What's so bad about "free trade", you ask???

[IrateCitizen]

I just finished reading The Silent Takeover by Noreena Hertz this morning, and it was one of the best views on "globalization" I have ever seen. For those of you not familiar with Dr. Hertz, she is a professor of economics at Cambridge, was an advisor to the Russian transformation to capitalism in 1992, and also was involved in the Israeli/Palestinian peace process in the 1990's. She brings views to the table that only a disenchanted insider can.

While many who are against the current model of globalization like to demonize corporations as the source of all evil, Hertz refrains from this in her book. She even cites instances of corporations working to improve the lot of people in foreign countries where the governments have failed to: Shell establishing schools in Nigeria, Diamond and Gold mines providing health care and sex ed to workers in South Africa, etc. She also talks about how business has stepped into assisting in some of these services that government has abandoned in the industrialized world.

But, Hertz also issues a warning to those who would believe that business can provide all of these services to us. She reminds us that the primary role of corporations will always be to maximize profits for their shareholders -- and anytime altruism comes into conflict with profit, profit will win out every time. She also condemns both the New Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, as well as the New Democrats and Republicans in the US, for abandoning their role as representing the people, and instead becoming little more than shills for the wishes of big business.

Another theme touched on is the rise of protest as a means of political expression. While turnout at the ballot box has declined, more and more people have taken to political protest as a means for speaking out. While a rise in activism can be attributed to the organizing power of the internet, mobilizing mass numbers of people within weeks, days or even hours; she attributes the real rise in such activities to the overwhelming feeling of being shut out completely from the political process.

Finally, Hertz warns that this is a dangerous cycle. Business is unelected and unaccountable to people -- and while it should be lauded when it acts as a responsible citizen, it should in no way be depended upon as a guarantor of social services. Likewise, the rise in politics of protest can be a dangerous thing, as protest groups also act in their own interest, which does not always coincide with the greater public interest. And as governments continue to turn their backs on their roles as regulators and guarantors of the public interest, they will only inflame the angers of a disaffected populace.

In all, it is an excellent book -- one that I urge all of you who have the slightest interest in trade issues to peruse. It's only 212 pages, and a relatively fast read, but packed with perspectives that transcend the traditional either/or dichotomy presented by the most fervent supporters AND opponents of the ubiquitous phenomenon known as "free trade".

[rabid_nerd]

1. PA DU Member Senate Candidate

is the ONLY FAIR Trade (NOT Free Trade) candidate in PA for 2004:

www.charliecrystle.com

[buddhamama]

2. just started David Korten's

"When Corporations Rule the World" another disenchanted globalization insider. Korten worked with USAID in Asia.

thanks for the recommendation. I will look for Ms.Mertz's book.

[terryg11]

3. just because they do a few good deeds doesn't pardon them

when she talks of business stepping in to assist some of the services that government has abandoned, does she mention how some developing countries are all but forced to sell their water or utilities to US or UK companies at well below fair value in order to get debt relief from the IMF or World Bank? Which then starts a vicious cycle of wages being cut, workforce reduced and prices raised through the roof by the new owners?

It does sound like a good book and maybe all businesses aren't inherently evil but the more I read the less I believe these corporations aren't out to take over the world. I definitely agree with her take on people becoming disenfranchised with government and the feds not doing their job as regulators and guarantors.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Believe me, her aim is FAR from pardoning them

One of the issues she raises is that business carried out these "good works" in a time of relative prosperity. Can we expect them to continue in a downturn? Probably not. In fact, she cites Japan as a primary example of what can happen when corporations are counted on to provide a social safety net -- and then abdicate that role in times of economic uncertainty.

More than anything, the analysis is one of pros and cons. For example, while it may SEEM like a good thing to allow soft drink manufacturers to contribute educational programs to public schools, it also allows them to interject their own self interest (sales of soft drinks in cafeterias, etc.) than can also cause a great deal of harm. More than anything, it is necessary to recognize that business always has, and will continue, to operate from a perspective of pure self-interest. At times this self interest merges with the greater public interest, but at these same times it can result in their taking over of the public interest, which is NEVER a good thing.

[wtmusic]

4. Thanks for the recommendation

On my way to Amazon right now!

[Iverson]

5. see also Joseph Stiglitz

A former insider (possibly Pres. of World Bank, but can't remember now), he has also authored books that provide an informed critique of the current model of globalization.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. I'll look for this.

I spent half my working life dealing with international trade in one way or another, and I agree that business is not inherently good or evil. It is neutral, and could be considered as any other force of nature.

It's not a question of being pro or anti trade. Trade exists and will never go away. The question is how to properly regulate trade and deal with the adjustments that trade causes.

[jeter]

7. This isn't a criticism of Free Trade...

...it seems a criticism of privatization. They are two separate things.

[terryg11]

8. yes and no

according to many sources often cited here, privatization is a driving force behind globalization and free trade.

[IrateCitizen]

10. They are one and the same in the current application

The main drive behind recent global business efforts (Multilaterial Agreement on Investments, General Agreement on Trade in Services) debated by the WTO is the broadening of privatization on an international scale. It is impossible to separate the two, as soon as you step out of the theoretical and begin dealing with how things are actually unfolding.

Read the book, and you'll see how much the two are intertwined -- to the point of becoming almost one and the same.

[buddhamama]

9. found this at commondreams

(note to Mods. posting this in its entirety-it's a press release)

Shafted: Free Trade and America's Working Poor

OAKLAND, CA - September 2 - Before our politicians sign one more disastrous deal, they should all be tied down and forced to read this extraordinary and important book.
-Naomi Klein, author, 'No Logo'

Shafted is a first-person dissection of America's trade policies. A trade policy crafted by the rich for the rich has incalculable effects on all. The poor, forgotten, and dislocated are not being heard. It is imperative that we listen well, for the cost of indifference will never stop growing until these inequities are addressed and justice trumps cash as the motivating factor for economic development.
-Paul Hawken, author, 'The Ecology of Commerce'

Rattling at the gilded gates of free trade's myths, 'Shafted: Free Trade and America's Working Poor', the latest book from Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, is already creating a buzz among activists and academics.

As we head towards the 10th anniversary of NAFTA, 'Shafted' begs the question "who will celebrate?" Trade agreements have cost the United States over 3 million jobs and countless amounts of misery. And now, at the WTO ministerial in Cancun, the Bush administration is poised to expand free trade agreements.

'Shafted' is the unspoken truth of free trade's devastation on worker's lives told by those who know first-hand: small family farmers, farm workers, fisherfolk, industrial and textile workers.

"The women and men whose stories are woven into this book come from incredibly diverse ethnic backgrounds, geographic locations, and vocations," said Christine Ahn, editor of 'Shafted'. "But all have experienced the destructive power of free trade policies: broken communities; withering wages and evaporating jobs; farms, houses, and livelihoods-and even lives-lost."

These personal stories are supplemented with expert testimony from researchers and policy makers who have studied free trade's economic and social impacts. For example, since NAFTA, more than half of all employers, and 71 percent of all manufacturers, threatened to close operations when faced with a union organizing drive. Typically, union workers who lose manufacturing jobs find new work that pays only 70 percent of their former salary.

"Proponents of trade agreements boast cheaper consumer products and greater access to out-of-season fruits and vegetables, but these benefits cannot justify human rights violations wrought by free trade," said Ahn. "The right to feed oneself, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to organize and form unions, and the right to be free from slavery cannot be trumped by the corporate right to profit."


http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0903-01.htm

hope you don't mind me invading your thread, IC :-)

[prolesunited]

12. I'm interest in her opinion on protests

Did she believe they would become more violent or remain relatively peaceful? Does she foresee an increased effort by government to squelch dissent? And finally, did she offer an opinion on whether she believes protests are an effective means of enacting change?

BTW, sounds like an interesting book that presents logical, well-reasoned perspectives. Thanks for sharing.

[IrateCitizen]

13. All of the above.

She just doesn't see protest as the best vehicle for promoting democratic process, in the long run. While acknowledging the importance of protest during the labor movement, women's suffrage movement, and civil rights movement in the United States; the important thing to remember is that protest forced the government to act in all of these cases.

What Dr. Hertz warns against is the replacement of traditional democratic processes with protest -- just as she warns against the replacement of government regulation with shareholder revolt and consumer boycott. The conclusion she reaches is that government is STILL the most effective guarantor of the public interest if basic democratic practices are to remain intact.

[G_j]

14. Don't forget to watch "Life And Debt"!

now out on DVD and video! Remarkable documentary on the effects of 'free trade'. Show it to your friends!!

..Wonderful reggae sound track to match.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Already saw it over a year ago!

My local arts theatre had a special screening followed by a Q&A with the film's director. She told us that Stanley Fischer was not at all pleased at the way in which he was portrayed in the film -- as a smarmy, pompous, condescending, arrogant, elitist prick; which probably isn't too far from the mark!