What do you think of GATS?

[Tuor]

On a slightly different note I personally can't see anything wrong with privatising the whole world if someone really wants to, and by that I mean healthcare, prisons, the police force, education the lot.

Why firstly it frees up more government time and resources to deal with managing things and secondly (and this is the important bit) if there are proper safeguards against the corporations running stuff in theory the consumer should be protected.

I can't see the sense in the old globalisation is bad, capitalism is bad argument, since when has it been a crime to make a few pounds.

Just my opinion.

[John D Harris]

Silver Cheetah,
Where I'm coming from can best be summed up in the saying "Power corupts, and absolute Power corupts absolutly" There was no intention to make you mad, but the same kind of statements (as you made) can be made by someone that works for or would be considered part of "Big Business". Anyone here that has a job or is benifited by, someone that has a job (father, mother, whatever) can be lumped into the "Big Business" As Sting said during the "Cold War" " Don't Russians love their childern too".
Kyoto, GATS, WTO all seek to force countries to take actions that the populations of those countries may not want to take.(for what ever reason) to force someone to take an action is power.
Here in the USA we have people on the enviromentalist side that destroy other people's property, and place humans lives in danger from their actions ie; spiking of trees to prevent the tree fromm being logged. It is a fact of life without power you can't get the laws changed, no matter what side you are on. It has always been about power all the way back to Cain & Abel. Sometimes that power is military, sometimes it's money, sometime it's idealogical, sometimes it's religious but it is always about the power. It's not pretty, it's not fair, and it's not always right but it is the way this world works.

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

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Tuor: On a slightly different note I personally can't see anything wrong with privatising the whole world if someone really wants to, and by that I mean healthcare, prisons, the police force, education the lot. I can't see the sense in the old globalisation is bad, capitalism is bad argument, since when has it been a crime to make a few pounds. Just my opinion.

My argument is rather more complex than ‘capitalism is bad’. Indeed, I believe that trade is essential, as very few of us are in a position to produce all we need in our own back garden! (supposing we have one...) Such a position would be absurd, taking no account of the realities of modern life.

However, I do not believe capitalism IN ITS PRESENT FORM is uniformly good. There are many many problems associated with what is loosely called globalisation, and I have attempted to put forward some of my concerns in this threat, (have you actually read it?)

My problem is with a form of capitalism that blunders blindly ahead, taking short term, profit led action with no thought for our long term future. Our lives are inextricably entwined with the life of the planet. We live in an ecosystem which is both robust and delicate. Capitalism – IN ITS PRESENT FORM - threatens that ecosystem, and in doing so, our very lives.

I would like to see concern for the environment built into the way we live, and that MUST include trading. I believe strongly that if we don’t change the way we do business, we will suffer, however, I have no inherent problem with the fact of doing business! (I’m just repeating myself here – go back and read the thread for the rest of my argument.....)

Re privatising services, - interesting how you say ‘I can’t see anything wrong with privatising services if SOMEONE’ really wants to’. Yup. It’s that ‘someone’ that worries me. I believe that we need essential services provided by elected government, not by private individuals. At least we get some say that way (although increasingly less, as government fail to live up to election promises and pursue big business agendas behind closed doors. Do one thing and say another – yes, there’s a problem with government too. A key word here is TRANSPARENCY, - something we don’t have enough of in government OR IN BUSINESS EITHER. IF WE DID, THEN WE MIGHT START GETTING SOMEWHERE.)

There’s two types of services, esential and non essential. We need essential services to stay alive. Without access to water, healthcare, waste disposal......... we die, sooner or later. Other services, such as education, are not essential to life, but they sure do make a difference to its quality, not to mention our chances for the future. Likewise policing. We all rely on law and order being kept to live peaceable lives. Services are essential to making sure that all citizens, from the poorest to the richest, can not only survive, but have a reasonable quality of life.

Privatisation of services means running services to make a profit, Companies big enough to take on the running of services are mostly owned by shareholders who want to see a return on investment, ie. profit.

Personally, I have a problem with essential services being run as a business, on a profit basis. (I’m not talking about services such as telecoms and tourism here, I’m talking about services that support life, or are in some way fundamental, such as health, education, water delivery, policing.)

Why?

1. Because when essential services are run on a ‘for profit’ basis, the poorer lose out. A system based on the ability to pay will not deliver quality services to people without money, or with very little money. (Hence my argument re the developing nations). The way it works is the more money you have, the better the service you can afford to pay for (especially in sectors such as health and education.) Organisations supplying services to make a profit are going to gear services so that they themselves make a profit. This doesn’t include making sure that the poor get the best medical care for their conditions, for example. (And please don’t anyone start telling me the benefits trickle down! Any trickling goes straight into shareholder pockets, in the majority of cases......)

To take an example, the privatisation of bus services in the UK meant that in many cases, buses stopped running or ran at far longer intervals on routes that didn’t pay for themselves. As a result, more and more people were forced into cars (those that could afford cars, that is....) to get to where they wanted to go. People without cars, which includes a lot of elderly people, were pretty stuffed. If you take all the costs into account – including the environmental costs, then was it really the cheapest overall option? I don’t think so. But the policy benefited the companies running the bus services, allowing them to increase overall profits by putting the kybosh on unprofitable routes.

(Please note: this doesn't mean I'm in favour of non efficient government run services. (Which is what happens a lot of the time. However, having worked in numerous corporations - American ones too!! I can tell you that when it comes to waste and inefficiency, the private sector is right up there with the public. Oh yes!! And when private companies take over public services, in the UK at least, the government has to step in and pull them out of the shit with, guess what, public money!! (I have some ideas on things we could do about all this.... involves some fundamental changes in how we educate our children, and ourselves, for that matter..... But this response is already way long....)

2. Free trade in essential services is going to mean even more of the problems that the world needs less of – MAJOR threats to the environment, widening gaps between rich and poor, more emphasis on endless ruthless competition at the expense of community, and so on.

I’m interested in living in a civilised society. Good quality of life for everyone, minimum environmental damage, decent homes, food and social support for everyone. The free trade supporters say that all this can only be achieved by putting a price on everything, including health and education. Like it’s really really working!!! Take a good look at the global world outside your window. There’s over 6 billion people in the world. Something over a billion live in the industrialised North, some of whom are living the good life on the backs of the rest of the world, and at the expense of the global environment. A large part of the remainder are not living this way, and I’ve already quoted figures on how the gap is widening between rich and poor, and made the arguments on how this is happening.

PS. When you say global privatisation of services will free up government to manage things, what things were you thinking of? There won’t be a whole lot left to manage, will there?? TNCs rule ok!! (You might like to read some cyber punk – if you haven’t already. Try William Gibson, - Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive. Gibson paints a picture of a capital run dystopia (some see it as a utopia) and tells a great story or two in the process. Bruce Sterling also v. interesting.......)



[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-04-2001).]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Silver Cheetah, Kyoto, GATS, WTO all seek to force countries to take actions that the populations of those countries may not want to take.(for what ever reason) to force someone to take an action is power.

Hi John D

You don’t sound like the type of person who likes labels, , but would I be correct in assuming that you are an anarchist? Because that seems the logical conclusion given what you’re saying. Personally, I would like to think that human beings, left to themselves without government, would be able to exist without ripping each other to shreds. However, given that our society, overall, has developed on a competitive, rather than a communal basis, we have a basic tendency to see the other guy or gal as a threat, rather than as a potential co-worker, and this applies to nations as much as it does to individuals. Pity. If we started educating our children differently, maybe that could start changing.

But as things stand now, - and let’s face it, we have to go from where we actually ARE, not where we’d like to be – we need government. We aren’t socially evolved enough to do without it. For that to work, you’d need for people to be ruled by love, rather than fear. Our society exists on fear – and competition thrives on it. I prefer the idea that we’d move forward out of love – love of the planet we live on, love of our neighbour, love of what we do for a living, love of excellence, love of making a difference........ but the way it works is we do what we do (in the main, there are numerous exceptions however...) out of fear. Fear of not having enough, and of not surviving, fear that we aren’t good enough, fear that someone will come and take it all away, fear that if we don’t knuckle under and conform, it will be taken away.... Fear fear fear fear. Our world is built on it. Fear is at the root of greed, and that is where capitalism goes very wrong indeed.

As someone who is concerned about the environment, I’m driven by both love and fear. Love is what I feel when I look at the individual components that make up nature – the sea, the forest, trees, plants, birds, insects..... Fear is what I feel when I look at the filth in the sea, the yellow foam that often comes in with the tide, when I see how few birds there are compared with just 10 years ago, the dearth of butterflies, when I read in the newspaper about yet another threatened species, not far away in the rainforest, but right on my doorstep.

I often feel that Americans (I’m not criticising here, but it’s the way I see it) can be blase about environmental issues, firstly because of the sheer size of your country, and secondly because you have so MUCH nature, and maybe it’s harder to recognise what is happening. (I don’t know this, I’m just making an assumption.) I feel that you’re ‘cushioned’ from environmental reality.

From where I sit, things are looking bad on that front. I want to help, to make a difference! I want to save my planet! And we NEED groups to do that, because it is sure that no-one is going to do it on their own. I do see the point you are making about power – without it, the way the world currently works, at any rate – nothing is going to get done. But believe me, all the env. groups that I know about or am a member of just want to see humankind having some sort of future on a habitable world. We’re not in this to make money or start slapping people around!! I give up my time and energy regularly to help raise awareness (ie. help get people more aware of the issues.) I don’t get paid, in fact I lose money, as it’s time I could be spending earning.

PS. I take your point about using violence against people. In spite of the violence that we humans have unleashed against plants, animals, other people who we see as somehow ‘lesser than’ ourselves, no, I don’t agree with using violence. The main group I belong to is Greenpeace – before taking part in any ‘actions’ we are required to participate in Non Violent Direct Action training. I don’t condone violence – two wrongs have never made a right.

[Fljotsdale]

Oh, WOW!

Go, Silver Cheetah, go! Well said, well written, well reasoned!



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

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Go, Silver Cheetah, go! Well said, well written, well reasoned! [/B]

Eeh, Fljotsdale, I likes you, I does!

(currently lapping up praise and purring, after which I shall return to the fray, much refreshed...)

[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-04-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Oh, WOW! Go, Silver Cheetah, go! Well said, well written, well reasoned!

I agree with Ms. Fljotsdale.

Silver Cheetah, it is a genuine pleasure to read your posts on this issue

And I am afraid you are right about the attitude of many Americans. There is so much nature over here that it tends to be taken for granted. That attitude is slowly changing -- too slowly, though, I fear.

[Moridin]

We have strayed from the original topic of GATS, and I would like to get back to that but first I would like to address some of the other issues that have been raised. A little at a time of course

Blame
The assignment of blame is sort of like asking which came first the chicken or the egg? In this context it is the question, which came first the consumer or the corporation? It is easy to blame the corporation for the ills of society. We take the weight of responsibility off of our shoulders. It has been done that way since the beginning of time, always trying to blame someone or something else for our problems, or actions. I think it is time that we stop blaming the corporations for all of our problems (yes they are responsible for many of them but not all). So where does this put some of the blame then? The consumer. We have to start making people look in the mirror and admitting that it isn’t the corporation that is always to blame, but ourselves. It comes down to supply and demand. We live in a society that wants convenience and we want it cheap. Our time is valuable and we want to make the most of it. That is why corporations like Wal-Mart and Super-Valu exist. They see this need and they fill it. If Wal-Mart opens a store in a rural town and runs all the ma & pa shops out of business, is it Wal-Mart’s fault, or the consumer? The people of that small town could not shop at Wal-Mart. They could continue to shop at the local stores, but they don’t. They shopped at the local stores b/c that was what there was, but they bitched about it. They complained about having to drive all over town to get their goods. Then a Wal-Mart or Target or whatever comes in and people flock there. The people want convenience and that is what they get. I know this b/c it happens all the time. My extended family lives in rural South Dakota. For the longest time they had to go to one store for household supplies, one store for clothes, one store for groceries, one store for car parts, and they complained about it. You should have heard my Grandma bitch and moan that it took her hours to shop in town. Then Wal-Mart opened. Now she goes to Wal-Mart, gets what she needs (for cheaper than before) and is home in about an hour. And she has stopped complaining! But, on the otherhand she now moans about the loss of the small stores and she blames Wal-Mart for this This is not the fault of Wal-Mart, my grandmother complained that she wanted convenience, she got it, and now she complains that Wal-Mart is driving the small stores out of business?!?!

We want convenience, we want more product for less money, we want to get more done in less time. We not only want it, we DEMAND it! But then we turn around and blame the very corporations that provide what we demand? We have to stop blaming the corporations and start blaming ourselves. It is the consumer that needs to start changing. Without that it doesn’t matter if we drive Wal-Mart out of business, another corporation will simply step up and fill the demand.

This is the scenario played over and over again. We demand our SUV’s, but then blame Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler for producing cars that have high-emissions and terrible fuel consumption. We demand our Doritos, our Twinkies, our processed meat, but then complain that they are full of additives and preservatives. We demand our home huge home in the suburbs and then blame the energy company when our electric bill is too high, and the logging companies for deforestation. We demand our gas guzzling cars, our natural gas homes, our plastic this and plastic that and then turn around and blame the oil companies for the depletion of natural resources. We demand and consume the products that are depleting our natural resources and damaging the environment, but we do not want to accept the blame.

We cannot continue to lay all of the blame at the feet of the corporation, while we continue to enjoy our lives off of the very products they provide. If we change our demand, then corporations will be forced to change the products they supply. If we stop buying SUVs and start demanding more fuel efficient cars then the corporations will stop producing SUVs and start producing more fuel efficient cars.

Sure, this is a very simplistic approach to a complex issue and there is much more to be said. But I think we have to change the consumer before we can change the corporation.


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


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
**Former proud member of the Laughing Hyenas**

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: I agree with Ms. Fljotsdale.

Thank you, Diogenes. A slight digression - is Pumpkintown a real place in the US, or is that part of your name witty social comment? (Scuse ignorance please!)

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Moridin: It is easy to blame the corporation for the ills of society. We take the weight of responsibility off of our shoulders. [/B]

Hi Moridin, welcome back after your vacation! We missed you!

LOVED this blame post! Yes, responsibility rests first and foremost on the shoulders of the individual. We are all free to vote with our feet, and it’s up to us to do so. Don’t approve of the big corporations with poor environmental/social records? Your first step is stop buying from them. Buy from companies that you approve of, and want to support. That means doing research, taking time. These days, I’ve taken what for me is an easy option, living in Brighton, (big alternative culture) which is to just buy from the small stores which stock locally grown organic produce (plus some imported, I have to admit!) and get a box delivered from a local farm. I rarely buy processed food, which makes not buying from non ethical corporations a lot easier. (That is not to say I NEVER buy from non ethical corporations. I wish I could make that claim, but it wouldn’t be true. Most of the time I don’t.)

On the non food goods front, I don’t buy much new these days – Brighton has a thriving second hand industry going – there are two great classified ad papers which come out weekly, and you can buy anything and everything second hand, from a laundry basket to tiles for your roof. There’s also loads of charity shops, and second hand shops. When I moved here from Amsterdam, I furnished my whole house that way, with the exception of the bed, and the Dutch wooden furniture I bought over there, when I was a lot less env. aware. (Not sure where the wood was sourced, but I can guess........)

Buying second hand can also be really fun. Buying from other people, you get to see their houses, how they live..... I’m really curious so it suits me. But yes, it does take time. You don’t always find what you want first off, so the instant gratification thing doesn’t really come into play. But then, if you want instant gratification, I can think of more satisfying ways to obtain it that falling back on that old standby, retail therapy.

Sometimes you HAVE to buy new though – and that’s when it’s good to check how products are made, what a company’s environmental record is and so forth. So much of what big companies sell is so much pure, unadulterated crap. Cheap shoddy goods that are made to fall apart, disgusting yuk which is sold as food, but which actually damaging to people’s health, when ingested on a long term basis. Cleaning products – there’s plenty green products about. Or you can make your own in two seconds flat. (I use essential oils as perfumes and disinfectants. Gorgeous. Vinegar for cleaning windows, tiles etc.)

There’s lots of books and web sites that people can check out to find out how they can make a difference. Wouldn’t you agree, Moridin, that trying to go ‘green’ all in a moment is a big mistake, stressful to say the least? So easy for people to get discouraged. The best way is one small step at a time, just so long as you carry on taking those small steps. And it’s good to focus on the positive, rather than feeling deprived. So, if you walk or bike instead of using a car, just think of the health benefits, the extra interest (lots more things to see!), the fact that you’re making a positive contribution to the health of the planet....

Having said all that, I would argue that in addition to consumers taking responsibility for what they buy, companies MUST take responsibility for what they sell. (This might be where we part company on this argument... ) What’s sauce for the goose......... This is where government needs to come in. It’s no good just expecting a company to be ethical in its trading, chock full of social responsibility, and environmentally aware. It would be nice, but left to themselves, corporates aren’t going to make a single move that threatens profit (which complying with environmental regulations often does, especially when a company has a long record of exploiting both people and planet).

It’s down to government to make sure that companies are kept in check by imposing aforementioned rules and regulations. No, it isn’t the ideal solution, given the limitations of government(s), but who the hell else is going to do it? Companies have to be curbed, (they certainly aren’t going to do it themselves, and firmly oppose government doing it – there’s some powerful lobbies out there!) otherwise they have free reign to screw up the environment, not to mention walking all over the under privilaged (e.g. developing countries) as many many of them are currently doing.

Unfortunately, government (US and UK especially – some of the other European countries are better..) is notoriously bad at imposing such rules and regulations, fearful of being perceived as anti-business, which in the West is THE heresy of all time. To jump back to the original topic, to my mind, GATT and GATS are a move AWAY from ensuring that corporations shoulder their share of social and environmental responsiblity.

It’s like, what’s our main priority? Short term money making, or long term survival? I think we can combine money making with survival, but only if we make some big changes in how we live and trade.

(As I said earlier in this thread, I’d like to see a global debate on the subject of taxing polluters and natural resource gobblers, moving away from taxing labour. )

So, Moridin, you’re so right. Let those of us who are concerned about the environment put our money where our mouth is, walk our talk. Whether our steps are big and sweeping or tentative and tiny, they’re steps in the right direction!

Maybe I should have picked the user name ‘Green Priestess’. have horrible feeling I'm coming over as either preachy or self righteous - however, tis very hard not to when one feels strongly about an issue! Guess I'll just have to live with it, and so will you.......

.... long live smilies!!