Seattle, Round 2

Seattle, Round 2 By Kevin McIntyre 4/12/00 11:59 AM ET

With the clouds of tear gas, rubber bullets and general riotry of last fall's WTO meetings in Seattle still fresh in everyone's minds, the opponents of global capitalism are again gathering. Ground zero this time will be Washington, DC, where thousands are expected to meet to decry the alleged evils of free trade, multinational firms and the activities of international organizations like the IMF and World Bank, whose annual meetings are the backdrop for the current protest. Yet as more and more people jump on board the no-global bandwagon, defensible arguments against globalism get harder and harder to find.

To put today's incarnation of the anti-global lobby in context, one must look back to the anti-Nafta protests of the early 1990s. At that time, the arguments against a North American customs union were embodied in H. Ross Perot's "great sucking sound" (an allusion to a the mass exodus of U.S. corporations to low-cost Mexico; it never happened) and the America |ber alles rhetoric of two Pat Buchanan presidential campaigns.

The arguments of the U.S. anti-global lobby have since grown more all encompassing. Globalization is now assumed to hurt virtually everyone everywhere and everything; no one benefits from a more open economy. Such arguments are increasingly directed toward third-world countries, who are portrayed as the unwitting and unfortunate victims of Western economic imperialism, be it either through trade, foreign direct investment, and/or IMF/World Bank lending and associated structural adjustment programs.

These arguments are simply not true. Make no mistake, there are costs associated with a more open economy. Some people or groups within a country will experience a welfare loss, but if economic theory tells us anything, it is that in the aggregate, countries with more open economies are better off than those without, all things being equal.

But the present anti-globalization debate cuts deeper than this. By clamoring for restrictions on trade and other international economic linkages, anti-globalization proponents are attempting to force outcomes on countries that they would not choose on their own. The knee-jerk arguments suggest that Western corporations and institutions are insidiously taking over the third world. What seems to be lost in the rhetoric is that nobody is making Nicaraguans drink Coke or wear Levis. Nicaraguans drink Coke and wear Levis because they want to, and they are happier because of it. Contrary to popular belief, most consumption goods are not evil.

Similarly, multinationals do not have armies. They are not able to set up shop abroad unless the host country in question lets them do so. If Thailand did not want IBM to operate a plant in Bangkok, IBM would not be operating a plant in Bangkok. Also, once IBM is there, Thailand can always kick them out or nationalize the plant. Likewise, nobody is forcing Zimbabwe to accept IMF or World Bank lending. Zimbabwe voluntarily comes to these organizations and if the conditions of the loan are not acceptable to them, they do not have to accept it. To be sure, one might make a good argument that the IMF gives bad advice, but it certainly is not predatory or malicious in its lending practices.

This is not saying for one second that the potential for abuse does not exist. It certainly does. Nobody in their right mind wants to see third world children working in sweatshops or the environment irreparably degraded. But it is not necessarily the case that a more open economy per se encourages these things beyond what would occur naturally as a country develops; there are going to be sweatshops in Vietnam whether Nike is there or not. The best way to eliminate child labor and such is not to restrict globalization, rather it is to get third-world countries up to speed economically with the rest of the world. Theory and precedent both suggest that a more open economy hastens this process.

At the end of the day, anti-globalization arguments come down to cultural imperialism, pure and simple. By trying to restrict globalization, the DC protesters are in essence trying to protect third world economies from themselves, and in the process making this entire episode take on the distasteful air of a 21st century white man's burden. Unfortunately, this is a fact easily lost in the anti-globalization rhetoric. As put by one World Bank/IMF protester, "This struggle seems more like good versus evil than any other struggle I know of."

More than any other struggle? Please. What's next? Globalization kills orphans and puppies?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 14, 2000

Answers

Yet as more and more people jump on board the no-global bandwagon, defensible arguments against globalism get harder and harder to find.

I can think of a few.

...if economic theory tells us anything, it is that in the aggregate, countries with more open economies are better off than those without, all things being equal.

So it's a given that a country's well being isn't determined by whether its citizens are adequately clothed, housed, fed and healthy, but by its Gross Domestic Product.

Similarly, multinationals do not have armies. They are not able to set up shop abroad unless the host country in question lets them do so.

Politicians in this affluent nation of ours regularly bend over backwards to attract large businesses to their regions and keep them there. Does the writer truly expect the government of a third world country to resist the overtures of multinational corporations?

The best way to eliminate child labor and such is not to restrict globalization, rather it is to get third-world countries up to speed economically with the rest of the world.

I'm sure we can count on the multinational corporations, for whom profit is an absolute, to protect the interests of workers and the populace in general.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 14, 2000.

Yet as more and more people jump on board the no-global bandwagon, defensible arguments against globalism get harder and harder to find. I can think of a few.

Care to share them?

...if economic theory tells us anything, it is that in the aggregate, countries with more open economies are better off than those without, all things being equal.

So it's a given that a country's well being isn't determined by whether its citizens are adequately clothed, housed, fed and healthy, but by its Gross Domestic Product.

Does not a country's GDP ultimately determine whether or not it's citizens are adequately clothed, housed, fed and healthy? Or should America continue to piss money down a rathole caring for the poor of the world?

Similarly, multinationals do not have armies. They are not able to set up shop abroad unless the host country in question lets them do so.

Politicians in this affluent nation of ours regularly bend over backwards to attract large businesses to their regions and keep them there. Does the writer truly expect the government of a third world country to resist the overtures of multinational corporations?

Does the word "jobs" mean anything to you? Or is the availability of jobs where there were none before a bad thing?

The best way to eliminate child labor and such is not to restrict globalization, rather it is to get third-world countries up to speed economically with the rest of the world.

I'm sure we can count on the multinational corporations, for whom profit is an absolute, to protect the interests of workers and the populace in general.

Afterall, the two-bit warlords and dictators in third world countries are doing such a fine job of protecting their interests now.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

HTML for idiots.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Uncle Deedah,
Yes, in a capitalist system, availability of jobs is essential to a country's well being. The main issue I have with the article (which I failed to make clear in the above reply) is with the premise that capitalism is the only valid model and that the entire world should adopt that model without hesitation. The writer chose to gloss over its drawbacks.

Regarding the role of US taxpayers as the world's provider, I agree with you completely.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 14, 2000.

Ken Decker knows everything there is to know about the WTO, and

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS!

http://www.carr.org/hampstead/page15.html

-- laughing (at@anything.youwriteDecker), April 14, 2000.

And a better, more proven economic system would be...?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 15, 2000.

And a better, more proven economic system would be...?

I'd say that capitalism has served our country reasonably well, due largely to the mechanisms that have evolved to keep business from running amok. Businesses here are subject to regulation and to pressure from concerned citizens. Corporations have influence on government, but so do environmental and consumer protection interests.

But underdeveloped countries lack these mechanisms. They would be at the mercy of a corporate giant.

Corporations are motivated to maximize profit, not jobs. Many jobs have been lost in this country due to automation. For example, the number of businesses that have actual human beings answering the phone has dwindled. I fail to see why corporations would act any differently in underdeveloped nations.

This is not to say that third world countries should not move toward capitalism. But I think doing this gradually, beginning with internal reforms, would be the prudent course.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 15, 2000.

Ken:

but if economic theory tells us anything, it is that in the aggregate, countries with more open economies are better off than those without, all things being equal.

Let me preface this by saying that I could be wrong. I think that David L. is closer to the truth than the author. The author assumes that these protests are based on economic loss or gain. They could, as well, reflect a popular concern with the removal of decision making power even further away from the base [globalizatin]. All decisions being made by folks outside of the country without the consent of those in the country. Kind of a an everyman's NWO protest.

The interesting thing is that this is not limited to the US. People in many countries are joining the cause. Cultures are different. Globalization is trying to make them all the same. This will be a replay of the 60's on a world wide scale. Democracy can be chaos. Yet, I am only an observer.

Best wishe

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 15, 2000.

I believe that the true economic basis of our country is "free enterprise". Capitalism, or the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few, can, and often does result in abuses just as the concentration of political power does. We have checks and balances in our three branches of federal government, and we also have anti-trust laws to prevent runaway capitalism.

I think many people are concerned that there are not adequate checks and balances on international corporations. I certainly don't feel that the UN or the third world governments involved are insuring the ethical treatment of employees. Although we all buy products made in China everyday, I for one am guilty of ignoring the human suffering that provides me with all the cheap products.

International corporations don't behave outside our borders like they do here because they are not restricted by our laws. Corporations DO NOT waste money with employee working conditions, handicapped access or environmental considerations unless they are COMPELLED to by law.

Even Kathy Lee Guiford learned that things are very different for the employees in other countries.

JCC

-- (Greybeard7@usa.work), April 16, 2000.