Long Live Globalization

[Avatar]

Long live Globalization, WTO, and the World bank.

I am a firm believer in these policies and organizations. I believe that our world can only be more divided and worse without them.

Whether they are sufficient or not is not to question their existence.
These organizations along with the UN and the Red Cross are here to balance this world.

I become very angry when I see Anarchist and other various groups protesting outside trade meetings. It's sad that the WTO can't make every individual happy, but they are helping so many already. You don't see the happy farmers because they don't protest about their successful harvests and sales. You only see those who haven't been cared for yet.

You only see groups of induhviduals who think the world is better is we do't have structure, control and governments. That some how if we left everyone to themselves, all woes will be resolved.

Well weren't we like that 2 million years ago? Evolution and the test of time has led us to this national system.

My 2 pennies

[Donut]

If it were me posting this people would probably see the underlying sarcasm. I think you should add a few smileys to show that you're not serious.

Happy farmers!
Globalisation a national system!

That's priceless - thanks.

[Timber Loftis]

The WTO is a fine idea -- but is insufficient alone. The WTO does not address externalities created by free trade amongst nations with different regulatory systems. For instance, the USA has stricter environmental standards and labor standards that India or Mexico. If there is free trade between the USA and these countries, the companies living in the US are disadvantaged. Because the companies in the USA must meet higher environmental and labor requirements, they have a greater overhead and a smaller profit margin. This makes it tough to compete with the India/Mexico companies living under less strict regulations.

So, the US companies, rather than lose out to competition, try to find a way to cut labor/environment costs to compete. OSHA and EPA are serious enough that risking noncompliance is not an option -- the costs can be too great (with fines for violations topping out at $25,000/day or more). So, the solution is to pick up and move the business to another country where it can operate under less strict standards. IBM announces 3 weeks ago it is outsourcing tech support to India (and it's happening all over -- 3 tech support guys at Sony last week that I spoke with were definately Indian, whether they were in India I do not know). Ford moves plants to Mexico. Guess where VW Beatles are made -- Hecho en Mexico.

Worse -- in every instance this is a "race to the bottom" by all the companies striving to avoid regulation, operate dirty, and use cheap labor in order to compete with other companies doing the same.

So, until there are international bodies to address these externalities, or until the WTO will address these (the WTO standard bullshit line is "our mandate is only to regulate trade"), the WTO only creates problems. The WTO is nothing without a WLO and WEO, but is wonderful with them. Now, when can we make this happen?

[Skunk]

So, until there are international bodies to address these externalities, or until the WTO will address these (the WTO standard bullshit line is "our mandate is only to regulate trade"), the WTO only creates problems.

And this is why the last WTO talks failed - Western nations wanted to address these very problems - but the undeveloped nations weren't listening because they wanted the agricultural issues sorted out first.

[Avatar]

In my opinion THAT is not an issue!

US Farmers stand at highier advantage BECAUSE of highier regulations.

People with enough money will buy the foods with better reglated approval.

It should be fair that these products should jointly trade:

US Apple at $4 which is very safe
Indian Apple at $1 which is known to be alright.


Which would you buy?

And more importantly, once someone gets ill from the Indian Apple...

WHICH WOULD YOU BUY??

When we play the speculation game of chess, it's better to think a few moves ahead.

[Timber Loftis]

If the Indian were smart enough to slap an "organic" label on his apple, he'd sell them like hotcakes to NYC yuppies and to anyone in CA, the entire west coast or most of the east coast. He would have less overhead and would be selling his apple for double!

In fact, this was the very exact advice we were giving nine developing nations that attended a joint FIELD/UNCTAD* roundtable in Geneva when I was interning there. I remember the delegate from Tunasia saying that EVERYTHING grown there was organic, simply due to the lack of money for fertilizer and pesticides.

Now, these farms and factories in other countries are largely OWNED by US companies (e.g., almost all of Cincinnati-based Chiquita Bananas' farms are in Nicaragua), but that doesn't help the problem. The jobs and benefits of the employed labor force leave this country, and the factories move and pollute more over there. The fact that a handful of corporate fat cats in the US are getting paid $1mil+/yr. to manage this whole ordeal does not help the US population nor economy very much. All it does is serve to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor in the US.

To extend the example past the apple and use a few real-world examples:
1. On manufactured goods: the VW bug made in Mexico is made under less strict enviro standards yet no one asks "how much soil did you pollute or laborers were injured/underpaid when making this car" when they buy a car.
2. The EU/US banana fight is all about the EU wanting to protect (through tarriff) small island peoples, who grow bananas the beautiful romantic traditional way, from the big bad Chiquita Bananas, grown with intense chemical use by underpaid Central American workers: the "better grown" product again just can't compete.

Ergo, there is no logical connection between the externality and the marketability of the item. Your logic does not follow.

(See, I'm not so bad at chess. )

* Foundation for International Environmental Law & Development and
United Nations Commission on Trade & Development

[ 09-23-2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[pritchke]

The Indian Apple, an apple is an apple, if the apple doesn't kill you something else will.

[Avatar]

I would suggest having safety regulation labels on foods.

EVEN if your Indian apple has an organic sticker on it, without a safety label, how far will it go?

Yet if people risking that for a lower price don't find a problem with it, then you have a market!!

But for those picky rich people, the US farmers remain their seller.

Competition.

[Stratos]

The problem with labeling products as 'organic' or similar is to come up with a standard that everyone uses. Alot of companies uses their own labels and the same knid of label can differ in content from company to company.

[Barry the Sprout]

I've been on a lot of demonstrations for a lot of different causes, most of the related to the current economic situation, and I can say quite catagorically that that is the most spectacular missing of the point I've ever seen.

It really bugs me that people think that if I'm anti-capitalist then I'm anti-globalisation, as being anti-globalisation is such an easy position to destroy. Its completely stupid to be against the coming together of the world, and as a socialist I feel that it is in fact essential for the acheivement of my ideology. If you think that the left is against globalisation then you'd be in for a shock if you ever actually listened to what the people on those protests were saying.

As Donut says - do you want to include some smilies in your post? Its almost so devolved from reality that its beyond parody...