Multinationals And Globalism

(Last of two parts): Is globalism as relentlessly evil and corrupt a force as all those nasty demonstrations in Seattle and Milan would suggest? Anti-globalists sometimes seem to confuse corporatism with globalism, lumping in all sorts of issues under one term. There are plenty of economists and social scientists who maintain that globalization -- including the spread of new information and business technologies -- can not only be a great force for good, but in some forms represents the only feasible cure for global poverty and inequality. They also argue that political leaders have to meet more, not less, about these problems.

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.

Comments

Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[Anton Anatopopov]

As Naomi Klein said in her bestselling book on the subject, 'No Logo' the problem with globalization is that corporations simply move to the country with the weakest labor protection laws.

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.

Re:Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[Anton Anatopopov]

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Ask anyone who has visited the free trade zones in China, or the sweatshop labor factories in Indonesia.

Apart from anything else, these people are forced to work ludicrously long hours for peanuts. It may make you feel better if you can pretend that everything is OK and that these people are being exploited by choice, but it simply is not true.

As a libertarian, you should realise that coercion cannot play a part in any civilised society, so why then do you think people are working 20 hour shifts ?

It is this dumb Amrerican 'head in the sand' attitude which shows no knowledge of the world outside our comfortable fat consumerist existance which makes the rest of the world hate us.

Note, I said HATE. Not dislike, they actually hate us, and the exploitative money hungry moral-free value system we represent.

Just try starting a branch of the 'libertarian party' in China and see how far you get.

Re:Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[Dancin_Santa]

Though your arguments are clear and correct, there still remain islands (pun intended) of 'bad' sweatshop labor.

Take the case of the clothing factories in the CNMI (makers of fine Polo, Liz Claiborne, J. Crew, and Banana Republic clothes, among others). Chinese laborers are lured into the labor by the promise of American dollars and a better life, but their 'saviors' charge them usuriously high rates to transport them from their home country. They then get to work off their debt by working in the factories. However, they likely have no place to stay so they live in the company barracks which also charges rent, leaving the workers penniless and unable to improve their lot.

This is not a bash of those clothiers named above, most have actually pulled their manufacturing out of Saipan. However, when discussing sweatshops, it must be made clear to the companies taking advantage of cheap overseas labor that it is unacceptable to allow such abuses of the system to occur.

Re:Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[Anton Anatopopov]

Whilst not claiming to be an expert on libertarian 'philosophy', I do know coercion when I see it. A simple search of the internet reveals several instances. One of which I reproduce here for your enlightenment.

Use of Indonesian soldiers to provide "security" at the Nikomas Factory in Indonesia
Members of the Indonesian army are frequently employed as "security" in factories in Indonesia during periods of industrial unrest to prevent industrial action. In September 1999 a US student delegation observed Indonesian soldiers stationed at the Nikomas factory at a time when wage negotiations were being conducted. Following the publicity the issue received the soldiers were replaced by non-military security (police and security guards) who were playing an appropriate role. Subsequently however, during peaceful strike action by workers at PT Nikomas, police from Brimob (an armed police brigade) equipped with guns entered the factory and together with factory security guards and hired civilians they threatened and provoked workers. We repeat our call for Nike to ensure that Indonesia's armed forces are never called in to prevent or interfere with peaceful industrial action.

You go on to say: and, a little note: they hate us because we're the rich, good-looking kid on the playground who is smart enough not to give his lunch away everyday to the kids who are too stupid to find their own money.

Again, I feel I must correct you: they hate us because we are a genocidal nation of gun-crazy psychopaths and lunatics.

Re:Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[G Neric]

it's you who is the idiot: if the sweatshops closed, what would those people do? what would their choice be then? they'd have none and many would starve which is exactly what happens in parts of the world with no industry at all.

Yes, it is true that these people could be offered better jobs at higher wages... but by whom? are you willing to put up your money to open a factory that pays higher wages and works people fewer hours? of course, you have no money. but what about daddy's money? why can't you convince daddy how much sense it makes to pay third world people more? So, let's say you did convince daddy to own a factory in the third world...

• you could buy an existing factory and just pay those workers more, or
• you could open a new factory and hire unemployed people and pay them more, or
• you could open a new factory and hire unemployed people and pay them the same low wages ... and take the money you saved doing that and hire even more unemployed people

notice that in the third case the maximum number of people would have jobs, and the maximum amount of clothing and/or whatever would be produced, and that extra production could be sold and that money used to hire even more productive people, people who would be learning job skills, etc. In fact if you did this enough, soon you'd have employed all of the unemployed people and then the wage rate would increase on it's own. that's how our economy got to the high wage level it got to.

do you see? 2 wage earners at low wage is better than one wage earner at a high wage... hopefully now you begin to understand why economists all agree on the benefits of globalization. take a course in econ, learn something, and you will stop believing in magic and calling people names.

Re:Globalization is bad, We did not vote for it.

[szcx]

I do not, and have not blamed the US government for what's happening in the third world. I blame corporations who exploit those situations and do whatever is necessary to perpetuate it to increase profits.

You wonder why people aren't rising up against their oppressors? They are. Take a look at Indonesia. The place is a powderkeg. I was in Malaysia during the Kuala Lumpur riots, they're in the same boat.

FWIW, you don't need the UN to invade third world countries to curtail this kind of behavior. You can do it by having first world countries impose penalties on the local subsidiaries of multinationals who participate in this form of slavery. But that wont happen because there are people in the first world who quite like their cheap fruit and consumer electronics. They'll scream bloody murder about capitalism being threatened at the slightest hint of sanctions.

Please Read the Economist

[Azghoul]

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?)

Re:Please Read the Economist

[ellem]

There is something to be said for McD's and Walmart though... If I go to Singapore and I just want to eat... I don't want an adventure, I don't want to taste local offerins, I simply want to eat. McD's offers me something I know. I get a crappy burger cooked by mediocre workers who aren't ever going to get paid well as long as they stay at McD's.

If I am in Cumshot, Iowa and I need to purchase a calculator like the one I have on my desk Wal-Mart proabably has it. Mom's Calculator Shack might, but who knows?

I don't want every person in Singapore to give up their local eats, but I don't think putting a McD's in a city is potentially dangerous to the cultural well being of a people. Anymore than putting Yi Sung kitchen down the block is.

Homogeny is not evil.

Re:Please Read the Economist

[elmegil]

Would you really want to deny people in the 3rd world a chance to move ahead far more quickly than America ever did?

<devilsadvocate> Do you call Nike's sweatshops and government assisted oppression of attempts to break them "moving ahead far more quickly than America ever did?" Yes, we had sweatshops here. We also had an established and reasonably open press and government which allowed us to take the necessary steps to break them. If you don't think that corporations have learned from experience and are taking steps to prevent the same thing from occurring overseas, you've got your head where it doesn't belong.</devilsadvocate>

I think that the Economist article makes good points, and globalization shouldn't be confused with corporatism, but corporatism is definitely a big problem.

Re:Please Read the Economist

[elefantstn]

If you think the Nike "sweatshops" are in any way comparable to what passed for factories in America (and Western Europe) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, you have another thing coming. While the greatest transgression that Nike has allegedly committed is not giving bathroom breaks, factories here regularly for all intents and purposes purchased orphan children and used them in the most dangerous situations because they had no one to complain on their behalf. Crushed by a coal machine vs. having to hold it too long: you decide.

Protesters vs. "free trade"

[Moorlock]

Anti-globalists sometimes seem to confuse corporatism with globalism, lumping in all sorts of issues under one term.

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.

Re:Globalism is not the problem: Government is

[Nicolas MONNET]

"Where globalism, capitalism, and "Big Business" get ugly is when the government (any government) intervenes in any way"

Typical libertarian short-sightedness. What's the difference between a government and a very rich non-governmental entity? Not much. They both potentially have an immense power over the individuals.

"But the corporations have to face the free market!" Well that's right, to a certain extent. Just like it is true that most governments have to face democratic polls.

There are many cases where the "free market" is just not sufficient to prevent abuse. It's often less costly to just dump your waste in the open for everyone to share than pay for it's processing. "But the people will stop buying product from polluting corporations!" Not when said corporations can buy the medias, advertising agencies, bully their opponents to have them shut up.

Libertarianism is also implicitly based on one flawed assumption -- that every economic entity (individuals and corporations alike) will act rationally. Newsflash: it's wrong. Corporations often do stupid stuff, because they're after all just a bunch of people, some of them can be stupid or act stupid at times. And more specifically, individuals can do stupid thing.

And if it happens that said stupid individuals goes irrational, while being extremely rich, he can do a lot of harm, if there's no governmental / democratic institution to safeguard against him. What's to prevent a billion-dollar mogul from buying lots of land and burn it down or spread nuclear waste all over it? In a libertarian world, it's his money, he can do whatever he wants with it, and nobody's here to stop him.

You don't have money? You ain't got no right. That's libertarianism.

That said, I'm pretty close to libertarian views myself, I can agree to most of their program. But there blind faith in the regulatory values of the free market is irrational. And "money" should not be allowed to buy anything.

Globalisation v The Way It Was Before

[BenHmm]

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.

Common Sense

[squaretorus]

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!

Re:mr katz

[Anonymous Coward]

If globalization keeps me locked and loaded with DVDs, gadgets, medical care, and cheeseburgers, then I say screw Indonesia.

Practically everyone reading slashdot is at the very top of the global pyramid. The world is a zero sum game, and I am quite happy with my current state which is all that really matters in the end.

This really isn't intended to be a troll post, its just everyone keeps arguing that globalization is good cause it will help the 3rd world, or its bad cause it hurts the third world.

How about globalization is good cause it helps me?

Re:end third world debt..

[Bobo the Space Chimp]

It's all based on faulty concepts that government knows best, build infrastructure and a powerful economy will magically appear.

Meanwhile, silly laws penalizing companies remain in place, heavy handed things more for the purpose of allowing local officials to extort money, and silly environmental regulations to appease the western masters all make the country a place no sane corporation would go, and no local one to form in the first place. When everyone and their brother gets a cut before you, the business man, does, then, surprise surprise! To hell with it.

And thus no economy develops to pay back the loan. They are juvenile attempts to ape a strong economy by duplicating the window dressing rather than the hard working guts.

I've read No Logo

[daviddennis]

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

Re:Doesn't anyone remember the last article?

[FatRatBastard]

it means an economic system based on exchange of labor rather than ownership of capital.

The problem with that, of course, is how do you put a value on labor? If I'm a barber and I cut an architect's hair should I expect the plans for a new house as payment?

One of two things has to happen. Either some body with legal authority sets the "exchange rates" or the market decides. If the latter then exchange of labor = ownership of capital (commonly known as sweat equity), and you're back to capitalism. For all practical matters Socialism (on a macro scale) requires a highly regulated market.

Re:end third world debt..

[dbrutus]

The third world debt problem couldn't be because kleptomaniac leaders stole a good portion of the money and wasted a large portion of the rest could it? No, that would imply that it's at least partially their own fault. Cancelling debts makes it harder to borrow in future and encourages the 3rd world government thieves to keep right on stealing because if they mismanage things badly enough, fraternal, compassionate first worlders will just cancel their debts again in order to help those suffering 3rd world people.

They deserve to be able to develop and they *are* able to develop, they are just cursed with leaderships that choose *not* to develop, having a preference for luxurious living over the welfare of their people. I don't know how we are supposed to fix that besides reinstituting colonialism and I doubt anybody wants to pick of "the white man's burden" (thank God).

DB

democracy as a ruse

[markhahn]

democracy has become a motherhood/apple-pie thing - it's not even a concept, it's more of a nebulous emotional state. why has it gained this unquestioned positive spin? democracy is mostly a way for incapacitating government, for avoiding putting too much power in one place. all elections are marketing competitions. sure, occasionally there's some politico who actually has something on his agenda besides being elected/reelected. but the nature of democracy, at least parlimentary forms, means that the few principled participants will be inherently dilluted by useless, photogenic seatwarmers.

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...

A libertarian view of globalization

[TheSHAD0W]

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.

Re:Doesn't anyone remember the last article?

[Dr. Cam]

By your definition ("idiot local socialist regulations"), the US is one of the worst offenders. Whenever another country can produce less expensive and often more effective products, some US industrial organization runs weeping bitterly to the Commerce Department, not to mention to the Senators and Representatives they own through campaign contributions.

There will be little will in the rest of the world to abandon their own restrictive practices and rules until the US changes its own (hypocritical) approach. What corporations want is access to markets and resources. Anything that gets in the way of that (from their perspective) needs to be modified and eliminated. What allows that to happen is mutual lowering of trade barriers and voluntary surrender of the right to retaliate. As long as Congress and the Commerce Department retain the right to punish "upstarts", the rest of the world can continue to justify their own protectionist practices. Strong corporations don't need protection.

Why I hate anti-globalization protesters....

[nullhero]

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.