8 Myths of Economic Globalization

-- Sheri (wncy2k@nccn.net), December 02, 1999

Answers

So far Off Topic that it's practically not on the same internet. Please please please delete these threads!

Yes, the WTO effects all of us. Yes, it's a staggeringly important issue. But no, this is not the forum to air it. The effects of the demonstration may be OT, but the causes aren't. Please.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

Colin,

But isn't the WTO and all that goes with it dependant on computers in order to maintain the SYSTEM? I think it is directly involved.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 02, 1999.

Why the above "Myths" are not myths.

Myth 1: Economic Globalization Is Inevitable.

No, it's not inevitable, but the pressure for trade increases as communications and transportation costs drop. 50 years ago, Mexican wages were much cheaper than US wages, but car companies did not move factories there. Why do they now? Increased greed? But companies have always been in business to make money. The answer is three things:

• you can run an international operation more effectively now due to cheap communiations and computerization.
• you can move raw materials in and finished goods out more cheaply.
• training has become more of a science, allowing third world factories and workers to more nearly match first world productivity. Automation is also a factor in this.

Increase the rewards of trade, and you increase the pressure for globalization.

Myth 2: We Need Globalization To Feed the Hungry

Their answer makes a point of how factory farms in the US displace subsistence farmers worldwide, impoverishing them. This happened in the US in the 1900-1920 time period. People were pushed off the farms as productivity increased, and they moved into the cities. This would happen (is happening) in India and China now, regardless of international trade. In the US, the urban economy (including factory work) expanded to take up the people, though not without pain. The third world has done some of that as well, where it's been able to. The chief barrier is not low food prices, but inefficient, politicized economies. Look at the money-losing state sector in China, protected industries in India. For a counter example of success, look at South Korea, which went from an Indian standard of living in 1950 to nearly first-world standard now, due to a successful transition to manufacturing. This is what globalists hope will happen everywhere. Needless to say, politics can mess up anything.

Myth 3: Globalization Will Alleviate Poverty

Same comments as above. It can alleviate poverty. Dysfunctional, non-democratic political systems produce poverty even faster than capitalism can alleviate it. See the Soviet Union, China, etc.

Myth 4: Economic Globalization Increases Choice

There are two assumptions in their answer. One is that a third world citizen should not have access to outside cultural products, because it might destroy his own culture. Patronizing at best. The other is that American cultural output is some kind of pollution, not to be compared with "native" art. Contemptuous of popular culture, like so many commentators. Elitist.

Myth 5: Economic Globalization Increases Environmental Standards in Developing Countries by Making Countries Wealthier

They point to increases in income inequality. But this is not inconsistent with improving the lot of poor countries. If South Korea raises its income by a factor of 10, while the US doubles in the same period, inequality will still increase due to the higher US base. But everyone is still better off. We are talking about alleviating the absolute poverty levels. Making everyone equally rich takes a lot longer. It took Japan nearly 100 years.

Myth 6: Opposition to Economic Globalization Is Protectionist

Opposition seems to come from several sources:

• protectionism is clearly one. French and Japanese farmers for example simply don't want to compete. They live in rich countries and will not starve if they have to find new jobs. To avoid dislocations, the government could just put them on welfare and let their farms be sold to more efficient producers.
• environmental concerns. It would be nice if all industry were clean, but if third world countries are not allowed to make *some* compromises (lower pay, longer hours, looser environmental controls), they have no competitive advantages and cannot export competitively at all.

Myth 7: Developing Countries Are Depending on Economic Globalization To Achieve First World Standard of Living

A working domestic economy and political system would be the most help. However, trade is a source of income, which can then be used to purchase goods (including equipment) and services from other countries. What do they expect, that a third world country will duplicate the last 100 years of ecomomic and technological development of the rich world, all by themselves with no input from outside? And if they are to bring in outside products and expertise, how will they pay for it except by trade?

Myth 8: There Is No Realistic Alternative to Economic Globalization

Yes, this is a myth. Poverty is the all-too-frequent alternative.

Whenever you oppose free trade, you are getting in between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Generally a government steps in and says "No, we know better." Usually they mean "No, someone is bribing us to keep you two apart."

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.junk), December 02, 1999.

You Know,

You don't know much about it do you? But you sure are good at exposing the PR line of the NWO, the IMF, and WTO.

By the way, wonderful job the IMF has done in Indonesia, Brazil, etc.

At least we know where you're coming from YOU KNOW (not).

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 02, 1999.

You make sense but then why not take it a step further and make all government jobs global, in other words why not hire a mexican senator for far less then the US or Canadian senators. Or why not let all coorporations create money and get the government out of the money creation business. Or lets free enterprize create the laws and sell the legislation on the free market. Medical/legal/accounting associations should be freed to global competition. Somehow you speak with fork tongue.

Justthinkin@~~~.com

-- justthink com (justthink@ok.com), December 02, 1999.

justthink,

There is a simple reason the corporate interrests don't just perform a wholesale bypass of national governments (at this time).

The global moneyed interests need our so-called governments to legitamize and enforce the goals they seek. They need toadies to do their dirty work for them. Under the color of law and its inherent threat of force, many coporate ends are possible that would never be achievable via the direct approach.

Money corrupts, but it takes a partnership of money and corrupt government to really mess with the rights of the individual.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), December 02, 1999.