Globalisation

Earthhorse

Isn't the culprit in all this the miss-application of the word "globalisation". I haven't read much on the topic myself but, much like capitalism, the phrase seems to be bandied about as a by word for corruption, greed and loose ethics. That's what most people in this thread seem to be arguing against and I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd argue for these things.

The two don't have to go hand in hand but, as bonkey pointed out, it's important to establish institutions that discourage them from doing so. Anyone who studies Economics should know that the subject is largely dedicated to stating how things are rather than how they ought to be and largely seeks to avoid putting social value statements on its conclusions. That is really a consideration for another science and any economist worth his salt will readily admit it.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving??? Has he f**k!!! You know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us.

Ahhh.....

its all clear to me now.

I was of the impression that MoH was a computer game, but obviously it is a prerequisite to membership in the real world.

Damn. Guess that means that about 99.9% of the world's population dont live in the real world...

OR alternately, it could mean that Biffa has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.

I'm not sure which theory I favour most.....

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Oh, hmm. I thought Joseph Stiglitz was a Nobel Laureate and once prominent member of the World Bank before he was ejected for seeing the light. Surely a man with these credentials is living in the real world.

Oh dear. It seems I post so much utter shíte on this board that no one can tell anymore when I'm being serious and when I'm just joking.



I think I need to phrase my posts in a less blatantly troll-like manner from now on.

Biffa, I think you're out of arguments.

I would have thought my "No, just ignorant" comment would have made that quite clear.

EmilianoZapata

When South Africa attempted to import cheaper generic AIDS drugs they were hit with lawsuits from the major drug companies backed by the WTO. When Brazil attempted to do the same, the WTO dragged them in front of numerous tribunals.

All the above are the benefits of globalisation and free trade.

Just look at the benefits NAFTA has brought to Mexican workers.

Almost 75% of the Mexican population live under poverty still.
Real income is lower now than it was in 1994.
Unemployment is on the rise.

In 1991, a US waste management company Metalclad bought a closed down toxic waste treatment plant in Guadalcazar, Mexico in order to build a huge hazardous-waste dump promising to clean up the mess left there previously. When local authorities became worried about Metalclad not cleaning up the area and fearing groundwater contamination they refused to grant a building permit to Metalclad in 1995 by which NAFTA was in operation. Under "Clause 11" of the NAFTA agreement investors have the ability to sue government and this is exactly what Metalclad did winning $16.7m in "damages".

I don't see NAFTA bringing any benefits to Mexico besides increasing poverty and decreased power within the country itself.

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
All the above are the benefits of globalisation and free trade.

No, that's actually one of the drawbacks of current WTO rules. I believe there's a strong case to allow countries like this an exemption to use generic drugs.

Almost 75% of the Mexican population live under poverty still.
Real income is lower now than it was in 1994.

Links please? According to these people, Mexican real GDP has grown every year since 1997, except for a drop of 0.3% last year.

Unemployment is on therise.

No it isn't

I don't see NAFTA bringing any benefits to Mexico besides increasing poverty and decreased power within the country itself.

Obviously the Mexicans disagree with you -- otherwise why don't they just pull out of NAFTA? Last time I checked, Mexico was a democracy...

EmilianoZapata

No, that's actually one of the drawbacks of current WTO rules. I believe there's a strong case to allow countries like this an exemption to use generic drugs.

According to WTO rules, in times of a national crisis there is an exemption but it isn't followed. The only reason the pharmaceutical companies backed down was because of the public outrage and because they would have to have made their huge profits known to the public had they gone to court.

Links please? According to these people, Mexican real GDP has grown every year since 1997, except for a drop of 0.3% last year.

Real income does not depend on GDP, it depends on inflation.


Here

Here

Obviously the Mexicans disagree with you -- otherwise why don't they just pull out of NAFTA? Last time I checked, Mexico was a democracy...

Because as always free trade only benefits the rich and never the poor. As for Mexico being a democracy that is very debatable. Have you ever seen the poverty that the natives live in and the previous Mexican government (the PRI which reigned for over 60 years) did nothing to change it and so far neither has the new government.

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Real income does not depend on GDP, it depends on inflation.

The figure I linked to was "real GDP" i.e. adjusted for inflation.

Because as always free trade only benefits the rich and never the poor.

That's a very sweeping assertion. How would developed countries restricting imports from the developing world help the poor? How would tarriffs on imports (and thus higher prices) help the poor?

As for Mexico being a democracy that is very debatable. Have you ever seen the poverty that the natives live in and the previous Mexican government (the PRI which reigned for over 60 years) did nothing to change it and so far neither has the new government.

I agree, the Mexican government needs to make poverty a higher priority. But I fail to see how this is the fault of globalization. In fact, the World Bank is pressurizing Mexico to increase social spending.

EmilianoZapata

How would developed countries restricting imports from the developing world help the poor? How would tarriffs on imports (and thus higher prices) help the poor?

In 2001 (or 2000) Cuba had the highest growth in GDP in south or central America with no help from anyone else. Yet the countries that work on a free trade basis have minor increases and in some cases decreases. Just look at the effects free trade and the WTO has had on Argentina.

EmilianoZapata

As for the World Bank pressurising Mexico, can you really believe that they're doing that out of the good of their hearts when their own former Chief Economist speaks out against them?

Meh

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
In 2001 (or 2000) Cuba had the highest growth in GDP in south or central America with no help from anyone else. Yet the countries that work on a free trade basis have minor increases and in some cases decreases.

Are you seriously saying that the US trade embargo has been good for Cuba? You do realize the only people who agree with you are right-wing lunatics like Jesse Helms?

Just look at the effects free trade and the WTO has had on Argentina.

The WTO didn't tell Argentina to tie the peso to the dollar. The Argentine government decided to do that on its own. This arrangement worked well for a while, but inevitably the US and Argentine economies were too different for it to be sustainable. The resulting crisis was a result of Argentine government policies, not the IMF/WTO's fault. Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1721061.stm

Nice But Dim

Originally posted by Earthhorse
Anyone who studies Economics should know that the subject is largely dedicated to stating how things are rather than how they ought to be and largely seeks to avoid putting social value statements on its conclusions. That is really a consideration for another science and any economist worth his salt will readily admit it.

A lot of economic theory work considers the welfare effects of various factors and its unfair to suggest that the subject is purely static.

Broadly speaking Economics seeks to avoid defining just what we define as social value, and instead tries to point out the effect - for example we might expect price discrimination to benefit firms and low-value customers, but that it'll benefit high-value customers. I'm quite happy for Economics as a subject to leave it at that, and let policy makers make a decision as to just who's outcomes we should weight more in society.

By considering welfare effects Economics implicitly considers how things would change, and then leaves the decision whether to change up to policy makers. Its isn't only concerned with what's currently happening.

EmilianoZapata

Meh,

I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out that free trade and globalisation are not the saviours of the poor and there are other ways and Cuba is an example.

Sand

If they did, then the first thing which would have happened is that the law would have had to have been repealed anyway because it would be unequally applied and discriminatory between corporations.

If the other corporations could also prove a baby was their logo, and if the "WARNING-BREAST FEEDING IS BETTER FOR YOUR CHILD.....AND CHEAPER!!!" could somehow be proven to infringe the companies logo (please, if it is possible to get around this- tell the cigarrette companies- they would love to get rid of the bothersome health warning on every pack they sell).

I have no objection to global-scale companies, as long as those companies are not using their size and muscle to better their bottom line to the detriment of other people's lives.

I agree - I dont like the idea of dominant firms using their muscle/size to achieve anything. However Gerber is *not* holding a gun to the head of young poverty striken mothers to go and buy their products - if it can be shown that it is not healthy, inform the people - if they continue to take it anyway, then they see some benefit to it.

Well, under American law, if Gerber do not have a "not suitable for use with contaminated water" notice on it, they would be liable., as far as I was aware.

Yes and if they had a "not suitable for use with rat poison" notice on it theyd be liable as well, should people deviate from the instructions and mix it with some. Somewhere along the line we must assume people have a certain base level of intelligence that allows for recognising that contaminated water is not safe, regardless of what is mixed with. Id hate to live in a society where your served a cup of coffee and a 3 page waiver that boils down to "Warning- Coffee is hot". Were well on the way of course, but for another thread.

Sure, and you don't see a problem selling this product into a nation where clean water is a rarity? Not only selling it, but aggressively promoting its sale (because developing nations was the best growth opportunity), even to the extent of fighting laws which sought to protect life because they impacted your bottom line?

Damn those evil dilute orange companies trying to sell their accursed products to countries with no clean water, those electronic manufacturers trying to shove sony mindiscs down the throats of poor nations where electrical supply is patchy at best, etc etc

---

Gerber is trying to sell a good, which is *more* exspensive than breast feeding ( a real luxury in a poverty striken country perhaps), and as you say yourself isnt as safe, with even a basic public awareness campaign or a law requiring such companies to require basic health warnings on their goods Id imagine the sales would be far from healthy.

Ultimately, globalisation is nothing more than the drawn-out death-throes of western commercial systems. Lets assume that globalisation cannot be stopped? What will happen? Ultimately, all markets will be saturated (maybe another few generations, but thats about it) and there will be no more scope for growth. At that point, if no sooner, humanity will learn the fallacy of sustainable growth. On a planet of finite resources, sustainable growth is an oxymoron. Hell, in a finite universe its an oxymoron...you just have a larger timescale to play with.

400 years ago, economic development was primarily agrarian, 200 years ago coal, steel and manufacturing where the marked of growing industrialised nations, and now its high tech manufacturing and services that dominate in economic growth - there will always be scope for growth and there will always be markets faltering - mobile phones during the 90s is an example of growth, and ship building ( in the UK for example ) an example of decline - demand for new goods replaces demand for old. Growth in a market isnt finite by any reasonable measure as markets for any given good do not exist long enough to become wholly saturated - cars have been around for a hundred years now? What percentage of the world population owns one? Not a lot of people in Africa or Asia Id imagine. Before they become common place across the world its likely demand for them will falters and a new market- such as the provision of good private mass transit in urban areas - begin to grow.

When oil demand falls in the west you can bet the current oil companies will be amongst the biggest players in the provision of alternative energy - assuming their smart enough to recognise when the curtain is coming down on one market and opening on another.

Their response to a deadly global epidemic like AIDS is "f**k 'em they're wogs, if they can't pay then they can die."

Good god youre right, that was on p 67 of my economics textbook regarding the advantages of free trade!!!!!!

Has Joseph Stiglitz ever cleared Medal of Honor on Hard without quicksaving??? Has he f**k!!! You know, I might take him a bit more seriously if he climbed down out of his ivory tower and spent a few days in the real world with the rest of us.

You know Ive seen some pretty unfunny attempts at satire in my life, one of the reasons i think its just sad and a sign of a deprived childhood. It should be funny. Now I dont know if youd call this satire but it is damn funny:D Actually, thats probably why it isnt:)

Biffa, I think you're out of arguments.

Sense of humour- Please call home, all is forgiven.

the phrase seems to be bandied about as a by word for corruption, greed and loose ethics. That's what most people in this thread seem to be arguing against and I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd argue for these things.

Yep thats the crux of the matter - when a leftie says globalism they mean neo colonialism ( you know where a firm sets up in a poor country and offers comparable wages ), slave ships packed to the brim crossing the ocean ( hell its not like anybody in those poor countries would work without having guns held to their heads ), 2 year olds working 23.5 hour shifts ( I read about it in No Logo ) and so on. This disregards that globalism is about opening markets and moving towards global free trade, free trade being recognised as an important cornerstone of economic growth. But by throwing enough mud the aforementioned leftie hopes economic arguments can be drowned out.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
This disregards that globalism is about opening markets and moving towards global free trade, free trade being recognised as an important cornerstone of economic growth.

Keep saying this as much as you like, but it won't make it true. Free trade is in no meaningful sense 'a cornerstone of economic growth'. To quote

There is no convincing evidence that trade liberalization is predictably associated with subsequent economic growth ... The only systematic relationship is that countries dismantle trade restrictions as they get richer, which accounts for the fact that most of today's rich countries embarked on economic growth behind protective barriers, which they subsequently lowered

As for nobody ever being 'forced' to liberalise, that's because they don't have to be forced (since the Cold War, anyway). Poorer countries are more structurally dependent than richer countries on international institutions, on foreign investment and on foreign states. This means that they suffer greater costs when they disagree with these parties on economic policy. It's a fact of life. So no, nobody forces them to liberalise, just like nobody forces you to obey the rules of the road. But you do, because you know what's good for you.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
To quote

Woohoo, a quote war!
Trade, Income Disparity and Poverty

Conclusion
While there is no simple one-to-one relationship between trade and poverty, the evidence seems to indicate that trade liberalization is generally a positive contributor to poverty alleviation—it allows people to
exploit their productive potential, assists economic growth, curtails arbitrary policy interventions and helps to insulate against shocks. However, most trade reforms will create some losers (some even in the long run), and poverty may be exacerbated temporarily. The appropriate policy response in those cases is to alleviate the hardships and facilitate adjustments rather than abandon the reform process.

Frankel, Jeffrey A. 1997.“ Determinants ofLong- term Growth.” Paper presented at the Meeting of the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation in Canada on November 20, 1997.

The paper concludes that, according to statistical studies, the strongest determinants of countries’long- term growth rates are investment in physical and human capital( especially investment in infrastructure and education), openness with respect to international trade and investment, and economic freedom. Macroeconomic stability, financial structure, and political and social stability are also important. Many East Asian countries have many of these characteristics in abundance, which explains their miracle growth rates of the past.

So no, nobody forces them to liberalise, just like nobody forces you to obey the rules of the road. But you do, because you know what's good for you.

I don't know about you, but if I don't obey the traffic laws, the police can use any means up to and including lethal force to make me obey them. There's no such coercion involved in free trade -- the EU isn't declaring war on the US because of Bush's steel tarriffs. You don't have to join the WTO if you don't want to.

DadaKopf

I don't think the use of the word 'coercion' is particularly helpful in this instance. You can wax lyrical about different types of freedoms and different tyes of constraints on those freedoms and not get anywhere but, be that as it may, the evidence speaks for itself, I think.

Is it not even a little contradictory that advocates of liberalisation and free-trade depend on monolithic systems of coercion in the forms of 'tough economic decisions' and 'political negotiations'? Can it ever be possible to support an ideology that claims one thing (freedom, equality, self-realisation) but delivers another (coercion, inequality, deprivation)?

Even Isaiah Berlin, one of the foremost champions of post-war liberalism, would heave at what's happening right now. The very idea of free-trade liberalisation itself is intrinsically corrupt. Berlin's idea of freedom (and associated forms of coercion) was so minimal and individualist that it couldn't guaruntee its own ideology and so it became a license for particular sections of society to ride on the backs of the peasants.

In fact, coercion is inescapable so in a sense it's a moot point. If we tried to escape coercion, nothing would change.

What people should be discussing is how just forms of coercion, or redistribution can be arranged to maximise self-realisation, fairness and equality and minimise exploitation and abuses of power. There's a clash of ideologies here and to talk of coercion versus non-coercion is meaningless.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Meh
Woohoo, a quote war!

Yeah, let's dig our trenches.

The first paper you quote, by Ben-David, Winters and Nordstrom, is a WTO research paper, and there's a rather interesting analysis of it by the Third World Network here .

As you can see, the paper contains several important qualifications not really reflected in the passage you quote. Probably the most important is that the research is based on data from 25 high and middle income countries. Ben-David writes that

data limitations precluded the analysis of poor countries here—and it is far from obvious (at least to this author) that the impact of trade liberalization found on incomes in the middle and high-income countries could also be found in the poorest countries in the world.

Which I would have thought rather limits the usefulness of the conclusions drawn, since this conversation (and the passage you quote) have been focussing on poverty reduction.

Ben-David goes also says that

the results of this paper in no way imply that trade policy is the most important policy from a long-run growth perspective.

And:

In the case of the poorest coun-tries, a range of constraints to economic growth and development must be addressed if openness to trade is to have an impact on income levels and growth.

Winters later writes in the same document that

Openness probably needs several concomitant policies or conditions before it will generate growth

.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that Rodrik laid out in the article I linked to: trade liberalisation tends to come after development, not the other way around. Poor countries would be better served by strengthening their national economies and institutions.

For another good paper along these lines by Rodrik, see here .

As for the whole force argument, my point was that coercion and pressure no longer take the forms of physical force or the threat. Rather, countries are increasingly vulnerable to costs imposed by private companies, international institutions and foreign countries as a result of policy changes. Example: the state of Brazil's economy presently seems to hinge on how international investment markets feel about Lula's economic policy. Is anyone holding a gun to his head? No. But to a very important degree his room for maneuver (as a democratically elected state leader) is seriously constrained.

Turnip

Originally posted by Von
This is patently and demonstrably false. The ideal of neoliberal globalisation is a single global space and a single global time on the premise that western market fundamentalist values, and its patterns of organizing time and space, alone have any validity.

I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

Their response to a deadly global epidemic like AIDS is "f**k 'em they're wogs, if they can't pay then they can die." Pretty much the same response the british government took with the famine.

Comparing the Famine and economic conditions 150 years ago to anything that's happening today is just ridiculous. It's escapist nonsense. Irish people,especially those on the left, can't be objective about their own history.

Essentially they're throwbacks to the kind of
clitwitted scum William Hazlitt spent his life battling.

I'm too polite to say what you're a throwback to. :cool:

It's as good a source as any for info about why people waste their time marching about and getting beaten up by the mussolini fan club.

If they didn't riot and set out to damage property they wouldn't get beaten up by police. The police after all are human beings. You can only throw so many bricks and molotovs at them before they get a little bit angry.

DadaKopf

I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

Maybe you would but it's quite clear the majority of the world has a problem with that. It's a difficult nut to crack: is the neo-liberal agenda fuelled by these space-time-altering technologies or are the technologies fuelled by the neo-liberal agenda?

Cultural homogenisation is a worry but I'm not so pessamistic about it; clearly some places are becoming more similar while others are becoming more distinct as a result of globalisation. The real thorny issue is the perceived loss of cultural authenticity and control over one's own culture that this process entails. The UN was set up to protect this right but it's so far failed to do so.

Furthermore, homogenisation exemplifies the imperialist 'one size fits all' approach of the global system. One size most definitely does not fit all - why shouldn't each country or region be able to decide what kind of economy is best for them? Since the money is flowing mainly on one direction, south to north, the answer to this question is pretty plain for all to see.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
I for one WOULD like to see western style democracy and human rights standards applied throughout the globe. That the kind of 'homogenization' you're against is it?

I think you misread the quote.

Its talking about western market values, not western cultural values.

I wasnt aware that democracy and human rights standards were western market ideals. In fact, looking at the tactics employed (or allegedly employed) by many leading western globalised companies, it is obvious that such paltry things as human rights values are not highly valued market values, but rather inconveniences that have to be worked around.

Of course, I could be misreading the quote, and you may be perfectly correct.

Originally posted by Sand

If the other corporations could also prove a baby was their logo, and if the "WARNING-BREAST FEEDING IS BETTER FOR YOUR CHILD.....AND CHEAPER!!!" could somehow be proven to infringe the companies logo (please, if it is possible to get around this- tell the cigarrette companies- they would love to get rid of the bothersome health warning on every pack they sell).

I assume you're not a smoker, Sand, but I think that you'll find if you look closely that the warnings on cigarette packets are printed on the box - at least in every nation I've been in. They are not applied after the fact by the government - they are applied by the producers, under legislative requirement that they do so - much like what the Guatemalan government wanted to do with substitute milk products.

The cigarette companies are, in fact, a sterling example of why Gerber should have been compelled to adhere to the law, not an example of why it wasnt their problem.

Somewhere along the line we must assume people have a certain base level of intelligence that allows for recognising that contaminated water is not safe, regardless of what is mixed with.

Yes, but to make that assumption, we must also assume a basic level of education, and/or a basic level of information dissemination infrastructure - both of which are patently absent in many emerging economies, such as the one in question.

This basic lack of education is the primary reason why the government took a stance against logo's as well as text. They know the problems of illiteracy within their nation, and accept that written warnings are useless to an illiterate person. Thus, if you have a product with a smiling baby on it, you are sending a visual implication as to the efficacity and purpose of this product. You can be damned sure that Gerber are equally aware of this....which is why it was so important to them.

Gerber's intellectual property was not being undermined. The government weren't preventing them from using it so that someone else could steal their hard word. They were preventing them from using it because it was misleading - far moreso than in a developed nation with high literacy. There is a difference.

I'm not suggesting that it should be replaced by anything implying unhealthiness. However, imagine if they had a registered "catchphrase" which made claims about being "for a healthier, happier baby". Once you put it in writing, you are straight away open to litigation based on false advertising because it can be shown that it is not healthier. However, because an image is deemed to be ambiguous enough, they can get away with it due to the vagaries of law.

Ultimately, we'll end up agreeing to disagree. You have faith in the western system of sales and marketing, and its accompanying law (embodied internationally by the WTO) and I feel that this cannot be uniformly applied to nations with entirely different levels of education, social structures, and so on. What seems clear and obvious to you may mean absolutely nothing to a person who does not have the benefits of your education and access to information. As far as the WTO is concerned, though, that doesnt matter. Extending western commercial markets to a global scale, and protecting them appropriately is more important, apparently.

jc

Sand

The cigarette companies are, in fact, a sterling example of why Gerber should have been compelled to adhere to the law, not an example of why it wasnt their problem.

IMO its a sterling example of how a government can discourage smoking by use of enforced health warnings ( did you think I thought the government should ask them nicely? ) without getting dragged into legal fraccas over logos and the WTO. You raise a nice point later on about illiteracy reducing the impact of such warnings so.....

They know the problems of illiteracy within their nation, and accept that written warnings are useless to an illiterate person. Thus, if you have a product with a smiling baby on it, you are sending a visual implication as to the efficacity and purpose of this product. You can be damned sure that Gerber are equally aware of this....which is why it was so important to them.

........ lets see, the government knows its people are illiterate ( and yet are relatively rich enough to buy luxury goods which are not healthy - weird combination there ) - and yet its not able to come up with a similar ploy to beat gerber at its own game? If gerber is using visualisation to reach a rich illiterate audience then why cant the government post a visual " Bad for Babies" message also?

You have faith in the western system of sales and marketing,

No, I despise it actually.

It's a difficult nut to crack: is the neo-liberal agenda fuelled by these space-time-altering technologies or are the technologies fuelled by the neo-liberal agenda?

Possibly theyre debated/clouded in the socialist think tanks etc, but the arguments for and against free trade are broadly similar to the arguments for and against free trade in the 19th century. Indeed Ive heard, in passing, that the world is only now approaching the level of international trade that existed at the height of the British Empire.

Cultural homogenisation is a worry but I'm not so pessamistic about it; clearly some places are becoming more similar while others are becoming more distinct as a result of globalisation. The real thorny issue is the perceived loss of cultural authenticity and control over one's own culture that this process entails. The UN was set up to protect this right but it's so far failed to do so.

Red herring. You talk about perceived loss of cultural autheticity and control over ones own culture - an unchanging culture would require insularity, immigrants out, ban dem foreign pro-grams.... all things i belive you wouldnt agree with. Culture shifts, cultures die out, cultures blend in - all through history - this has nothing to do with globalisation in and of itself. *some* french people may hate McDonalds and accuse it of destroying french culture etc etc- whose eating in the McDonalds then? little green men?

Example: the state of Brazil's economy presently seems to hinge on how international investment markets feel about Lula's economic policy. Is anyone holding a gun to his head? No. But to a very important degree his room for maneuver (as a democratically elected state leader) is seriously constrained.

My god, economic development relying on the private market ?!?!?!? Politicians having to take into account how economic development will react to their decisions before embarking on mad pet schemes?!?!?!? Checks and balances?!?!?! This is a bad thing?!?!?!?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
IMO its a sterling example of how a government can discourage smoking by use of enforced health warnings ( did you think I thought the government should ask them nicely? ) without getting dragged into legal fraccas over logos and the WTO.

No it's not. Studies by practically every internal medical body shows that the printed warning makes little to no difference in a first-time customer using tobacco. The fact that alcohol does similar long-term damage and doesn't have a red-lettered warning of intoxication effects, harmful interactive effects on aspirin etc, is incredibly bizarre if that's your standard. Drugs with printed instructions will inform you not to operate heavy machinery or drive if it has a drowsy component. Governments don't honestly care about the printed message on a cigarette packet if they aren't footing the bill for healthcare (like in the US). It's a nice little nod to the health lobby, but no more. Consistency is lacking, as is good faith in PR approaches.

........ lets see, the government knows its people are illiterate ( and yet are relatively rich enough to buy luxury goods which are not healthy - weird combination there ) - and yet its not able to come up with a similar ploy to beat gerber at its own game? If gerber is using visualisation to reach a rich illiterate audience then why cant the government post a visual " Bad for Babies" message also?

Because they shouldn't have to. If a product has a picture of a youth slashing their own wrists to tap into 'rock culture' and such a product was available to young consumers...the government shouldn't have to compete along similar lines by showing a picture of a young rock d3wd throwing a clean knife away. The idea that a government should be free to govern with the weight of moral opinion behind it is one I support. In an amoral society of course, this doesn't apply. But unless one's consumer safety standards are consistent on this, it's difficult to know where to draw the line.

Possibly theyre debated/clouded in the socialist think tanks etc, but the arguments for and against free trade are broadly similar to the arguments for and against free trade in the 19th century. Indeed Ive heard, in passing, that the world is only now approaching the level of international trade that existed at the height of the British Empire.

If you'd call what the British Empire and European imperialist powers did free trade, then you'd probably call slavery a "good clean, cheap and effective use of human labor". Free trade amounted to stripping colonies of natural resources, exploiting cheap labor to extract them, manufacturing finished products and selling it back to the middle and mainly upper class households in these same colonies. No different in many ways from Nike shipping and selling their product very well to middle class households for $200 in the same countries where workers are paid $5 a day to produce a shoe costing $18 to make. Here's a simple idea- equity of pay structure. Ironically enough, it's something that's relatively essential to a system of international trade that truly benefits everyone- yet governments are afraid to back such a radical and essential change. WTO regulations should stipulate that corporations pay workers a wage comparable with cost of living across the board in its various operating centers world-wide. If a corporation has to exploit cheap labor in order to find its competitive edge then government and international agencies should be obliged to step in, just the same as if the problem was happening on a national scale.

This would minimize some of the detrimental effects of investment driven purely by profit. Just as governments stopped slavery in order to gain a competitive edge, so should they and international agencies act against this sort of inequity, imho. Any expert on international trade will tell you that an increased level of wealth for a workforce in a country you are trading with filters down to the consumers in that nation through the monetary system, thereby improving your trade relationship with them. If the rights of workers being improved also leads to an increase in profitable trade, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Red herring. You talk about perceived loss of cultural autheticity and control over ones own culture - an unchanging culture would require insularity, immigrants out, ban dem foreign pro-grams.... all things i belive you wouldnt agree with. Culture shifts, cultures die out, cultures blend in - all through history - this has nothing to do with globalisation in and of itself. *some* french people may hate McDonalds and accuse it of destroying french culture etc etc- whose eating in the McDonalds then? little green men?

I agree with you here 150%. It's rather absurd for the UN of all bodies to be expected to protect cultures- this is where I respectfully disagree with bonkey. Preservation of culture, all things being equal, is down to the members of that culture. Individual freedom in western nations isn't threatened by McDonalds, simply tested. Cultures evolve and develop as you say- and there's no such thing as a static mode of behavior in any culture over time. Furthermore, an abundance of digital information in the modern age makes it impractical to preserve cultural values in a vacuum, change is inevitable- as always those who are opposed to change (whether scientific, philosophical or societal) will remain opposed to it regardless of cost-benefit analysis.

My god, economic development relying on the private market ?!?!?!? Politicians having to take into account how economic development will react to their decisions before embarking on mad pet schemes?!?!?!? Checks and balances?!?!?! This is a bad thing?!?!?!?

Economic development isn't what bonkey was trying to address, not exactly at any rate. Fiscal and monetary policy shouldn't be dependent upon a small oligarchy of multinational corporations, or business of any kind. It's unhealthy, and not good for free and open government. I like bonkey, resent close business links with major political groups and interests, it significantly compromises the integrity of political and policy decisions, and irrevocably tarnishes transparency of government. Of course a government needs to consider the economy, but when one's economy is significantly dependent upon a small elite of business interests, then it becomes unhealthy, democratic principles take a back seat to profiteering. That is unhealthy for financial systems, democracy and open government- all things that play a far more important role with international trade than any political power that may be exercised by big business through the barrel of an economic gun.


Occy

Sand

No it's not. Studies by practically every internal medical body shows that the printed warning makes little to no difference in a first-time customer using tobacco.

Yeah, if youre dumb enough to want to smoke in the first place health warnings arent going to be much good to you I agree, but they discourage people from wanting to smoke in the first place. However you dont see parents (even heavy smokers) buying a 20 pack for their toddlers - many smokers will try not to smoke around their kids as well -, we assume because they dont want to give an unhealthy habit to their kids - parents tend to be more health concious for their kids than they are for themselves. If you were to tell parents that a relatively exspensive product was bad for their children .......

But unless one's consumer safety standards are consistent on this, it's difficult to know where to draw the line.

On the right side of free exspression in my opinion - who decides what the moral majority wants? A penpusher in a government office? If the government doesnt agree with a message they can easily bring in a law forcing companies across the board to present more balanced information. This is what theyve done with smoking to combat the cool image , and it appears to be making inroads as smoking is no longer seen in popular culture ( movies, books, music, magazines etc etc ) as being the thing to do - bazzo, chazzo and micko will still smoke no doubt but then they cant even pronounce their own names properly to begin with. Personally i believe people should be able to make their own decisions as much as is practical on whether theyre going to be sucked into marketing hype or not.

If you'd call what the British Empire and European imperialist powers did free trade, then you'd probably call slavery a "good clean, cheap and effective use of human labor".

Eh no, but Id consider the free trade that existed between the UK, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa and so on to be benficial to those countries economic development where the Sterling was "as good as gold" making it a great international currency to facilitate trade in an era where it would be quite difficult to get exact quotes for foreign currencies and exchange them etc etc. Was the system used to allow free trade a good one? No, of course not - it remains though that the idea of free trade is a very old one predating the modern technology were used to.

WTO regulations should stipulate that corporations pay workers a wage comparable with cost of living across the board in its various operating centers world-wide. If a corporation has to exploit cheap labor in order to find its competitive edge then government and international agencies should be obliged to step in, just the same as if the problem was happening on a national scale.

Id have no problem with that at all. Id like to see a certain minimum wage indexed to the cost of living. The governments of these countries arent to keen on it though, they feel it will set back their economic development - and then we come to an interesting problem - people who argue in favour of the national government right to govern as they please must now argue just as passionately that the WTO must railroad this through over the national governments wishes because them silly 3rd world eejits dont know whats good for them:|

My own mad pet scheme for increasing work standards would be a QA standard of sorts, where some neutral agency , the UN possibly, inspects the factories where goods are produced and assuming certain standards ( work quality, possibly enviromental as well) are met award the good a "worker friendly" status which could be displayed when the good goes on sale in the west.

Given the choice between purchasing a good which was produced humanely and one which didnt meet the standards Id choose the humane one even if it cost a small bit more, I think people in general would as well - social pressure and all that. An exploititive company would face falling sales and then reform its contractors itself demanding that they meet the QA standard.

Granted its more a carrot approach than a big stick approach but big sticks leave bruises. Also government regulations are often already in place in such countires theyre just ignored ( according to no logo) , so perhaps the problem should be attacked from another angle- the demand side.

Economic development isn't what bonkey was trying to address

I was quoting Shotamoose there:)

I like bonkey, resent close business links with major political groups and interests, it significantly compromises the integrity of political and policy decisions, and irrevocably tarnishes transparency of government.

I agree with you entirely here- Im a big fan of attempting to go for as close to perfect competition as is possible and practical (natural monopolies etc etc ). Shot was referring to international markets view of a governments actions affecting economic development in a country - It is hard for an open, democratic government ( Stalinists can simply close their economy and produce millions of yougurts and not one spoon, whilst stomping on anyone that disagrees, but thats stalinists/communists/socialists for ya ) to pursue economic development unless investors think theyre going to make money becuase investors fuel economic growth by spending their money building factories, providing services and generating employment - not out of the goodness of their heart but to make a profit back on their investment, and their profits are going to be affected by government policies so theyre obviously going to react to government policies when deciding where to set up.

The investors , as a diverse group, act as a nice brake on mad economic policies which lead to disaster as they wont throw good money after bad as governments will (hey its not their money, its the tax payers ). Youre right though that problems arise when a countries economic development is dominated by an unholy alliance of corrupt government and an obligarchy of bussiness interests - obligarchys are usually bad news to begin with......

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
My god, economic development relying on the private market ?!?!?!? Politicians having to take into account how economic development will react to their decisions before embarking on mad pet schemes?!?!?!? Checks and balances?!?!?! This is a bad thing?!?!?!?

I was arguing that the opinions of the international business, financial and investment 'communities' impose very significant constraints on national economic policies vis a vis trade and finance liberalisation. Your reaction indicates that you agree, but that you don't think it's bad thing, which is a different question.

Obviously governments in capitalist countries have almost always had to take serious account of how business will react to policy changes. But 'investors' are in reality not confined to those who 'build factories and provide services'. They're also those who speculate on currencies, property, stock or commodities, and who hold bank accounts in the country in general. It's these investors who charged en masse out of South-East Asia, Mexico and Argentina at the first sign of trouble, and who attacked the currencies in question.

Maybe you've got no problem with this, because you think investors are rational analysts of government policies. In reality they evaluate policy changes and any other aspect of the economic environment from a purely selfish perspective (as is their right) and all too often act according to a herd mentality. My complaint is that liberalisation of capital accounts and financial services make these collapses and attacks all too easy, all too frequent and all too unrelated to how the government serves, y'know, the public. Business gets to decide what a 'mad scheme' is (experience tells us that crackpot ideas like minimum wages tend to arouse the ire of the business communities), with the wishes of the public secondary. Is this illegal or corrupt? Not necessarily. But this hair-trigger economic vacuum effect in no way acts in the interests of those most in need of genuine economic development, the ordinary (non-internationally mobile) people in developing or underdeveloped countries.

Sand

It's these investors who charged en masse out of South-East Asia, Mexico and Argentina at the first sign of trouble, and who attacked the currencies in question.

Its an overstatement to say Investors charge out of countries at the first sign of trouble - Argentina was headed for the rocks for a long while, investors become increasingly nervous - several make a break and the rest think they should move too before price falls too far and then that encourages others to get out - I did a thesis on market crashes and whilst the overall movement is crazy the desire to get out when everyone else is getting out is entirely rational - your asset is losing value by the second, sell it asap before you lose anymore money.

My complaint is that liberalisation of capital accounts and financial services make these collapses and attacks all too easy, all too frequent and all too unrelated to how the government serves, y'know, the public.

Its a trade off - by liberalising your capital investment laws you allow access to the huge investment that very poor countries can use to improve their infrastructure and provide employment and thus increase tax revenue they can use to improve their public services in line with this. On the other hand, you have to allow for the fact investors can leave just as quickly as they came should their profits be seriously threatened. Theyre not a charity.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
IMO its a sterling example of how a government can discourage smoking by use of enforced health warnings ( did you think I thought the government should ask them nicely? )

You missed my point.

The government mandated that all milk-substitute providers had to carry a "warning" on their packet - just like tobacco-product manufactuters are obliged to place a warning on their packaging.

Guatemala was forced by the WTO to back down on this issue - they could not mandate companies to put the warning on the packaging....

The tobacco industry is a prime example of what should be done - that health considerations are considered to be more important than corporate interests.

Regardless of the consistency, rights or wrongs of the whole thing, I posted the item to show how the WTO is forcing market conditions on member nations - it is forcing liberalisation, and directly preventing a nation from implementing a form of "protectionism".

Conveniently, we can argue that no nation is "forced" to do this, because it has the option of defying the WTO and facing massive charges and/or trade sanctions for doing so.

So, I'll concede that its co-ercion rather than force....but realistically, for an emerging economy, it boils down to one of two choices - do what you're told or screw your economy.

As for the stuff Occy respectfully disagreed with me on....that wasnt me Sand was replying to two people in the same post....

jc

Sand

You missed my point.

The government mandated that all milk-substitute providers had to carry a "warning" on their packet - just like tobacco-product manufactuters are obliged to place a warning on their packaging.

I can understand why the law might fall foul of Gerbers right to their logo, but I dont see how its impossible for Gerber ( and all similar companies of course ) to carry a health warning when tobacco companies seemingly cannot find a way around having to display one?

Is there some huge baby milk lobby group out there that dwarfs even the cigarette lobbies resources?

I just find it hard to reconcile that its possible to make a law for tobacco companies but not for baby food manufacturers. Why havent the tobacco companies gone to the WTO? If they have why did they fail given the Gerber precedent?

Von

Originally posted by Sand

Good god youre right, that was on p 67 of my economics textbook regarding the advantages of free trade!!!!!!

And that's the problem with neoliberal economics. That kind of utilitarian logic. There was no significant economic argument against working jews, gypsies, nonces (and all the other obstacles to an efficient monocultural germany) to death. There was no real political one either. Churchill, the great Briton, wasn't a big fan of the Jews either. There was only an ethical one.

The fate of those condemned people mattered not a whit to the bean counters whose job it was to calculate how to administer the Holocaust. Documents recently brought to light from IBM's records starkly illustrate the dangers of blind utilitarian thinking. The Holocaust was a modern phenomenon, made possible through the tremendous data processing capabilities of modern computers.

The executives of IBM supplied the Nazis with the technology, oversaw its operation, provided parts, materials and technical support, and warehoused data. They did this throughout the 1930s and throughout the whole of World War II. The Hollerith machines allowed the Nazis to very efficiently pursue the goal of doing away with some 6 million human beings.

IBM was simply providing a product and service, for which the Nazis paid them. It made business sense for IBM to do this: the Nazis were doubtless one of their biggest contracts. IBM's goal was - and remains - to make profits, and the Nazi contract facilitated this. By the moral calculus of utility (if such a thing could be said to exist), there was nothing wrong with IBM's pivotal role in the Holocaust.

Sand

Von, Economics is a science, not an "ology". Its whole purpose is to understand how economies work so that we can say if we do this then this will happen, if we do that then that will happen. If you were to try and put "morals" to it you get bogged down in politics and arguing over what the morals should be - what if some economic results didnt fit with the morals? Should they be thrown out? Ignored?

An who decides what the morals are? Sure, I suppose youd be delighted if your local students party got that job but what if your IBM/Nazi alliance were the ones writing the morals?

In any case, morals are not found in textbooks, regardless of what the Church might tell you about the Bible - no more than chemistry handbooks devote themselves to debating the morality of what can be done with a good understanding of chemistry.

DadaKopf

The the science of society is called Sociology. Are you really going to pick a fight over grammar?

The fact of the matter is that economics (or the current dominant ideology) is a blinkered discipline that ignores many other aspects of human activity. Von's point, I believe, was that modern economics has become a self-perpetuating ideology that gives license to those in power to ignore the other equally, if not more important, aspects of human activity, reducing humans to functions of utility rather than ends in themselves.

Von's point was that if modern bureaucratic thinking wasn't so lopsided, the implications of economic utility could never be divorced from moral judgements. All judgements are moral judgements to varying degrees. The horrors of WWII should have scared us away from this way of thinking but unfortunately, it's just too convenient a justification for those wanting to make a quick buck to get rich while billions suffer.