[insha]

Can someone here please tell me how "globalization" is suppose to be good for the people from poor (or 3rd world/underdeveloped) countries?

A friend of mine keeps preaching about how it "will benefit the masses", to me and I can't seem to make him understand that how wrong he is in his assessments.

I think globalization will squeeze the poor out of what little they already have and put more on the plates of the people whom already have too much on their plates.

[BRussell]

Jobs, money, increased standard of living. You know, Econ 101.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by insha:
Can someone here please tell me how "globalization" is suppose to be good for the people from poor (or 3rd world/underdeveloped) countries?

A friend of mine keeps preaching about how it "will benefit the masses", to me and I can't seem to make him understand that how wrong he is in his assessments.

I think globalization will squeeze the poor out of what little they already have and put more on the plates of the people whom already have too much on their plates.

Can you explain how globalization won't be good?

[nonhuman]

Hell, sweatshops are good for people that work in them, economically speaking. They're getting paid more than they would have been otherwise.

I have no doubt that globalization can do great things for the global economy. I just couldn't give two shits about the global economy. There are much more important things to worry about, like the people involved in and trampled by that economy.

[insha]

So what about the millions of people rallying against the WTO; are they just stupid people who have nothing better to do then protest or these people actually know something that is not being told in the US?

So then why would people like, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist from India, pointed out, "Globalization isn't new, we in the Third World are very familiar with it. We used to call it colonization."?

Are they just ****ing with the world powers or there is some truth to this statement?

I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

[insha]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Hell, sweatshops are good for people that work in them, economically speaking. They're getting paid more than they would have been otherwise.
<SNIP>

I'm sorry, but I don't think "sweatshops" are good for anything. It maybe that they are getting paid more but if you look at the big picture, the value of "extra" money that they are earning is less than the "little" money they were earning before. At least that is how it was explained to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by insha:
So what about the millions of people rallying against the WTO; are they just stupid people who have nothing better to do then protest or these people actually know something that is not being told in the US?

Just because millions of people support something doesn't on it's own mean that they're right. There are millions of Christians in this world, millions of Muslims and millions of Buddhists; who's right?

Originally posted by insha:
So then why would people like, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist from India, pointed out, "Globalization isn't new, we in the Third World are very familiar with it. We used to call it colonization."?

Just because an environmental activist says globalization is the same as colonization doesn't mean that it is.

I'm not saying that globalization is a good or a bad thing. All I'm saying is that I need a little more evidence beyond being told that it's a good or a bad thing.

[Troll]

Go out and get a copy of No Logo by Naomi Klein. It's a bit of a tedious read (seems written for the lowest denominator guy) but it does set out the anti-globalisation manifesto thoroughly. Basically, globalisation, like many of the -ations and -isms is not bad in theory, but in practice, it has been abused and has only lead to greater gaps between the rich and poor of this world.

[thunderous_funker]

Good or bad, globalization is inevitable. The question is how to implement, regulate, oversee, etc to insure that we accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

In short, any globalization policy should essentially strive towards one thing: enabling the emergence of a viable middle class in the developing world. If it fails to do that, it will be self-defeating in the long term.

That is what makes sweatshots counter-productive.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by insha:
I'm sorry, but I don't think "sweatshops" are good for anything. It maybe that they are getting paid more but if you look at the big picture, the value of "extra" money that they are earning is less than the "little" money they were earning before. At least that is how it was explained to me.

If they're getting paid more, then they have more money to spend. If more money is being spend, the economy grows. Therefore sweatshops are good for the economy, and if the economy grows, then things are economically better for the people who participate in that economy. So globalization is good for those sweatshop workers, it's just only good for them in the context of globalization (very circular and, ironically, closed-off way of thinking it would seem).

Whether or not this is actually good for them is open to debate. I would tend to say no.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Good or bad, globalization is inevitable. The question is how to implement, regulate, oversee, etc to insure that we accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

In short, any globalization policy should essentially strive towards one thing: enabling the emergence of a viable middle class in the developing world. If it fails to do that, it will be self-defeating in the long term.

That is what makes sweatshots counter-productive.

I don't understand why every makes such a big deal about the existence of a middle class. In order for there to be a middle class, there has to be a lower class, there's no getting around that. It's just another level of inequity.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by insha:
So what about the millions of people rallying against the WTO; are they just stupid people who have nothing better to do then protest or these people actually know something that is not being told in the US?

So then why would people like, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist from India, pointed out, "Globalization isn't new, we in the Third World are very familiar with it. We used to call it colonization."?

Are they just ****ing with the world powers or there is some truth to this statement?

I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

It's funny, because I have basically the same feeling as you, but on the other side. I've never really heard a convincing argument against "globalization," and for the life of me I just can't understand what the protesters are protesting against.

Globalization is basically just freeing up trade. For example, if you reduce taxes on goods coming into the US from Mexico, more Americans will buy Mexican products, and therefore there will be more jobs available to Mexicans. Then Mexicans have more money, and they can buy more US goods, providing more jobs to Americans.

Free trade or globalization is simply market liberalization, or capitalism, for the world. If you believe in free markets in your own country, it's hard for me to see how you can't believe in free trade between countries.

Yeah, countries should have labor laws and environmental standards and such. But I don't see how globalization makes that less likely to occur than it was before. If India has an environmental problem, and God knows they do, why don't they do something about it? Who's stopping them? How is free trade preventing them from doing something?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I don't understand why every makes such a big deal about the existence of a middle class. In order for there to be a middle class, there has to be a lower class, there's no getting around that. It's just another level of inequity.

Are talking about the ideals of a classless society? Sounds great. I'm just not convinced there is any way to get there from here.

[macintologist]

If there's one thing I hate about socialism it's PROTECTIONISM

Imported products shouldn't be more expensive just for the hell of it! Where I live, imported products are ALWAYS better quality than the local crap, but there just has to be an enormous tarriff on all imported goods. But this even applies to products where there are no locally competing products, like computer stuff! Protectionism is for an insecure paranoid society. The reason things are cheap in the United States is because there are little if no tarriffs on the goods. Let's free the world of protectionism and buy goods for their worth rather than their origin!

I'm all for free trade!

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah, countries should have labor laws and environmental standards and such. But I don't see how globalization makes that less likely to occur than it was before. If India has an environmental problem, and God knows they do, why don't they do something about it? Who's stopping them? How is free trade preventing them from doing something?

Because under the current formalation of the GTO, labor and environmental standards are considered trade barriers and can be struck down by the GTO, regardless of what their population or government says.

This is not a gross hypothetical. It is already the case.

Now consider NAFTA Chapter 11 (not a bankrupcy clause) which states that "wronged parties" can sue for redress against governments for such "barriers". In other words, when Canada bans a gasoline additive for being a known carcinogen, the US company that produces it can appeal to NAFTA to have the Canadian law overruled (regardless of their democratic process or sovreignty) and then sue Canada for the money they lost from not being allowed to sell their cancer causing additive.

Think I'm making this up? It already happened

Right now one of the biggest issues before the GTO is adding NAFTA Chapter 11 style "protections" to extend them beyond North America.

So if you like the idea of some 3 member Star Panel, closed to the public and immune from appeal empowered to strike down the democratically established laws of sovereign nations for and on behalf of multinationals, by all means support the GTO.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Are talking about the ideals of a classless society? Sounds great. I'm just not convinced there is any way to get there from here.

I agree, I just don't see why a middle class is such a great thing.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by macintologist:
If there's one thing I hate about socialism it's PROTECTIONISM

Imported products shouldn't be more expensive just for the hell of it! Where I live, imported products are ALWAYS better quality than the local crap, but there just has to be an enormous tarriff on all imported goods. But this even applies to products where there are no locally competing products, like computer stuff! Protectionism is for an insecure paranoid society. The reason things are cheap in the United States is because there are little if no tarriffs on the goods. Let's free the world of protectionism and buy goods for their worth rather than their origin!

I'm all for free trade!

This is where the interests of the consumer and the interests of the laborer are at odds.

Protectionism is aimed at protecting jobs, first and foremost. Its not some arbitrary thing that we do.

There are no easy answers.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I agree, I just don't see why a middle class is such a great thing.

Political stability.

That has it's own ideological price, but I suggest it is preferable to endless social upheaval.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Because under the current formalation of the GTO, labor and environmental standards are considered trade barriers and can be struck down by the GTO, regardless of what their population or government says.

This is not a gross hypothetical. It is already the case.

Now consider NAFTA Chapter 11 (not a bankrupcy clause) which states that "wronged parties" can sue for redress against governments for such "barriers". In other words, when Canada bans a gasoline additive for being a known carcinogen, the US company that produces it can appeal to NAFTA to have the Canadian law overruled (regardless of their democratic process or sovreignty) and then sue Canada for the money they lost from not being allowed to sell their cancer causing additive.

Think I'm making this up? It already happened

Right now one of the biggest issues before the GTO is adding NAFTA Chapter 11 style "protections" to extend them beyond North America.

So if you like the idea of some 3 member Star Panel, closed to the public and immune from appeal empowered to strike down the democratically established laws of sovereign nations for and on behalf of multinationals, by all means support the GTO.

Interesting. My understanding is that NAFTA and the WTO have a basic premise that countries are free to enact their own laws. This Chapter 11 sounds like someone found a loophole that was really supposed to serve another purpose. If it's causing a problem, it can be re-negotiated. And BTW, I believe that article pulled a little bit of a fast one. I'm pretty certain that this panel can't strike down national laws. They might be able to put pressure on them in such a way that they decide it's better to change their laws rather than pay some damages, and one could argue that that's unfair. But I don't believe they can strike down laws.

As far as liking the idea of a panel overruling democratically established laws, actually, I am all for it. I'm very much in favor of courts and other bodies that are free from political influence and can clean up some of the BS that democracies come up with. I also think it's possible for countries to use false environmental and health issues to engage in protectionism. So I think it is important to have some non-political body capable of handling those kinds of issues when they come up. I'm sure they'll make mistakes, just like any court, but I think it's necessary that such a body exists.

Protectionism is aimed at protecting jobs, first and foremost. Its not some arbitrary thing that we do.

Protectionism can be about protecting corporations, too. If a business isn't competitive, they certainly don't want tariff-free foreign goods coming in to the country to compete with them.

Who benefits more from our ag subsidies, family farmers or big corporations?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Political stability.

That has it's own ideological price, but I suggest it is preferable to endless social upheaval.

Assuming, of course, that endless social upheavel doesn't result in endless social improvement and possibly even stability once some sort of common ground is established (if one exists, that is).

But whether or not that's the case is anyone's guess. It would be an interesting experiment though, essentially the ultimate in social darwininsm. But we'd definitely have to find a different name before anyone would agree to try it out.

I'm not sure I buy that the middle class provides political stability. It certainly provides the appearance of political stability but it seems as though all it's really doing is marginalizing the people who are unhappy and pushing them out of the way in order to focus on the people who are vaguely content. It's just ignoring the problem and probably making it worse for those that are still stuck in the bottom class (the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, and so on). This might be good if it were just a step along the way in a process towards a more equal society, but on it's own I'm not sure it really has any value.

[BlackGriffen]

I just wanted to say that I support what tf has said thus far in this thread 100%.



BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Interesting. My understanding is that NAFTA and the WTO have a basic premise that countries are free to enact their own laws. This Chapter 11 sounds like someone found a loophole that was really supposed to serve another purpose. If it's causing a problem, it can be re-negotiated. And BTW, I believe that article pulled a little bit of a fast one. I'm pretty certain that this panel can't strike down national laws. They might be able to put pressure on them in such a way that they decide it's better to change their laws rather than pay some damages, and one could argue that that's unfair. But I don't believe they can strike down laws.

As far as liking the idea of a panel overruling democratically established laws, actually, I am all for it. I'm very much in favor of courts and other bodies that are free from political influence and can clean up some of the BS that democracies come up with. I also think it's possible for countries to use false environmental and health issues to engage in protectionism. So I think it is important to have some non-political body capable of handling those kinds of issues when they come up. I'm sure they'll make mistakes, just like any court, but I think it's necessary that such a body exists.
Protectionism can be about protecting corporations, too. If a business isn't competitive, they certainly don't want tariff-free foreign goods coming in to the country to compete with them.

Who benefits more from our ag subsidies, family farmers or big corporations?

Yes. The GTO and NAFTA ruling bodies can declare the democratically established laws of a sovreign nation to be in violation of "free trade". If the nation doesn't repeal the law, there are penalties that can be initiated.

As for impartiality, I have serious issues with that idea. First, these "courts" are not accountable to anyone. Secondly, they are not democratically representative. Thirdly, they are not open and transparent. They operate behind closed doors and their judgements are final. Lastly, they do not serve any cause, standard or established code other than "commerce uber alles". Their loyalty is to trade qua trade, business qua business. In essence, to multinationals before people.

In my view, people should always come before profits. Period.

We agree on farm subsidies. I didn't mean to imply that I endorse them. I was just pointing out that they do serve a political purpose and are often defended in the interest of protecting jobs, not merely some arbitrary decision.

There must be a balancing of interests. At no time ever have lasseiz faire economic policies resulted in improving living standards. In fact, the exact opposite is true which is why we have protectionism in the first place.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Assuming, of course, that endless social upheavel doesn't result in endless social improvement and possibly even stability once some sort of common ground is established (if one exists, that is).

But whether or not that's the case is anyone's guess. It would be an interesting experiment though, essentially the ultimate in social darwininsm. But we'd definitely have to find a different name before anyone would agree to try it out.

I'm not sure I buy that the middle class provides political stability. It certainly provides the appearance of political stability but it seems as though all it's really doing is marginalizing the people who are unhappy and pushing them out of the way in order to focus on the people who are vaguely content. It's just ignoring the problem and probably making it worse for those that are still stuck in the bottom class (the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, and so on). This might be good if it were just a step along the way in a process towards a more equal society, but on it's own I'm not sure it really has any value.

Points all well taken.

I think we merely disagree on a matter of degree. When I say social stability, I'm not talking about an absence of civil unrest or discontent. I'm talking about the dissolution of society like you have in sub-saharn Africa into endless civil war and "my-turn-to-oppress" class/culture dictatorships.

So while unrest of the nature of the civil rights movement is healthy and necessary, it is a broad middle class and social mobility that keep general order to prevent the extremes. Even the violence of the civil rights movement or the counter culture movement in the 60's operating within the overal context of an American society that is largely static and cohesive.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Points all well taken.

I think we merely disagree on a matter of degree. When I say social stability, I'm not talking about an absence of civil unrest or discontent. I'm talking about the dissolution of society like you have in sub-saharn Africa into endless civil war and "my-turn-to-oppress" class/culture dictatorships.

So while unrest of the nature of the civil rights movement is healthy and necessary, it is a broad middle class and social mobility that keep general order to prevent the extremes. Even the violence of the civil rights movement or the counter culture movement in the 60's operating within the overal context of an American society that is largely static and cohesive.

A very good point, though I'm still not convinced that a middle class really prevents this. Especially if we're counting on globalism as a vehicle for it. While globalism may improve the economies of poorer countries, they'll still be lower class compared even to the lower classes of richer nations. Unless we take steps to try and equalize the global community we're just going to create a larger lower class that feels all the more oppressed by the middle and high class people of richer nations taking advantage of them to maintain their own wealth at the expense of the now huge lower class.

Seems like that could cause some friction.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not really convinced that globalization will "raise all boats". I just said I thought it was inevitable. In the face of that inevitability, I recommend fighting for codifying some standards that try to raise as many boats as possible.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not really convinced that globalization will "raise all boats". I just said I thought it was inevitable. In the face of that inevitability, I recommend fighting for codifying some standards that try to raise as many boats as possible.

In that we are in complete agreement.

[BRussell]

First, these "courts" are not accountable to anyone. Secondly, they are not democratically representative. Thirdly, they are not open and transparent. They operate behind closed doors and their judgements are final.

This sounds like our Supreme Court. So far so good!

Lastly, they do not serve any cause, standard or established code other than "commerce uber alles". Their loyalty is to trade qua trade, business qua business. In essence, to multinationals before people.

I certainly would agree with you if all those bad things about them are true, but I'm not at all sure they are true. These mediators are simply experts in international law and trade. Are they really evil corporate whores? More likely, they're government civil-service types.

International disputes can arise - one country or business accuses another of engaging in protectionism prohibited by their previous agreements. The other side says "no we aren't." So now what do you do? You have mediators resolve the dispute.

The gas additive and other examples strike me as similar to all the tort reform examples. Sure, they'll make mistakes, or what appear to be mistakes (it wouldn't surprise me if this gas additive had absolutely no negative health consequences), but in the end, you still need some body to resolve disputes. It's not enough to simply say "this was a democratically enacted law" if that law otherwise violates agreements entered into by the country.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not prepared to surrender sovreignty to some undemocratic, unaccountable, unquestionable entity.

I am fundamentally uncomfortable with that idea.

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If they're getting paid more, then they have more money to spend. If more money is being spend, the economy grows. Therefore sweatshops are good for the economy, and if the economy grows, then things are economically better for the people who participate in that economy. So globalization is good for those sweatshop workers, it's just only good for them in the context of globalization (very circular and, ironically, closed-off way of thinking it would seem).

Whether or not this is actually good for them is open to debate. I would tend to say no.

Maybe if Nike installed Air Conditioning systems in their shops, the workers would not sweat as much.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not prepared to surrender sovreignty to some undemocratic, unaccountable, unquestionable entity.

I am fundamentally uncomfortable with that idea.

Now, stop bashing the UN.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Now, stop bashing the UN.

Which UN, the one with a General Assembly that votes up-or-down on issues?
Or the UN with a Security Council comprised of the WWII victors, each with veto power? At which the US has (post-cold-war) singlehandedly vetoed more resolutions than anyone else, by far?

Perhaps it'd be better if the UN had a third chamber in which votes were apportioned by population?

[macvillage.net]

Globalization clearly is a good thing... or at the very least a better thing.

Problem is there are a handful of individuals/groups that still stand in the way of that happening.


Go back to the Econ 101 example:


Oranges contain Vitamin C. Good for you. Proper intake helps prevent several diseases.

Maine is a cold state. It can grow great oranges year round. Really good ones. But it's expensive, because of the greenhouse, and limited supplies. Hence only the rich get them, and not many.

That's how the world works today.


With globalization. Maine would trade their Lobster (which is also good for you, as seafood in your diet is an excellent way to stay healthy) with Florida for Oranges.


What does each side get?
2 cheap products. Their own, and their trading partners. Sales (money).


That is the most basic principle.


What's the problem today
First big problem is several countries refuse to realize what they invested in at first isn't practical. There are several African nations for example, that according to Geologists contain no gold (only fools gold)... Yet gold is the primary export....

Think about that for a second. Fools gold, while it does look like gold (to fools), is pretty worthless.

There is no income, and nobody wants to buy that.

Those same nations, are mostly in warm moist places (central/south africa). Perfect environment for farming.


Those nations would make millions and in the future billions, if they thought practical.

But the silly leaders who rule the nations want to think GOLD.


There are thousands if not millions of examples in the world of this on various scales.


If the world would realize that they should do what they do best... rather than do it all... success will follow.


A nation of 1 million can't have the world's largest army. Not with China, India and the US at least ;-). So what's the practical solution? Allies.

It's the same strategy.


Globalization means efficiency. Selling the lowest priced products.



yet another example:

Apple *could* make their own CPU, GPU, LCD's, etc. 100% Apple parts.

Why don't they?

Because other companies have the resources to do it (think real gold vs. fools gold), and can provide it cheaper than Apple can.

If Apple did it themselves, how much would they need to charge to break even? All that R&D. Wouldn't be worth it.

That's why CPU's are Apple, IBM, Motorola ALLIANCE. GPU is NVIDIA or ATI. LCD is Philips (or so I hear... may have changed).




Globalization means whomever can provide the cheapest product does so.


If the US didn't participate in Globalization we would be nothing. Clothing would be 10X more (if not higher) in price. Computer parts would be much higher, so would oil, etc. etc.



The problem right now, is that several countries are still determined to keep closed borders and be a completely self sustaining state. And can't perform that task.

many countries that are poor... also keep very closed borders, and little/no trade.

It's not very easy for a desert country to grow those Oranges. While they would really benefit the people's health.. An orange in Ethiopia would be rather pricy.

Ethiopia also needs jobs. Some Florida companies may be looking to outsource some labor (perhaps manufacturing).

Florida gets a new customer for organges, and new labor. Ethiopia gets jobs, and oranges.

Both sides benefit equally. They get what they need, and both sides advance.


Repeat with other countries (GLOBALLY). And everyone benefits.



Some say the problem is actually fallout from the Cold War (Communism's ideal at least for Marx, was for Russia to be completely contained and self sustaining).


Whateve the cause is.... it's still a problem. Remove that problem (or whatever causes it). And everyone can benefit.

EVERY country has something of value. From beaches, culture (entertainment), climate, firtile soil, oil, gold, minerals, human resources (labor).

EVERY country has something the rest of the world needs.

-----------------------------------

An interesting note is that this actually is a repeat of a few hundred/thousand years ago. When towns were in this same situation.

Trade with other towns (and put a merchant at risk of losing business). Or trade with other towns (and everyone gets lower priced goods).

The ultimate victory, obviously was trading in other towns. I don't think many people reading this forum own products all made within their own town... at least not if you own a computer.

If you do own ONLY stuff made in your won town (or state), let me know... that would be real interesting.


Now the world is doing this again, on a global scale, rather than regional.



It's nothing new. It's just the same success on a larger scale.

[Sven G]

As for my € 0.02 on this matter, here's one of my recent posts, in a thread about ParEcon, from the news section of Infoshop.org (which is, after all, once you try to see everything in a balanced way, a quite good and informative "alternative" site - albeit sometimes with some exaggerations, of course):

As usual, there's little mention of automation in all these vision things, ParEcon or not: why assume that humans should do (almost) all the "heavy" work, when much of it could actually be done by machines and robots (non-humanoid robots, I mean: so, not those envisaged by Isaac Asimov with his famous laws of robotics :-) )...?

For example, a possible, non-capitalist evolution of industrialism is towards a more decentralized network of smaller production units, with an almost complete automation of the production process, as far as possible. Automation could indeed also have interesting uses in everyday life: for example, just consider how an automated self-service restaurant could actually be much more "human" than today's ones, where underpaid people do repetitive and useless jobs (personally, I find it quite embarassing to be "served"!). Another example: driverless trains/metros/etc. (partly existing also today), thus relieving humans from some very stressing and repetitive mansions. Yet another one: check-in at airports, one of the most annoying things about air travel, today; it could be completely automated, if "ordinary" people were just a little more technically savvy. And so on...

Partially this process already exists, but doesn't seem to evolve because of capitalism's irrational "logic" (i.e., today you don't automate repetitive tasks on a generalized level because it's a logic and human thing to do for the individual and common good, but only in particular cases because it's "economical", etc. - which is clearly nonsense from an anarchist perspective).

So, IMHO, all this talk about possible economic and social systems should consider much more the fact that we all should work less in the future, and we all should become leaders/"managers" (in a non-hierarchical meaning, here) of the creative planning of society - and also, then, of the machines that are necessary to finally eliminate human labor (the heavy one), - and thus move on towards more enjoyable and pleasurable things, in a positively complex and multi-connected society.

One last thing about basic, guaranteed income: this could indeed be one of the practical, immediate goals for libertarian-minded people, today. Of course, in a libertarian socialist perspective (which I personally consider the best possible one, and not limited only to the anarcho-syndicalist perspective, of course), there wouldn't be any need for "incomes" and money in general: the "market", if one can say so, would rather be a qualitative one - thus, based not on economical quantification, but on ideas, creativity, individual and common projects, and so on...

So, in a nutshell, while globalization can certainly be a good thing, if in a proper context, why should "we" have to exploit the thirld world's countries and "workforce" (sic!), when we could very well automate the biggest part of the production and distribution process? If, of course, we all were rational and sensible human beings - which isn't, obviously (sofar) the case, especially with "our" governments, and especially in some countries...

[macvillage.net]

Globalization also doesn't work with embargo's, and tariffs very well.

As long as countries pull these tricks, or governments are restrictive on what their country does... they will suffer.

Globalization requires businesses in all countries to have the freedom to sell at competitive prices, and sell the goods they can/will sell.



For example, the steel tariff was a destined failure. US companies had to pay higher prices for the same/lower quality steel in the US. That resulted in increased product costs for many US products.

And the companies had to sell more expensive products to US, and market that to an entire world using cheaper steel.

Guess what the rest of the world did? Sucked up the business lost by the US when word broke that prices were going up.

The US ended up losing.

The right move, would have been to analyze why steel in the US costs more... and find a way to bring down the cost... making US steel sell better in the US AND abroad.

That would have been a win win situation for American industries, as well as the world (lowest prices are always better).

Instead we had sideeffects similar to pricefixing on a global scale.

[boots]

It's gotta be played as a non-zero sum game. Then it will be a Good Thing™.

[Face Ache]

US looks to limit Australian sugar imports

January 23, 2004 - 9:08AM

US trade officials have asked Australia to settle for a free trade pact that would not open the US market to any more sugar, potentially denying Australia a major trade prize.

Today a trade official denied reports that US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick had told a radio station in Fargo, North Dakota, yesterday that sugar was completely off the table in talks on the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

According to a tape of that interview, Zoellick said the United States opposed more sugar market access for Australia because it is "not a developing country".

"Our position is not to have any increase in sugar from Australia," Zoellick said in the interview with WDAY.

"That'll be hard in these negotiations."

Zoellick's comments have been widely interpreted as a major concession to the politically powerful US sugar lobby.

The lobby has announced it would try to kill a similar trade pact with four Central American countries because it provided more access to the US sugar market.

Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat whose state is a major sugar producer, praised Zoellick for taking a tough line against sugar imports in the Australian trade talks.

"Ambassador Zoellick's statement is certainly good to hear, but we need to monitor this closely," Dorgan said.

The United States hopes to finish free trade talks with Australia by the end of the month.

Canberra has been one of the United States' closest allies in its war on terrorism.

Today a coalition of 275 businesses and organisations urged President George W Bush to quickly finish talks and submit the agreement to Congress for a vote this year.

Australia exports close to four million tonnes of the nearly 5 million tonnes of sugar it produces each year.

But under the US sugar tariff-rate quota program, which restricts imports from all around the world, it can only ship 87,402 tonnes a year to the United States.

A free trade agreement is supposed to gradually eliminate all tariffs and trade barriers between countries.

But the Bush administration violated that principle in the Central American agreement by providing only a slight increase in sugar market access for those countries.

Matt Francis, a spokesman for the Australian embassy, said Australia still wanted sugar to be part of the pact.

"The Australian position has been ... that any agreement must be comprehensive, and that includes sugar," he said.

Richard Mills, a spokesman for the US Trade Representative's office, said it was too early to say what sugar terms would be in the agreement.

"The negotiations with Australia are ongoing and consistent with our practice; we will not prejudge the outcome or negotiate through the media," he said.

Reuters