erislover, I hope we’re straight on the matter of the importance of industrial workforces needing to be able to purchase moderate manufactured goods. Sorry if I misled you into believing that I thought the world’s workers should rebel until every last one of us can afford his or her own F-14 or Ferrari ;).
“Western workers have lost their power so they need to submit themselves to a transnational movement? And this is supposed to empower them in what way? I know many people who work for the unions…”.
Western citizens don’t have to “submit themselves” to anything (unless they actually enjoy such things 
). What you’re forgetting is that your own perceived indifference to trade unions is entirely predicated on the fact that the United States has a union movement (such as it is). Hence your employer has to bear in mind not to give workers such as you added incentives to wish to organize. That’s not the case for most third-world workers. But it is still in your interests to see them enjoy that right, for economic reasons and for the greater world stability it will promote. And there are environmental reasons why you might want to join with other citizens–whether or not you submit to them is entirely up to you–to rein in the unfettered power of multnationals.
Minty: "You asserted early on in this thread that three things were necessary to “stabilize, democratize and spread prosperty”: “trade union movements, environmental and human safeguards, living wage standards.”
Indeed. That’s part of the reason why some Asian economies have begun to suffer so much: after having reached a relatively high phase of industrialization through “economic nationalism” and at a time when they might have been poised to institute a social safety net through trade union pressure and/or democratic channels, instead these economies were compelled to liberalize their economy (but not their politics) with the bad effects described in the Nation article.
“I replied that none of those factors were necessary to the stabilization, democratization, and prosperity of the Western economic powers.”
And I hope I’ve explained that they were. Indeed, nineteenth-century Europe was positively revolutionary until trade union organization and the social safety net came about. And, as I tried to explain above, they came about gradually but steadily.
“So why do you continue to tell me about all kinds of regulations other than trade unions, the environment, human safeguards, and living wage standards?”
Because you seemed to me to be arguing that industrialization required laissez-faire conditions: and I was trying to demonstrate to you that, in the 18th century, mercantilism took the place of modern social welfare mechanisms and in that and other ways boosted industrialization. Then there was a period of laissez-faire: but gradually it was curbed via trade union/democratic pressure towards modern social welfare. This led to more widespread prosperity and, therefore, to functional democracy and social stability.
I apologize if you never did mean to make the case about laissez-faire and I only thought you did. It’s a common argument on the “globalization is just fine the way it is” side of things. But I hope now we understand each other :).
“But where’s your evidence that “a living wage” was necessary to stability/democracy/prosperity (“s/d/p”)?”
I think you misunderstand what is meant by “a living wage” Minty. You seem to mean that it must entail some specific piece of legislation such as a Living Wage Act. A living wage simply means a wage that is high enough to allow people to live somewhat decently. The fact that many nineteenth-century workers only barely had this led Marx to believe that they were a revolutionary class and would soon throw over the capitalist class. But–in large part due to their ability to organize and their enfranchisement–instead they got a living wage through a more democratic form of capitalism, including state regulation, and trade union voice in economic matters. The same things helped to put to rest Euroope’s dangerous fascist tendencies after WW II.
“Instead of addressing those concerns, you’re again dragging up all kinds of items that were far outside the scope of my original point about prerequisites for stability/democracy/prosperity. Education? School meals for poor children? Pensions? Unemployment insurance? All fine and dandy by me, but certainly not germane to “trade union movements, environmental and human safeguards, living wage standards,” that list of items that you asserted were necessary for stability/democracy/prosperity.”
On the contrary, extremely germane. Public education, school meals, pensions and unemployment insurance are social entitlements that boost people’s living standards. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the state was made to provide these in the interests of stability (and also to build a more efficient workforce like Germany’s). Trade unions enhanced this process by showing workers’ collective power. Such things relate directly to a living wage since they help people to achieve it. For example, $5/day may not be a living wage in a country without old-age pensions or school meals; but it may be a comfortable living wage in a country that has them. Understand now?
“(Which, incidentally, begs the questions of what level of unemployment insurance is necessary, and of who should pay for it–rather important considerations, don’t you think?)”
Absolutely. And that’s one reason why unemployment insurance was so popular with the elite as opposed to paying higher wages to workers, or as opposed to more redistributive measures. That is, workers tended to pay for unemployment insurance themselves (out of their paychecks) then as well as now. Nevertheless, it was the beginning of a more widespread social safety net that eventually came to include people who had not paid into the system (such as widows), and other kind of entitlements. School meals certainly boosted the living wage standard of the British working classes since feeding their children absorbed a huge part of their wage.
“That I believe in a far more limited role for government than you apparently do by no means translates into a laissez faire position on my part.”
Fair enough. I will take care to remember that you are on record as unattached to a laissez-faire position.
That said, I hope my main points are clear now. 1) Neo-liberalism expects developing nations to be able to industrialize successfully in a “free trade” or “laissez-faire” environment when no country in history has ever been able to do that. 2) Historically what has led to stability and functional democracy in industrialized nation is the sharing of prosperity generally achieved through the pressure of organized worker movements. Those channels are being blocked in most developing countries, even where democracy technically exists.
Gadarene, looking forward to reading up on List tonight. Good luck with law school outlining
B. Gardner: “I’m not a knee-jerk capitalism apologist, but I take exception to those who would cast the world’s ills at capitalism’s feet.”
Fair enough. I hope you’re pleased then to find that no one in this thread is taking that position. 
eris again: “It is no suprise to me that assemblers might not be able to purchase the end-product. I would think that is common sense, in fact, that there is no guarantee that what an assembler manufactures is also able to be purchased by said assembler. I do not see a damn thing wrong with that, and I simply wonder why you do.”
Because the problem with today’s worldwide economy is oversupply, and one big problem with the US economy in particular is the trade deficit. There world has more productive capacity than it has buyers. The only way to improve that situation is to improve the living standards of the developing world.
I’m sure you’ll be able to afford those Nikes sooner or later; (although when you do, you might not be so ready to tell the boss to kiss off)
BTW, since everyone is clarifying their sex for the benefit of pronoun users, I’m (as many of you know already) a woman (I guess the only one in the thread now that Minty has been outed as a man.)
Cyber: “Most economists who have looked at the issue have found little evidence of a race to the bottom, certainly not enough to justify sweeping global standards.”
Well perhaps “most” have, but what you’ve provided is one link, from the World Bank, that specifically questions the “race” in environmental standards only. And it is far from the most decisive report I’ve ever read. Indeed, it seems to waffle quite a bit. For example:
“Opening the activity to international trade and investment may then exacerbate the irreversible loss of environmental resources. An important question here is that if one’s concern is to protect a scarce environmental resource then why tax or regulate only international trade in the product? In the ideal case, taxing or regulating both international and domestic trade in the product without discrimination will usually be a more efficient or effective way of protecting it. Often, however, developing countries do not have the institutional capacity to put in place these more ideal, non-discriminatory environmental protection policies. In some cases, then, not opening the sector for the time being may turn out to be the only realistic ‘second-best’ policy, while the institutional and regulatory capacity for better quality environmental protection is built up.”
Yeah, right…
And “[T]here is no evidence that the cost of environmental protection has ever been the determining factor in foreign investment decisions. Factors such as labor and raw material costs, transparent regulation and protection of property rights are likely to be much more important, even for polluting industries.”
Could that perhaps be because environmental regulations thus far don’t make many demands on prospective investors? And gee, why might that be? What if pressing environmental needs begin to make such protections necessary? What is in this article to suggest that there won’t be a race to the bottom then?
Also, doesn’t the latter statement imply that we can reasonably expect a race to the bottom on labor costs? And isn’t that in fact what’s happened when corporations leave the US for Mexico, or Germany for Malaysia, or Malaysia for China?
“Some discussion of the praciticalities would also be nice.”
Yes indeed. What do you propose to do about undersupply? What is your plan for avoiding a global recession? How do you propose to close the trade deficit? What is your plan for addressing what Tony Blair (among others) argues is the economic factor in terrorism? What’s your approach to global warming?
Most of all, how do you propose to correct the tautology in your own arguments?
"Frankly you haven’t even provided the first step of providing a plausible theoretical rationale for global standards…
This remark was addressed to Demos. For the record though, with some notable exceptions I’d settle for regional standards negotiated, perhaps, through trade agreements (thus obviating the need for more bureaucracy). Did you read the link I posted from the Economic Policy Institute. What’s fascinating there is that Clinton, apparently, intended for NAFTA to guarantee workers’ rights in Mexico.
An excerpt:
“Presidential candidate Bill Clinton recognized in his October 4, 1992 Raleigh, N.C. speech that NAFTA without a modification of the labor relations regime in Mexico could constitute an unfair magnet for [foreign direct investment]FDI, to the disadvantage of American workers. Companies could relocate production to Mexico, Clinton noted, or, even if they did not, use the threat of such relocation in collective bargaining negotiations for the purpose of intimidating their workers. He therefore conditioned his approval of NAFTA upon the negotiation of a complementary labor agreement (the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation or the NAALC, also referred to as the Labor Side Agreement) that would assure effective implementation of core worker rights in Mexico, including, most importantly, the right of free association, which is the foundation for all other worker rights. Over time, the Mexican worker would then be enabled to bargain for a fairer share of productivity gains. An egregiously unfair advantage – repressive labor practices – in attracting FDI would be eliminated.”
In other words, at least in his campagin rhetoric, Clinton wanted to prevent a race to the bottom in labor costs; and he wanted to do so by ensuring “a fairer share of productivity gains” to Mexican workers. (Something you seem to believe is economically impossible.)
With the workers’ rights provisions blocked by corporate pressure (see the link), the actual effect of NAFTA has not been good. From a different report:
“If the U.S. had achieved balanced trade in this period, as was predicted by the advocates of NAFTA and the WTO, U.S. manufacturing would be much stronger today and in a much better position to weather the downturn that is now under way. But the fact that 25 steel-producing companies, now including Bethlehem Steel, have declared bankruptcy reveals that rapidly growing trade deficits have had corrosive effects on the U.S. industrial base (Nag and Goldfarb 2001). Rather than putting new trade deals on a fast track, policy makers should step back for a strategic pause, during which they can review the structure, enforcement, and effectiveness of U.S. trade policies.”
http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp118.html
So what’s your practical approach to solving this problem, CyberPundit?
december: “Since it’s very difficult for a single country to implement economic controls without doing harm, I’d say it’s impossible to accomplish this feat internationally.”
I agree it’s difficult. But that’s why I favor EU-type blocs and use of fair trade agreements.
Pundit on suggestion from NGO of $1/hr global min wage (something I’d said I wasn’t myself persuaded by)
“Oh btw let me spell the sheer lunacy of the 1$ /hour minimum wage that Mandelstam cited. At 2000 hours per year that works to 2000 dollars which is four times the per capita income of India. Is there any need to elaborate the idiocy of enacting a minimum wage which is several times the average income. …
…
Sadly ,like I said,most of the leftist prescriptions are about the easy way out of just trying to impose regulations on poor people whose cost will in all likelihood be payed for largely by the poor themselves.”
CyberPundit, I wonder if you realize how preposterous you seem at times. Although I don’t myself agree with a unified global minimum wage, nor insist that any given country’s route to prosperity lay first and foremost with a national minimum wage, I could easily see someone with those beliefs reading this and thinking, “Well what about beginning with 50cents instead of $1” (or whatever figure works according to careful calculations). It’s ludicrous for you to leap from your differences with this one writer to the conclusion that “Most…leftist prescriptions” can be dismissed as “sheer lunacy.”
It’s also rather bizarre that you insist that poor people will have to pay the price. To adopt your view of economics one would have to believe that workers have never managed to get their share of productivity gains without having it squeezed out of them in some other fashion. The truth is that only reason that productivity gains have been enjoyed primarily as investor profits is that workers are now weak while investors are strong. But in the past that has changed and there’s no reason it can’t now.
Here’s another practical question for you. If you the US recession deepens, a lot of these poor workers will lose their jobs simply b/c there will be insufficient buyers to take advantage of their productivity gains. What do you plant to do about that?
“The real agenda isn’t helping poor people but protecting labourers in rich countries”
Oh, and I suppose the “real agenda” isn’t ever about protecting the riches of corporations and the superwealthy elite who run and own them.
) under the concept of trade unions.
Your link isn’t overly convincing for this discussion, as it’s pretty obvious from even the most cursory glance that it is intended to address the U.S. minimum wage and not third world wages. No serious economist (and there are serious ones on that site) would believe that the costs of food or housing aren’t lower in those areas, and the dietary requirements quite a bit more economical. It does bring up the costs of raising the minimum wage, and suggests “top-up” subsidies for those below that line. Seems like the most intelligent solution to me: it spreads the cost of a minimum wage among the entire society rather than simply the companies in question and eliminates the incentive to benefit from government assistance instead of working. While there might be an economic impact, it sure wouldn’t be on the same level as a mandated minimum wage.