just progressive enough to appeal to progressive intelligent readers, but his attitudes and positions are flawed and compromised in fundimental ways.
Some of you saw him write about how "in times like these" governmental eavesdropping on communication is justified and needed. Anyone who really understands the ramifications of enabling such technology and truly understands the historical pattern (remember McCarthyism?) knows that there is no compromising on the issue.
Nor is there any compromising on the anti-globalization issue. Katz does not understand the issues and spends all his time trying to explain the labels and terms that get thrown around.
Katz, you want your back your cute little term "globalization", so you can use it to refer to some sort of enlightened international technological, and social homogenization, but you can't have it back, it doesn't mean that anymore. The dissidents concerned with globalization didn't pervert the term to encompass corporate rule, but what "globalization" has come to mean is EXACTLY what "anti-globalization" protestors are fighting.
Don't waste your time with Katz. At best he muddies the picture. If you are concerned with your rights, online and off, you are much better off reading Stallman's rants. If you are concerned with international issues, and the problems of globalization/corporate imperialism/whatever, read some Chomsky, listen to Biafra (there are reason's why he was the keynote speaker at H2K). There are some people that are really pissed out there, and it's because they understand the issues at hand. You can agree or disagree with the radicals, but Katz's writings are those of a confused individual trying to form his own opinions. I don't blame him for being confused, these aren't easy issues. I DO blame him for pretending to be an authority. He's not. Find out, in clear fashion, what the issues are, then form your opinions accordingly. Whatever you do, don't be a waffle like Katz.
Technology increases worker productivity and raises wages. This is WHY industrialized countries have higher wage levels than non-industrialized countries. It is also why exporting domestic industrial practices raises wage levels abroad.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I doubt that the citizens of those countries crippled by the repayment of billions of pounds of debt applied for it.
I doubt that these same citizens had a hand in determining how the money was spent.
I doubt whether many of these people benefitted from the money received at all.
Organizations which engage in this kind of "investment" need to be held accountable for the inability of the beneficiary to repay without starving, working into the ground or otherwise fucking over its inhabitants.
We (and don't forget, we are the people that matter) want proof that this money is being spent in a beneficial, sustainable manner. We want *guarantees* that these huge sums of money are not being frittered away by corrupt officials on projects of dubious merit and questionable long-term benefit.
If the IMF or whoever else cannot give these guarantees and be held accountable if they are not met then they should *not* be able to lend the money.
These developing countries may owe us a lot of money... but we owed them the assurance that it was going to do them some good. Otherwise what was the point?
Si
...how a bunch of hippie losers trashing the downtown area of whatever city a WTO meeting is being held in is going to "globalize ethical awareness"? Please?
Yeah! That's it! Trash a Starbucks! That'll really get people to understand the plight of the "third world slave worker"!
Fuckin' liberal idiocy, as usual. Are we really surprised?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Just because you can't attach an explicit monetary value to it doesn't mean that it doesn't or shouldn't have economic value. It has economic value just like a piece of land has economic value. There is no intrinsic value in either. The lands worth is determined by what society is willing to pay for it. Similarly, the value of the language is determined by its participants. e.g., How much of their time are they willing to learn to speak it? If the locals and no one else choose to continue learning or speaking it, then I WOULD argue it's simply not WORTH the trouble. (e.g., if they must learn language X instead of english and thus miss out of opportunity)
A language is just a bunch of sounds that people understand to have common meaning. While it is true that some people may have a certain emotional attachment to those particular sounds, learning and speaking it has a real COST (time and effort). We should allow people to determine for themselves how they want to weigh the relative worth of their pursuits (e.g., this language), rather than forcing it on them.
I assert that if it reaches such a point, it is the greater good. If your "cultural" lifestyle demands that your entire country misses out on the opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life (or rather, in most cases, a QUALITY life...as in somewhere approaching or exceeding a subsistence lifestyle), then it probably is not worth the trouble. Let the free market decide rather than trying to impliment some archaic and overly complex top-down system; it's far more democratic.
What you suggest is that a small minority's preference to maintain their culture should override the majority's preferences. That is simply ridiculous.
Democracy as an idea emerged in ANCIENT GREECE, Jon, and has been accepted in Western culture for over 400 years. It is not an "emerging idea of the 21st century".
Also, if you want to claim that globalism is "inextricably linked" to democracy, could you at least supply some vague form of justification? Globalism per se is neither for nor against democracy. But the flavor of globalism that we are being offered is decidedly anti-democratic.
The WTO is the best example of this there is, but somehow you fail to mention that organization in your entire piece. The WTO is what the riots are about, and the WTO is the missing link you seem to have missed between globalism and corporatism.
Globalism without the WTO is a more interesting prospect, and that's why the riots occur at WTO meetings rather than at IMF meetings or World Bank meetings or UN meetings.
A little more grassroots research would do you good, Mr Katz. Why don't you join one of these anti-WTO protests and see what they're all about?
http://www.neo-tech.com/discovery
The article in my opinion does not have all the facts but I have to expect that. But what bugs me is how all these protesters are worried about the corporation taking over when it has been shown that for the last 20 years of globalization it has improved the world we live in today. Take a look at the book The Skeptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg. He worked with Greenpeace and when he heard some American Conservative state that world has become a better place because of globalization he couldn't believe it.
What he ended up doing was take all the research that he could find to disprove this American and instead found that because of globalization the number of people who are poor is less than would be believed, that the enviroment in the last 20 years has improved, and that they are more countries that are richer today than they ever were.
Dr. Lomborg uses data that is available to everyone but no one uses data they get emotional - mainly tired of seeing all those poor kids in Africa starving to death is that because of globalization or because civil war where one Totalitarian Ruler is deposed for another.
If you really want to know the state of the world today go to Amazaon.com and pick up this book. You'll find that globalzation is the answer and the next time someone says that they are too many poor people in the world tell them that it's a lot less than 20 years ago and that because of globalization it'll get better.
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
a) forced artificially (ie. dumping milk in rivers, letting tons of grain rot on the ground)
or b) by creating new needs out of thin air for which there is low supply for.
Market theories are meaningless when gigantic corporations can manipulate supply and demand.
FYI, nobody needs "half of 2000-2500 calories a day from meat". The production of meat is the most environmentally destructive and wasteful industrialized process going on in the planet. Did you know it takes 20 times as much land to feed X people with meat as it does with vegetables/grains? That's a waste of resources! The Earth is not overpopulated. Starvation is a problem of distribution, not production. The US grows enough grain to feed the world 5 times over but do you know where most of that grain goes? To pigs and cows! And after that, we Americans throw away 40% of the perfectly edible food we produce for ourselves. (go behind Burger King after the dinner rush and you'll find garbage bags full of warm, ready-to-eat whoppers)
As far as VCR's TV's and so forth: we can easily make enough for everyone who wants one but if they were priced so that everyone could afford them, nobody could make a profit! Jet ski and yacht? Who the hell owns these luxury items but the rich? Do they use these things all year round? Why can't they share?
Use your imagination. Imagine a world without capitalist values. Now imagine a world with authoritarian values as well.
[pink beam of light]
Take a look at the book The Skeptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.
Take a look at the book The Skeptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.
Take a look at the book The Skeptical Enviromentalist by Bjorn Lomborg.
It seems that the anti-anti-globalization/environmentalism crowd can only ever cite ONE source to refute the arguments of the movement. Why is that?
Actual logic and common sense from a Bezerkely student?!? Now I've seen it all....
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
...the idea of imposing global solutions on local problems is inherently stupid.
Open Source applies local solutions to global problems, and what do you know? ``Global'' solutions fall out of the results with no extra effort.
A solution to poverty which works well in one African village may not work well in the next, but may also work well for a particular Chinese (or for that matter Australian or German) community.
One way or another, globalism would have them all use the same solutions - good bad or ugly. This has two nasty effects; firstly, resources and goodwill are wasted trying to jam an inappropriate solution down relatively helpless local throats (en passant, making the solutions impalatable to communities for which they would otherwise have worked well); secondly, local solutions which would be effective elsewhere are extinguished.
Now, looking back on that, haven't I just described Open Source versus Microsoft?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't have to lecture you on the problems of large government. I fact, I can see that you see the merit of no government at all. However, the problem lies with the fact that you believe that the profit motive is the best thing for society.
Here's a news flash for you: values based on the pursuit of profit do not a good society make.
You may think that naturally capitalism will lead to a loose "network" of industries, small producers interacting on small scales. Anyone can start a business, right? Unfortunately there's this thing called "difference" as in one person is a bit different from another person. Perhaps it's because of geographic advantage, or perhaps it's from just brains, but one business is doing better than the others. So they succeed. They expand horizontally and vertically and establish themselves as a primary agent. Doesn't have to be a monopoly, and nothing's inherently "evil" about it, but a thorough materialistic analysis of the system of capitalism reveals that it is inevitable that the rhizomatic network of small businesses gives rise to hierarchies of corporations and individuals.
The State is a hierarchical organization, no matter how "democratic" it may claim to be. As long as a State or similar bully exists to coerce people do X, it is authoritarian. Any hierarchy inherently gives rise to the cycle of power and maintainance of power. As Foucault said, "Power only serves to make sure that power exists." The existence of any hierarchy means power politics, and thus somebody is getting stepped on.
Anti-capitalist demonstrators are attacking the SYMBOLS of institutionalized neoliberalism, meta-corporations paid for and wielded by the multinationals. The argument that "anti-globalization" protestors are isolationist is a straw man. They are against capitalism and for mutual aid. Many of them are against the State as it exists today or even (in my case) against the idea of a centralized (arbolic) State.
Oh, don't listen to me, I'm just an anarchist -- my opinion doesn't matter, I guess! Everything I've said is just baseless propagandizing! Don't even bother looking into the points because I'm just a dumb black-clad kid listening to angry music!
8^P
[pink beam of light]
Governments, when their powers reach a certain critical mass, expand those powers until they collapse in on themselves. The United States and Russia, through the Cold War, extended their powers to incredible lengths, both domestically and externally.
The USSR, whose domestic controls grew faster and stricter as time went on, collapsed first, leaving America as the "winner" of that "war." Unfortunately, it also left America with the impression that the federal government -- whose domestic control was supposed to be limited -- should enjoy unlimited power in "extreme" circumstances. It didn't take long for circumstances to present themselves, or be manufactured by one cause or another.
Eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, we'll experience a collapse like the USSR did, and a shrinking of government back to the essentials, like serving the people, providing freedom and justice for all, and maybe even protecting the innocent.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
Could Katz do us all a favor and stick to writing stupid articles about Columbine? Did he even bother to read the feedback posted on Slashdot after part 1 of this piece was posted? If he had, he wouldn't have continued the mistake of equating "globalism" with "globalization," which are two different things. I suspect that Katz was looking for the word "internationalism," which is more appropriate than "globalism."
I'm one of those anti-capitalists who organize these protests. The anti-globalization/anti-capitalist movement is not against internationalism, but we are against globalization. I suggest that Katz read that Economist article, because it at least explains what globalization is, despite making some weak counter-arguments to the anti-globalization position.
Globalization is a process that involves international treaties like NAFTA and new transnational organizations like the WTO. Globalization is a process of eliminating restraints to "free trade." These restraints can range from local environmental laws to national social services run by governments. The idea basically behind globalization is to set up a global system where the corporations call the shots and where they aren't accountable to anybody, including governments.
The anti-globalization protestors aren't confused about these issues. They understand what is going on and they have made some very solid arguments against globalization. The financial institutions and the business press certainly take us seriously, so perhaps Katz should listen to us, instead of misrepresenting our views.
The Black Bloc
Doesn't anyone get the fact that in todays market if we piss off someone like microsoft, nike or ford they can just pick up their stuff and move to another country who will gladly accept their money?
This is what I don't understand about suing companies. Basicly we tell them that we dont want their business and to take their money machine else where. I'm sure russia would LOVE to have microsoft or intel paying taxes in their country.
It's a good thing that I don't give a damn about karma. Lets me laugh at the ratings.
Best Slashdot Co
Saying "In fact \"insert false statement\" " doesn't prove anything.
GLobalisation of IDEAS is wonderful, but instead any such trade is hijacked by corporations more concerned about profit than helping their fellow man (ie pharm.s).
Corporate activity in this arena is a result, not a cause, of globalism. The walls between nation states, especially in technologically adept societies, are fading away. Ties of common interests and needs increasingly flow along lines that ignore national boundaries. This is because the problems humanity faces, and the tools we need to use to address those problems, cannot be addressed from a nation-state perspective.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Corporations are good because they are money amplifiers. A good example everyone should be able to understand is that without corporations, you end up with countries like Afghanistan that revel in their barbarism. With corporations, you reach for the stars and are hated for it by the Afghanistans of the world. Yet, we strive on.
These money amplifiers allow more businesses, technologies and innovation, feeding on itself. Without that ability to grow, you're stuck hiding in caves and hoping your next meal falls from the sky. The only reason we seem complacent in the West is because we have made calm, peaceful lives for ourselves where we don't have to worry about roving extremists crushing our lives overnight.
There is, of course, the other extreme where corporations make all the laws in their favor, taking the rights away from citizens, possibly those not even in their country. Wealth is not everything, "smelling roses" and all that. So long as people understand the balance of law and move against anything that threatens what they feel is their way of life, then they are under control. Freedom is vigilance.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
it's important to recognize the profound need for globalizing some aspects of our lifes.
...
...
lemme explain this with a simple example.
like in every era, science brings society to its limits on some moral issues, creating the need to discuss altogether on those ethic problems.
it is common to avoid those questions, of course profit is more important.
which brings us to another point... individuals with utilitarism moral don't act as altruism moral ones. take a look at the autority figures of our society, i see that the very great majority of them are utilitarists.
the governement is composed of a minority, how can it answer to every citizen's problem/need ?
it might be about time to start a real project of society
we want to impose values to our children that even us, when it affects our economic security, don't consider.
*** it would have been so interesting to speak with Kropotkine on that subject
Stunning. I'm speechless. He is simply without equal as a writer. And thinker. In fact--and it is a fact--he will go down in history as one of the great philosophers and social commentators of our time. Of all times, I would even venture to say. Right up there with Benjamin Franklin. Or even Franklin Covey.
So when you're talking about "forgiving third world debt", are you talking about the rich countries declaring that money they've indirectly given to their own arms dealers or poured down other ratholes to be bad debt? Or are you talking about governments in rich countries using tax money to pay off bankers for risky business investments? Or are you talking about bankers in rich countries who made loans for legitimate business activities that looked like there was some chance of being paid back becoming forbidden (by either their own or the third-world country's government) to collect from the borrowers if the business projects were successful? The latter kind of debt forgiveness would be the kiss of death for any third-world business (small or large) trying to get access to capital to expand their business, which would be a really bad thing for the world economy. The others are variations on governments conspiring to rip off taxpayers in both countries; your choice on that.
But if the third-world government wants to borrow more money, which they will, is that something you want to encourage?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I don't know where Katz gets his information from (one would guess it's not from any knowledgeable sources) but Iran does have a working, albeit limited, democracy. Iran in fact refers to itself as an Islamic democracy. Although the mullahs do have the ultimate authority in Iranian society, the presidency, under Mohammed Khatami, has made great strides in extending its influence. Mr. Khatami has sought to limit the power of the conservative judiciary and the mullahs and bring real representation to the people with some success. To lump Iran in with Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia is simply wrong.
There are many other points of Katz's that I could refute but otheres have done a good job already (as usually happens when one of his uninformed essays gets posted).
At the risk of getting modded down, I would like to offer my opinion on why Katz even gets to use /. as a forum for his views (and get paid for it). I don't think the reason is that he offers any valid or informed views or that anyone (including the editors?) particularly likes his writings. I think the answer can be found by looking at the number of comments his articles generate (mostly by people lining up to slam him).
Each of these comments is a page view.
Each of these page views is a displayed banner ad.
Each of these displayed banner ads is $$$.
Still wondering why Katz has a job here?
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
Table copied from a review of the book _IQ and the Wealth of Nations_ at:
http://home.att.net/~eugenics/lynn.htm
Country average IQ GDP fitted GDP
Hong Kong 107 20,763 19,817
Korea, South 106 13,478 19,298
Japan 105 23,257 18,779
Taiwan 104 13,000 18,260
Singapore 103 24,210 17,740
Austria 102 23,166 17,221
Germany 102 22,169 17,221
Italy 102 20,585 17,221
Netherlands 102 22,176 17,221
Sweden 101 20,659 16,702
Switzerland 101 25,512 16,702
Belgium 100 23,223 16,183
China 100 3,105 16,183
NewZealand 100 17,288 16,183
U. Kingdom 100 20,336 16,183
Hungary 99 10,232 15,664
Poland 99 7,619 15,664
Australia 98 22,452 15,145
Denmark 98 24,218 15,145
France 98 21,175 15,145
Norway 98 26,342 15,145
United States 98 29,605 15,145
Canada 97 23,582 14,626
Czech Rep. 97 12,362 14,626
Finland 97 20,847 14,626
Spain 97 16,212 14,626
Argentina 96 12,013 14,107
Russia 96 6,460 14,107
Slovakia 96 9,699 14,107
Uruguay 96 8,623 14,107
Portugal 95 14,701 13,589
Slovenia 95 14,293 13,588
Israel 94 17,301 13,069
Romania 94 5,648 13,069
Bulgaria 93 4,809 12,550
Ireland 93 21,482 12,550
Greece 92 13,943 12,031
Malaysia 92 8,137 12,031
Thailand 91 5,456 11,512
Croatia 90 6,749 10,993
Peru 90 4,282 10,993
Turkey 90 6,422 10,993
Colombia 89 6,006 10,474
Indonesia 89 2,651 10,474
Suriname 89 5,161 10,474
Brazil 87 6,625 9,436
Iraq 87 3,197 9,436
Mexico 87 7,704 9,436
Samoa (West) 87 3,832 9,436
Tonga 87 3,000 9,436
Lebanon 86 4,326 8,917
Philippines 86 3,555 8,917
Cuba 85 3,967 8,398
Morocco 85 3,305 8,398
Fiji 84 4,231 7,879
Iran 84 5,121 7,879
Marshall Islds84 3,000 7,879
Puerto Rico 84 8,000 7,879
Egypt 83 3,041 7,360
India 81 2,077 6,322
Ecuador 80 3,003 5,803
Guatemala 79 3,505 5,284
Barbados 78 12,001 4,765
Nepal 78 1,157 4,765
Qatar 78 20,987 4,765
Zambia 77 719 4,246
Congo (Brazz) 73 995 2,170
Uganda 73 1,074 2,170
Jamaica 72 3,389 1,651
Kenya 72 980 1,651
South Africa 72 8,488 1,651
Sudan 72 1,394 1,651
Tanzania 72 480 1,651
Ghana 71 1,735 1,132
Nigeria 67 795 -944
Guinea 66 1,782 -1,463
Zimbabwe 66 2,669 -1,463
Congo (Zaire) 65 822 -1,982
Sierra Leone 64 458 -2,501
Ethiopia 63 574 -3,020
Equatorial
Guinea 59 1,817 -5,096
-nb
Wanna know who the leader in the globalization effort is?
It is not the US, not Great Britain, not Germany, Japan, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Mexico or any other nation for that matter.
It is not the FBI, CIA, NSA, KGB, OSS, ISI, Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Illuminati and their old hoax of a document The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or any other sinister organization that conspiracy theorists can dream up for that matter.
The biggest leaders in globalization is the various institutions that set up global standards for science and technology, such as ISO. The Metric system is the prime example of the globalization of standards. It is universally recognized and accepted by all nations of the world, even those who insist upon adhering to older standards, such as pounds, feet, Farenheit, etc. Another prime example: Ever wonder why the Internet works the same in every other country as it does in the US? An internationally agreed upon set of standards and protocols.
This comes straight from the ISO website, on why international standards are needed:
_____________________________________________
The existence of non-harmonized standards for similar technologies in different countries or regions can contribute to so-called "technical barriers to trade". Export-minded industries have long sensed the need to agree on world standards to help rationalize the international trading process. This was the origin of the establishment of ISO.
International standardization is well-established for many technologies in such diverse fields as information processing and communications, textiles, packaging, distribution of goods, energy production and utilization, shipbuilding, banking and financial services. It will continue to grow in importance for all sectors of industrial activity for the foreseeable future.
The main reasons are:
Worldwide progress in trade liberalization
Today's free-market economies increasingly encourage diverse sources of supply and provide opportunities for expanding markets. On the technology side, fair competition needs to be based on identifiable, clearly defined common references that are recognized from one country to the next, and from one region to the other. An industry-wide standard, internationally recognized, developed by consensus among trading partners, serves as the language of trade.
Interpenetration of sectors
No industry in today's world can truly claim to be completely independent of components, products, rules of application, etc., that have been developed in other sectors. Bolts are used in aviation and for agricultural machinery; welding plays a role in mechanical and nuclear engineering, and electronic data processing has penetrated all industries. Environmentally friendly products and processes, and recyclable or biodegradable packaging are pervasive concerns.
Worldwide communications systems
The computer industry offers a good example of technology that needs quickly and progressively to be standardized at a global level. Full compatibility among open systems fosters healthy competition among producers, and offers real options to users since it is a powerful catalyst for innovation, improved productivity and cost-cutting.
Global standards for emerging technologies
Standardization programmes in completely new fields are now being developed. Such fields include advanced materials, the environment, life sciences, urbanization and construction. In the very early stages of new technology development, applications can be imagined but functional prototypes do not exist. Here, the need for standardization is in defining terminology and accumulating databases of quantitative information.
Developing countries
Development agencies are increasingly recognizing that a standardization infrastructure is a basic condition for the success of economic policies aimed at achieving sustainable development. Creating such an infrastructure in developing countries is essential for improving productivity, market competitiveness, and export capability.
___________________________________________
In otherwords, if a nation wants to compete economically, they have to be able to conform to international standards.
As a matter of fact, Somalia, while still digging itself out of the ashes of the past conflicts, is experiencing an enormous influx of venture capital. Should the government they eventually settle on keep out of economic affairs, it could become quite a powerhouse.
A better example would be Hong Kong. With little taxation and regulation hanging over their heads, companies based in Hong Kong became the center of the entire Far East economy, and was still growing in influence when the 1997 deadline rolled by and China took over. Now that Beijing is failing to resist sticking its fingers into the pot of honey, things aren't looking quite so up.
destruction of some corporations property is not violence.
if you'd read the book, you'd understand that.
things have changed, more than you might think. while previously this kind of slave labour has boosted the economy in the long term, through tax, enabling better infrastructure, this is no longer true.
large corporations are often not paying _ANY_ tax on anything they do in a poor country. This means that nothing is being added to the country in question, it is merely being used. When it is all used, it will be discarded.
in the process of the country being used, their population is beaten, raped, underfed, abused and mistreated.
if you think this will help a country grow into a prosperous one, think again. it isn't getting any extra money, and it will breed resentment into the population against (mostly) American companies.
if they ever do grow prosperous, they'll remember who held them down
ROFL
That was just plain hysterical. I just followed the link to your reference about libertarians being hypocrites...
Most of those people who diametrically oppose libertarianism cite studies and statistics that either deliberately mislead, or outright lie; but that link, that takes the cake.
if you say to your own hired assassin "I want you to make sure this person no longer bothers me" and then that assassin shoots them dead, damn right you're responsible.
claiming that you are not an assassin and you're not responsible for his misinterpreting of your comment just does not cut it. you knew they were an assassin when you hired them.
...and you are wrong. I spent 10 years travelling to China and southeast Asia. I experienced China before and after its "loosening up," or whatever you want to call it. The fact is that crappy labor conditions are the result of the backward, corrupt governments in these countries. The difference between now and 20 years ago is that now, an average worker *has* a choice: flipping burgers may not be the best career, but it beats stoop labor in a rice paddy, up to your knees in human shit (which they still use for fertilizer in China).
Don't be tempted by images of happy little peasants in coolie hats working happily in the fields, surrounded by loved ones, and singing tradtional songs. The reality was that they toiled for 20 hours a day then too, often under the "encouragement" of whip or rifle. Life was brutal, short, and cheap. Compared to the US, it still is, but it's getting better.
The only thing that will change this is the prosperity that more globalization will bring. More money for everyone, and even if it's just a tiny bit, the little that trickles down to the average guy. He might not make it himself, but maybe his kids willl have a computer and a few books.
So, instead of looking at the PRC or Indonesia, which are still in the early stages of redevelopment, and still under the control of oppressive dictatorships, look at Taiwan, or South Korea. Look at Japan now, compared to before WWII! That, and better, is the future that globalization, *and freedom* will bring, for everyone on earth, eventually.
And BTW, people in China LOVE us. In Indonesia too. As an American, you'll be swarmed by locals wanting to practice their English, and talk about their favorite movies.
So get *your* head out of the sand. Get away from your television, your stupid, sophomoric, hippie magazines, your nebbish academic "mentors," and your antisocial, shoegazer friends. Get on a plane. Take a walk through Shanghai, Manila, Bangalore, Taipei, or even Monterrey. Join the Peace Corp. Get a life.
What a timely topic. Jesus...
The magic words. But... in your utopia of unrestrained capitalism, what is there to prevent company X from driving others to death from the market and then raising the prices as they see fit. Nothing.
Simply amazing how many ignorant fuckwits come out of the woodwork when it comes to the travails of third world nations. Not willing to admit that just about every First World nation in existence has actively worked to create the current global disparity in economic wealth, apologists reigns supreme, heaping blame upon third world countries left and right.
First World = imports raw materials, exports expensive finished goods. Third World = source of cheap raw materials and ineffective enemies ready to invade when the people at home start questioning their government.
The third world isn't in the pickle that it's in because the people who populate it are stupid, sleazy, lazy, or whatever the hell else people are claiming. They're there because in order to sustain our own rush up the industrial ladder we needed cheap raw materials and the next best thing to slave labor to propel us into the future. Without the materials and labor it would've been more difficult to cover the same ground, and who doesn't take the lazy way out when it's offered?
If anyone can prove that the third world managed to dig itself into a hole - all 200+ countries - because of some innate character flaw that those in the First World don't possess, please, enlighten us! I'm dying to hear the argument that supports this view!
But for the amoral pragmatists who don't give a damn who starves so long as their own gluttonous needs are fulfilled, I'd say look at the situation pragmatically. Hunger and despair breed desperation, desperation breeds fanatics, and the fanatics are getting better and better at causing mass destruction. Out of simple self-preservation it would seem logical that the First World attempt to bring the Third World into the 20th century (forget the 21st, they're nowhere near that yet) simply to avoid things like having national landmarks blown to bits. Certainly it's less expensive and far more friendly than bombing the hell out of people whenever we get bored.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
On the one hand the hypocrite says:
One facet of lassez-faire economics is that "capital goes where it is respected and appreciated." If a country's government promises that investments won't be stolen or confiscated, and backs up those oaths, then investments will be made and industry will develop.
and on the other he says:
someone, or a group of someones, owns a chunk of property, they must provide for its defense all by themselves. While private companies specializing in providing that defense as a service might spring up, they wouldn't be government.
In the former persona "industry will develop" is, somehow, compensation in the contract between government and business. However, since there can be no valid contract in the absence of an exchange of value how, exactly, is "the government" to receive the benefit of the fact that "industry will develop"? He doesn't say, so we must assume usual and customary practice. There is not a government on earth that is under a system of insurance premiums on declared property rights. Except for the most localized municiple taxes on property -- typically earmarked for public education rather than defense (and lacking indemnification language to boot), government's compensation derives from economic activity and, more importantly, productivity: income, capital gains, sales and value added. Furthermore, the use of political identity to elicit voluntary sacrifice by the populus in defense of these property rights (the firemen in the WTC is a perfect example of this) is very ingrained and highly abused. To discuss "lassez-faire economics" without reference to these facts has no relationship to the definition of legitimate government -- a fact that libertarians as well as Randroids avoid discussing as a factor in revolutionary movements to destroy and/or distribute capital concentrations.
The fact that, when pressed, hypocritical libertarians resort to the fundamental principles of Lysander Spooner (only to then abandon any discussion of them in subsequent discourse unless, again, pressed, and then deride those who bring them up) is definitive.
Seastead this.
1st : The fact that you didn't check your facts or read what you just wrote before posting it shows your lack of professionalism.
2nd : I strongly encourage all Slashdot readers interested in this Globalization issue to read the Economist, which has been discussing this matter regularly for over 2 years (although they are clearly on one side, they are professional enough to show an accurate view of what's happening, including the violence of the police in Genoa).
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Let me see, in my economic classes they told me that globalisation meant that everything can be produced cheaper and that means that everybody can buy stuff cheaper and that the global happiness increases.
One of the factors used here is economy of scale, (aka the more you produce, the cheaper 1 item is )
Now before you can make this kind of investments, you need money, so you go to the stock market.
There you lend money to set up your company, but instead of just paying back the money with rent, you have to pay them dividend, and to make it worse, those guys want more dividend every year or they sell your stock and you're dead.
That's why even previously 'good' companies have the 'stock holder' in their 'mission statement' because that stock holder can make or break them.
Now do you think that Asian, Africans, Eastern Europeans will ever be able to play in this game ?
I dont think so.
So I don't buy stuff any more in companies that have stockholders ( they have artificially high prices to keep stockholders happy ).
(Unless there's no alternative, otherwise I wouldnt have a car/burgers/music )
Cheers,
thinks about it.
Corporate globalization is equal to colonialism.
The three reasens for the companies are:
What do we think of colonialism now?
So what will we think of corporate globalization later?
All this talk of globalisation detracts from the central issue: America's brand of capitalism wishes to turn the whole world into a marketplace and by extension, a colony of America.
Senior figures in the US Military have for decades admitted in private (and occasionally publicly) that they are used in conflicts as the first wave of an invading capitalist force - the second wave being the sales teams of global corporations.
The fact that Unocal went to Congress three years ago and stated flatly that Afghanistan needed a 'sympathetic' regime in order that they could put a pipeline through it, well it puts the current conflict in an interesting context.
Anyway, these global capitalists are out of control (ironically, they and not their opponents are the real anarchists as global corporations recognise no government higher than themselves) and they are bringing the world to the very real brink of disaster. Sit down with a few scientists working at the cutting edge of genetics and ask them what EM radiation does to the human cells they study. Ask a midwife whether the number of babies being born with genital deformities has increased noticeably in the last few years.
Technology is wonderful, but it also has revenge consequences. America has special responsibilities, as it hosts companies like Monsanto (or whatever they're called these days) and Cargill that are planning to change global agriculture in ways that could spell disaster for millions.
We can't turn the clock back. But we can step back from the brink and reassess what our values and priorities truly should be - especially in America. That's all I'm asking for.
"Ask anyone who has visited the free trade zones in China, or the sweatshop labor factories in Indonesia."
Sorry, I can't help but set a bunch of terribly mislead people straight.
I'm American and have been living in Indonesia for the past 6 years. I have seen the factories and been to the villages. And I can tell you straight up that these anti-globalization demonstrators live in a dream world with no basis in reality.
People always like to cite "Sweatshops in Indonesia" owned by foreign multinationals as the root of all evil. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Simple fact is, the foreign factories pay an order of magnitude more than the local factories. They have more community involvement and better benefits as well. Any laborer in this country would most certainly choose to work for the multinational - better salary, better working hours, overall better treatment. It is a simple fact, visit the factories yourself if you don't believe me.
These factories allow the workers to break out of the cycle of subsistence farming, and create local, diversified economies for the first time in history. They have cash in their pockets when before they had none. Anti-capitalists would regard this as an evil thing, but the fact of the matter is that the local economy brings better education, better health care, and an overall better standard of living. All of these things cannot be had by planting rice ad infinitum.
It is very easy to be clouded by ideology and forget that the rules of the game are different in other countries. People like to look at labor costs in developing countries; I have seen it stated that factory workers in Indonesia only make $1/day. To the ideologist with no world knowledge, this seems like an incredibly small, unjust, almost slavery-like sum of money. The fact is, in Indonesia 50% of the population make far less than that. As a comparison, a licensed stock broker with a bachelors degree in economics will have a starting salary of $200/month. Imagine that. The stock broker's boss with 15 years of experience will probably only make $1000/mo. How can they live on that? Well, they probably have a huge house, a big car, a driver and two maids on that salary.
Is that exploitation? No, it is an entirely different economy than what exists in developed nations. How to equalize it, make the playing field level? Trade. Trade is the only way. The biological analogy for trade is osmosis. The flow of money across the borders of nations tends to equalize eventually.
Stopping trade to developing nations such as Indonesia is the only surefire way to plunge the country further into recession and cause more children to drop out of school and go hungry. Just come to visit and ask _anyone_ you meet.
g
Anyone who simply cannot stand Microsoft at all (that includes me for sure! i'm with Linux!) should naturally see that the governments around the world are pulling the exact same stunt. We want Microsoft to loosen its death grip on competition. At first I loved the idea of Microsoft getting broken up by the US government. But then I saw the people doing it. They were almost all liberal extremists, all supporting the crap I said in my last post. Since Gates wants to 'rule the world', I really wonder if the government(s) want him to join them; and if he refuses they'll try to enforce torture a little to try even harder for him to submit to them (Microsoft vs DOJ cases). Interesting.
A man named Norman Thomas, a US Socialist Party member for many years, made this unbelievable statement: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
To deal with the issues worldwide that most raise the ire of many of the more rational-minded protesters, we need some sort of interface with which to exert an influence on things. Right now there is none. Globalism/WTO is that interface, however flawed.
**>>BELCH
Thomas Friedman, a New York Times foreign affairs columnist writes about his visit to Qatar, a small nation in the Persian Gulf, "'If there is an authentic Persian Gulf culture scene, this is it,' [I thought to myself]. And the more I walked, the more I enjoyed myself - until I rounded one corner and suddenly it appeared before me, like a huge blot on the horizon: Taco Bell" (278). He notes that the Taco Bell was quite crowded and that before Taco Bell arrived, Qataris only had filthy shacks as restaurants. "In its place Qataris were being offered something they had never tasted before, Mexican food, with a clean bathroom, international sanitation standards, smiling service and quality controls - all at a cheap price they could afford. No wonder it was crowded" (293). Who would be so foolish as to suggest that the Qatari government expel Taco Bell so that the local culture - including dirty restaurants - could be protected? If the local people prefer to eat at Taco Bell or KFC or McDonald's, there's no moral basis to stop them. Many people in developing countries seek the middle-class cultural lifestyle ubiquitous in America and America abroad. Let these people define their culture, since it is theirs; they should be allowed to include elements of foreign cultures as well, if they so desire.
is to abide by the principle "ensure choice exists". That means it's justifyable for Canada, for instance, to have Canadian-content minimums for media outlets and to subsidize its creative industries. So long as it doesn't prevent competition, which is basically preventing people from choosing for themselves.
-Stu