Globalism, Corporatism and Open Source 633
To Soros, the current state of globalism -- capital is free but social concerns are underfunded -- represents a distortion of globalization, not its true promise.
Corporatism and globalism have become hopelessly confused in the public mind.The many excesses of valueless, greedy, proprietary and unrestrained multinational corporations have become enmeshed with tech-driven networked economies. It's difficult to even imagine what an effort it would take to separate one from another, sadly.
In his book George Soros on Globalization, the billionnaire asks for institutional reforms to address some of the many political concerns globalism raises:
l. Contain the instability of financial markets.
2. Complement the World Trade Organization (WTO),which is supposed to generate equitably-distributed global wealth, with equally powerful international organizations devoted to social goals, like reducing poverty and making necessary goods available all over the world.
3. Improve the quality of public life in countries suffering from corrupt, repressive or incompetent governments.
Free software advocates have argued for years now that open software could help create wealth and promote open societies in once-repressive, impoverished and technologically-primitive regimes. This idea is exciting. It attracted non-geeks like me to Open Source and Slashdot in the first place. That they are right is almost beside the point. How will proprietary software be curbed, and open software developed, in regimes that are corrupt and repressive? Why would these noxious governments support the use of software to develop an open society any more than they would encourage free speech or abandon censorship?
Legal scholars like Lawrence Lessig see the GPL as a major cornerstone of a vast, global "digital commons." So far, this vision has failed to materialize. In fact, new software is creating personalized, fragmented, narcissistic media in which screening and blocking (products, people, differing opinions) has become widely accepted, even epidemic.
In his terrific new biography of Richard Stallman, Free As In Freedom writer Sam Williams quotes Stallman: "What history says about the GNU project, twenty years from now, will depend on who wins the battle of freedom to use public knowledge. If we lose, we will be just a footnote. If we win, it is uncertain whether people will know the role of the GNU operating system -- if they think the system is 'Linux' they will build a false picture of what happened and why. But even if we win, what history people learn a hundred years from now is likely to depend on who dominates politically." So far, the big winners are the big corporations.
But Stallman, the Thomas Paine of the Net, is obviously right in some ways. To many people on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the GNU project is already a footnote. It remains the most vibrant and exciting political idea on the Net, whatever the obstacles. But it seems that corporatism is too deeply entrenched to really change, and who is going to make it change? Few governments in the world as as powerful as Microsoft or AOL-Time-Warner. The multi-nationals are, in a way, the new nation-states of globalism. In recent years, they have been the primary beneficiaries of globalism -- as Soros concedes -- and for much of the undeveloped world and many political activists, they are the spawn of globalism's first generation of existence.
Soros skirts some major obstacles to his proper and idealistic vision. He recognizes that the networked global economy is forcing market values into areas where they don't properly or historically belong, from copyright to publishing to medicine to the law. These intrusions also occur in foreign cultures where they are distinctly unwelcome. Anti-Americanism has become a staple of life in many parts of Europe, and even more virulently elsewhere, where the United States is equated with evil, greed, corruption and blasphemy.
One of the great -- and widely foreseen -- political consequences of the rise of the Net was a widening gap between developed and undeveloped countries, many of which simply lack the infrastructure to wire up their populations and economies. How can governments in places like Afghanistan embrace open software and an open society if they can't even bring electricity and telephones to most of their citizens?
There's already enormous opposition to ideas like the ones Soros proposes. Market fundamentalists and conservatives object to tinkering with the global marketplace. And the broad range of people who call themselves "antiglobalization activists" don't buy the idea that globalization could conceivably improve lives in impoverished parts of the world. Many don't believe meetings should even be held by governmental officials to discuss globalism.
Soros argues that the world's worst conditions aren't necessarily caused by globalism. It's bad governments that are responsible for exploitive working conditions, lack of social and economic capital, and political repression.
Soros's primary argument is that globalism could be used as a powerful social tool, one that could undermine or circumvent incompetent or repressive regimes. The increased wealth globalization produces, he maintains, could make up for the inequities and other shortcomings of networked, global economies. The problem is that the winners don't compensate the losers, says Soros. "There is no international equivalent of the political process that occurs within individual states. While markets have become global, politics remain firmly rooted in the sovereignty of the state."
The Net becomes a significant political factor in this evolution, because it is both individualistic and trans-national. It permits the rapid movement of capital and, if open source activists are correct, could also use free software and other technologies as a powerful tool for developing nations who want to join the globalization movement.
But it's difficult to see by what process this is going to occur. As a result of globalization, the divisions between the world's rich and the poor continues to widen. According to the United Nations Development Program, the richest one percent of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. More than a billion people live on less than a dollar a day; nearly a billion lack any access to clean water; 826 million suffer from malnutrition; 10 million die annually due to lack of basic health care. Some of these conditions pre-dated globalization, but the new economy has hardly improved matters. And it seems to be generating hatred of the United States, where contemporary notions of globalism were born and shaped.
Next: Getting specific about reforming globalism.
quote (Score:2, Insightful)
But then, for the most part, you repeat yourself. As a college student, I'm amazed how often kids who have led sheltered lives, upon finding out there is more in the world, latch onto every new idea they get like its the holy grail of modern thought. I think this explains a lot of the college protests going on.
Not again.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mentions globalism: check!
Mentions Open Source: check!
Mentions WTO: check!
Makes some strange connection between Open Source and social politics: check!
If only he could somehow blame Swaziland's continuing strife on Microsoft's business practices, he'd be set.
This guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they are more like democracy, allowing everyone to know the truth and everyone to have a vote. Everybody knows humanity as a whole is greedy and collectivly ignorant of its own well-being. The only reason that open-source really works is because it has more of a republic-style structure. There are very smart people working in a tight-knit group for the good of the software and those that use it. They don't allow just anybody to get their hands on the code (read that as modify the CVS tree), and if the community doesn't like what's going on in it they fork and create a new small tight-knit group that does the same thing a different way.
The problem with extending this philosophy to government is that software can passively take away the goods of the closed-source guys by the rules of supply and demand. Try to take away governments candy and you are going to pick a fight. They don't have to compete, they RULE.
Double edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly the removal of trade barriers should be a force for good all round, but not when unrestricted trade allows a masive multinational to come in and crush local industry by running at a loss until the market is "secure".
The only possible solution is a carefully moderated one, but that's what the EU was supposed to achieve, and it's proving a MUCH more painful process than expected.
Trouble is, the conglomerates only ever talk about the pros, and the protesters only ever talk about the cons. It's very very rare to encounter a forum which discusses both sides frankly, AND attempts to find middle ground. Which is silly - there's no fundamental reason why everyone couldn't benefit from the process.
2c, anyway.
Great (Score:0, Insightful)
If there is anyone anywhere who comes closest to the Smoking Man in the X-Files, it is Soros. The guy is a genius, no doubt, and I'm all for rampant capitlism and money making, but Soros is just a son-of-a-bitch. Really. That guy would be more than happy to utterly destroy the economy of any third world country to make $50. Happily.
Come to think of it, maybe I actully like Soros and I'm just suprised to read a limp wristed, whiny, leftist, apologist like Katz stick up for him.
WTF! (Score:2, Insightful)
Globalism is a stupid term being hijacked by any number of minority interest groups. ANY wealthy individual with broad commercial interests sees Globalism as a way to expand markets for consumer goods beyond the 'west'.
"If only those Africans and Chinese would stop being so fucking self sufficient we could sell them burgers and running shoes! DVD players and Graphics Cards!" - Are we any better off for having these things?
Admittedly I've just swallowed Noami Klein (tasty!) so I'm a bit fired up on this one - but come on guys - Open Source bringing the 'poor people' up to 'our' standards of living. Get a fucking life!
What a load of bullshit. (Score:1, Insightful)
What we need is good education in developing countries, we need equal possibilities to trade under similuar sets of trade-rules.
Open source (the idea that people should give their work away for free) has abolutely NOTHING to do with this. Giving work away for free doesn't create welth.
I'm sick and tired when not-so-serious articles tries to connect one thing that they support with something else thats really has nothing to do with it.
We aren't living in a Utopia! (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, how is this "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters?" Just because you mention RMS doesn't mean we're interested!
Globalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, it drives large corporatists crazy with dreams of raizing new nations of consumers -- ready to purchase their wares without sophistication or restraint.
Re:The worn out "theyre poor cos we're rich" ideol (Score:2, Insightful)
Globalism = Exploitation (Score:2, Insightful)
Globalism is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
All globalism is is the latest and perhaps last ('til space) iteration of this process. It's just as inevitable as it was before. Fighting against it with favoratist practices just makes things harder. The less competitive nations and companies will naturally have a problem with it, as will anyone opposed to the market system in general (which explains all the neo-marxist college students). One thing is clear: your comfortable and predictable lifestyle (for however long you've had it) won't be there for you forever. Preserve the unique things that matter most, and be prepared to adapt to change and compete in the world.
Re:Rich to get Richer? (Score:2, Insightful)
George Soros has $3000 million to his name. He could rid himself of $2500 million and still be one of the wealthiest men on earth.
That's seven million people fed for a year at a dollar a day. That'd be clean water for every person on the planet (clean water is easy; there's a sand-filter technology that's perhaps a hundred bucks a pop); that's all malnutrition eliminated; that's basic healthcare for everyone.
George Soros could singlehandly wipe out most of the starvation/dire health problems on this planet. But he doesn't.
For that matter, George is #60 on the Forbes list. Imagine if all those ultra-mega-elite rich were to get some compassion and donate 10% of their unimaginable wealth to solving these basic problems of human needs.
Globalism isn't going to fix a damn thing. The rich will get richer, and the impoverished will continue to drop like flies because the rich don't care to share enough. (Which isn't to say that non-globalism is a cure. It isn't. The only cure is for the ultra-rich to become ultra-generous.)
The GPL and open-source ARE communist! (Score:1, Insightful)
Open Source is *very much* a philosophy that embraces "from each to his own ability, to each to his own needs." To that extent it IS communist. But it is not, and will never be, the big-C COMMUNIST that millions of Americans were taught to hate when they grew up. Because that was, by and large, evil, and OSS is not evil.
globalism and corporate takeovers (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really want to create a global economy that is fair you have to start thinking about things like a global minimum wage and global minimum worker entitlements, otherwise the multinational corporations will exploit the poorer countries even more than they do now.
The current ideas of globalism that the WTO are pushing are the opposite of a democratic society. They reduce the role of the democratically elected government and give more power to corporations. This is not a good thing, as the public has NO control over a corporation, whereas they have some control over a government.
As far as open source software and technology goes, there will be no extra benefits. They have as much access to that now as they will do in a global economy. For some countries this is nothing. For example if you are a non-government civilian living in Burma and are caught even posessing a computer or a private phone line you will be severely punished. People in Cambodia and many other countries don't want computers, they want their basic rights and needs, like food, clean water, decent shelter, a decent wage for a decent days work. If globalism addresses all of these social kinds of isses then I will give it the go ahead. Until then, lets help those that really need help.
Electricity ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Way to belittle activism! (Score:2, Insightful)
Herd-like college kids and knee-jerk political activists associate the term with a broad range of bugaboos, from cultural imperialism to sweatshops to environmental destruction. But others (like me) see it as the best hope for a world in which gaps between the tech and non-tech worlds are widening, and the have-nots are increasingly enraged at the haves.
That's cute. By using derogatory terminology to refer to activists that have protested against globalization, you dismiss their arguments without ever having to demonstrate why you think they aren't important. That frees you to trumpet your own ideas without addressing the drawbacks of globalization as it is currently being approached by the US.
The reason so many "knee-jerk activists" turned up in Seattle and elsewhere is because organizations like the WTO and trade agreements like NAFTA place an emphasis on global profit over local prosperity. It's an enforceable emphasis, too - under some of these agreements, if a corporation's profits would be hurt by new legislation (such as environmental or labor laws), a corporation can sue the government for compensation. That's had a discouraging effect on such legislation in countries that can't afford such compensation.
It's great to tout the benefits of globalization, but don't dismiss its drawbacks. At the least, if you are going to dismiss its drawbacks, tell us why instead of hiding behind name-calling. Tell us why it isn't important that globalization agreements are preventing improved labor conditions in these third-world countries, and why they're interfering with environmental legislation in first-world countries (to the point of demanding repeal of laws implemented by elected officials). Globalization as it's practiced today has become an emphasis of capitalism over democracy, and name-calling won't make that problem go away.
Re:Rich to get Richer? (Score:5, Insightful)
>
> That's seven million people fed for a year at a dollar a day. That's 0.1% of the world's population. But let's continue with your altruistic notion that George Soros (who earned his money) should divest himself of his wealth and distribute it "fairly".
> That'd be clean water for every person on the planet (clean water is easy; there's a sand-filter technology that's perhaps a hundred bucks a pop); that's all malnutrition eliminated; that's basic healthcare for everyone.
There are 6 billion people on the planet.
George Soros could give each of them $0.50. (Or, more likely, governments could take his $3000 million, leaving him with nothing, and distribute the fifty cents "equally".)
Next year, George Soros would have nothing to give. So even if you could provide basic health care, education, food, etc. for $0.50 per person per year (you'd be hard pressed to do it at $0.50 per person per day!) you can't go back to him, because you've drained him dry.
Now whom will you loot to buy food and health care for the poor?
> Imagine if all those ultra-mega-elite rich were to get some compassion and donate 10% of their unimaginable wealth to solving these basic problems of human needs.
I have. Eventually, you run out of ultra-mega-elite rich people to loot, and the system collapses.
No thanks. Look at the standard of living 100 years ago, and compare it to today. Flush toilets, hot water, antibiotics, refrigeration, crossing the Atlantic ocean in hours instead of weeks, air conditioning in the home and office, a printing press and Cray supercomputer on every desk, and if the price of that standard of living is that the people who made all these things possible get rich as a result of my choosing to purchase them, then so be it.
Let them Have Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Concerned Slashdotter: Your Majesty, the people in the third world are angry, for they have no bread
Katz: Let them have open source software
OSS advocacy is one thing, but claiming it's a panacea to everything is ridiculous. People in developing countries need:
1. Food
2. Healthcare
3. Non-corrupt governments
As for Soros, more power to him and his charities, but when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Soros thinks they need stable financial markets, etc., because he's a capitalist and his only tool is the market.
Re:We aren't living in a Utopia! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were to replace the word "minimal" with "less obvious" you might have a point. Do a web search on the Carlyle Group, United Defense, the Saudi Bin Laden family and George Bush Senior. Then we'll talk about corruption. Never mind the whole Enron/President Of The United States thing. Corruption in American society has become so common place that it is hardly worth mentioning. Not to mention that it is human nature to actively seek out other people's flaws while sweeping your own messes under the rug.
Equate democracy with globalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignored by most of the anti-globalism activists is that without a workable legal system, no amount of financial aid, loans, industrial investment, farming assistence, etc., will help create a middle class and a sustainable economy.
Without the legal system, no other progress is feasable.
Corruption - Not just Africa/South America (Score:5, Insightful)
The few Americans that have travelled extensively generally get a tourist's point-of-view of other countries. I've been (un)fortunate enough to partake in business dealings with other countries.
Stuff that would get you fired and/or arrested in America is widely accepted, and even encouraged in other countries.
I worked aboard a cruise ship and assisted the pursing department when the ship pulled into port. The port agents *expect*, not ask for, not hint, *expect* a bribe to make sure all the paperwork goes through smoothly.
We kept a stock of whiskey bottles, wine and cartons of cigarettes in the captain's meeting room just for this reason. Some of the nastier agents/ports will require an envelope stuffed with money. Once in Turkey, the captain had to pay $5000 cash to avoid a $40,000 'fine'.
And this happens in countries you wouldn't expect.
France, Italy, Portugal and Spain were the 'least worst' offenders, with Italy being a little dirtier. Their port agents held a server that was shipped from the U.S. until we paid a $1000 duty. We told them to shove it, and had it re-routed to France. Their port agents only charged us a $500 duty...
These fees are negotiable, you see, depending on the scumminess of the particular agent.
Greece is bad. 50% of the cargo we had shipped to Greece somehow 'disappeared' from the port authority.
India, Morocco and Turkey are borderline criminal. Want your luggage to get through Customs? Better have a 20-spot in your pocket.
In fact, Gibraltar was the only port that didn't require greasing some port official's palm. It's run by Brits, so no surprise there.
I never appreciated America more than when I tried to do business overseas.
Knunov
Re:We aren't living in a Utopia! (Score:2, Insightful)
here's the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so far from reality that it's hard to know where to start debunking. First of all "As a result of globalization" barely qualifies a hypothesis; it certainly isn't a proven fact. "As a result of disparities in legal respect for property rights" is a better hypothesis.
Second, growing disparity between rich and poor is not necessarily bad. If you could wave a wand and improve the standard of living of the poor by 8x, but in the process make the rich 10x as rich, would you do so? If not, why not? Just because disparity would grow?
Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition.
Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest. In those places the standard of living is wretched.
It's never been about "anti-globalization" (Score:5, Insightful)
So if the "anti-globalization" movement isn't really against globalization, then what is it really about? It's against a new form of top-down globalization, where ordinary people are stopped at borders, but corporations are free to move jobs whereever wages are kept artificially low (due to lack of ability of most third world workers to move to democratic countries that respect workers' rights). The movement is against new organizations that can veto national and local laws, yet the people affected by these decisions have no power to elect representatives to these organizations.
In most if not all countries, things are stacked against ordinary people influencing the laws that affect their daily life. But in many semi-democratic countries, it is possible to change the laws if you spend many years building a large movement, forcing politicians to represent us. But imagine our surprise after finally having our voice heard, just the tiniest bit, only to have the WTO decide that our democratic rights are a violation of "free trade".
You don't have to be a much of a cynic to see the folly in saying "if you don't like the laws the current crop of politicians enacted, vote them out", but at least with local and national governments, that is an option. When the WTO creates new rights for corporations and destroys rights for people, there isn't even a pretense of the ability to "vote them out".
So, yes, I'm all about "globalism" or "internationalism" or whatever you want to call it. I'm just for a globalism controlled by the 5 billion or so people it affects. And this is hardly a new idea. Internationalism has been a fundamental aspect of the struggle since the early 1800's. We were fighting for it then, and we're fighting for it now. The Industrial Workers of the World [iww.org] had hundreds of members in Seattle to protest the World Trade Organization's idea of globalization, yet the IWW is as firmly committed to uniting working people across the globe as they were at their founding in 1905.
And, yes, I'm happy that some billionaire likes the idea of a kinder-gentler unelected organization controlling our lives in a way that benefits us. That sure beats the sort of thing billionaires are usually arguing for. But that's hardly a solution. Doesn't anyone remember all that "of the people, by the people, for the people," crap? So this billionaire wants some kind of international body "for the people" but presumably of and by unelected politicians and corporations. That's a third of the way there. Hell, I'd be happy enough if it was at least honest - one vote for every $100,000,000 of wealth.
As for how to get there... Free software is definitely one aspect of it. The general priniciple is people coming together and collectively creating and controlling the things that affect our lives. Free (as in speech) Software gives computer users the chance to opt out of Bill Gates' orwellian wet dreams, and it also demonstrates an alternative method of organization and creation. It even makes ideas of a sane future imaginable -- and, as a programmer, Free Software is the only method of software production and distribution that makes sense in a (hopefully not too distant) future where people are in charge instead of corporations. The general principle applies in all other spheres of life, as well -- joining together with others working at the workplace, in our communities, and so on.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly the removal of trade barriers should be a force for good all round, but not when unrestricted trade allows a masive multinational to come in and crush local industry by running at a loss until the market is "secure".
Which happens to be illegal under both US and WTO rules, if memory serves. The findings that other countries were "dumping" steel onto the US markets (selling it at below cost) were what enabled the President to impose steel tariffs.
Corruption is the #1 threat to Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
A certain amount of corruption will inevitably occur. What matters is how the government and especially the CITIZENS respond to it, once they become aware of it. Corruption is the single most dangerous threat to any government, and especially democracies, because a democracy that won't control corruption is not a democracy at all. Severe punishment and righteous indignation are the hallmarks of societies which can keep corruption in check, allowing themselves to prosper. Apathy and capitulation are hallmarks of societies which will allow corruption to grow until they can't even function.
The US is pretty good about corruption, at least where domestic affairs are concerned, but we could be better, particularly with regard to corporate regulations and international concerns. Some spots in Northern Europe may be as good or better, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned they need a lot of improvement. Yes, even and in fact especially Japan.
Re:umm, what is Katz trying to say? (Score:2, Insightful)
Want to know why? Because some people (and politicians) have demanded that government step in and regulate the economy. Once businesses, who once had to mostly fend for themselves in the market, became regulated, a very strong incentive appeared to become involved with the government. The result? More corruption, subsidies, one-sided contracts, and handouts. Do you think for one second that Enron, Disney, the MPAA, or the RIAA would bother lobbying Congress if they knew their actions would be a waste of time? Of course not...they lobby because they know the government can act in their favor and grant them their wishes.
So in response to this corruption, those citizens and politicians who called for the regulation then call for more restrictions on business activity. Businesses, given a stronger incentive to intervene in order to stay and grow profitable, will find ways to do so. This cycle repeates itself until you get to where we are today: the tired and ill-begotten [opinionjournal.com] march of campaign finance reform [cato.org] legislation.
Soros, if he were an honest [cei.org] and true [newaus.com.au] capitalist, would know that government intervention in the marketplace does not solve problems, it only creates [cse.org] them and exacerbates [nationalcenter.org] those that already exist.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so globalism is good until it upsets bloated, inefficient US monopolies? Ah, I understand now. This explains the new US tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, too.
For those not in the know, Canadian lumber companies are being [canada.com] punished [cbc.ca] by the US for having efficient, profitable mills, resulting if a few thousand layoffs. But that's okay, they're not Americans, so they don't matter.
Re:Equate democracy with globalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:here's the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The poor farmer in Thailand may know nothing of the internet, may not own a telephone, may not even trade most of his crops for money, trading it rather for other goods and services. Is he poor? Certainly. What's the quality of his life? Well, you'd have to ask him.
He may live longer than you, may never know the dissatisfaction of being laid off. May never suffer the uncertainty of "finding himself" or the perennial angst of therapy. His soul doesn't need any chicken soup.
The truth is, he may be richer than anybody we know.
We need global freedom of movement first (Score:2, Insightful)
That is, all the WTO and G8 talks are designed to make it easy to send capital around the world easily but not allow people to move to different places according to need for skills. As long as corporations have global freedom but not people, we will have the disparity between different people. If a true market in labour existed where people could move anywhere where their skills were wanted, then dicatators would not be able to oppress their citizens so easily, since they could just leave.
Open Source on a global Internet threatens monopoly power because it allows someone in Brazil to develop software that is used in Australia and that same person to use software developed in Finland. The software goes pretty directly from creator to user rather than having some intermediate owner like Microsoft controlling supply and demand.
Open Source tends to reduce the tyranny of money, whch allows a controller of money such as a bank to profit without production, and return to a barter system where my labour is directly available to consumers, and their labour is directly available to me. This threatens the global money monopoly a lot. So that is one reason there is such an attempt to block easy flow of information products (DMCA SSCA etc.). Both the banks and Disney want to ensure that information only is exchanged through a medium where they get a cut.
Remember that money doesn't really exist. It is just a convenient fiction to keep track of the exchange of the real things like goods and knowledge. Any thing that threatens this fiction is very dangerous.
Re:Rich to get Richer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Where does FFFish say that George Soros is at all obligated to provide this service? He merely noted that Mr. Soros is able to provide great good at no impact to his lifestyle and chooses not to.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:2, Insightful)
The big problem is, of course, that the highly paid steelworkers aren't able to add as much value per $ of salary as global competitors (or even local competitors from nonunionized mini mills). Thus, those jobs are inevitably going to be lost in a free economy.
And as I said earlier, saving these jobs means we're going to lose three times as many jobs in other parts of the economy that rely on cheap steel. And we're going to be paying a heck of a lot more for cars, appliences, etcetera. In essence, tarrifs are taxing ourselves, but with a very, very stupid tax.
I've always been unclear why those who most advocate a wealth transfer to the third world in the form of massive forign aid are so unwilling to lose a few US jobs in exchange for more jobs in countries that need them a lot more than we do. The third world needs jobs AND aid.
The US economy should be based on the things we do best. Free trade is a great way to find out what you're good at with great accuracy and low latency. Nothing's worse for an economy than a government industrial policy.
The USA was founded by globalization (Score:2, Insightful)
For a metaphor, it's basically about extending the process that made the US into the world. Under the Articles of Confederation (before the Constitution) states were able to restrict imports from other states. There was no requriement that a state treate citizens from other states with the same rights as their own citizens. There were dramatic variances between states in wealth.
One of the economic goals of the constitution is to build the US as a big free trade zone, to help with mutual growth, and build a nation as a whole instead of individual states. I think it works.
So, before critizing globalization, ask yourself "would the US be better if the difference between Vermont and New Hampshire was as big as between the US and Canada?"
Would we really want to need government permission to buy a house in a different state? Should all states have a high tarrif on furniture, so South Carolina wouldn't be able to win as a low cost producer? How about a 40% duty on microprocessors from other states? A foundry for every county!
It wouldn't work. Barries to trade always cost you more than they get you.
It isn't about Africans buying DVD players (although they're welcome to if they want them). It's about them being able to grow, make, and produce what they're best at and buy what others are best at.
Re:Rich to get Richer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. The price for our 20% of the world to have all this technology is that the other 80% of the planet doesn't (yet) have (all of) it (at the same time I have it).
Are you seriously alleging that if the capitalist economies of the world hadn't developed flush toilets, indoor plumbing, antibiotics, refrigeration, jet aircraft, air conditioning, computers, laser printers, (that is, that the First World had chosen to continue to live in a 19th-century agrarian economy), that Africa, India, Afghanistan, Iraq, Argentina, Palestine, and Peru would now have invented, produced, and distributed all of these things?!?!?
Do you expect me to believe that antibiotics rain from the sky like manna from heaven, and that air conditioners and laser printers spontaneously materialize out of quantum fluctuations? (Let's hope it's this way and not the other way around, 'cuz HP Laserjets falling from the sky would suck!)
What are you smoking, and are you sharing?
Re:here's the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
To begin with, until I could provide a certain minimum standard of living, I would oppose something that increased the wealth gap because it is wrong to adopt policies that provide additional luxury for those who already have more than they can use, while others go without enough food -- assuming alternative policies are available.
Beyond that, the proposition is a standard Chicago School bit of straw man nonsense. "If the universe were constructed completely differently than it is, would you still hold to your irrational principle?" It's a sad attempt to prove that the principles of the left are really just class envy. This is bull. I would oppose the hypothetical policy because whatever the apparent short-term benefit, I believe that in the long run increasing the disparity between rich and poor guarantees that the rich are going to have the power to reduce the poor to subsistence slavery. Period.
Third, by almost all objective standards, the amount and severity of poverty in the world has dropped significantly during the era of globalization. There is less starvation; infant mortality is lower; life expectancy is longer; there is less malnutrition.
This is just silly. It's not silly because it can't possibly true, it's not even silly because it might not be true; it's silly because the author doesn't actually know whether it's true but feels compelled to assert it. He's likely quoting verbatim from some mass-media right-wing ideologue, who similarly said it with no actual knowledge to back it up. It's easy to find this sort of thing.
It's also silly because it inevitably ignores any and all objective standards that don't fit the model. The amount and severity of child prostitution in Bangkok has almost certainly increased with globalism. The number of children who work unconscionable hours in slave conditions in Malaysia or Pakistan has certainly increased. The number of people slaughtered in ethnic and regional conflicts seems to be increasing with globalism.
It's also silly because it asserts the primacy of cross-cultural "objective standards", thus conveniently erasing all culture-based standards. For most of human history, most children spent almost every moment in direct proximity to one or both of their parents. This is an "objective standard" that few in our culture even consider, even though it was true in America right up to WW I. Does the inevitable rise in world-wide juvenile delinquency in the wake of corporate globalism qualify as an objective standard of measure? (Meanwhile, now that a few Americans are asserting the need for society to accommodate parent involvement in child-rearing, there is a backlash from some childless-by-choice folks who resent being forced to subsidize the requirements of those horrible selfish parents.)
Finally, the places where things haven't improved correspond not to hotbeds of globalization, but to regimes so repressive or corrupt that global investment doesn't happen. Globalization has barely touched most of Africa or North Korea because no one will invest.
This is comically untrue. Check the "made in" on almost every common consumer good you own -- clothes, cars, toys, baby strollers. Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, Mexico, and of course, the People's Republic of China. Do you know the going rate for 5 years of a child's labor in Pakistan? $100 to $200. (Multiplying it by 10 might increase the price of a soccer ball from 10 bucks to 10.20.) And if you happen to have a sadistic streak, you get to beat them mercilessly too. I suppose if you actually killed one you might get in trouble, if you weren't able to somehow cover it up as an on-the-job accident. "yes, well, he got run over by the shipping truck, you know." That's globalism at work: It gives corporations the ability to work with the powerful elites in developing nations to savage the poor, while earning obscene profits by selling the goods in the wealthy West.
Re:umm, what is Katz trying to say? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ya, all of those, damn pesky labor laws just get in the way. I wish the govenment would just mind its own business and let me get back to the sweatshops. Afterall, all OSHA has ever accomplished is forcing the great and wonderful companies to carry workman's compensation insurance, and to adhere to safty codes. I'd much rather work in a steel mill where I might have molten steel dumped on me by accident, and then be fired because I can't do my job. Yes, you're so right, no good ever comes out of the govenment imposing restrictions on businesses.
And let us not forget the ever popular trusts. We need those, so that we don't have to make a descision about different products. Afterall, no small company ever produces a better product than the mighty conglomerates. Its better to allow the few big companies to give us everything we need, and don't worry, they won't sacrifice quality for profit, or safty. And even if they do, when it becomes obvious, the masses will switch over to a, more expensive, better product. But, of course, the conglomerates would never sell at a loss, just to drive small companies out of business, that would be immoral. And in the quest for money no company is going to do anything immoral.
<end sarcasm>.
Sarcasm aside, some laws are needed to regin in the large corporations. Otherwise, we'd all probably be buying Rockefeller everything by now. Sure, the Government misses on a few of its shots, but, its better than nothing.
This idea of no government intervention, is just the type of thing the large corporations would love. No rules to stop them, no watchdog organizations with the power to smack them down. Just them versus the consumer. And the consumers are either too stupid, or just unwilling to do anything to stop them. If you think that huge corporations would all play fair, and that supply and demand would keep everything balanced and good, you're living in a dream world. I like having my cell phone work without major interruptions. Who do you think keeps that from happeneing? The FCC, with its selling of spectrum, it means that Joe Blow with his new toy isn't going to be generating interference. Vehicle saftey standards? Airplane saftey standards? These are government mandated. Its really easy to blame a govenment for all of the world's woes, but when you get down to it, its better than none at all.
Re:Equate democracy with globalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Globalism is just a word. It is the trend of funneling government (national and IMF) cash into the pockets of elite that bothers me, not increasing "closeness" of cultures. As you say, Globalism in service of the multinationals is not going to do much good... for anybody who isn't a multinational shareholder.
Every problem we have could be solved with a little "Prisoners' Dilemma" reasoning, but I just don't see how you change corporate culture so radically that the elite are willing to sacrifice their maximized self-interest for the benefit of people they will never meet. As has been pointed out often on this site--especially by self-proclaimed capitalists--greed is just a fact of life, and why not accept the system that has been built around the pursuit of self-interest?
Well, because greed is not the rock of my moral foundation. And although I bet it is for a lot of people, I would prefer to live in a world where decisions are focused on maximizing the common good (what I like to call "Social Capital"), not just the interests represented by the creaking and warped structures of the Establishment.
It makes sense not to sink more money in the pit of International Aid as conceived by the elite. That is, more money for businesses to strip wealth from the third world, more money to build infrastructure that locks them into expensive technologies, and more money to grease the palms of local officials to ensure things go smoothly.
Lets face it: there is only a call for "Reform" in cases where the corruption is actually interfering with profits... after all, there's no need to reform governments that continue to shaft their constituents and give free reign to multinationals, is there? As a matter of fact, let's reward those countries by not interfering in their civil affairs (Indonesia) and if they go broke following our IMF directives (Argentina), too bad for them.
No, on second thought, let's NOT do that.