Why Corporate Globalization can't work

[Armstead]

There is an inherent paradox in the term "free trade" as it is used to advance the goal of Corporate Globalization.

Free trade implies a utopian system in which goods and services cross national boundaries unfettered, and all nations benefit equally based on markets -- just as the US states operate.

However, in fact, free trade destroys freedom of trade -- as well as freedom of people to establish their own laws and policies based on their own goals and circumstances.

Instesd it makes all nations subservient to what is in effect one World Government beholden only to the business elites. It is not democractic, but imposes a "One size fits all" answer. It says, in effect, "If your nation wants to participate in the world economy, you have to give up your sovergnty and do what we tell you."

That might not be so bad if those rules were an extension of the democratically expressed wishes of all of the world's people. Or if its purpose were truly to spread the wealth around more fairly.

But it isn't. Like any governing body, the bigger and more centralized it gets the more it moves further from the grass roots. Instead it merely reflects the wisges of the elite who have the power to be heard, and to rig the board.

So what we have on a global level is not a matter of trade versus protectionism. Instead it is democracy and economic justice versus GOP-style right wing corporate conservatism.

Also, it overlooks one basic fact of life. There IS no "One size fits all" answer. Each country has its own circumstances, culture, needs and problems. Also, no industry is like any other.

Trying to impose a uniform set of WTO like rules on everyone just isn't going to happen. Even if it could gain that level of power, it would set off counter revolts -- whether through peaceful rejections by different sectors or nations, or in darker forms, such as the rebellions and liberation movements that are less peaceful.

Those who are arguing for business-based "free trade" without question are really arguing for Republican Corporate principles writ large on the global level. If you want to be a Corporate Republican, fine. That's what makes horse racing. But recognize that you are neither democratic, Democratic or liberal or progressive -- or even moderate -- when you advocate for this philosophy.

[Armstead]

1. Kick

Any of the "enlightened" free traders who have been calling critics of it racist and xenophobic care to answer?

[theriverburns]

2. Better watch....

Terrence and Phillip are armed (with corporate talking points) and dangerously rude.

Good points. I think of how professional sports franchises are blackmailing cities onto building them half billion dollar palaces or manufacturing companies play one community against each other as local examples of job worship. I mean, if you don't pay, someone else will.


"THose who are arguing for business-based "free trade" without question are really arguing for Republican Corporate principles writ large on the global level. If you want to be a Corporate Republican, fine. That's what makes horse racing. But recognize that you are neiter democratic, Democratic or liberal or progressive -- or even moderate -- when you advocate for this philosophy."

[Armstead]

4. Exactly

>>>I think of how professional sports franchises are blackmailing cities onto building them half billion dollar palaces or manufacturing companies play one community against each other as local examples of job worship.<<<

When the rules about globalization are merely about markets and the interests of business, it leads everyone on a race to the bottom.

Countrty A says: "Send your jobs here. You can pay people just $5 a day."

Country B says "No send them here. You can pay just $1 a day."

Country C says "Send them here. We have legal slavery."

Not exactly the way to raise the living standards of anyone, except for the fat cats.

[Zero Gravitas]

3. I'm all for Free Trade

so long as there is also equally free movement of people. If you can export an unlimited number of jobs to India then it should be OK for an unlimited number of Indians to move here, no questions asked and no restrictions. Ditto for NAFTA etc. If the Corps are not willing to allow that, then they should not be allowed "free trade" either.

[Melsky]

5. Globalization should be called global corporatization

If it's "free trade" how come when I ship one of my paintings to a customer in Canada, they have to pay import duty on it? That's a thing I don't understand.

[Yavin4]

6. Amen!

You can't have free trade with nations that aren't democratic. Free trade worked with Japan and South Korea because both countries were democracies that respected the rights of workers. I never complained about free trade with Japan because both the U.S. and Japan were similar nations that competed based on the product, not because one nation was able to use slave labor and the other wasn't.

[chiburb]

7. I'd like to find something

To disagree with in your post, but I can't. There are numerous examples of revolt to WTO-like 'impositions', both peaceful (election of Lula) and not. If American Corps. continue their 'exploration' of outsourcing white collar jobs to lower wage countries, I suspect you'll see quite a few middle-class Republican eyes begin to open. When they realize that they are NO different than the other cogs in the machine, just that they had farther to fall, perhaps real change can begin to take root(?)...

[Armstead]

8. One way process

>>>When they realize that they are NO different than the other cogs in the machine, just that they had farther to fall, perhaps real change can begin to take root(?)...<<<

Hopefully that'll happen before it's too late.

[chiburb]

9. Oh it'll happen for sure...

What you (we) really hope is that it'll happen peacefully.

[theriverburns]

16. I live in Cleveland. The rust belt.

People think that the US made a smooth transition to service after we lost (sold down the river) our manufacturing based, blue-collar middle class. Millions of good paying jobs. We didn't.

Cleveland proper became a shithole after the steel mills and auto plants and rubber plants closed. (OK. OK...It was a shithole prior but it wasn't a dirt poor shithole. There were jobs with dignity.).

American workers had to try and make up for these millions of good paying jobs we lost by putting our wives and mothers to work. By working second jobs. (so much for Republican family values) And, by going into DEBT. Major, mucho dinero, muy grande, mountains of debt. Private and public debt.

Now, they want to attack the next level of our middle class. And, we are more vulnerable because we can't assume much more debt. We are more vulnerable because our distribution of wealth has become far more top heavy than it was in 1978. We continue to allow the right wing to worship at the altar of the multinational corporate marketplace and we are in a world of trouble.


'Hopefully that'll happen before it's too late."

I think it may already be too late.

[Armstead]

17. It's all over the country

I live in the northeast and it happened here. Happened in many communities in the south and midwest. West Coast too.

[chiburb]

18. YES!

"Now, they want to attack the next level of our middle class."

And the next level is the upper-middle class!
Using Cleveland as an example, when the transition to 'service' happened there, didn't a rehab/gentrification of the riverfront (The Flats?) occur? Full of eateries, bars, clubs, etc., patronized by the upper-middle (with or without debt)? What will happen to that area when the 'spending' jobs are gone overseas? What will replace the replacement jobs?
I see contraction in EVERY segment of upper-middle or white-collar employment. I see NO turnaround for this economy while our Corps. continue to squeeze every last penny of profit they can, while they can. Of course, they are building a house of cards that'll fall down eventually, but after how much pain and suffering?
I am not optimistic... (can you tell?)

edited for spelling.

[El Mariachi]

34. The Flats

Cleveland's Flats area has almost died out, and the business that was on the Flats has moved up to the warehouse district downtown somewhat. Actually, to tell you the truth: people are just staying in their own suburbs instead of going downtown.

That being said, many eateries around here open and close seasonally. Some businesses are so hopelessly tied to the Indians being in town that during the winter they close up.

Riverburns' post helps to explain why Cleveland's 21-34 year olds are fleeing- and also why Cleveland's nightlife has gone WAY down the tubes.

Its sad, all these jobs dissappear and no other company is willing to set foot here. Then again, no one really can with the economy in the shitter.

Free trade IS corporate globalisation. If you want every country to be on equally shitty footing, then its for you. If you want to keep jobs in America, its definitely not for you. I'm suprised so many middle class republicans don't realise this.

It sucks, but let me give you a dose of reality: As a nation USA will never be able to compete with low wage countries in manufacturing, unless it is high tech. As a nation, we must embrace education and distribute it evenly and highly so that we can compete and innovate. Blue collar jobs won't stay here, no matter what we do. We just have to adapt and become technical. We must be smarter. We must elminiate overuse of h-1 visas and the like especially when we have an overabundance of brains here to handle it.

That's my opinion. Unless a big company plants its foot here, Cleveland is dead. If the economy wasn't so terrible, I would be looking for another job in another state.

[Chicagonian]

41. we are waaay behind the curve...educationwise.

what are the blue-collar workers who are too old to learn, or too stupid to learn new skills?
We could start tomorrow revamping our educational system(but we won't) and we'd still be a couple generations behind much of the industrialized world.
Unless something...incredible happens, this country is in for a world of hurt over the next couple decades.

[AntiLempa]

10. Well Put.

Zmag - http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm - has an excellent section on global economics that deals with a lot of these issues.

[Armstead]

14. Also....

global exchange

http://www.globalexchange.org/

[Armstead]

15. Also....

global exchange

http://www.globalexchange.org/

[buddhamama]

11. free trade

really means Corporations Free to Rule the World.

Corps are free to do whatever they want whenever they want without accountability.
in the end global citizens cannot be sustained.

[TahitiNut]

12. Never forget that corporatism, unlike mere "enterprise",

is innately autocratic and antidemocratic. There are many forms of enterprise that are far more egalitarian. Corporatism is not. The corporatization of the medical industry, for example, has led to runaway costs far exceeding the incremental benefits. The overwhelmingly vast majority of advance in medicine have come, not from corporations, but from individual efforts and enterprises coupled with public regulation to quash 'snake oil' predations.

[Yavin4]

13. The Most Oppressive Nations Will Ultimately Win...

globalization wars. Those nations that can use slave labor will ultimately win to the detriment of all workers in the world.

Why not let India and Russia develop their own IT industry, much like Japan and South Korea developed their own manufacturing industry. Then we can all compete equally based on price and the quality of the product.

[Armstead]

19. From Bernie Sanders today

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/releases/20030722193020.asp


For Immediate Release, 7/22/2003

Awful Trade Policies Give White and Blue-Collars the Pink Slip


Congressman Bernie Sanders said today America's trade policies are having dire consequences for most American workers.

Sanders remarked, "Many progressives and trade unionists long warned that passage of 'free trade' agreements would have negative effects on blue collar workers, and now it appears that our awful trade polices have spread to white-collar workers as well. Over the last two years we have lost more than 2 million manufacturing jobs, ten percent of our entire manufacturing sector. With 14.7 million total manufacturing jobs, the U.S. now has the lowest number of factory jobs since October 1958. Meanwhile, American corporations, as they throw American workers out on the street, are investing billions of dollars in China, Mexico, India and other poor countries where they are able to hire white-collar and blue-collar workers for pennies an hour. Corporations have learned that they can save more money training foreign workers than paying American workers living wages. President Bush should call for an immediate change in our trade polices before there are no decent paying jobs left."

[sangha]

20. Can't work?

Can't work for WHO???

[chiburb]

22. I'm not the author, but...

I don't think it can work for the Corps. because:

To work, they need buyers of their products. If they shift jobs from high or decent wages (US) to low(er) wage countries they can add profit to their bottom line from reduced expense. However, when the former workers can longer afford to purchase their wares due to unemployment, profits fall. When profits fall, they'll either have to move on to even cheaper wages or reduce prices. Either way, the whole thing is a house of cards that'll come tumbling down.

I think Corporations invented the 'short attention span' with their emphasis on quarterly results instead of long-term viability. Maybe this should be a platform idea: Tax and other credits to Corps. that actually invest IN a community, realizing that we're all in it together, and how we fare, so they fare.

[sangha]

24. IMO, you're making a mistake

in thinking that the corp's ultimate goal is profit. It's not.

The ultimate goal is power.

[chiburb]

25. If so,

They'll end up eating their own. Do you see any similarities with the Mafia? Didn't they have to consolidate into a handfull of 'families' because there were too many gangs chasing too few profits?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but if the goal is purely power then they've got a ways to go. After profits dry up (my scenario for why it won't work), THEN they can go about killing their own.

[sangha]

32. Yes, they will eat their own

and they will follow it with a nice glass of well-aged port. If they cared about "their own" they wouldn't leave the raiasing of their children to nannies and boarding schools.

And I'm not disagreeing with you, either. I'd just like to point out that "killing their own" is how they think it's supposed to work. They are Social Darwinists. To them "dog eat dog" is the embodiment of justice.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

33. exactly!

it's about power not money. If you have power, you can make money, hell you can just print it.

It's about power.

[Tigermoose]

39. And power is based on pride.

Vanity.

[SEAburb]

21. Yes Armstead lets keep the third world in the corrupt,

improverished, dehumanizing state they're in now. Nevermind that when a person lives in the worst condition possible, it can't get WORSE.

[Armstead]

35. And you think.....

making them corporate serfs is really going to help?

We should be helping impoverisjed nations develop their own enterprises and economies, and helping them to become stromger and more self-sufficient on their own, instead of making them corporate colonies.

A poor subsistance farmer struggling on his own land is not any worse off than a subsistance migrant worker on some corporate plantation. And someone working in a sweatshop to earnm just enough to survive is not the same as helping develop economies where indigenous industries are able to compete in the global market on their own terms.

[SEAburb]

38. like it or not

it will take corporate involvement to finance the building of the economies in third world nations, industrialized states can't handle the load alone. The problem has gotten too big over the last 30 years from neglect.

[Armstead]

40. Corporate involvement maybe

But corporate tyranny no.

Like it or not, these problems have been around since time began. It's not like poverty was suddenly invented 20 years ago. Corporations can't be their saviors or massas or their exploiters.

We should be helping them WheN they want help as partners.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

I'm going to keep beating this drum.
Ending corporate personhood in the US is the key to this as it is to so many issues.

[Abaques]

26. Fair Trade

Protectionism is just as bad as the unfettered cut-throat capitalism that is what the WTO calls "free trade".

We need to find a balance, where other nations can compete, but only when their citizens are treated justly and fairly, with comparable benefits to what our citizens enjoy.

If some nation can do that and have their workers demand less money, then more power to them.

Globalization has already happened. Trying to stop it is just wasted time and effort. What needs to be done is trying to make it fair for everyone in the world. If we are US centric, that just won't happen.

[billyskank]

30. Your ruling elite is not even "US-centric"

They couldn't care less about America. They only care about the narrow section of society they represent, the owners of capital. The rest of America (i.e. almost all of it) can go hang for all they care.

The stupid thing is, the plutocracy is busy eating the foundation on which their wealth is based!

[Abaques]

31. I agree with you

Yes, the corporations, their masters, and their politicians (ie most repubs and a few dems) do only care about their own personal gain. You get no argument from me there.

But when I said that we need to stop being US-centric I was talking about everyone in the US. From the boardroom to the schoolroom and everywhere in between. This includes us on DU and others who are left of center.

What we need to do is find practical ways to execute change so that life will be better for the majority of the people in the world. Alot of that is going to start with making life better for the poor, working poor, and middle-class here first. But to try to hide from the rest of the world behind pure protectionism is misguided and foolhardy.

As I said before: Fair Trade.

[PATRICK]

27. can't work for a few only

Globalization means leveling out for everyone. When the "free trade" doesn't satisfy these oligarchs they want the right to make exceptions and the right to quash any social interest in their affairs. IF the various players were acting globally cooperative and responsible it would work. So would any system. That is why a real checks and balances democracy system is supposed to take up the inevitable slack of failure and exploitation. That is why we have we have LAW.

And you are right. Trying to make injustice "work" only breeds breakdown, entropy and chaos- anarchy or tyranny. In such a world only a shabby show of dominance could be measured. The benefits of a fairer world to a corporation and progress would reasonably be more immense and immeasurably more productive.

The problem with the shallow ideology of the corporate guy is that it allows the malfactors to ruin everything for the "principle". Sort of like the NRA going too too far and only benfiting a few pols.

There can be no 1984 or Brave New World. Only failure and extinction.

[AntiLempa]

28. Armstead check your PM

Armstead check your PM

[Tigermoose]

29. Redeye? Maple? Other free trade gurus? *crickets chirping*

Kick!

[Character Assassin]

36. The argument collapses under its own fatal assumptions

Free trade implies a utopian system in which goods and services cross national boundaries unfettered, and all nations benefit equally based on markets -- just as the US states operate.

No, it doesn't. Free trade doesn't imply a paradigm wherein all nations benefit equally based on markets. Free trade does imply, however, your first point about barriers and unfettered transport, entry and distribution. There is no guarantee that there will be univeral 'equal' benefit.

However, in fact, free trade destroys freedom of trade -- as well as freedom of people to establish their own laws and policies based on their own goals and circumstances.

That is an assertion without support or specifics, and as such cannot really be addressed.

Instesd it makes all nations subservient to what is in effect one World Government beholden only to the business elites.

See above.

It is not democractic, but imposes a "One size fits all" answer. It says, in effect, "If your nation wants to participate in the world economy, you have to give up your sovergnty and do what we tell you."

See above.

That might not be so bad if those rules were an extension of the democratically expressed wishes of all of the world's people. Or if its purpose were truly to spread the wealth around more fairly.

Again, the purpose of free trade is not 'to spread the wealth around more "fairly"'.

But it isn't. Like any governing body, the bigger and more centralized it gets the more it moves further from the grass roots. Instead it merely reflects the wisges of the elite who have the power to be heard, and to rig the board.

What you are talking about is not free trade. Monopolies and cartels are anathema to the concept of free trade, and to impute that they are actually representative of it is not only inaccurate, it places your argument on the border of dishonesty.

So what we have on a global level is not a matter of trade versus protectionism. Instead it is democracy and economic justice versus GOP-style right wing corporate conservatism.

Spare me the rhetoric. 'Economic justice' is a loaded and ill-defined term that indicates that no matter what the conditions or potential outcomes, free trade, as defined by the author, would never be anything other than some stage-prop, some contrived vehicle with which to push an agenda that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what free trade is.

Also, it overlooks one basic fact of life. There IS no "One size fits all" answer. Each country has its own circumstances, culture, needs and problems. Also, no industry is like any other.

Free trade doesn't deny that each country is different, etc...

Trying to impose a uniform set of WTO like rules on everyone just isn't going to happen. Even if it could gain that level of power, it would set off counter revolts -- whether through peaceful rejections by different sectors or nations, or in darker forms, such as the rebellions and liberation movements that are less peaceful.

Ah, we reach the heart of the problem. The WTO does not represent free trade; it is the epitome of managed trade.

Those who are arguing for business-based "free trade" without question are really arguing for Republican Corporate principles writ large on the global level.

That is attributing one possible motive to a very complex field of factors and amounts to and 'either/or' false dilemma.

If you want to be a Corporate Republican, fine. That's what makes horse racing. But recognize that you are neither democratic, Democratic or liberal or progressive -- or even moderate -- when you advocate for this philosophy.

Again, it is dishonest and inaccurate to try to reduce this to a black or white, either-republican-or-not dichotomy.

[Armstead]

37. A response.

>>>No, it doesn't. Free trade doesn't imply a paradigm wherein all nations benefit equally based on markets. Free trade does imply, however, your first point about barriers and unfettered transport, entry and distribution. There is no guarantee that there will be univeral 'equal' benefit.<<<

That is the claim that is often made to support "free trade." That it will lift all boats. We will gain booming new markets for exports as otehr nations rise closer to our level. That is the claim.


>>>See above.<<<

Look at the details of what international trade agreements are preventing national and regional governments from doing. Read about the laws that are (or are threatened to be) challenged because they are considered an "unfair restraint of trade." Read about the policies -- such as privitization of public services that are being forced on developing nations.


>>>Again, the purpose of free trade is not 'to spread the wealth around more "fairly"'.<<

Then why was there anb outburst of ythreads here from people making that very claim? And can you tell me what the stated purpose is?

>>>What you are talking about is not free trade. Monopolies and cartels are anathema to the concept of free trade, and to impute that they are actually representative of it is not only inaccurate, it places your argument on the border of dishonesty.<<<

Monopolies and cartels are the inevitable result of "free trade," if nations are not allowed to determine how they are going to regulate their own economies and industries. Have you ever heard of a "multinational corporation?" What do you think they do, compete with local producers on a level playing field?

>>>Spare me the rhetoric. 'Economic justice' is a loaded and ill-defined term that indicates that no matter what the conditions or potential outcomes, free trade, as defined by the author, would never be anything other than some stage-prop, some contrived vehicle with which to push an agenda that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what free trade is.<<

I'm beginning to think your problem is that you actually believe what they are telling you about "free trade." As I said, the actual ideal of a free trading system is not bad. But that is NOT what Corporate Globaliation's definition of "free trade" is all about.


>>Free trade doesn't deny that each country is different, etc...<<

That is what they are attempting to do. Look about the details that are covered in some of these GATTS and the WTO about how they are micromanaging the economies of all nations according to a set of formulas.

>>Ah, we reach the heart of the problem. The WTO does not represent free trade; it is the epitome of managed trade.<<

PLease see above about actually believing in what the proponents of Corporate "free trade" are saying.


>>>Again, it is dishonest and inaccurate to try to reduce this to a black or white, either-republican-or-not dichotomy.<<<

Admittedly I made a very simplistic overgeneralization. You're correct there. But that is the heart of it. Republicans believe the only form of regulation and law that is appropriate are those writting by business and for business. That is also the basis of the present form of Corporate Globaization.

[ulysses]

42. kick