Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A Challenger to the Church of Free Trade

By William Greider, The Nation. Posted April 23, 2007.


An unlikely dissident from the Ivy League's economic establishment has come forward with a proposal to reform globalization.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by William Greider

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The church of global free trade, which rules American politics with infallible pretensions, may have finally met its Martin Luther. An unlikely dissenter has come forward with a revised understanding of globalization that argues for thorough reformation. This man knows the global trading system from the inside because he is a respected veteran of multinational business. His ideas contain an explosive message: that what established authorities teach Americans about global trade is simply wrong -- disastrously wrong for the United States.

Martin Luther was a rebellious priest challenging the dictates of a corrupt church hierarchy. Ralph Gomory, on the other hand, is a gentle-spoken technologist, trained as a mathematician and largely apolitical. He does not set out to overthrow the establishment but to correct its deeper fallacies. For many years Gomory was a senior vice president at IBM. He helped manage IBM's expanding global presence as jobs and high-tech production were being dispersed around the world.

The experience still haunts him. He decided, in retirement, that he would dig deeper into the contradictions. Now president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, he knew something was missing in the "pure trade theory" taught by economists. If free trade is a win-win proposition, Gomory asked himself, then why did America keep losing?

The explanations he has developed sound like pure heresy to devout free traders. But oddly enough, Gomory's analysis is a good fit with what many ordinary workers and uncredentialed critics (myself included) have been arguing for some years. An important difference is that Gomory's critique is thoroughly grounded in the orthodox terms and logic of conventional economics. That makes it much harder to dismiss. Given his career at IBM, nobody is going to call Ralph Gomory a "protectionist."

He did not nail his "theses" to the door of the Harvard economics department. Instead, he wrote a slender book -- Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests -- in collaboration with respected economist William Baumol, former president of the American Economic Association. Published seven years ago, the book languished in academic obscurity and until recently was ignored by Washington policy circles.

I asked Gomory if his former colleagues from the corporate world quarrel with his provocative message. "Most of them have never heard it," he said. "It's a pretty new message." He has discussed his reform ideas with some CEOs, "who said, Well, maybe we could do that. Others couldn't have disagreed more strongly."

Now Gomory is attempting to re-educate the politicians in Congress. He has gained greater visibility lately because he has been joined by a group of similarly concerned corporate executives called the Horizon Project. Its leader, Leo Hindery, former CEO of the largest US cable company and a player in Democratic politics, shares Gomory's foreboding about the destructive impact of globalization on American prosperity. Huge losses are ahead -- 10 million jobs or more -- and Hindery fears time is running out on reform.

"We want to be a counter to the Hamilton Project," Hindery explains. "They have a sense of stasis that is more benign than I have. I don't think this is all going to work out." The Hamilton policy group was launched last year by former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin to make sure the laissez-faire trade doctrine known as Rubinomics continues to dominate the Democratic Party. "We're never going to have the status of Bob Rubin," Hindery concedes. "But we're not chopped liver either. We have respectable business careers. You can't tell Ralph Gomory that he is 'smoke and mirrors,' because he wrote the book."

Gomory's critique has great political potential because it provides what the opponents of corporate-led globalization have generally lacked: a comprehensive intellectual platform for arguing that the US approach to globalization must be transformed to defend the national interest. Still, it will take politicians of courage to embrace his ideas and act on them. Gomory's political solutions are as heretical as his economic analysis.

At IBM back in the 1980s, Gomory watched in awe as Japan and other Asian nations captured high-tech industrial sectors in which US companies held commanding advantage. IBM invented the disk drive, then dropped out of the disk-drive business, unable to compete profitably. Gomory marveled at Singapore, a tiny city-state, as it lured American manufacturers with low-wage labor, capital subsidies and tax breaks. The US companies turned Singapore into a global center for semiconductor production.

"It was an unforgettable transformation," Gomory remembers. "And it was pretty frightening.

"The offer that many Asian countries will give to American companies is essentially this: 'Come over here and enhance our GDP. If you are here our people will be building disk drives, for example, instead of something less productive. In return, we'll help you with the investment, with taxes, maybe even with wages. We'll make sure you make a profit.' This works for both sides: the American company gets profits, the host country gets GDP. However, there is another effect beyond the benefits for those two parties -- high-value-added jobs leave the U.S."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: reform, globalization, free trade

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Masters of All They Survey
Posted by: shangrilalad on Apr 23, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Globalization has indeed become a corporate religion preached by plutocrats and fervently carried out by adoring, and financially seduced adherents in academics, politics and the media. Counterintuitive, irrational and contrary to common sense from the beginning, Globalization is the latest and greatest of Big Lies sold to the masses by the Invisible Hand of a predatory ruling elite with no concern for America or it’s people.

We are ruled by people of wealth and power so far above us that they look down on us like ants. They feel no compassion for the “little people” because they fell no connection. Suspended in a rarified world of their own making, free of all earthly constraints, including gravity, they see themselves as Godlike. They are the Masters of All They Survey.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Masters of All They Survey Posted by: justaguy
» PREDATION PRESSURE Posted by: shangrilalad
» RE: Masters of All They Survey Posted by: kittyhegemann
What's next?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Apr 23, 2007 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The way it looks to me is that sooner or later wages world wide will have to be more or less equal. The problem boils down to this. Are American wages going to drop precipitously to compete with third world countries or are we going to force their wages up to near ours? We have a choice are we going to pay more for their products or are we going to work for their pay? Either way the First World standard of living is going to decline and the third world standard will increase.

I think it's necessary to control the equalization of living standards. I would rather that the First World people control the change than the corporations.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's next? Posted by: themotie
» RE: What's next? Posted by: bornxeyed
The Root of America's Problems
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Apr 23, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gomory gets to the root of this and many other problems in America: "The directors are doing the job they're sworn to do. It's a system that says the companies have to have a sole focus on maximizing profit." Any concern for their employees, their community, their country, or the world in general is optional, and is generally considered a liability. Executives who display a tendency toward such concerns tend to be weeded out early, long before they can influence company policy.

The "person" which an American corporation represents is amoral and totally self-interested by definition. The real problem is when government abdicates its responsibility to set healthy guidelines within which corporations must operate. Even worse is an enabling government, such as the Bush / Republican regime, which allows corporations to write the laws within which they operate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Rational Approach to Globalization
Posted by: carol white on Apr 23, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope William Reider's review article circulates widely. I have posted a link to it on ePluribusmedia. Readers might also be interested in a commentary on the same subject on the epm site. This is the link. http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/4/22/15194/9312

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Red Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Apr 23, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author presents an idea that could open up a larger can of worms. The "Godlike masters of all they survey" will do their smoke and mirrors routine. I wonder how this slipped under the radar. The author appears to feel guilty enough to speak out. The free trade corporate religion of Big Lies will be busy waving their Invisible Hand, the iron fist in a velvet glove. RBB goes for the root or the big frame, whichever metaphor suits. All people have the right to a decent life which means an "equalization of living standards," a base of monetary support on the one hand and a cap on incomes on the other. One of the biggest scams going on is the stockmarket casino and the belief in the rights of shareholders to their (actually someone else's) money. The problem is so resistant to solution because so many are involved and benefitting from the scam. It's part of our greedy addiction to money as a value that supercedes people. The stockmarket is 99% nonproductive where people want to get something for nothing, and push the speculative bubble until the money masters burst it and rake in more money for themselves. RBB calls the shysters on their game and gets to the root of our economic blues. See "Money Master." RBB advocates for a strong government to rein in human greed but that presupposes the development of strong individual character based on truth and justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The environmental cross-over...
Posted by: kazz67 on Apr 23, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The free-trade economy and globalisation is not only bad for the workforce the world over and for the economy in the States. Off-shoring is also devastating for the environment. Raw materials are shipped around the world to the, (lets say) 'sweat-shop' in which the finished article will be produced, at which point said finished article will be shipped to the States. This is not only true of 'value-added' goods such as computer hardware, it's also true of much of the packaged food which is grown and consumed in the west, but packaged overseas. (Certainly that is the case here in the UK.)

To regulate trade in such a way that it benefits the workforce, the economy AND the environment absolutely gets my resounding approval (for what it's worth).

Of course, one other thing which hasn't yet been touched on but is absolutely crucial to the whole trade debate, no matter what angle one approaches from is peak-oil.
Sooner or later, and if for no other reason than it is simply too expensive to produce goods off-shore and import them for sale, our whole economic structures will have to be redressed. Local production will become essential, with or without trade regulations.

ThisWorldMatters.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A fundamental fallacy
Posted by: profmarcus on Apr 23, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as i read greider's well-written and very informative article, i was struck by the fact that nowhere was the assumption that the government of the united states "wants to maintain a highly productive high-wage economy" challenged... i no longer believe that is a guiding economic principle in this country... those who legislate and execute the economic policy of the u.s., particularly in the foreign trade arena, are so intimately tied to the fortunes of the multi-national corporations that they have zero incentive to concern themselves with the disappearing u.s. middle class... the prized "win-win" most definitely exists, but only for the corporations, their majority shareholders, and those in government that they helped to win office...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A fundamental fallacy Posted by: oregoncharles
» Today Shanghai, tomorrow Chicago Posted by: eddie torres
Fallacies
Posted by: oregoncharles on Apr 23, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Americans become less rich, others in the world become less poor.":

Indeed, that would be just. But it isn't what's happening. Instead, the rich, around the world, become much richer, and the poor are left in their sewage.

A good example is the real impact of NAFTA on Mexico, where the number of billionaires exploded but millions of peasants were left destitute. Those victims of globalization are precisely the millions of "illegal immigrants" who flooded into the US, following the flow of wealth. All this, at the same time that millions of workers in the US were losing their jobs, then being forced to compete with desperate refugees for the crumbs that remain.

Not actually surprising, despite the propaganda that helped sell the new policies. Globalization is based on an economic fallacy. Herman Daley, the environmental economist, laid it out very well, but I don't have a reference or link at hand, so I'll try to encapsulate the logic:

The economic argument for "free trade" rests on the concept of "comparative advantage"; but that argument, in turn, requires that capital and labor do not move freely. That was true, when the theory was developed in the 19th Century, but it very obviously is not true today. Instead, "free trade" theory is used, dishonestly, to justify the free movement of capital! Free movement of labor has the same effect, but is always more sluggish - people really don't like leaving their homes, if they can help it.

As Daley explains, without the requirements that labor and capital stay home, "free trade" creates a "race to the bottom" in which the cheapest, most desperate labor drags down everyone else. The EU actually acknowledges this reality, taking steps to equalize production costs among its members, especially to bring new members "up" instead of old ones "down" - but they don't apply the same logic to world trade.

Trade really does benefit everyone when it depends on "absolute advantage", trading, say, apples that we can grow for oranges that we cannot. Otherwise, you have to tightly regulate the flow of both capital and labor, as Daley advocates.

We'll have to leave economic justice for another time; suffice it to say that we in the First World are living unsustainably high on the hog, and eventually we'll have to deal with that. I fear it won't be pretty, but that's another issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Time to break with the Gilded Age Posted by: eddie torres
Did I get ripped off?
Posted by: Robert Oak on Apr 23, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote a diary on dailykos on April 13, The Emperor Has No Clothes
In it I use the analogy the Church of Free Trade and I reference multiple Ralph Gomory quotes plus Blinder. Now I see this. So, did I unconsciously rip off that phrase or did I get snookered by one of my favorite authors?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I don't think so ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» I'll read it Posted by: Robert Oak
» RE: I'll read it Posted by: Joshua Holland
» ah Posted by: Robert Oak
Globalization should be called the "Arrogance of Power."
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 23, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only citizens with room-temperature IQ don't understand the motive behind so-called free-trade agreements: turn the United States into a permanent two-class, Have and Have-not society.

One of the biggest enemies of working Americans is Bill Clinton. Not only did he promote international trade agreements that favored foreign govenments during his eight years in office, but the greedy bastard took $500,000 to lobby for a Dubai company during the U.S. ports takeover fiasco. Hillary is just as unpatriotic. Money, not country, will always come first in the Clintons' elitist uppercrust lives.

PS: What do you have left after taking away $26 million and Slick Willie? ANSWER: an empty pants suit.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question
Posted by: brainvib on Apr 23, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The basis for "Globalization" is lower labor costs(wages and fringes). The article indicates that labor costs generally remain low in non-western industrial countries even as jobs and industries are exported to them. Wages in the industrialized western nations are bring forced downward. Will this not ultimately result in the market(s) that the industrialized western nations have provided for the goods now produced in non-western nations disappearing? Ultimately labor costs should reach equilibrium when ALL wages are at the lowest. At this point no worker can afford what he produces, the ultimate result of "globalization", no markets for goods prodeced. Is this correct?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wineandwit
Posted by: wineandwit on Apr 23, 2007 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pardon my idiocy, but isn't this what "import duties" are for? These are our adjustments for international trade disparities. If Nike or whomever wishes to manufacture overseas for overseas markets (which is what they say they are doing), fine, but when you try importing those same goods back into North America you pay a huge tariff.

It provides incentives to manufacture here only if they want to sell here. It's infinitely adjustable. The "nation" benefits either way and it's already in place.

The "Americans can buy products cheaper" line is only due and equal to the tariffs previously paid to the government. So in effect the goverment is paying them to take their jobs away and sell for huge margins back here. Are Nike's any cheaper to buy now that they're made overseas? I don't think so. Just the profit margins are bigger, at our expense.

Another thing, everyone argues change VS no change. What about arguing the pace of change? We're spending our hard won "inheritance" of a vibrant economy and infrastructure. Why are we selling it wholesale?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Again. It's not that we don't have better answers. It's that no one is listening.
Posted by: Sojourner on Apr 23, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Gomory gets a hearing from decision-makers. Yes, we've been able to run up our trade deficit and our national deficit because the US is still a good investment. But it is the issues that Gomory addresses that will turn us into a bad investment.

Our gutless politicians, however, are not likely to do anything short of a major economic crisis at home. It's like the issue of global warming. We could see it coming many long years ago. But out of sight, out of mind.

I recall trying out the idea that we should get used to simpler living and a lowered standard of waste with a group of reasonably well-informed friends. Talk about a lead balloon. Just like Carter's sweater and turned down thermostat in the White House. Big joke, right? Yeah, a bad joke on our descendants, since we leave them with a bleak future of the Earth as an impoverished Easter Island.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DPC Posted by: Robert Oak
So far, the only problem I have with this is....
Posted by: John Rice on Apr 23, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....that it is in small part, based upon a false premise:
The Gomory-Baumol book describes this as "a divergence of interests" between multinational firms and their home country. "This overseas investment decision may then prove to be very good for that multinational firm," they write. "But there remains the question: Is the decision good for its own country?

While I agree with the general overall statement, I take issue with the notion of multi-national firms having a "home" country. They are owned by the wealthy all over the world, and while they operate from within a 'home' country, they have no allegiances to any country.

Their allegiance is to themselves and the continued accumulation of even more wealth and power. They own both major political parties, so relief is not in sight.

The only possible rational solution is a third party which makes the kind of corrections as suggested in this article.

Capitalism needs fetters before it consumes the earth, and Neither Party has the potential with your help, to arrive with the needed answers.

Regards,,,John
( www.neitherparty.org )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pureintent
Posted by: pursah on Apr 23, 2007 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Globalization is moving weatlh from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country. A few win, most people lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pureintent Posted by: babalucci
Hypocrites behind the Gates
Posted by: Sum Won on Apr 23, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is an irony that those most likely to live in upscale planned and gated communities are most likely the same ones that promote free trade. They defend social engineering that protects their lifestyle but insist on free trade and other socio-economic policies that deny others the ability to have a life.

From their gated communities they conduct the business of global domination. They fly to their secured vacation villas in Punta Leona, Los Suenos or Marbella. They have isolated themselves from the rest of humanity and have come to view their fellow Americans no differently than the campesino outside of the resorts, hotels and vacation condos they visit. Out of sight, out of mind. They are just another source of labor they can exploit which enables them to maintain their lifestyle. The former middle class of America has become a burden and expense that they no longer need. The only security they are concerned about is that which protects their compounds. Or legislation such as free trade acts which enforce their economic model and acts like the patriot act, which enable them to suppress any opposition.

Unfortunately history has taught us that it is unlikely anything will change until the masses storm the gates. I would prefer to see the example of Gandhi followed and would suggest that rather than focusing our anger on the illegal aliens who come seeking work and wish to become American citizens that we focus on those that have abandoned and/or have no respect for the concept of citizenship. You'll find them hidden in enclaves secured by walls and gates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Our Current State Posted by: Sum Won
» Post Industrial Model Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Post Industrial Model Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Post Industrial Model Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Post Industrial Model Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Post Industrial Model Posted by: xgroverx
» RE: Post Industrial Model Posted by: Sum Won
» The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: The Fox in the Hen House Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Lincoln and Ethics Posted by: Sum Won
» RE: Lincoln and Ethics Posted by: poppop_schell
We need to fire our own government.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Apr 23, 2007 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Americans can choose to blame China or disloyal multinationals, but the problem is grounded in US politics."

Disloyal multinationals or disloyal politicians – what is the difference? American government, as it is practiced today, IS the corporate structure; the two are nearly completely intertwined, and the thousands upon thousands of lobbyists in Washington make damn sure nobody there does anything that might affect the corporate bottom line. Heck, we even have a self-described "CEO president" (who, if he were a real CEO, would have been fired by his Board of Directors long ago).

We don't know it yet, thanks to our refi-fueled faux prosperity, but we are on the way to becoming a third-world nation. We already show many of the signs: fewer decently-paying jobs, a second-rate healthcare system, enormous debt owed to foreign powers, a permanent poor class with no plan to help them, crumbling infrastructure, and a government that treats human rights and the rule of law as would the government of a common banana republic.

One sign of our downward trend is that a significant number if immigrants, after they've been here awhile and experienced the dwindling chances for upward mobility in America, or even a decent life, are returning to their home countries.

Oh, yes, most of us can still afford our techno-toys and overpriced homes and car leases, for now; but what we cannot afford is to look back, because, to paraphrase Satchel Page, something – all of those countries we once derisively exploited – IS gaining on us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why not index labor costs?
Posted by: TarryFaster on Apr 23, 2007 11:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that a majority of the problems of globalization could be solved through a rather simple job indexing system.

An example would be two backhoe operators -- with one in the U.S. and the other in Mexico. By indexing their wages to their local cost of living, they would both receive comparable pay. So, when either the American or the Mexican goes to the store to buy a carton of milk, their respective compensation would be reflected in the amount of labor it took to make the purchase. With this system in place, there would be no advantage to chasing cheap labor around the world and competition could be based on other factors.

Of course, we still desperately need to amend our trade agreements to level the playing field in the areas of health and safety standards, retirement programs, environmental impact, political influence, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbalanced & Unrealistic Doctrine
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 24, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Church of Globalization, like any other faith, is predicated upon a set of doctrines (essential teachings or articles of faith). The one rarely mentioned, but highly critical to Globalization, is cheap transport made possible by cheap energy.

Whatever you think about Peak Oil, everyone knows that a day will come when fossil fuels will no longer be economically or environmentally viable as a means of shipping cheap commodity goods around the world. That day is fast approaching and will undermine a massive chunk of the economics that makes it cheaper for Wal-Mart and others to ship shirts from Asia than to make them locally.

When it is no longer possible to ship the laundry list of goods to the US from cheap labor countries and we no longer make them domestically, what will we do? Remember to factor in a US economy & government saddled with debt compounded by a highly devalued dollar. Your calculus should also allow for the deflation of paper assets that will collapse under such market conditions.

There is a place for international trade, but not unrestricted trade that destroys regional and local production. We will never produce our own cocoa, cinnamon or bananas but we do not need to be importing our cotton, corn or steel from sources half-way around the globe. Allowing our economy to be de-industialized on the altar of Globalization is to trade short term profits for long term distress. It's living in a Fool's Paradise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The mantra is "FAIR TRADE", not "free trade"
Posted by: channing on Apr 24, 2007 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Free Trade" is a misnomer since no "trade" is "free", it literally costs everybody involved. "Fair Trade" on the other hand defines what it means to be equitable in trade, and I believe that is what we are really after. This was one of the reasonable proofs I had that Clinton was corrupt, "NAFreeTA", at a time when we really needed a North American "Fair Trade" Agreement. Anyone working for a living could see this.

The proposals from the author will go very far in the right direction, with an even more important residual benefit. That Americans will wake up to the fact that, through laws that we can help create, we can DEFINE what it means to be a corporation in our world, and that corporations represent and effect whole societies... we have the power to change all of them if we so choose.

Globalization, based on Fair Trade would be an easy sell to workers everywhere, and most governments could not resist. Fair Trade would have to factor in "replacement value" of resources, "recovery costs" of waste, packaging and by-products. It would have to factor in the health and well-being of their workers and end-users.

With these kind of "fair" practices in place, it would be pretty hard to deny someone the right to make millions or even billions, but until they are, I will continue to work against the systemic corruption and greed-infested "free-market" and the short-sighted plunderers behind it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]