Myths of our time: globalisation

[DAVOUT]

... a requirement that senior executives swear to the accuracy of their financial statements

My surprise is that it was not the case before.
Our law states that the President is penally responsible for all frauds committed under the banner of the company. As far as the accounting statements are concerned, they are first formally approved with a vote by the board, then signed by the President. Their is no way for the President to escape this responsibility which cannot be delegated.

Of course, that responsibility is penal, not economic; the loss resulting from poor management, or whatever legal unprofitable decision, cannot be charged to the President.

[Bosh]

Within 100 years, there were environmental laws.

I'd really really rather not wait that long for China to shape up, I'm breathing in enough of the crap that their factories spew into the air as is (not fun when you've got a nasty sinus infection).

Interesting article but it doesn't address any of the reasons why I'm "anti-globalization" (a really awful term), namely:
-If you have free trade between countries with huge agricultural subsidies and countries with no agricultural subsidies the farmers in the countries with no agricultural subsidies (ie the third world) get ****ed over to a massive extent. Free trade can result in a lot of exploitation unless things like that are even vaguely equalized (as well at least minimal labor and workplace safety standards would be really nice (ie "don't shoot people for trying to start unions and if people are going to be handling toxic waste at least give 'em gloves")).

-The way the WB and IMF are run is pretty absymal. They've been thoughly criticized by mainstream economists for incompetance and forcing "one size fits all" economic models down countries throats. Then there's the whole debt issue in which countries are forced into having to slash basic education and public health spending to pay off debts that former dictators ran up to fill up their Swiss bank accounts. Also the kind of projects that the WB sponsors loans for (big projects like damns etc.) are the sorts of things that local elites have a easy time siphoning off money from and which benefit large corporations rather than projects that would help the people on the ground like improving rural road networks (they're pretty abysmal) and getting clean water to everyone.

What we really need is a movement against farm subsidies in 1st World Countries, that'd make everyone from people who give a **** about 3rd world farmers to people who want to pay less taxes happy and have a lot more chance of actually doing some good that a lot of what I see people on my bit of the political map doing.

[GePap]

The problems wth globalization are not theoretical, but structural.

Right now, the rch states force open small market without opening their own. Now, they can do this because they can withold economic activity form those that don't play the game-the poor can not play that game back. This causes great inequality of possibility, besides the fact that since rich corporattions have a head start they will crush local corporations- this is not something the idustrialized world had to deal with to the same degree. US and European companies, the large and older ones grew up with restriction form overseas being limited- they had the breathing space to grow, solidify internal markets, grow big enough to have enough cash on hand to play the game, and then globalization comes up, and they are the ones with cash able to play the game..a lot of third world corporations did not get this breathing time, and will be swallowed up due to it.

Another issue I see is that while capital and resources are free to move, the movement of labor is restrcited more an more with each passing day- honestly, how could the balance be equal when the rich can send their capital to one state, but the poor can't s send their labor back?


Which ocmes to the issue of globalization and democracy-the rich can force poor states to ignore democratic whishes and force globalization on the poor, while being strong enough to ignore demands they force globalization on thier own populations (which woul be necessary to end subsidies, tariffs and perhaps open up immigration)

[DAVOUT]

1. Globalization, in its present state, is partial, and will remain partial until agricultural products are fairly included in the trade rules. Rich countries have to decide whether they want to export agricultural products or not. In the first case, all subsidies must be suppressed; in the second case, all exports must be forbidden. That is not free trading, but subsidies are not free trading either.

2. It is surprising that the richest country has serious problems with the globalization. It seems that the US had not anticipated that a real free trade would create some need for adjustments, and they regularly complain that the rest of the world makes dumping with the iron prices, that China do the same with clothes, that the yen or the yuan is undervalued, and that, as a result jobs are destroyed, and a huge trade deficit needs to be financed by foreign investments.

3. When a reform brings dissatisfaction to the poorest and the richest, it is an indication that it is urgent to stop making short-sighted decision and start a serious analysis of the problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What then?

Socialist paradise?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't know... perhaps not supporting a repressive Stalinist government? just a thought...

oh yeah, I agree with Howard Dean... call me whatever you want, but I don't think we should do business with oppressive regimes, dictatorships, or corrupt third world governments that abuse their own people. Wasn't that the reason we went after Saddam? or one of them?

If that means I got a pay a few more bucks for ****, fine... at least I'll sleep better knowing some tinpot ****ing dictator or some evil group of terror supporting mullahs aren't getting jack**** from me.

but hey, go back to watching your Fox News and shopping at WalMart... go support China as they execute a few more hundred or thousand pro-democracy and/or free-speech advocates...

maybe one day you will wake the **** up...

Howard Dean never said anything near what you did, Sava. He was NOT talking about spreading political and human rights. He was talking about spreading labor and environmental rights.

These are not necessarily the same things.

BTW, you never mentioned my trailer here in Santa Cruz, the one where I cannot open my door without bumbing into a gay or lesbian.

[Sava]

Howard Dean never said anything near what you did, Sava. He was NOT talking about spreading political and human rights. He was talking about spreading labor and environmental rights.

and I'm sure he only wants better wages and better environmental policies, but wants to see dictatorships and oppressive regimes continue their violent and repressive policies. silly ned, trix are for kids

BTW, you never mentioned my trailer here in Santa Cruz, the one where I cannot open my door without bumbing into a gay or lesbian.

what are you talking about?

are you one of those homophobes that hates gays and lesbos so much you can't stand to look at them or even interact with them?

and if you are, what do they have to do with Howard Dean's trade policies?

[Imran Siddiqui]

what are you talking about?

Maybe he's saying that you should come join him in the trailer .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

what are you talking about?

Maybe he's saying that you should come join him in the trailer .

if I can have my computer, some broadband, a kickass TV w/satellite, and a lot of marijuana... I'm down with it

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think you won't time for all that stuff if you are going to be with him in the trailer .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think you won't time for all that stuff if you are going to be with him in the trailer .

what about lube? can I at least bring that

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's up to him... isn't it?

[Sava]

I can always spit on it first I guess

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just don't miss .

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko

I'd really really rather not wait that long for China to shape up, I'm breathing in enough of the crap that their factories spew into the air as is (not fun when you've got a nasty sinus infection).

Interesting article but it doesn't address any of the reasons why I'm "anti-globalization" (a really awful term), namely:
-If you have free trade between countries with huge agricultural subsidies and countries with no agricultural subsidies the farmers in the countries with no agricultural subsidies (ie the third world) get ****ed over to a massive extent. Free trade can result in a lot of exploitation unless things like that are even vaguely equalized (as well at least minimal labor and workplace safety standards would be really nice (ie "don't shoot people for trying to start unions and if people are going to be handling toxic waste at least give 'em gloves")).

-The way the WB and IMF are run is pretty absymal. They've been thoughly criticized by mainstream economists for incompetance and forcing "one size fits all" economic models down countries throats. Then there's the whole debt issue in which countries are forced into having to slash basic education and public health spending to pay off debts that former dictators ran up to fill up their Swiss bank accounts. Also the kind of projects that the WB sponsors loans for (big projects like damns etc.) are the sorts of things that local elites have a easy time siphoning off money from and which benefit large corporations rather than projects that would help the people on the ground like improving rural road networks (they're pretty abysmal) and getting clean water to everyone.

What we really need is a movement against farm subsidies in 1st World Countries, that'd make everyone from people who give a **** about 3rd world farmers to people who want to pay less taxes happy and have a lot more chance of actually doing some good that a lot of what I see people on my bit of the political map doing.

Bosko, I wholeheartedly agree that one the very first things we should do is to remove agricultural subsidies (and tarriffs) across the board. But this seems to be one of the largest political problems any country faces. it's almost impossible to do so in the a United States and even harder in France and Japan.