What's your take on Globalization vs. Workers Rights?

[WilliamPitt]

Food for thought:

---

Unions Assail WTO for Ignoring Worker Rights
by Jim Lobe

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0908-02.htm

WASHINGTON — With trade ministers from around the world gathering in Cancun, Mexico, this week for a key round of negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), labor unions are complaining loudly that workers rights have been excluded from the agenda.

A particularly serious omission, according to the Brussels-based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), whose members represent some 158 million workers in some 150 countries worldwide, will be discussion of the plight of some 43 million workers in export processing zones (EPZs), areas established by governments to produce or finish goods that contribute directly to global commerce.

EPZs, whose numbers have grown from just 79 in 25 countries in 1975 to some 3,000 in 116 nations, in 2002, have become a "symbol of the exploitative nature of today's (economic) globalization," according to a new report released by the ICFTU Monday that urges the WTO to work closely with the International Labor Organization (ILO) to ensure that core labor rights, including the right to organize independent unions, are respected in the zones.

"Globalization has the potential to bring prosperity to people across the world, but today's crude, free market globalization is pushing standards down and leading to massive exploitation," said the ICFTU's General Secretary, Guy Ryder, who will be observing the Cancun meeting. "The absence of effective multilateral trade rules to support the standards set by the ILO cannot be allowed to continue, yet governments are refusing to even allow the WTO and the ILO to work together on the problem."

...more...

[Iverson]

1. my take is anti-globalization

Any institution that can nullify a sovereign state's labor laws in a secret tribunal needs some serious changing. There are many other criticisms to make too that are not explicitly related to labor rights.

This is true regardless of whether Gen. Clark is involved.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. "nullify a sovereign state's labor laws in a secret tribunal"

thanks for pointing that out

[cherryperry]

2. My take is Kucinich's take:

If he is elected (yeah, right), he promises to get us out of NAFTA & WTO the first day of his presidency.

(Please, I'm begging you, Will, don't tell me to start a thread on that - LOL!)


:evilgrin: :toast:

[aneerkoinos]

9. US getting out of WTO

would be very bad. I doubt Kucinich would do that. It would mean US pissing on the world once again and not carrying it's global responsibility.

I know Kucinich don't support current WTO policies, but that's a different story. WTO can be transformed to serve the people, and fair global trade is not possible without global institution to regulate it.

[rbnyc]

33. I'll let Dennis answer that.

Q: You state that one of your first acts as President will be to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA and the WTO and institute a regime of “fair trade agreements.” Do you believe that our global trade partners will be receptive to such a regime, given that almost by definition those agreements will be fairer to us than to them? Or will we instead see a return to the bad old days of preferential tariffs and trade wars, which the WTO was created to try to prevent? Or even worse, would withdrawal merely accelerate the migration of trade from our country to other countries with more open trade practices? Would we not then be hoist by our own petard?

A: We are now being hoisted on the petard of NAFTA and the WTO. America’s trade policies have been dictated by powerful multinational corporations whose flag is not red white and blue, but green with a dollar sign. Our nation is approaching a $500 billion trade deficit, which represents a genuine threat, not only to our economy, but to our Democracy. Global corporations have used the United States to help create a multinational trading arrangement which denies both American workers and workers of other nations the protections of basic labor law. NAFTA and the WTO were written specifically to preclude the enforcement of rights to organize, collective bargaining, strike, rights to safe work place, and right to a secure retirement. This enabled corporations to move jobs out of America to places where workers have no protections. NAFTA and the WTO have facilitated a race to the bottom in terms of wages and workers rights generally. The WTO essentially locked in the NAFTA trading regime by making any attempts to modify the basis of trade WTO-illegal.

The question is not whether or not America trades with the world, the questions are what are the rules of the game. And America is claimed by rules which are rigged against us. I have said that I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO in order to return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles being written into our trade agreements with other nations. The is the only way that we can stop corporations from coercing wage concessions or breaking United States unions. This is the only way that we can re-empower the hopes of people of all nations for a better standard of living and for control of the institutions of their own governments.

This issue reflects not mere differences of opinion within our party but a great divide. On one side of the divide stands global corporations and their political supporters. On the other side stands workers and their supporters. I stand resolutely with America’s workers and with those peoples of the world who are also striving for human dignity. I will continue to challenge all other Democratic candidates on this issue to see whose side they stand on so that the American people can clearly see whose side they’re on. It’s not enough to say you’re going to fix NAFTA and the WTO, the only way to fix it to exercise the withdrawal provisions of both laws and return to bilateral trade, conditioned on workers rights, human rights and environmental quality principles.

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001421.shtml

[aneerkoinos]

48. Kucinich in wrong

His position is well meaning but extremely naive, paternalistic and unpragmatic. He should listen to people and leaders of third world and NGO's involved in development policies, what they want, and engage them in dialogue, instead of dictating them from a moral high ground. They wan't to change WTO, not shoot it down.

What is very peculiar is that Kucinich don't understand the bargaining power US has in WTO, especially if US would reverse it policy and start supporting progressive globalization in WTO and elsewhere. This change of heart would not meet lot of opposition, it would be very wellcomed. He seems to come from a unilateralist, isolationist tradition of thinking, not giving a dam about what the rest of the world thinks. Basically he's nostalgic romantic with his head buried in sand, but globalization is here and now and it can't be reversed, and basically it is a good thing. One world.

Bilateral "fair trade" policy won't change a thing. Not even Kucinich can guarantee that he would not use bilateral trade for questionable political ends, which has been the American way of doing business for ages. Changing the world for the better through bilateral treaties is a pipe dream, there will be never enough global legitimacy to make any real difference. There is no fair trade if the rules are dictated by the big guy in bilateral negotiations, only place where also the small guys can have some say are the global multilateral institutions like WTO, which is, by the way, more democratic than UN.

[Mairead]

54. What we can be totally sure of is that a secret, unelected triumvirate

should not have the power to overturn national or local laws in a democracy. That is the antithesis of how things should work and it stinks. There is absolutely NOTHING you can say that will make it stink less.

[aneerkoinos]

58. What do you mean by

secret, unelected triumvirate?

Certainly not WTO. It's not secret; elected governements (and some unelected) negotiate and decide; certainly not triumvirate, there are more than three men and even some women involved ;). Like I said, WTO is more democratic than UN, every country has a veto power.

I support shared sovereignity (well I am from EU), and that's what WTO is or rather should be about, shared sovereignity.

[Mairead]

66. Yes, the WTO Dispute Settlement Panel is an undemocratic triumvirate

From the WTO site: "All WTO members may participate in all councils, committees, etc, except Appellate Body, Dispute Settlement panels, Textiles Monitoring Body, and plurilateral committees."

In other words: everyone can take part, except in final decisions.

[alarimer]

63. he is right

That global corporations have no loyalty to any country. They move their headquarters offshore to avoid paying taxes. We have seen recently that they are exporting jobs. They are even leaving Mexico, now that workers in the maquiladoras have gotten a few basic rights, because they want cheaper, almost slave labor. Corporations are EVIL. We need to reform WTO and NAFTA to ensure that basic human rights are enforced and environmental laws are also enforced. I think "free trade" is bad for everyone. Corporations need to be held accountable. Or else all workers the world over need unions.

[JVS]

3. I need to know what Clark thinks about it first.

;-)

Actually, I think that workers rights are far more important than globalizing the economy.

[WilliamPitt]

4. You should start a thread about it

We're down to 13 Clark threads...dangerously low.

[Ardee]

60. Sarcasm is lost ...unless you are serious....(shudder)

Leaving the WTO, ending NAFTA and GATT and attempting a policy of protectionism for the American worker are acts much akin to attempting to close Pandora's box once opened.

For hundreds of years workers have been exploited, resources have been looted, exportation has been carried on like colonial powers granting largesse to the poor, while ensuring huge profits for this supposed largesse.

The working people of the world are entitled to jobs, dignity, security, safe working conditions and a future for themselves and their children, these guarrantees are not just for the american worker while we turn our backs on the treatment of those in poorer nations...need I mention Bhopal, India to anyone here?

Rather than destroy the mechanisms for dialogue and the instruments for change we must alter the nature of these groups, end the stranglehold of international corporations on foreign policies and trade accords, tarrifs, subsidies and the wage scales world wide.We must realise that there is such a thing as the global economy, that the USA has been losing manufacturing jobs for decades, that advocating protectionism is really isolationism and an attempt to return to the fifties, it just aint gonna happen!

[FlemingsGhost]

5. I'm all for the latter. (n/t)

Dems

[ulysses]

6. workers' rights are paramount.

Globalization will happen in some form - the only question concerns that form. It doesn't have to be bad (in fact it can be a great good), but any negotiations based on a document that doesn't seriously address the rights of the people actually doing the work are by definition not representative and should be scrapped and started over.

[VelmaD]

7. I wanta go...

and hang out at a sunny Mexican resport sipping margaritas and plotting to destroy the rights of working people all over the world. Somebody quick, tell me how to join the WTO. *rolls eyes*

When I think of those smarmy bastards shmoozing in Cancun while so many people around the world work for next to nothing and don't have the word "vacation" in their vocabulary it makes me nuts.

[ulysses]

8. seven posts?

Surely we can do better for Will, y'all.

:kick:

[aneerkoinos]

10. Why should they be mutually exclusive?

I support globalizing workers rights through WTO and/or other multilateral democratic institution - whatever works.

But how about US and UK first giving unions full rights?

[rman]

52. they shouldn't but they are

globalization as it is being implemented is all about corporations rights.

[MrPrax]

11. Dangerous Reasoning...

Same sell-out nonsense at Seattle by the AFL-CIA...
""The absence of effective multilateral trade rules to support the standards set by the ILO cannot be allowed to continue, yet governments are refusing to even allow the WTO and the ILO to work together on the problem."

Huh....even within countries that have national, legal and organized trade unions and labor laws, Capital ignores them, undermines legal collective agreements, uses scabs/union-busters, fires dissents, buys off politicos to change overtime laws...

Are these labor bosses serious?

We could do much better going back to sectoral agreements in trade, tying 'rights' to trade and hitting up the exploiters with tariffs to nullify their competitve edge on cheap labor...pay a decent dollar and your products are welcome, if your products are 'bloody slavery', then sell them to your 'pals' and see just how far your country will advance...
What is so wrong about self-sufficiency strategies anyhow...other than the fact global capital hates them and wants to be free from national standards.

History has proven that free markets don't exist

Hey Hey Ho Ho Globalism has got to go!!

[cherryperry]

12. You betcha! n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. yes to tariffs on slave made products

It's more immoral than buying stolen goods which is a felony in the US. Agreed, the least we can do is put tariffs on these products to take away whatever profit they are trying to get from slave labor. I mean, if we are going to buy slave labor products anyway.

[Yupster]

13. Exporting jobs

I guess exporting jobs is a form of globalization.

I think exporting jobs is a tremendously serious problem for the US. It pushes down our standard of living.

I want to hear candidates address this with some realistic ideas, because I haven't heard any yet.

If not addressed, the problem will eventually correct itself.

When our standard of living falls to the level of India's or the Philippines, then there will be no advantage for companies to move jobs away.

[KoKo]

14. NO! NO! NO! Globilization...........NO!

Too Emphatic? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Once again!

[sandnsea]

15. We all go up together

I'm for the concept of investment in foreign countries. But not the way it's being done now. It doesn't lift the workers and it doesn't create a local entrepreneurship. Bottom up economics, that's what works and that's the approach we ought to take. We can't leave the bulk of the world to sit in poverty, it's morally wrong and creates anger towards the U.S. as well. We also can't allow US corporations to take their turn-of-the-century labor practices to these countries either. We're going to need a real leader on this issue, who understands how to reinvigorate the US economy while protecting workers overseas and also understands how to build local small business, both here and overseas. It's going to take someone with a thorough knowledge of global cultures, business and corporate malfeasance, but who has also been a steadfast supporter of labor, families and the poor. There sure is alot facing us, globalization, energy, environment, terrorism, economy, health care. Alot.

[aneerkoinos]

22. I agree

This is not a null sum game. If "exporting" jobs is done in a way that gradually leads to better living standards for the masses in developing countries, this also creates huge new markets that also benefit the better educated workers in developed countries. This is already happening, Chinese like their BMW's as much as the next person, and it is the only real growing market for posh European exports.

There is one all important limiting factor though, limited natural resources and fragile ecological balance of our world. Therefore global taxation on energy (carbon tax) and use of other resources is absolute priority, to guide production into more healthy and sustainable direction. Money collected through these taxes can be put to good use to build global cohesion.

Even with political will, all this is going to take lot of time and we must be ready to accept very slow growth or no growth at all untill the playing field is more even, and while waiting, distribute also our riches more evenly among ourselves.

[sandnsea]

24. Consumerism and resources

Yes, the entire world cannot consume at the rate the US consumes. The real problem with globalization in the end, like you say. Clean, sustainable energy really does have to be a central theme of any sort of economic globalization plan and new conservation efforts here at home. Some sort of new communal culture will have to result, we can't have dog eat dog and expect to continue to prosper with limited resources. Like most things though, we probably won't get there without numerous crises along the way.

[Wetzelbill]

30. yeah, hell yeah, add this to my take and you have my exact sentiments

[sspiderjohn]

16. Ask the sweatshop kids in Guatemala and Pakistan --

Their answer is my answer.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

17. i agree with this aspect of it..."it SHOULD bring prosperity"

"Globalization has the potential to bring prosperity to people across the world, but today's crude, free market globalization is pushing standards down and leading to massive exploitation,"

sadly though it hasn't

[baldguy]

18. Sanctions against US

Think about. US corps work their employees to death, we get practically no vacation, get comparatively few benefits, no guaranteed healthcare, no guaranteed pension - and forget about job security!

All of these things are standard in every other western industrialized democracy on the planet. By allowing workers to be treated like shit, America has an unfair economic advantage over our trading partners in Europe, Canada, and Japan. Where’s the WTO?

[aneerkoinos]

23. You forgot

high standard free education. If US gives best education only to the people whose daddies can pay for it, it will not utilize it's human potential to the best effect and will keep bleeding jobs.

That's the competitive edge for highly technological countries of Europe, Canada and Japan and other Asian countries over US. US poorly educated labor can't compete with China & Co, and on jobs requiring very good education US has been dependant on imported labor, but is now facing increasing competition with other importers and also well educated people are increasingly staying in their native countries.

IMO privatized and expensive higher education is the number one Achilles heel of US economy. Surprisingly this does not seem to be big issue in the elections.

[sandnsea]

28. It's being discussed

Both Kerry and Edwards are making college educations major issues in their campaigns. And they are tying it into the global economy as well. Kerry specifically talks about Bush being an anti-science President and tries to explain how technology and education are the only things that will keep the US competitive. So it is being discussed, it's just the war and NAFTA lead to lots of finger pointing and people like that better.

[aneerkoinos]

35. Thanks for the info

Hopefully this topic picks on sometime during the campaign.

[sweetheart]

19. to be honest, Will, i don't know.

world trade should be "fair". that is my mantra that i repeat from my ideological bible... but what is that?

World trade now has more human beings in slavery, really slavery... than ever before... good tidings? no.

The root of life is the farm that feeds sustainably... government needs to support this with a global framework that puts no more hardship on the indian farmer in orissa than the american farmer in indiana... that is fair... you cut the pizza, and i'll pick the slice.

[Deja Q]

21. Given how American corporations want to control globalizaion for their own

greediness, I am pure anti-globalization.

In a FAIR reality, I would be for globalization that was regulated.

But I've seen for too long the evil that is "deregulation" and the inhuman bastards who support it.

There will be no such thing as regulated globalization. It'll be American corporations, as an Imperial Empire, screwing the lives of EVERYBODY around the world.

It is evil.

If we allow globalization and a Dem gets elected, there might be a chance. But the instant a repuke takes office, say "BYE BYE" to regulation.

FUCK GLOBALIZATION! And not in the good way!

[aneerkoinos]

29. You are right

that US is the biggest global problem, blocking all progressive globalization - but certainly not the only problem. Sadly, the future of the planet is for many years the come in the hands of YOU the people. I sincerely hope you can pull of the needed revolution. Real domocracy in US instead of nominal democracy, actual plutocracy, would be a good start.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. bump

[Wetzelbill]

27. Globalization as a concept is great, however......

for it to begin to work properly discernible standards need to be set. We need to incorporate a viable living wage, environmental standards, worker conditions, unions and other basic standards. As of now, globalization is little more than laissez-fair, supply-side economic bullshit that is hijacked by a small group of elites who are staunch practitioners of Enronomics. Good luck having this happen anytime soon, unless we have a Kucinich presidency.

[sandnsea]

34. Well, hon

I was talking about John Kerry. If people bothered to look past one vote, they'd see he has done more for the American people in the last year than almost anybody else in Congress. On every single issue I mentioned. From education to the environment to small business to women's rights to families to labor, he's been actively involved in writing and sponsoring legislation to make this country significantly better than it would have been without him.

[Wetzelbill]

36. I love Kerry

but on this topic Dennis is the only candidate to say he would withdraw from NAFTA and the WTO. In the New Mexico debate, Kerry disagreed with Kucinich about withrawing from NAFTA, but, in order, to change it you have to do so. Changing NAFTA rules is WTO illegal, so unless a candidate commits to withdraw, then they are really just giving lip service to this issue. It makes a good stump topic, but nobody else is willing to commit to honest change. Regardless, I think Kerry is a helluva man and would make a great president, either way.

[sandnsea]

39. I don't know

I don't think we can all go up together if we withdraw from trade. We can't go backward, we have to fix the process, respect other nations and move forward. So while I agree with the pure liberalism of Kucinich, I think the practical way Kerry implements liberalism is what makes him the better candidate. But I love Dennis too. He's speaking the truth on health care, we're going to have to get profit out of it sooner or later. Unfortunately, we're probably going to have to have children dieing in the streets before people become willing to change. That's just America, if it ain't broke don't fix it. And by the time we realize something is broke, well we've got airplanes flying into buildings. That's how dense we are.

[quaker bill]

40. I look past one vote

and I agree that Kerry would make a much better President.

But that one vote, it was a big one for folks on the front lines opposing this war.

Guess what, we had it right, (our little focus groug of 15 million). Every one of them that voted for this mess, whether fooled, lied to, or doing it for political expediency, had it wrong.

I will grant that Kerry is a decent man who has done a great number of good things. If he is the nominee, I will donate, vote, and volunteer for him. But, I still don't buy his line on this vote.

[sandnsea]

50. Read the speech

Have you read his speech from last October? I'll get you the link if you haven't. But if you have, which I would hope, I don't see how you can say it's a line. He was clear on why he thought Saddam was a threat and it had to do with the years of inspections, not just what Bush was saying. He was also clear on what he thought the purpose of any war ought to be and clear on how the situation should be handled. He went into more detail on Iraq than any candidate and more than anybody I've seen write or speak on it, with the possible exception of Wes Clark. He would probably say he was right too because he knew if this wasn't handled exactly right it would be a mess. You can get that from his speech too.

And as I've said elsewhere, anti-war people had suspicions that ended up being right. They couldn't KNOW unless they're clairvoyant. But they just as well could have been wrong. That's the part they won't admit. That's the part John Kerry had to consider in making his vote, what if Saddam did rebuild his weapons programs as even Scott Ritter said he was likely to do. If we'd lifted sanctions a year ago, we could still have a mess in Iraq and the ME, a very different kind of mess. And I never get an answer from anybody on what Howard or Dennis would have done in order to get the inspectors into Iraq so sanctions could be lifted for the Iraqi people. It's not enough for a President to be against something, he has to have viable solutions to put in its place.

[buddhamama]

31. worker's rights are human rights

are civil rights.

for the record i am not anti-globalization i am anti-Free trade.

we're already globalized that ain't going to change.

i just wish that corporations, HAH! Government would globalize Human Rights,Justice,enviromental protections and a number of other liberties.

The same situation that has gone on here in our Nation past and present is taking place in other countries. We the People are being sold off to the *lowest* bidder. Our *Rights* Our *Resources* mean nothing when there is money to be made.

[JanMichael]

41. Capital has no conscience. Protections are needed.

With you a 100% on this one.

[Pepperbelly]

32. worker's rights are just like environmental concerns for practical ...

purposes because if reciprocation in worker rights and environmental regs are not souhgt, gained, and enforced, the hemorraging of US jobs will continue and the globalization and trade will hurt Americans rather than helping them.

If the companies can go overseas and pay people shit wages while simultaneously being allowed to pollute at will, they will ALWAYS go overseas to avoid the regulation and the expenses. The solution to that is to make those who want to trade with us reciprocate with comparable wages and regulations so the corporations will have no particular reason to relocate American jobs.

[Nederland]

37. I'm for worker's rights

...provided by worker's rights you mean the right to organize, not the right to get paid $30 an hour for doing something that take two hours to learn how to do.

As the recent WTO walkout by the group of 20+ has demonstrated, the key problem today is the reluctance of 1st world countries to allow 3rd world countries to compete on a level playing field. Despite their lofty rhetoric, 1st world countries insist on keeping poor countries from engaging in the only thing that many of them can engage in: agriculture.

[buddhamama]

38. okay i gotta beef

it takes yrs to work up to getting paid $30 an hour even if you are union member, so an employee is getting for experience,skill,loyalty,etc.

and damn, $30 an hour is not a lot of money when you think about.
take out taxes,SS,healthcare,cost of living-there's not a heck of a lot left over. nobody is getting rich on $30 an hour.

how do you know it only takes two hours to learn how do it?
"check out the big brain on Brad"
would you do it?
i'd ask what you make a year but that would be in poor taste.
do you work hard, and do you feel you're making what you 'should'?

[Nederland]

56. Answers

All I can go from is my own experience.

In 1987 I was home from college for the summer. I got a job running a plastic injection molding machine at Eastman Kodak in Rochester, NY. I walked in my first day and had about an hour explanation of how to work the machines, and then another hour of actually doing the work by myself while the supervisor watched to make sure I really understood everything. After that and for the rest of the summer, I was on my own. Since I was summer help temp, I got paid $6 an hour, but the regular guys made between $25 and $35 an hour. Needless to say, the regular guys weren't exactly enthralled with me because they viewed me as taking one of "their" jobs.

Personally, I don't think you can determine what a person "should" make. You make whatever you can negotiate for. If a bunch of union guys band together and manage to squeeze 20, 30, 40 bucks an hour out of the man, then good for them. However, what I do object to is the idea that they are entitled to that kind of money. When you do the kind of job I described above, making the kind of money I described above, you cannot expect competition to not come in and take advantage of your high wages. It is simply unrealistic to think that you should continue to get $30 an hour to do something that a guy in Malaysia is perfectly capable of doing for far far less.

I hear a lot of people here complain about the wage gap between the rich and poor inside the United States. These complaints are valid. There is little evidence that a CEO making 400 times the wage of his/her workers does a better job than one making the more traditional 40 times wages. A huge gap like this is simply not fair and more importantly, not sustainable. Likewise, the huge gap that exists between US manufacturing wages and foreign manufacturing wages is not fair and not sustainable.

In the long run the only way that the working people of the world are going to be able to extract good wages out of corporations is if they band together on a global scale. The problem is, right now the guy in Malaysia is never going to band together with the union guy in America who seems to imply that he should get to keep his high paying job while the Malaysian guy wallows in poverty. The only way you are going to see these two guys come together is if their wages are close enough to each other that they share a common goals. Right now, the guy in America is trying to figure out how he can afford college for his kids and the guy in Malaysia is trying to figure out how afford food for his kids. The gap is simply too great to think that these two people will ever try to work together.

What needs to happen therefore, is global wage parity. It is naive to expect global wages to rise to the same level as US wages without some sacrifice by US workers. The only way we will see parity is if US wages come down and foreign wages come up. Once they reach parity, they can start to rise together. In the meantime, first world workers need to realize that it is selfish to be complaining about lack of good dental care while workers in the rest of the world can't feed their kids. We must take care of the poorest among us first, then address our own desires.

[buddhamama]

61. Nederland,

i don't have the time right now to give your post the consideration it deserves, i apologize.

with further explanation though, i would say that you and i agree on many points.

thank you for your thoughtful post. :thumbsup:

[Nikia]

42. Worker's rights

I may be old fashioned, but i always favor people over money.

[David Zephyr]

43. Globalization is a Euphemism for Slave Labor & Enviornmental Crimes

along with the undermining of American workers, manufacturers and our standard of living.

[Armstead]

44. "Free Trade" is a scam. WTO is an elitist Mafia.

International commerce is a good thing. But the model of "free trade" that has been shoved down the throat of the world by the ruling class is a scam. It is merely a global version of the domestic right-wing GOP policies that liberals and Democrats are supposed to be against.

It is the Emperor's New Clothes. The fact that so many of the DLC Republicans -- including Clinton -- have pushed for this alongside the conservatives is a central, core reason for the current schism on our side of the political spectrum.

Until Democrats start acting like liberals and oppose these policies that screw workers here and abroad the party is doomed to irrelevancy.

I hope I'm not being too subtle here. :)

[aneerkoinos]

46. On this side of the pond

it's the liberals that support unregulated "free" trade. Too bad social democrats is a dirty word in US.

[rman]

53. that's because in EU "liberal" means the opposite of what it means in US

not sure about the UK, where "liberal democrats" won a some small election on an anti-war agenda. But ie in The Netherlands "liberal" ("liberaal") is equivalent to Right Wing. And yes obviously the Right is all for this 'free trade' thing.

[aneerkoinos]

65. Not exactly opposite

The crude difference between traditional liberal and conservative parties is that while both support market oriented economic policies in varying degree, liberals are social liberals, pro individual liberties and less phobic of "otherness". Conservatives are of course social conservatives, "family values" etc.

I'd say Dean would be considered liberal on both sides of the pond.

Neoliberals are different thing, they are Thatcherites and Reaganites, basically market fundamentalist or blind supporters of orthodox 19th century economic theory. Neoliberalism has affected all political parties on left and right, mainly because IMF-WB-WTO led economic globalization has been strictly following the neoliberal orthodox economic ideology, and all political movements have to face the challenging reality created by globalization. Before Seattle and World Social Forums there has been no real opposition against this development, no creative alternatives, all traditional political parties have been at loss, which has lead to frustration in politics and huge cost to legitimity of representatative democracy.

[InkAddict]

45. Grand-scale global competition=no competition

when the top 1% fix the prices and raise the bar beyond the best of the pole vaulters, bury the better mousetraps, and accept corporate lies and/or errors of neglect by their peers with the aid and abetting of government. Those leaders are often seen as the epitome of philantrophy though they're probably just artful at the social aspects of golf, able to spin a real good yarn in the pub, burns the midnight oil with greedy whoring consultants that offer ways to break and/or twist the laws of the land, and blackmail their plans into fruition. This group must continously have chaos somewhere in the world to prove how skillful they are at making money from the sale of fear and hence, the tiniest germs to the most humongous bombs (both bigger and smaller than a breadbox). They must have that devilishly charming charisma to effectively oppress and subdue the workers/consumers necessary to effect their never-satiated skim. It seems these folks just intend to continue to manipulate, merge, and continuously downsize until they financially, psychologically, and perhaps even physically kill off their best resource, the workers. They're a bunch of bullies who consider the world their private "company store."

[KT2000]

47. Check out an ex-OSHA official's site

http://spewingforth.blogspot.com
This is an ex-OSHA official's web site about what is really going on with worker safety.
We are headed toward the lowest denominator on worker safety as Bush policy in this country, but will sink further to compete - this is just one of the many stories of exploitation in China

"SHANGSHAN, China - The oxygen tank at Wu Shengfu's side fills his scarred lungs with enough air to breathe but not enough to talk for long about why, at 48 years old, he will be dying soon.

His friends do their best to help explain, even at the risk of being harassed by police, because many of them too will succumb to an early death. Slowly, the men of this village in central China are dying, and the local authorities here, having profited from their labors, would prefer that they die in silence.

****

Without much supervision from local authorities, Wu and other villagers worked seven days a week drilling into the rock on Earth Dragon Mountain to mine gold ore for the government and, furtively, for themselves. They also breathed in huge amounts of white dust - silica from quartz - because they weren't wearing masks or any other protective equipment.

The dust was everywhere, Wu's friends said, so thick sometimes that one couldn't see a fellow miner a few feet away. It would sit in their lungs for years until the miners, one by one, developed silicosis, an incurable lung disease."

[MrPrax]

49. Globalization is not proper English

The root 'global' is a synonym for total...but since totalization or 'TOTALITARIANISM' has a bad connotation...
we must come up with a new word...globalization...not to be confused with totalism or 'colonialism' or 'imperialism'...

Sorta like 'gaming' is not really 'gambling'

go for it...sounds good...you might WIN

[Iverson]

51. Hwaet!

I don't see what's improper. Globalization is a shortening of economic globalization, in the sense of establishing a dominant economic order around the globe. That is clearly the aim. Even the names of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank suggest a worldwide context.

If this is a usage problem, could you explain further?

[gdwill]

59. That's an erroneous comparison...

Globalization is the world-wide presence of private organizations which individuals are free to come and go from as they please.

Totalitarianism is the total control of the individual by the state.

(Total-totalitarianism would be the world-wide presense of the state with total control over every individual on earth).


Quit being dishonest.

[Kamika]

55. i used to be heavily pro globalisation, but it wont work yet

I used to be very pro since it would help farmers etc in the poor countries. But i come to realize it will NOT work until those countries all have experienced labour unions etc.

If we continue in this track globalisation will not help the poor countries, it will take jobs from our country, and will only serve to make people in india china etc work for slave wages.


Once india, china, etc etc has labour laws, real minimum wage up to par with ours and so i will support globalisation again

[gdwill]

57. Without globalization there wouldn't be any workers...

...in many countries. They'd just die or starvation and we wouldn't be talking about their rights then.

[Iverson]

64. The problem with this argument ...

... is that it requires the underlying assumption that economic globalization is benevolent in order to reach the conclusion that economic globalization is benevolent.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. For example, in dirt-poor Bolivia, economic globalization was the motivator for the effort to privatize Cochabamba's water supply. It would be priced beyond what the peasants could afford and sold to those woh could, such as Argentina (at the time) and other South American countries. Riots stopped this plan.

Now, under the rules of the new world order of economic globalization, Cochabamba is getting sued by the conglomerate that would have privatized the water for the profits that they say they would have made.

Taking water away from peasants is no way to ensure that they stay alive. From my unacceptably far-left viewpoint, it attempts the exact opposite. I call it madness.

If anyone can come up with a concrete example (not a platitude or generality) about how this saves people from starvation, I am interested to read it.

[BigMcLargehuge]

62. good post will, kicking for the late morning readers

:kick:

[SOteric]

67. First, -Do no harm.

Much like the oath uttered by physicians, -do no harm.

If it is the case that some form of globalisation is inevitable, and I believe that likely this is the case, then we need to take a lesson from the early Catholics. Perhaps there is a greater wrong in bouncing happily into a little understood culture and offering to slay their dragons according to our own arrogant, self-absorbed perspective.

Maybe it's less about the inner-workings of our political and economic machines and more about some other country's rights to identity and self-determination.

I'd like to see some version of an economic, socio-cultural impact statement with remediation plans that made requirement of serious intention to enhance a budding culture rather than bugger it for profit.

[angka]

68. a system built on inequality

why do millions work in, for example, the maquiladora factories lining the southern border of the US?

because they will be paid less. if they were paid equally, there would be no maquiladora factories. it is an artificial manipulation of international borders, every bit as much as the trade barriers globalizers decry.

it is pure colonialism, and one of the chief reasons the developed world is hated by poor peoples.