Globalization/Anti-globalization: what are the arguments?

Great Debates
61

Truth Seeker: “People have been complaining about the EU’s “democracy deficit” for years.”

Yeah, I know, I’ve lived in England and have heard all about the EU and its bureaucratic “Brussels sprouts.” Just as people (including me) having been complaining about the condition of US democracy for years. It takes constant public vigilance to keep things as open as they possibly can be. (And I don’t doubt that Rick’s complaints about Canadian secrecy are valid; but not as a contrast to the WTO or IMF.)

" Negotiated in secret? Not hardly. I think what you really mean is that they are negotiated without the participation of NGOs. There are dozens of negotiators from 144 countries that meet over a period of years to hammer out the details of these agreements."

Well, gee, Truth Seeker. Up until you told me that negotiatiors from the involved countries hammered these details out amongst themselves, I thought it was done in a clandestine meeting between Agent 99 and Thrush. :wink:

And no, I’m not (necessarily) calling for direct institutional participation by NGOs (because if I were I would want those individuals to be elected by the countries they purport to represent). Re-read the relevant quotation from Stiglitz. The deliberations are conducted in secret until such point as it’s too late to change them. No press. No onging stream of public information. It’s amazing to me that you’re willing to settle for that level of public accountability–which is to say no public accountability whatsoever while decision-making is in process–in the face of such of intelligent and informed criticism. How many “strident” accounts by former World Bank senior VPs do you need to read before your willing to concede that the system needs to be reformed?

I thought you are a big fan of Western civilization at its best. You present yourself as bastion of Enlightenment values, yet the first chance you get you’re ready to sell democracy completely short. Do you think Rousseau would applaud secret deliberations? Do you think Sen finds the kind of haphazard development policy that comes out of such corporate-oriented institutions acceptable?

Earlier you claimed that protesters probably think “Stiglitz” is a brand of chewing gum. Perhaps some do (though I suspect that more protesters are more well-informed than you’re be willing to allow).

You seem to take such pride in contrasting your rational knowledge to other people’s impetuous ignorance. Yet a streak of outright denial runs through your entire position: women are doing well enough for you, unaccountable global institutions are working fine enough for you.

Pull off the suspenders and smell the chai, TS. You’re kind of complacency is, like so 1988. :wink:

62

Really? Then why is the true principal condition of the IMF bailout the drastic reduction of discretionary spending by provincial governors? Argentina failed to comply with previous IMF accords, hence Duhalde’s willingness to bend over backwards to get this bailout to work. There are a few other issues on the table:

[ul]
[li]changing bankruptcy laws that unduly favor debtors[/li][li]getting rid of a strange “economic subversion” law that the government has used against bankers[/li][li]provincial deficits must be cut by 50%[/li][li]getting rid of the corralito, the deposit freeze[/li][li]stop friggin’ printing more devalued pesos to keep the banks afloat[/li][/ul]

I am a little confused with respect to your country going to hell once the investors are bailed out. Aren’t increased investor confidence and an influx of foreign capital good things, things that prevent countries from going to hell?

63

Truth Seeker: “People have been complaining about the EU’s “democracy deficit” for years.”

Yeah, I know, I’ve lived in England and have heard all about the EU and its bureaucratic “Brussels sprouts.” Just as people (including me) having been complaining about the condition of US democracy for years. It takes constant public vigilance to keep things as open as they possibly can be. (And I don’t doubt that Rick’s complaints about Canadian secrecy are valid; but not as a contrast to the WTO or IMF.)

" Negotiated in secret? Not hardly. I think what you really mean is that they are negotiated without the participation of NGOs. There are dozens of negotiators from 144 countries that meet over a period of years to hammer out the details of these agreements."

Well, gee, Truth Seeker. Up until you told me that negotiatiors from the involved countries hammered these details out amongst themselves, I thought it was done in a clandestine meeting between Agent 99 and Thrush. :wink:

And no, I’m not (necessarily) calling for direct institutional participation by NGOs (because if I were I would want those individuals to be elected by the countries they purport to represent). Re-read the relevant quotation from Stiglitz. The deliberations are conducted in secret until such point as it’s too late to change them. No press. No onging stream of public information. It’s amazing to me that you’re willing to settle for that level of public accountability–which is to say no public accountability whatsoever while decision-making is in process–in the face of such of intelligent and informed criticism. How many “strident” accounts by former World Bank senior VPs do you need to read before your willing to concede that the system needs to be reformed?

I thought you are a big fan of Western civilization at its best. You present yourself as bastion of Enlightenment values, yet the first chance you get you’re ready to sell democracy completely short. Do you think Rousseau would applaud secret deliberations? Do you think Sen finds the kind of haphazard development policy that comes out of such corporate-oriented institutions acceptable?

Earlier you claimed that protesters probably think “Stiglitz” is a brand of chewing gum. Perhaps some do (though I suspect that more protesters are more well-informed than you’re be willing to allow).

You seem to take such pride in contrasting your rational knowledge to other people’s impetuous ignorance. Yet a streak of outright denial runs through your entire position: women are doing well enough for you, unaccountable global institutions are working fine enough for you.

Pull off the suspenders and smell the chai, TS. You’re kind of complacency is, like so 1988. :wink:

64

**
Which puts me, what, twenty years ahead of you?

**
Then don’t hold up the EU as a paragon of “openess and accountability.” The current EU political structure (especially the Commission) was specifically designed to be largely independent and unaccountable to help ensure that it wasn’t hijacked by national interest. You could make a pretty good case that the GATT/WTO system is actually more open and democratic than Commission rule making.

**
Certainly. There are these things called, “courts,” see . . .

That’t the mistake you are making. WTO panels are courts. They are there to enforce the rules, not to make them. How many modern juries deliberate in public? WTO panels are supposed to apply the facts to the rules. After which, they issue lengthy and detailed opinions outlining their findings and their reasoning.

I think the “secret GATT round negotiations are anti-democratic” thing is a red herring, too. I’m not really sure how you would open them to greater public scrutiny in any meaningful way. First, these things are incredibly messy. Typically, there is nothing but a welter of counter-proposals until almost the last minute when an agreement is reached in a fit of last-minute horse trading. It’s not like passing a bill in the U.S. Congress. There is no neat paper trail of amendments and who voted in favour of what that you can track along every step of the way.

Second, most of the real work is done in relatively iinformal meetings and working groups as well as by government-to-government contact. In this respect, GATT rounds work just like the U.N. or the British parliment – or the U.S. Congress, for that matter. Is it undemocratic when two Senators talk on the phone or when the Democratic caucus meets?

Finally, I can only repeat that these things are slugged out between countries and just aren’t all that secret. People who care to pay attention do know generally what’s going on. There are constant reports in the press as well as public discussions during a trade round. It’s just that most of what’s going on is too wonky for even most wonks to take a serious interest in.

**
Cite?

**
Call it my unbridled optimism. In point of fact, in the West, things are better for women than they ever have been before and global institutions are working better than they ever have before.

This doesn’t mean that things can’t be made to work even better. But this “Save the planet from the evils of corporate capitalism” crap is just that.

65

Indeed. I can see both sides of the argument in terms of how one might want to use the term “sovereignty”…I just want people to be consistent.

Well, maybe not necessarily something that high-falluting (?sp) but, yeah, I am too otherwise-occupied to participate in this thread in a very meaningful way other than to throw in a few random thoughts and links. But, I am glad that you are devoting more time to it. (And, greetings back!)

66

Sorry about that. Please consider all insulting language withdrawn. I just felt that my position was being deliberately misrepresented. I am not some loony ‘anti-globalisation’ fanatic. I teach English in Taiwan, so if anything, I want more ‘globabilisation’. (More work opportunities for me. :slight_smile: )

The sentence that I wrote that seems the most objectionable is “However the money the IMF loans is not to help the economy, but to pay off the banks that gave the bad loans in the first place.”

I realize that this wasn’t as clear as possible. I certainly didn’t mean that the country should default on these loans, or as Collounsbury says, “fuck the capitalist pigs.”

By this I mean that loans that are originally given to countries (prior to the IMF) should come with some kind of strings attached. Imperialist? Maybe, but since we all seem to agree that corruption is a major problem, shouldn’t there be some attempt to deal with it more effectively? Can nothing be done to ensure that corrupt regimes spend the money in ‘productive’ ways? I ask this question seriously, because I would really like to know. Are people with corrupt rulers doomed to stay in poverty?
Chris

67

Ah don’t do that, takes the sport out of it.

Apologies, actual apologies and not twisted arm ones, I misread and misrecalled. Confused you with another poster it appears.

The problem is culture.

I attended an investment round-table yesterday, in which I once more had to listen to some self-satisfied idiot of an American lawyer (ABA rep I think. Should stay in NY or DC, dumb fucks.) natter on about the importance of getting the “right” laws.

My professional experience is laws mean jack when the underlying culture doesn’t support them.

E.g. Egypt. Egypt has lots of wonderful laws on the books (as well as scary ones), traffic laws literally no one pays attention to, etc.

It is, in my opinion, worse to have laws on the book that no one pays attention to, positively acidic for the rule of law in a genuine sense of cultural respect, than to lack them.

I become rather upset when I hear these just add water and you get respect of law, democracy ideas. Disburbingly prevalent in American circles.

This is a process. I don’t know there are any clear of easy answers.

68

the internet makes it possible for computer programmers in india to compete with programmers in the united states, this is obviously a form of globalization. how much this affects US programmers can be influenced by real estate prices in the US. the higher real estate the more money programmers need.

but if an individual programmer does a great job of managing his finances he reduces how much globalization can hurt him. so if accounting/personal finance is mandatory in the schools an entire nation could better protect itself from globalization. WHAT NATION DOES THIS? is the battleline rich vs nonrich rather than nation vs nation?

Dal Timgar

69

Estilicon posted an excellent account of the results of IMF policies on a nations economy, and yet know has replied to it specificaly. Interesting.

I am currently taking a course on Political Ecology and Globalization and our intitial focus has been on economic history and colonization. Does anyone feel it is relevant in this discussion to examine why some nations are poor with a corrupt elite beauracry? (Colonization? Underdevelopment?)
and should this play a role in the policies of the IMF, WB, and WTO? In other words, do the Western Nations (or the alphabet soup of international entities) have a responsibilty to improve tha economies of the Third World even at their detriment?
(Sorry if this is a thread hijack. I am but a message board novice)