Global Free Trade

[Animus Ping]

With all the violent demonstrations against free trade, I wonder why so many governments seem so determined to enact it. I can see the benifit to large companies and small countries (along with totalitarian ones), but what's the benifit to the rest of us? All I see so far is lost manufacturing jobs to china, and a lot of short life-spanned products that last for 1-2 years replacing the toaster that I have that's been around since the 50's. I have yet to hear any well formed arguements pro or con? I'd like to hear both sides of the question before I take a position. I haven't found any threads on this board that addresses the question. This is my first thread, so I hope I'm in the right place. Thanks

[London_Calling]

Well, I wouldn't characterise the demonstrations as being against "free trade". Having said that, It's also difficult to find a convenient phrase that does identify the essence of what is a hugely diverse and multi-faceted movement – in fact, there may be as many interpretations as there are views on what we have come to call 'Globalisation'.

As an example, for me, a significant issue within the wider context of 'Globalisation' is the way international Corporations (grown enormously in size in recent years due to mergers and acquisitions) are able to influence the democratic processes of individual countries – it's the absence of democratic accountability (in decision-making that affects both individuals and whole societies) that troubles me combined with the replacement of that accountability with an amoral profit motive.

This has happened increasingly as the power of being able to locate factories, research and development facilities, headquarters, registered offices, even the newly internationalised call centre's (for example: UK callers are increasingly routed to call centre's in India or East Africa where the staff have been specially trained)......every aspect of Corporate activity - almost anywhere you want - has increased the leverage Corporations have over political leaders.

In other words, decisions that affect the way we actually live, the quality of the life we lead and even the level of taxation available to influence the range and quality of aspects of our lives (health care, education, etc) are increasingly in the hands of people not elected by us and who have , at the centre of their decision-making, an agenda other than that which we vote for.

[ITR champion]

The protests at the various summits cover a lot of different issues. The biggest concern to me, and to most of the protesters is that the "free trade" movement allows companies to move facilities into countries where they the environmental and labor laws are weaker than in the United States. Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with NAFTA as long as American companies that sold products in America were held to the same laws that actually apply inside this country. As long as the laws are weaker in Mexico, there's no real reason for any corporation to keep its manufacturing plants here.

Other people are protesting on a wide range of issues. Some people want drug companies to provide cheaper versions of AIDS medications for the poor in Africa, others want the wealthier countries to place embargoes on certain countries with poor human rights records, etc...

[Tedster]

It all makes sense now. Cheaper Aids drugs for Africa? Throw a fire extinguisher at the Police! Why didn't I *think* of that? -smacks forehead-

Basically, global free trade in a nutshell can be compared with our interstate commerce. There are no tariffs within our state borders, that is, if I buy a car from Detroit, Michigan, Chicago doesn't slap a prohibitive tax on the cars that enter Illinois borders for sale. The same would be true for say, Zenith Televisions, (If they were still made in Chicago, but you get the point)for sale in Michigan.

I have no beef against fair trade, but "free trade" in practice seems to mean that our corporations move out of the country down to mexico, and the workers move here.

Korea, Germany, and other countries dump steel at or below cost to undercut domestic producers, running them out of business. At the same time, we are prohibited from selling, say, RICE to the japanese, because they don't want to buy it.

I know this is all supposed to work out for the benefit of everyone in the long run, but it's still painful to watch.

[Dave Stewart]

The fire extinguisheer throwing is perhaps the only way protestors feel they can be noticed. Hardly something I condone, and I think its about as pointless as G-7/G-8 meetings, but it works.

Protesting generally works, although it doesn't have much affect on profit margins. If people didn't protest against companies like Shell, their execs would still be in the dark about public opinion on their policies. Same goes for the G-7, at least in theory.

Sorry about the thread-drift: we were talking about free trade...

[Animus Ping]

Well, I was hoping to generate some interest in this subject, as it seems that it will affect most of us deeply-- or not. I found an interesting article in Business Week on line

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2001/nf2001052_941.htm

I'm trying to find a reason not to be concerned about the effects on my families quality of life. I don't drive an SUV, but I can afford a car, and I'm young enough to have a serious downturn in median wages impact my life when I retire (assuming I don't have to work till I'm 80 as per the ever changing Social Security situation). If there is no "up-side", why do so many of my fellow americans seem disinterested to the point of silence? Help me out here. I hope it's not because I mispelled benefit in my OP.

[Sam Stone]

Free trade has many, many benefits. Aside from economic benefits (and they are large), it's a powerful force for liberalization, because dictatorships can't compete in a global economy and are therefore forced to change.

[matt_mcl]

Like China.

[Patty O'Furniture]

I have no beef against fair trade, but "free trade" in practice seems to mean that our corporations move out of the country down to mexico, and the workers move here.

This seems to be a disincentive, if it were actually to come to fruition:

1. Scores of businesses pick up their widget manufacturing plants and move them to, say, Mexico.
2. Tens of thousands of US labor jobs are lost, along with many more in support staff.
3. Unemployment increases.
4. Workers that were previously employed are now barely scraping by, and unable to afford the very widgets they used to manufacture.
5. Sales of widgets plummit, and Widget Inc. goes out of business.

Please help me out here. Obviously, Widget Inc. is not owned by morons and are not expecting my step #1 to lead to my step #5. So what steps are they envisioning?

[Sam Stone]

Except that years after NAFTA was passed, unemployment is lower than ever.

The same argument can be made about advances in technology. The blacksmith industry was decimated by the auto industry. We don't have millions of unemployed blacksmiths today because they found other jobs.

So yes, jobs are lost in some industries. But they are lost because it is more efficient to do the work elsewhere, which means in the long run the country will have a stronger economy, leading to even more job creation.

In fact, you can think of free trade AS a technology. Japan imports grain from us and exports cars. So instead of thinking about it as a country, think about it as a technology - we have this amazing black box that we ship grain into, and cars come out the other end. If those cars cost less than what we could make them for here, the net result is the same as if we had automated our new plants, or designed an assembly line that eliminates a couple of stations for more efficiency, or whatever. And of course, when you eliminate a station on an assembly line, you eliminate the jobs required to man and maintain it. But the lower cost of cars causes other jobs to be created elsewhere. This is one of the keys to economic growth.

[waterj2]

Not that I disagree with you, but you are neglecting the effects of trade imbalances on currency strength, and vice versa.

[djbdjb]

Originally posted by g00g00fish
With all the violent demonstrations against free trade, I wonder why so many governments seem so determined to enact it. I can see the benifit to large companies and small countries (along with totalitarian ones), but what's the benifit to the rest of us? All I see so far is lost manufacturing jobs to china, and a lot of short life-spanned products that last for 1-2 years replacing the toaster that I have that's been around since the 50's. I have yet to hear any well formed arguements pro or con? I'd like to hear both sides of the question before I take a position. I haven't found any threads on this board that addresses the question. This is my first thread, so I hope I'm in the right place. Thanks

Get yourself a copy of "The Choice" by Russell D. Roberts.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0130870528/qid=997670882/sr=1-2/ref=sc_b_2/104-1494945-6639122

[Dave Stewart]

I also suggest reading PJ O'Rouke's "Eat the Rich" in which he teaches himself economics with some humorous conclusions.

A recent issue of The Economist looked at the fallacy of protectionism, with reference to the satire of a 19th century French economist (name escapes me).

[sailor]

Protectionism is as old as humanity and has *always* failed. It is just a knee-jerk reaction but it has never succeeded in the long run. In general, the more protectionist a country, the less efficient the economy.

Also protesting against change is as old as humanity. The steam locomotive, the horseless carriage, industrial looms, agricultural machinery... they all drew protests of people who would be displaced by these machines. Not so long ago many people were terrified by computers fearing for their jobs. Yes, many people lost their jobs to computers but many more found jobs in the computer field and the economy as a whole became much more productive.

Globalization is a good thing and it *will* happen. Any country which tries to insulate itself will just be left by the wayside.

I always buy whatever is in my personal best interest. If it was made in Mexico or China I am glad as Mexicans and Chinese also have families to feed and a right to make a living. By buying their products we are helping them develop their economy and create better living conditions for them. They have as much right as anyone to make a living and I should have the right to buy their products freely.

[vorfod]

Sailor: I like to think that the intelligent protesters aren't really protesting about globilisation as sush - you'd have to be a complete idiot to think that process will be stopped. I think the issue here is more about what passes for acceptable corporate ethics. I don't really care whether a company is Australian, manufactures in Australia, or is entirely overseas and imports absolutely everything into the country - I'm more worried about the way they treat their employees, what their work practices are like, whether they show any regard for any disruptive influence their business has on the environment/communities etc...
And I'll be buggered if I know how to find that out without dedicating my life to it, and I'm not fanatical enough about the subject to be bothered doing that! (Which is probably why you don't see me throwing fire extinguishers through Macca's windows).

[matt_mcl]

I attended my first protest march when I turned 17 and I'm turning 20 in two months. During that time, I have never, never, even one time, heard a single person on my side advocate strict protectionism as the alternative to globalization. (And no, just because Pat Buchanan shows up at Seattle doesn't mean he's on my side.) Those who think they are attacking the anti-neoliberal position by attacking the Italia farà da sè brand of protectionism are mistaken.

The question is not whether the world will have a global economy. The world has had a global economy since the sixteenth century. The question is, will the unconscious mechanisms of the market be consciously controlled to the common good by truly democratic institutions, or will we continue down the path of vox mercati, vox Dei - defining the market, no matter how romantic its whims, as what shall be good for humankind, whether or not it actually is?

The market is a tool to determine at what price goods and services shall be sold. It is not the philosopher's stone and it is not the redemptor of humankind. It is a directionless force whose results are the average of millions of self-interested decisions, which means that it is unconscious. Permitting ourselves to be governed by the unconscious rather than the conscious involvement of citizens in the institutions of democracy is equal to the arbitrary denial of 2 500 years of the Western experience.

[sailor]

>> The market is a tool to determine at what price goods and services shall be sold. It is not the philosopher's stone and it is not the redemptor of humankind. It is a directionless force whose results are the average of millions of self-interested decisions, which means that it is unconscious. Permitting ourselves to be governed by the unconscious rather than the conscious involvement of citizens in the institutions of democracy is equal to the arbitrary denial of 2 500 years of the Western experience

I don't know where to begin with this nonsense. It is anything *BUT* "unconscious". It is the result of millions of people who have spent millions of hours deciding what *they* want. No one in the entire universe is better qualified to decide what I want and what is best for me than myself. Sorry. I do not care if the entire antiglobal crowd thinks otherwise. I want my freedom to vote with my money for whatever product or service I find suits me best and I do not need no stinking bureaucrat to tell me what I need.

As for the protestors and their protests I only have to warn you that what goes around comes around. Here in DC the police chief is already fretting about the disruptions which we expect in the next demonstrations. The city will have to hire hundreds of cops from other towns and pay millions in overtime, lodging, etc. I find the disruption, the violence, the expense, all inexcusable. If anyone finds that is an acceptable way of expressing their opinions then they should be ready to accept the other side expressing themselves in a similar manner. I'll tell you one thing, if they let loose on the demonstrators a few people of opposing views suitable equipped with clubs, the city would save a lot of money and the demonstrators would learn a fair lesson about acceptable forms of exchanging ideas. With the disruption they caused last time and what we are expecting this next time, don't ask me to be sorry if a skull or two are accidentally busted open.

[kabbes]

Originally posted by Matt

The market is a tool to determine at what price goods and services shall be sold. It is not the philosopher's stone and it is not the redemptor of humankind. It is a directionless force whose results are the average of millions of self-interested decisions, which means that it is unconscious. Permitting ourselves to be governed by the unconscious rather than the conscious involvement of citizens in the institutions of democracy is equal to the arbitrary denial of 2 500 years of the Western experience

Originally posted by sailor

I don't know where to begin with this nonsense. It is anything *BUT* "unconscious". It is the result of millions of people who have spent millions of hours deciding what *they* want. No one in the entire universe is better qualified to decide what I want and what is best for me than myself. Sorry. I do not care if the entire antiglobal crowd thinks otherwise. I want my freedom to vote with my money for whatever product or service I find suits me best and I do not need no stinking bureaucrat to tell me what I need.

I think you've missed Matt's point there, sailor. He isn't arguing that any "stinking bureaucrat" (what, bureaucrats don't have showers?) knows better than you do what you need. He's talking about the same thing we always need to consider when we contemplate market fundamentalism: externalities.

The market is very efficient at pricing some things. On the other hand, it is very inefficient when it comes to others. This is because a decision in individual self-interest that makes sense because you can't control the actions of others leads to overall aggregate harm. Pollution is a classic case of this - no one person or industry can affect overall pollution so in the absence of regulation, it makes sense for no individual or industry to let environmental effects affect their decision.

I don't see why you appear to have a philosophical argument against deciding what kind of society we want and working towards that goal. There is nothing wrong with tweaking the market mechanism, for example, to try to reduce pollution. We may do this by regulation or we may do it by trying to build environmental cost into the production costs of an industry. In the same way, we as a human race may decide that certain working conditions are intolerable. The flexible market can then be adjusted to reflect our desire to institute this.

Matt saying that the market is not "the philosopher's stone" was a very good way of putting it - there is nothing to indicate that our aggregate (or even individual) utility will be maximised by an unfettered market. Graphically, the best we can hope for is local maxima - this is not necessarily a pareto-optimal solution. The global maximum (even on a pareto ordering) may well be unobtainable without market regulation.

This is nothing to do with stinking bureaucrats and their ability to chose your car for you.

As for the protestors and their protests I only have to warn you that what goes around comes around. Here in DC the police chief is already fretting about the disruptions which we expect in the next demonstrations. The city will have to hire hundreds of cops from other towns and pay millions in overtime, lodging, etc. I find the disruption, the violence, the expense, all inexcusable. If anyone finds that is an acceptable way of expressing their opinions then they should be ready to accept the other side expressing themselves in a similar manner. I'll tell you one thing, if they let loose on the demonstrators a few people of opposing views suitable equipped with clubs, the city would save a lot of money and the demonstrators would learn a fair lesson about acceptable forms of exchanging ideas. With the disruption they caused last time and what we are expecting this next time, don't ask me to be sorry if a skull or two are accidentally busted open. Well the protesters don't want to let any stinking bureaucrats decide how they need to make their protest known...

pan

[Tretiak]

As an example let's consider a tarriff on widgets to try an dkeep the domestic widget workers employed. This will of course have the effect of making widgets more expensive, so everytime I buy a widget, at an artificially inflated price I am subsidizing the workers, executives and stock holders of the American Widget industry. Plus, consider the people who don't even buy widgets at the inflated price who would at the competitive price. That is also a loss.

Or consider the great automobile fields of Nebraske and Iowa. To the naked eye they may llok like wheat and corn fields. But amazingly, this corn is turned into automobiles when it is put on a ship going to Japan and on a ship coming back are cars.

I have one litmus test for politicians: Do they support free trade? Free trade is Liberating. Free trade is healthier. Free Trade is more productive. Free trade is the engine to world growth and prosperity. Sixty years ago we were fighting a war with Japan and Germany. Today we are allies and more importantly mutually benefitting economic partners.

[hawthorne]

Here's a link to a previous (short) thread on this topic: Teach me about free trade (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=66230). It's a quality thread - it even features a good contribution from Ma Parrot - with a little feature from me on the theory that underpins the standard case for free trade, which I'd make again here if I wasn't shagged out from a hard day oppressing the workers.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with what matt_mcl said, and I suspect most in favour of free trade wouldn't either. I'm pretty sure that trade barriers are bad news, but a "race to the bottom" in terms of accountablity, regulation, workers's rights and environmental standards is a tendancy which must be resisted by democractic governments if most people are to gain from the gains from globalisation. That a small minority of protesters are intent upon destruction and the marginalisation of calls for such issues to be addressed ought only to result in contempt for and isolation of such fifth-columnists, not abandonment of the real concerns of the bulk of protesters (even if their concerns are not always well thought out or expressed).

[London_Calling]

I do feel uncomfortable with characterising this issue as being anti "free market" because, as I understand it, that implies (amongst other things) that one is, by definition, pro trade tariffs and perhaps ultimately, even anti-capitalist. That is simply not the case.

In fact, if the US media and or politicians are using the phrase "against the free market" it seems to me to be not dissimilar to characterising the heath care model favoured (in various ways) by the rest of the developed world as "socialised" (or 'socialized', if you will)– it simply implies something that is not accurate. In other words, It's just the old trick of tainting something by (inaccurate) association ...........(we've had this conversation before but, in essence, if pooling resources to provide a cost-effective national service is 'socialised' then why is the US education system not also characterised in the same way – seems curious that US politicians would expose the nations children to 12 years of 'socialised' education ?). To characterise an alternative health care model in terms that associates it with something not economically effective is pure propaganda. But it also means Corporations have a better chance of retaining control of the health care industry.

'Globalisation' is more concerned with ensuring Capitalism works for us by providing wealth within a wholly democratic framework rather than us working for unfettered, socially unconscionable, 'global village' Capitalism.

That's the game now; IHMHO: to prevent Corporations influencing / levering politicians and Governments to make decisions that favour them at a cost to a society whether that be on legislation re: working hours, the building of a huge plant in a deprived area, 'acceptable' levels of Corporation tax or one of the hundreds of other associated issues.

[sailor]

kabbes, if matt was trying to say what you are saying, he did not do a very good job. Of course, nobody is in favor of pollution but even pollution is a global issue which has to be dealt with globally.

As I say, when I read what matt says I just cannot interpret it to mean what you are saying.

>> It <the market> is a directionless force whose results are the average of millions of self-interested decisions, which means that it is unconscious

That is what I am refering to and I think it is nonsense. You could say the same thing about political elections. The free market is a system of permanent and continuing elections. I *like* to have my freedom to vote with my money for the products I consider best suit my needs.

I cannot see how environmental regulations (or labor regulations or any other regulations) have anything to do with this.

>> the protesters don't want to let any stinking bureaucrats decide how they need to make their protest known...

We have a system of laws which were enacted by the elected representatives of the people. What these people are doing is illegal. Are you trying to tell me it is OK to break the law when you see fit? Then I guess it is OK for the police to bust a few skulls. I'll go for that. Give the police free rein and see who wins.

If protestors want "global corporations" to respect the laws, the first thing they should do is respect the laws themselves.

[erislover]

Originally posted by London_Calling
In fact, if the US media and or politicians are using the phrase "against the free market" it seems to me to be not dissimilar to characterising the heath care model favoured (in various ways) by the rest of the developed world as "socialised" (or 'socialized', if you will)– it simply implies something that is not accurate. In other words, It's just the old trick of tainting something by (inaccurate) association...
Er.... what exactly is it if not socialized? I'm sorry, i've always felt that term applied to it almost perfectly.

As far as being "anti free market" the only people who are truly supporting a free market are anarchists. Everyone else wants a regulated economy in some way, shape, or form.

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by sailor
We have a system of laws which were enacted by the elected representatives of the people. What these people are doing is illegal.

Who?

You seem to be under the impression that exercising peaceful protest is a crime (punishable by physical and chemical assault without trial) if it is carried out within the same area code as some people breaking windows. If so, let me disabuse you.

[sailor]

>> You seem to be under the impression that exercising peaceful protest is a crime (punishable by physical and chemical assault without trial) if it is carried out within the same area code as some people breaking windows. If so, let me disabuse you.

Nope, it is not a crime but it *is* pretty stupid and not likely to get you much sympathy. You also have a right to walk the streets in NYC with a million dollars in your hand. It is still pretty stupid.

I have said it before: to say "it is just a minority being violent and don't blame us" is very disingenous. All other groups manage to demonstrate without the violence and generally do not have problems with their demonstrations.

The scenes I have seen in the news were of police reacting against people who were being violent so dont give me this shit that they are beating up peaceful people who were meditating.

The guy who got killed in Italy had it coming for being an idiot. You go throwing big metal objects against people who are armed with guns you are bound to get shot. That'll teach him.

[matt_mcl]

*struggles to contain himself*

"The scenes I have seen in the news were of police reacting against people who were being violent so dont give me this shit that they are beating up peaceful people who were meditating."

Perhaps you should watch something other than CNN, dear. When I was in Quebec City, I spent the entire time there in the company of hundreds and hundreds of people behaving in a totally pacific manner who were nonetheless attacked with chemical and physical force.

Newspapers in Europe have recently been full of wrenching stories of people from civil society groups who weren't even out protesting when their convergence centre was invaded by police who beat the shit out of everyone that moved, then arrested them without charge and tortured them in prison. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4228452,00.html )

Democratic expression by non-violent manifestation has a very long history as a means of expression. It is not supposed to involve risks of this sort, and if it does, the solution seems to me to restrain the police, not the protesters.

I'm not going to stop protesting because I'm threatened in this way, and if somebody takes it upon themselves to beat me up when I'm peacefully protesting I am going to make my réplique by every method society places at my disposal.

[sailor]

So, you are telling me this is a worldwide conspiracy against these peaceful demonstrators. Every country, every city they go, they have a problem. Yet plenty of other groups everywhere seem to make their points peacefully and without problems.

Washington DC has seen much bigger deonstrations that go without incident and yet every time your crowd comes to town we have to brace ourselves for the worst.

And what's wrong with CNN, Newsweek, The Washington Post, etc? Are you telling me the images are doctored? Are you telling me what I saw on TV never happened?

You know, *if* these people have problems everywhere they go and *if* the only way they can get people's attention is by using violence, then maybe they should think it is them and not the rest of the world who has a problem.

Using the word "peaceful" to describe these demonstrations is disingenous. They come looking to create trouble and disruption and they know it. As far as I am concerned the police are doing their job.

[matt_mcl]

And what's wrong with CNN, Newsweek, The Washington Post, etc? Are you telling me the images are doctored? Are you telling me what I saw on TV never happened?

No, I'm suggesting that they're not the whole story, especially in view of my experiences and the experiences of others that put the lie to the idea that all or even a substatial minority of protestors are violent and that police responses so far have been warranted. Gee, I wonder what incentive large corporations might have to discredit people protesting against their hegemony.

You know, *if* these people have problems everywhere they go and *if* the only way they can get people's attention is by using violence, then maybe they should think it is them and not the rest of the world who has a problem.

Great, I'll pass the message on. In the mean time, do you have anything to say to me and to that very large majority of us who are interested in more than a street fight?

Using the word "peaceful" to describe these demonstrations is disingenous. They come looking to create trouble and disruption and they know it. As far as I am concerned the police are doing their job.

What I know is that I learned the difference between some and all very early in life. Perhaps you should look into it.

[kabbes]

There's no way I'm heading back into a socialised medicine debate!

Posted by matt

>> It <the market> is a directionless force whose results are the average of millions of self-interested decisions, which means that it is unconsciousPosted by sailor

That is what I am refering to and I think it is nonsense. You could say the same thing about political elections. The free market is a system of permanent and continuing elections. I *like* to have my freedom to vote with my money for the products I consider best suit my needs.

I cannot see how environmental regulations (or labor regulations or any other regulations) have anything to do with this.Ah, but it has everything to do with it. matt is right - it is unconscious, in that there is no overall guiding force determining which direction the market pushes society.

It's easy to show that those "millions of self-interested decisions" lead to externality problems, precisely because of the lack of an overall global decision-maker. "Millions of self-interested decisions" lead to pollution and labour law problems, because it isn't worth the while of each self-interested decision-maker to do what is necessary to create the conditions necessary for the global optimal solution. If it is like an election, then it's like one in which each voter realistically has to choose between two guys he doesn't really like because the third that he does like has no chance of getting in. Only on a much bigger scale.

The market is one tool of many available to a government - it is not and should not be the only one.

___Me, being facetious

the protesters don't want to let any stinking bureaucrats decide how they need to make their protest known...sailor, taking the point on

We have a system of laws which were enacted by the elected representatives of the people. What these people are doing is illegal. Are you trying to tell me it is OK to break the law when you see fit? Then I guess it is OK for the police to bust a few skulls. I'll go for that. Give the police free rein and see who wins.

If protestors want "global corporations" to respect the laws, the first thing they should do is respect the laws themselves.Yes, I know. Although I do note that they don't want the corporations to obey existing laws - they want new laws that don't let the corporations get away with what they get away with.

But you should note that

(a) As matt has been trying to say, the overwhelming majority of protesters want nothing to do with the violence

(b) There is a major difference between violence against property and violence against people. Even of the violent protesters, most tend to fall into the first category. The police are responding in many cases to violence against property with violence (often extreme violence) against people. I'm sorry, but I cannot condone this even though I would like to see the rioters locked up.

FWIW, I feel that a debate about the protesters actions is getting away from the point of this debate, which was about "globalism" itself. It's attacking the proponents instead of the philosophy. I think we should probably leave discussions of the protesters for another thread.

pan

[China Guy]

China appears to be using global free trade (okay, the first tentative steps called WTO) as part of a plan to enact badly needed domestic reforms. What might be political suicide by the leadership to try on their own just might be palatable if it's part of the WTO.

China is also a pretty good example of a fairly closed economy that's opened up over the past 20 years. I myself have seen great changes since 1985. Now, you can sure make a value judgement about the pros and cons. Previously, every one starved together. Now, some people get rich, there's a middle class greater than the population of the US, the great migrant movement from the impoverished country side funneled more money and therefore economic and political freedom than ever before in Chinese history, and some people still starve.

You can also say whatever you want about the current state of human rights in China, but most observers would accept that human rights have been improving markedly since the economy first opened up.

Free trade is not a zero sum game. The pie gets bigger rather than a redistribution of the same pie. The average Mr. Chen in China has come from a very low base and gotten a bigger piece of the pie. The average Joe in the US has come from a higher base and probably gotten a bigger piece of the pie.

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by sailor
So, you are telling me this is a worldwide conspiracy against these peaceful demonstrators. Every country, every city they go, they have a problem. Yet plenty of other groups everywhere seem to make their points peacefully and without problems.

And what's wrong with CNN, Newsweek, The Washington Post, etc? Are you telling me the images are doctored? Are you telling me what I saw on TV never happened?


Hi Sailor. I'm a TV News producer, and I'm here to say there is a worldwide conspiracy against those who peacefully demonstrate against free trade. It's a largely unconscious, market-driven conspiracy, but it exists nevertheless.

The problem started with a riot-- albeit a small one-- that happened in Seattle. I have friends who were protesting there, and I have co-workers who were teargassed. The agitators were the extreme minority in that crowd-- but it doesn't take much to make the evening news. The people holding TV cameras rush to where the action is, and the people making decisions about what to air will generally choose the most exciting pieces of tape.
Yes, there were thousands of peaceful, marching people at Seattle, and Quebec city, and Genoa. But they're boring, so they're only gonna make news for about 10 seconds or less-- one sentence to let you know how many people were there.

Are images doctored? No, but they are framed and constructed to tell a particular story; the story of a violent demonstration.

The reasons for the violence don't matter; the reasons for the demonstration get lost in the clutter; when tear gas, pepper spray, and bullets start flying, all that matters is that there is violence.

The pictures of violent behaviour that you see on CNN, Newsweek, and the Washington Post did actually happen-- but they ignore thousands of incidents of non-violent behaviour by protesters.

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by sailor
So, you are telling me this is a worldwide conspiracy against these peaceful demonstrators. Every country, every city they go, they have a problem. Yet plenty of other groups everywhere seem to make their points peacefully and without problems.

And what's wrong with CNN, Newsweek, The Washington Post, etc? Are you telling me the images are doctored? Are you telling me what I saw on TV never happened?


[originally posted by
Gee, I wonder what incentive large corporations might have to discredit people protesting against their hegemony.

I'm a TV News producer, and I'm here to say there is a worldwide conspiracy against those who peacefully demonstrate against free trade. This conspiracy is entirely driven by individuals working in the news trade, and has absosmurfly nothing to do with large corporations.

The problem started with a riot-- albeit a small one-- that happened in Seattle. I have friends who were protesting there, and I have co-workers operating cameras who were teargassed. The agitators were the extreme minority in that crowd-- but it doesn't take much to make the evening news. The people holding TV cameras rush to where the action is, and the people making decisions about what to air will generally choose the most exciting pieces of tape.
Yes, there were thousands of peaceful, marching people at Seattle, and Quebec city, and Genoa. But they're boring, so they're only gonna make news for about 10 seconds or less-- one sentence to let you know how many people were there.

Are images doctored? No, but they are framed and constructed to tell a particular story; the story of a violent demonstration.

The reasons for the violence don't matter; the reasons for the demonstration get lost in the clutter; when tear gas, pepper spray, and bullets start flying, all that matters is that there is violence.

The pictures of violent behaviour that you see on CNN, Newsweek, and the Washington Post did actually happen-- but they ignore thousands of incidents of non-violent behaviour by protesters.

Likewise, the peaceful protesters aren't ignored because 'corporations' want to discredit their views. I work for a national corporation, and no word has ever come down from on high saying 'don't cover that story, we don't like their viewpoint.' You have to remember that corporations themselves are composed of individuals. They're also [/i]owned[/i] by individual shareholders, for the most part.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by kabbes


It's easy to show that those "millions of self-interested decisions" lead to externality problems, precisely because of the lack of an overall global decision-maker. "Millions of self-interested decisions" lead to pollution and labour law problems,


And what exactly are protestors saying should be done to change that? We already have laws in this country regarding pollution and labor as do many other nations. Are they protesting because the standards vary from nation to nation? I'm honestly trying to figure out just what exactly has their panties in a bunch.


(a) As matt has been trying to say, the overwhelming majority of protesters want nothing to do with the violence


Crowd control is a very difficult thing to do. There have been cases where otherwise peaceful protestors were incited to rioting by a minority. It is difficult to weed out the violent protestors especially when they are sprinkled among the non-violent ones. I'm not excusing the police if they did abuse their power. But maybe we need to prod our police forces to provide better training to their officers when it comes to crowd control.



(b) There is a major difference between violence against property and violence against people. Even of the violent protesters, most tend to fall into the first category. The police are responding in many cases to violence against property with violence (often extreme violence) against people. I'm sorry, but I cannot condone this even though I would like to see the rioters locked up.


I see nothing wrong with using violence to stop people from destroying property. I'm not saying shooting them is a good idea but tear gas and clubs seem like reasonable thigns to use if the police wishes to stop them. If someone were stealing my car I'd find nothing morally incorrect about cracking them over the head to get them to stop.



FWIW, I feel that a debate about the protesters actions is getting away from the point of this debate, which was about "globalism" itself. It's attacking the proponents instead of the philosophy. I think we should probably leave discussions of the protesters for another thread.

pan

What philosophy? There are many different reasons why people attack globalization.

Marc

[Barbarian]

I guess an accidental doublepost means you all get to see the editing process in action. The second post is the final version.
If a mod could wipe out that first post, I'd be much obliged.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by erislover
Er.... what exactly is it if not socialized? I'm sorry, i've always felt that term applied to it almost perfectly.

As far as being "anti free market" the only people who are truly supporting a free market are anarchists. Everyone else wants a regulated economy in some way, shape, or form. [/B]

The point I was trying to make is that lending to 'something' a tag that creates a negative impression (amongst the impressionable) - whether that be Health Care, 'Globalisation' or the NY Yankees – influences the public perception of that 'something': Thus what is termed 'socialised' by the media or politicians might create a negative connotation in the US (Health Care), what is not termed 'socialised' (Education) doesn't, yet they are the same. By the same token, what is termed 'anti free trade' also creates a negative image (while also being a misnomer).

So, Instead of informing a public debate, the media and politicians unduly influence the views of the less independent thinkers in society (by negative characterisation) in order to bolster their own agenda, which, in a democratic sense is simply not their role.

I happen to think that, using the very opening of the OP as an example, the miss-characterisation of the issues by politicians and the media has, to some extent. succeeded.


As for the rest of your comment, forgive me if I assume you're playing semantic games until the point becomes clearer to me.

[kabbes]

Marc - And what exactly are protestors saying should be done to change that? We already have laws in this country regarding pollution and labor as do many other nations. Are they protesting because the standards vary from nation to nation? I'm honestly trying to figure out just what exactly has their panties in a bunch.Well for a start they're saying that corporations shouldn't take advantage of other countries that don't have those laws.

Anyway, you're asking the wrong person. Frankly I'm not sure what they believe - and I don't think a lot of the protesters are too sure either. They do know however that a lot of power these days seems to rest in undemocratic hands and are not too happy about it.

I just wanted to point out that matt's statement was entirely reasonable and to argue against unfettered market fundamentalism. It isn't unreasonable to assume that human ingenuity might direct affairs a little better than a force proven to provide non-optimal solutions in a number of situations.

pan

[Odesio]

Originally posted by kabbes
Well for a start they're saying that corporations shouldn't take advantage of other countries that don't have those laws.


That seems kind of silly. Why not allow those nations to make their own decisions?


Anyway, you're asking the wrong person. Frankly I'm not sure what they believe - and I don't think a lot of the protesters are too sure either. They do know however that a lot of power these days seems to rest in undemocratic hands and are not too happy about it.


There will always be power that rests in undemocratic hands. I can't say I'm really bent out of shape about it. I am concerned about corporations buying politicans.



I just wanted to point out that matt's statement was entirely reasonable and to argue against unfettered market fundamentalism. It isn't unreasonable to assume that human ingenuity might direct affairs a little better than a force proven to provide non-optimal solutions in a number of situations.

pan

I don't see an unfettered market.

Marc

[kabbes]

No, but sailor essentially suggested one. I don't only have to argue against the status quo you know - I can argue against other people in this thread!

pan

[China Guy]

Originally posted by MGibson
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kabbes
[B]Well for a start they're saying that corporations shouldn't take advantage of other countries that don't have those laws.


That seems kind of silly. Why not allow those nations to make their own decisions?
[quote]
So what do you think of goods made by state sponsored slave labor in the Chinese gulag and exported to the US?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by China Guy

So what do you think of goods made by state sponsored slave labor in the Chinese gulag and exported to the US?

I'm not exactly thrilled by the idea and I try to avoid buying products made in China. But China makes so many products and I admit I don't always remember to check the labels. I really hope that open trading policies with China will continue to improve things for the people there. Perhaps in another generatino or two we'll see the end of their oppressive government and the beginning of something better.

Marc

[erislover]

Originally posted by London_Calling
Thus what is termed 'socialised' by the media or politicians might create a negative connotation in the US (Health Care), what is not termed 'socialised' (Education) doesn't, yet they are the same.
Right.....
So, then, it is socialized medicine. Your point in saying it wasn't...?

As for the rest of your comment, forgive me if I assume you're playing semantic games until the point becomes clearer to me.
What the fuck. Semantics?

Free market = no restrictions. Only an anarchist can support a truly free market as any law that regulates people in some way affects-- and thus regulates-- trade.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by g00g00fish
With all the violent demonstrations against free trade, I wonder why so many governments seem so determined to enact it. I can see the benifit to large companies and small countries (along with totalitarian ones), but what's the benefit to the rest of us?

The benefit to the rest of us is so obvious and pervasive that it escapes notice. Let's take refridgerators as an example.

US Refridgerators, Inc. sells fridges for $1000 each, and employs 1000 American workers.

China Cold, Ltd. starts making fridges and shipping them to the U.S., where they sell for $500 each. They quickly drive US Refridgerators out of business. 1000 workers lose their jobs.
But every American who needs a fridge saves $500. People who couldn't afford a fridge when it cost $1000 can now buy one. And there are a hell of a lot more fridge purchasers than the 1000 who lost their jobs.

'Course, the same thing would happen if a U.S. company started selling fridges for $500, and they did it through automation, employing only 100 workers. Should that company be closed down to save the 1000 jobs at US Refridgerators?

Sua

[sailor]

Just for the record, I am *not* saying there should not be environmental laws, labor laws etc. I have never said that. We already have them by the thousands and I am ready to discuss each one on its own merits. They are fine by me. I have no problem with general regulations of the type "you cannot dump bleach into a river" or "you have to work safely". But once those regulations are in place for all, the market should work freely, people should freely buy what they find suits them best at the best price and manufacturers should be free to seek the best conditions and offer whatever products they think the market will buy. Any regulations which would have the objective of making manufacturers locate here rather than there are IMHO wrong. Free market does not mean absence of regulations, it means regulations are general in nature and are not intended to influence what people buy or sell.

I would like to see photos or footage of the police attacking a peaceful group. I do not believe for a minute that is not news and would be suppressed. That is plain nonsense. Everything I have seen shows riotous mobs.

Again, many other groups demonstrate and make themselves heard without causing riots. I just cannot believe there is an international conspiracy to repress these people.

At any rate, I have to repeat that the argument of the demonstrators that it is only a few who are violent is disingenous (have I said that before?). It is like the Godfather saying he is a peaceful man who would hurt nobody and it is not his fault if Tony and Frank here, who go with him everywhere, get annoyed by the same things and decide to break a man's kneecaps. What can he do? He is still a peaceful man.

I am also a peaceful man. I just happen to have this pit bull Tony, (hi Tony), who goes with me everywhere and who attacks people who annoy me. (SIT Tony). So how can I be blamed if me and Tony here are going for a walk and meet some protestors who happen to annoy Tony here?

[Sam Stone]

It should be noted that free trade is one of the only major political issues in which there is broad agreement across the political spectrum, and almost universal agreement among economists that it is a good thing.

The only people that really oppose free trade anymore are those on the fringes - rabid protectionists, nationalists, and some environmentalists.

There's another group of 'fair traders' that claim to be for free trade, except that they want to use the prospect of it like a club to force other nations to comply with their demands.

[ITR champion]

At any rate, I have to repeat that the argument of the demonstrators that it is only a few who are violent is disingenous (have I said that before?). It is like the Godfather saying he is a peaceful man who would hurt nobody and it is not his fault if Tony and Frank here, who go with him everywhere, get annoyed by the same things and decide to break a man's kneecaps. What can he do? He is still a peaceful man.

This is just about the dumbest argument that I have ever seen in GD. Let's say that 95% of the protesters want a peaceful protest and 5% are willing to resort to violence. The 95% do not hire the 5% to do the violent work; they would be happier if the violent protesters did not show up at all. Your "argument" is nothing but unsupported ranting.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by ITR champion

This is just about the dumbest argument that I have ever seen in GD. Let's say that 95% of the protesters want a peaceful protest and 5% are willing to resort to violence. The 95% do not hire the 5% to do the violent work; they would be happier if the violent protesters did not show up at all. Your "argument" is nothing but unsupported ranting.

His arguement is flawed. But those 5%, whatever it actually is, will ruin it for the rest of the protestors.

Marc

[matt_mcl]

Originally posted by sailor
I would like to see photos or footage of the police attacking a peaceful group. I do not believe for a minute that is not news and would be suppressed. That is plain nonsense. Everything I have seen shows riotous mobs.


I gave you a link up there from the Manchester Guardian. Enjoy.

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by sailor
I would like to see photos or footage of the police attacking a peaceful group. I do not believe for a minute that is not news and would be suppressed. That is plain nonsense. Everything I have seen shows riotous mobs.
[/B]


Everything I've heard about Genoa (including from the Christian Aid people who had a huge presence there) suggests the riots kicked off after the Italian Anarchists (until then doing their own thing elsewhere) decided to march to, and agitate the police from within, the main group of peaceful protestors who were just milling around some distance from the 'Red Zone'. At that point the police moved in to disperse the entire crowd, later that day a protestor was shot and killed and after that it all went nuts.

From that I read the peaceful protestors – the overwhelming majority of those at Genoa – were manipulated by both the local Anarchists and the police, each for their own ends - there was no reason to disperse the whole crowd as the Anarchists were readily recognisable in black and waving black flags.

These occasions are little more than a battle for the media's attention. The reporting itself is primarily done by multi-national corporations with vested interests – what we see on the evening news is what those who own the media want us to see and interpreted for us by them.

They ain't perfect but, from these shores, I bless the BBC and The Guardian.

[London_Calling]

erislover - Your definition:

Originally posted by erislover
Free market = no restrictions. Only an anarchist can support a truly free market as any law that regulates people in some way affects-- and thus regulates-- trade. [/B]


A fellow American's definition:


Originally posted by sailor
Free market does not mean absence of regulations, it means regulations are general in nature and are not intended to influence what people buy or sell.



My definition of free trade would be, in part, the free trade of goods and services within an established and agreed international framework - that used to be GATT but is now the WTO.

No one is against "free trade" on any side of the 'Globalisation' debate, as far as I'm aware.

[Animus Ping]

The issue's Free Trade, no bad behavior. If you want to talk about the protesters, start another thread. The protests just got me to thinking (Hey, it worked), but I'd like to leave them out of the discussion.

Lots of interesting stuff. I'm sold. Free Trade for everyone! My only cavaet is that we'll have to start thinking like we're all in the same boat (or on the same planet). My head swims with the concerns I have, but I think it's time for everyone on the planet to have a confortable life. Thanks for the elucidation.

One original question remains, why is it that our government seems determined to push this through without public discussion?

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by g00g00fish
One original question remains, why is it that our government seems determined to push this through without public discussion? [/B]

Here's a hint:

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp