Shrinking Violets in the Global Village

Gujju,

This is Composition 101...why have you not provided the concerns that critics of globalization raise? When you don`t, your credibility as a writer who is invested in examining an issue thoroughly is questionable. But, I`m pretty sure you know that....and as I am not one of your servants to do your work for you, -and I find it pretty telling that you dont find it neccesary to ask THEM what THEY think of globalization, be grateful for the following:

PAUL KRUGMAN, ``We Are Not the World,`` New York Times, February 13, 1997

---

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- It is a truth universally acknowledged that
the growing international mobility of goods, capital and technology
has completely changed the economic game. Nations, conventional
wisdom tells us, no longer have the power to control their own destinies;
governments are at the mercy of international markets.

Some celebrate this development, saying that both rich and poor nations
benefit. At the same time, a growing number of journalists, union leaders,
politicians of both parties and even businessmen deplore it, blaming
globalization for instability, unemployment and declining wages.

But both sides have it wrong. They take the omnipotence of global
markets for granted -- not realizing that reports of the death of national
autonomy are greatly exaggerated.

A certain fascination with the march of globalization is understandable.
For half a century, world trade has grown faster than world output, and
international capital now moves more quickly than ever before. The
rapidly expanding exports of newly industrializing economies have put
pressure on less-skilled workers in advanced countries even as they offer
unprecedented opportunities to tens of millions in the third world. (The
wages of those workers are shockingly low but nonetheless represent a
vast improvement on their previous, less visible rural poverty.)

But while global economic integration is increasing, its growth has been
far outpaced by that of ``global economy`` rhetoric. Two recent books by
economic journalists, William Greider`s ``One World, Ready or Not`` and
Robert Kuttner`s ``Everything for Sale,`` are jeremiads about the evils of
unfettered economic globalism.

Politicians like Patrick J. Buchanan and Ross Perot have made careers
out of assailing open markets. Even the financier George Soros warns, in
the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, that global capitalism is now a
greater threat than totalitarianism to ``open society.``

Such oratory has become so pervasive that many observers seem
determined to blame global markets for a host of economic and social ills
in their countries, even when the facts point unmistakably to mainly
domestic -- and usually political -- causes.

For example, critics of globalization often cite France, whose Government
has taken no serious action to reduce its double-digit unemployment rate,
as the perfect example of how states have become powerless in the face
of impersonal world markets. France cannot act, according to a recent
New York Times article, because of the demands of ``European
economic integration -- itself partly a response to the competitive
demands of the global marketplace.``

French policy is indeed paralyzed -- not, however, by impersonal market
forces but by the determination of its prestige-conscious politicians not to
let the franc decline against the German mark.

Britain, which has been willing to let the pound sink relative to the mark,
has steadily reduced its unemployment rate with no visible adverse
consequences.

The cause of France`s paralysis, in other words, is political rather than
economic. True, the country must meet the conditions laid down by the
Maastricht treaty of 1991, which is supposed to lead to a unified
European currency. But creating this currency is more a political than an
economic project. Its main purpose is to serve as a symbol of European
unity, and many economists think that the costs of the common currency
will exceed its benefits. It would actually be more accurate to say that
French politics has battered markets rather than the other way around.

And what about the United States, where the continuing power of the
Government -- or at any rate that of the Federal Reserve -- to push the
economy around can hardly be questioned? Critics of the global economy
invariably reply that America may be creating lots of jobs but that they are
tenuous because of the prevalence of downsizing, which is a reaction to
international competition (a line of reasoning that also provides a good
excuse for companies undertaking layoffs).

Come again? Newsweek ran a story last year, titled ``The Hit Men,``
about executives responsible for massive layoffs. The chief executives of
AT&T, Nynex, Sears, Philip Morris and Delta Air Lines were high on the
list.

Of course, international competition plays a role in some downsizings, but
as Newsweek`s list makes clear, it is hardly the most important cause of
the phenomenon. To my knowledge there are no Japanese keiretsu
competing to carry my long-distance calls or South Korean
conglomerates offering me local service. Nor have many Americans
started buying their home appliances at Mexican stores or smoking
French cigarettes.

I cannot fly Cathay Pacific from Boston to New York.

What explains this propensity to overstate the importance of global
markets? In part, it sounds sophisticated. Pontificating about globalization
is an easy way to get attention at events like the World Economic Forum
in Davos, Switzerland, and Renaissance Weekends in Hilton Head, S.C.
But there is also a deeper cause -- an odd sort of tacit agreement
between the left and the right to pretend that exotic global forces are at
work even when the real action is prosaically domestic.

Many on the left dislike the global marketplace because it epitomizes
what they dislike about markets in general: the fact that nobody is in
charge. The truth is that the invisible hand rules most domestic markets,
too, a reality that most Americans seem to accept as a fact of life. But
those who would like to see us revert to a more managed society in all
ways hope that popular unease over the economic influence of people
who live in far-off places and have funny-sounding names can be used as
the thin end of an ideological wedge.

Meanwhile, many on the right use the rhetoric of globalization to argue
that business can no longer be expected to meet any social obligations.
For example, it has become standard for opponents of environmental
regulations to raise the banner of ``competitiveness`` and to warn that
anything that raises costs for American businesses will price our goods
out of world markets.

But even if the global economy matters less than the sweeping assertions
would have us believe, does this ``globaloney,`` as the cognoscenti call it,
do any real harm? Yes, in part because the public, misguided into
believing that international trade is the source of all our problems, might
turn protectionist -- undermining the real good that globalization has done
for most people here and abroad.

But the overheated oratory poses a more subtle risk. It encourages
fatalism, a sense that we cannot come to grips with our problems because
they are bigger than we are. Such fatalism is already well advanced in
Western Europe, where the public speaks vaguely of the ``economic
horror`` inflicted by world markets instead of turning a critical eye on the
domestic leaders whose policies have failed.

None of the important constraints on American economic and social
policy come from abroad. We have the resources to take far better care
of our poor and unlucky than we do; if our policies have become
increasingly mean-spirited, that is a political choice, not something
imposed on us by anonymous forces. We cannot evade responsibility for
our actions by claiming that global markets made us do it.

Paul Krugman, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, is the author of ``Peddling Prosperity`` and
``Pop Internationalism.``

---

.... another example of the evils of globalization :

``The world`s population is expected to rise from the current 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050, the UN says.
Virtually all the growth will be in the developing world, according to a report by the UN Population Division.

India will overtake China as the world`s most populous country by 2030 - five years earlier than previously expected``

............ if only the developed world would stop dumping viagra in the kalahari !

Globalization treaties, and rules are stacked in favor of the former colonists. It is neo colonialism. West is better at playing the game. Remember the UN when only a few European powers weilded the power and made everything legal and moral to impose their will on the rest of the world. Now, that the `third` world has awaken to the UN and started sharing power, all of a sudden, UN is dubbed evil and stupid and immoral by these same powers.

The goras play the game better, they are bound to win for a few generations to come. When others become better at the game, and start catching up, either the game changes or the rules.

saminasha,

..... and what is wrong with a seventeen year old`s political philosophy ?........... don`t you believe that that out of the babe`s mouth you shall hear the truth!

....... unfortunately the philosophy coming out of the so-called progressive adults is a lot of cockamamie thought up by tweed wearing ``intellectuals`` with bad haircuts and their misled younger camp followers with equally bad haircuts and multiple body piercings ............. compared to clowns like michael more and wade churchill most seventeen year olds have their head screwed on right .............

counter-what , exactly...you have said nothing yet...

You say ,``there are serious issues that globalization critics raise`` .. What sort of issues ? What is the basis of their objection/criticism ?

Gujju,

We`ve all been down this road before. At least have the courtesy to present the counter argument. Until then, I`m just not wasting my time.

Saminasha - thats your argument ?

Gujju,

these are all attractive slogans themselves. But as you well know, there are serious issues that globalization critics raise. In ignoring them, you do no service to any of your arguments.

Saminasha....thats your argument ???

Stuka , the answer is more globalisation , not less. One world. One Market.No boundaries. No restrictions.Let the market rule.

( I fail to understand why Saminasha should have a problem with that ....)

stuka,

....... the developing world should, and does, ignore some of the sillier environmental and labor restrictions ...... i have yet to see a scrubber on the smoke stack of a bhata (brick-kiln) anywhere in pakistan and i see nothing wrong with a fourteen year old stitching footballs in sialkot untill there is a school built that he can go to ........... the developed countries are not stopping the paki government from collecting taxes and building schools in sialkot ..........as for agricultural subsidies, the governments in most developing countries, including pakistan, also subsidize their farmers directly and indirectly - set rates for cotton and wheat, lower electricity rates for tube wells, no tax on agricultural income, etc.

......... so it is a specious argument to blame all the ills of the world on globalization - the fault lies within

``Materialism -- Does not exist; therefore, not an issue. Massive personal wealth among leaders of organizations you support is further evidence of ``God`s favor.`` ``

-From The Right Wing Dictionary

Hamid,

You do realize you are championing an 17 year old`s political philosophy...

avenger,

....... good posts, but they are too sensible a reply to the writer`s mindless and knee-jerk tirade against globalization, big business and the heartless developed countries ........... of course, she will come back and say, ``oh, but i was just talking about the venal leaders and corrupt politicians who are in cahoots with microsoft to exploit the half-naked noble savages who should inherit the earth because they are so good``............ never mind that bill and melinda have put aside a gazillion dollars to protect the naked savage`s bare posterior from mosquitoes ............. no, it is bono with his silly sun glasses and fat oprah with her sillier book club that are going to save the world by singing to the bushmen and reading to their pickaninnies !

.......... i think these people should be confined to liberal arts college campuses and let out once a year to get their heads cracked by the police at the G-7 summit ................let`s start with amrita and saminasha (and throw in stuka to keep them company)

Who would argue against environmental and labor regulation?

HamidM:

The point still remains that there is inequity in the global trading order. What about the massive farm subsidies that the US and European gov`ts extend to their people? What about the rather convenient ``environmental and labor`` standards the first world pushes for the third world when the former did not have any such standards throughout the last and first half of this century?

Interesting...

Everyone reads the same thing but each extracts whatever lies uppermost in their minds out of it. I`ve seen this phenomenon before (been part of it, too) but it bears recording here.

Will write more when able...

Thanks for reading, all.

Look - I couldn`t care less about Africa...Africa is f ucked. Let them starve in peace. But I do care a lot about India. And if not for the economic reforms of 1991 , when India partially liberalised its economy ....if not for the fact that India accepted the process of globalisation , albeit reluctantly .....India today would be in the same situation as Africa. Just as India was in Nehru`s proud socialist days.

In 1990 , 43% of India`s population lived below poverty line. Today 23% of India`s population lives below poverty line. And this reduction in poverty is inspite of an increase in population by 20% in the same period. Meaning , ever since India opened up its econony in 1991 , 20 million Indians are rising out of poverty every year.

Now I dont know whether globalisation is a fraud ,or whether it is skewed in favor of developed countries. All I know is , the fact is , as far as India is concerned , globalisation in its present form has been a very very good thing...

If not for globalisation , forget boasting about self-sufficiency in food , forex reserves of $135 billion , PPP GDP $3.15 trillion etc. etc....if not for globalisation , Indians would be begging Oprah and Bono to give them money to buy some food...