Advertisement
www.indybay.org/newsitems/...8449686.php
Americas | International | San Francisco | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Government & Elections
Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society
by brendan behan ( brendanb [at] globalizethissf.org )
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 12:35 PM
For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.
CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control.
Key features of CAFTA-DR include allowing highly subsidized U.S. agriculture to gain immediate duty-free access to CAFTA-DR markets, excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule, non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges,' protecting international investors, entitling corporate entities to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries, privatizating all social services and allowing U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public industries, including education and environmental services.
marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_-_de_bloque_verde_225w.jpg
marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_...
Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society
by brendan behan of Globalize THIS!
www.globalizethissf.org
Sept. 25, 2007 - Even after more than 13 years of environmental degradation and dramatically increasing gaps between the rich and poor which have left workers in the U.S., Canada, and México out in the cold, the Bush Administration continues to push the NAFTA model on other countries throughout Latin America.
The mistakes of NAFTA have been duplicated and codified in the text of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), which was negotiated starting in 2003 between the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua--the Dominican Republic later joined the negotiations in 2004--and signed in 2005.
The agreement requires, among many other stipulations, that 80% of all tariffs on U.S. goods entering CAFTA-DR nations be eliminated immediately and that the remaining tariffs be phased out over the next ten years.
CAFTA-DR represents the next step toward the swallowing of the American continents by shady, back-room trade deals like those that gave rise NAFTA.
However, opposition groups in Costa Rica quickly organized to demonstrate against the agreement, citing the threat that CAFTA-DR poses to the environment, workers' rights, economic sustainability, and Costa Rican autonomy and have successfully forced the government to acknowledge the voice of the people in the public arena.
For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.
Submitting the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement to a referendum in Costa Rica is perhaps the most democratic approach to a free trade agreement that the world has yet seen in that it is the first instance in world history of a voting population's having direct veto power over a free trade agreement. This is in stark contrast to the manner in which DR-CAFTA was negotiated, which was without public input and behind closed doors under President Bush's now-expired Fast Track Authority.
CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control. Any one of Costa Rica's local laws protecting natural resources, such as sub-soil energy resources, could legally be challenged under DR-CAFTA as a barrier to trade in binding international arbitration panels overseen by unaccountable, unelected trade lawyers--not elected representatives of the people--who are empowered by the agreement to render the final decision.
These provisions would seriously inhibit the power of local communities to legally prevent multinational corporations from environment pillage as DR-CAFTA would provide legal recourse to these polluters to sue government institutions seeking such protections. This represents a very profound change in the democratic structures of these localities, placing the destinies of these communities--literally, their ability to live in an environment free of toxic pollutants--out of their hands permanently.
Among other provisions in CAFTA-DR, parties to the agreement would be compelled to consider nuclear waste as a tradable good in the eyes of the law. This could potentially mean that if a private corporation in the United States, which, quite importantly, is the only party to the agreement with a substantial nuclear industry, were contracted by the U.S. government to dispose of its nuclear waste in another country, the company could sue for the right to dump these radioactive 'tradable goods' in Costa Rica even if existing laws prohibit it, under provisions in DR-CAFTA which preclude governments from implementing laws that discriminate against certain industries or corporations. DR-CAFTA bestows the right upon these companies to sue local, regional, and national governments for not allowing such dumping of toxins and other public hazards and to also collect financial compensation from such legal bodies should the arbitration panels side in favor of the corporations.
These foreign corporations who are not beholden to these local communities do not have to bear the impact of their actions while the surrounding communities do. It has long been recognized by major economic thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz and others that the only means of preventing these corporations from perpetually hoisting these noxious externalized costs onto surrounding communities is by democratic political change, which means regulation.
In the context of Costa Rica, this presents the possibility of a new kind of internationalized environmental racism since Costa Rica's indigenous communities and their lands were the only indigenous groups to be excluded from DR-CAFTA's indigenous communities' exemption clauses.
Other key features of CAFTA-DR are as follows:
-Highly subsidized U.S. agriculture gains immediate duty-free access despite the fact that these subsidies keep prices of U.S. goods at artificially low levels, which is inconsistent with free trade doctrine
-Excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule; summarizing the U.S. Trade Representative, the 'yarn forward' rule requries that apparel using yarns and fabric from the United States and CAFTA-DR countries qualify for duty-free benefits. This includes fabrics, yarn, garment pockets, thread, narrow elastic fabrics, and visible linings. The legal implications are that any garments produced with fabrics originating from countries other than the U.S. (particularly China, which is a main competitor of the U.S. in this area) will be subject to tariffs, creating a protected market for U.S. textiles, yarns, threads, fabrics, and more
-Non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges'
-Protection for International Investors including equal treatment for U.S. investors and CAFTA-DR domestic investors
-Corporate entities would be entitled to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries
-The right for investors to sue governments and be compensated for violations of CAFTA-DR
-Privatization of all social services and access for U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public services, including education and environmental services
-Increased protections for socially contentious patents and intellectual property rights, including trademarks, and pharmaceutical test data that is currently used to produce cheap, generic drugs that are far more affordable to the poor
-Protecting plant DNA patents and allowing for the patenting of nature; enforcement mechanisms would include requiring any farmer caught growing patented crops, whether intentionally or in the event of the unintentional 'contamination' of their crops by genetically modified varieties, to destroy their fields or face imprisonment and/or fines
-Limiting public access to cheap, generic pharmaceuticals, which will most greatly impact poor
-Environmental protection mechanisms will be limited to market-based 'No Punishment, Voluntary Atonement' solutions disallowing local governments from sanctioning gross violators of environmental laws
-The explicit elimination of the possibility that labor and environment violations can be punished by means of sanctioning or withholding trade access
-Labor & environment disputes are relegated to a toothless public hearings procedure with no binding enforcement mechanisms
The notion that these kinds of polluting industries have a right to force their externalized costs onto local communities is completely at odds with any basic understanding of democracy—which, one must remember, does not equate with the 'freedom to do business,' but rather the freedom to control one's own life within the social landscapes that one operates.
Of what value is freedom in any sense, if one cannot have the ability to maintain the safety of the most basic necessities of life: our water, our food, and our air? Communities do have a democratic right to limit corporation's externalized costs, especially when those externalized costs do not just inhibit our freedom to live in a toxin-free environment, but also may inhibit our right to prevent those toxins from entering our systems.
www.globalizethissf.org
© 2000–2007 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
Americas | International | San Francisco | Global Justice and Anti-Capitalism | Government & Elections
Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society
by brendan behan ( brendanb [at] globalizethissf.org )
Tuesday Sep 25th, 2007 12:35 PM
For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.
CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control.
Key features of CAFTA-DR include allowing highly subsidized U.S. agriculture to gain immediate duty-free access to CAFTA-DR markets, excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule, non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges,' protecting international investors, entitling corporate entities to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries, privatizating all social services and allowing U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public industries, including education and environmental services.
marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_-_de_bloque_verde_225w.jpg
marcha_contra_el_tlc_001_...
Central America Free Trade Agreement Dividing Costa Rican Society
by brendan behan of Globalize THIS!
www.globalizethissf.org
Sept. 25, 2007 - Even after more than 13 years of environmental degradation and dramatically increasing gaps between the rich and poor which have left workers in the U.S., Canada, and México out in the cold, the Bush Administration continues to push the NAFTA model on other countries throughout Latin America.
The mistakes of NAFTA have been duplicated and codified in the text of the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), which was negotiated starting in 2003 between the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua--the Dominican Republic later joined the negotiations in 2004--and signed in 2005.
The agreement requires, among many other stipulations, that 80% of all tariffs on U.S. goods entering CAFTA-DR nations be eliminated immediately and that the remaining tariffs be phased out over the next ten years.
CAFTA-DR represents the next step toward the swallowing of the American continents by shady, back-room trade deals like those that gave rise NAFTA.
However, opposition groups in Costa Rica quickly organized to demonstrate against the agreement, citing the threat that CAFTA-DR poses to the environment, workers' rights, economic sustainability, and Costa Rican autonomy and have successfully forced the government to acknowledge the voice of the people in the public arena.
For the first time in the history of world, a voting population will have the opportunity to vote on a free trade agreement in a referendum. Costa Rican voters will be asked to decide whether or not to accept CAFTA. The referendum is is set to take place on October 7, 2007, and if more than 30% of the voting population turns out for the vote, the results could be considered legally binding.
Submitting the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement to a referendum in Costa Rica is perhaps the most democratic approach to a free trade agreement that the world has yet seen in that it is the first instance in world history of a voting population's having direct veto power over a free trade agreement. This is in stark contrast to the manner in which DR-CAFTA was negotiated, which was without public input and behind closed doors under President Bush's now-expired Fast Track Authority.
CAFTA-DR would fundamentally change thousands of laws that are presently in place in Costa Rica, as it has already done in other countries that are party to the agreement--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic--who have already ratified CAFTA-DR and begun implemention. One of the most critical legal changes required by DR-CAFTA are the elimination or substantial transformation of laws protecting natural resources from foreign purchase or control. Any one of Costa Rica's local laws protecting natural resources, such as sub-soil energy resources, could legally be challenged under DR-CAFTA as a barrier to trade in binding international arbitration panels overseen by unaccountable, unelected trade lawyers--not elected representatives of the people--who are empowered by the agreement to render the final decision.
These provisions would seriously inhibit the power of local communities to legally prevent multinational corporations from environment pillage as DR-CAFTA would provide legal recourse to these polluters to sue government institutions seeking such protections. This represents a very profound change in the democratic structures of these localities, placing the destinies of these communities--literally, their ability to live in an environment free of toxic pollutants--out of their hands permanently.
Among other provisions in CAFTA-DR, parties to the agreement would be compelled to consider nuclear waste as a tradable good in the eyes of the law. This could potentially mean that if a private corporation in the United States, which, quite importantly, is the only party to the agreement with a substantial nuclear industry, were contracted by the U.S. government to dispose of its nuclear waste in another country, the company could sue for the right to dump these radioactive 'tradable goods' in Costa Rica even if existing laws prohibit it, under provisions in DR-CAFTA which preclude governments from implementing laws that discriminate against certain industries or corporations. DR-CAFTA bestows the right upon these companies to sue local, regional, and national governments for not allowing such dumping of toxins and other public hazards and to also collect financial compensation from such legal bodies should the arbitration panels side in favor of the corporations.
These foreign corporations who are not beholden to these local communities do not have to bear the impact of their actions while the surrounding communities do. It has long been recognized by major economic thinkers like Joseph Stiglitz and others that the only means of preventing these corporations from perpetually hoisting these noxious externalized costs onto surrounding communities is by democratic political change, which means regulation.
In the context of Costa Rica, this presents the possibility of a new kind of internationalized environmental racism since Costa Rica's indigenous communities and their lands were the only indigenous groups to be excluded from DR-CAFTA's indigenous communities' exemption clauses.
Other key features of CAFTA-DR are as follows:
-Highly subsidized U.S. agriculture gains immediate duty-free access despite the fact that these subsidies keep prices of U.S. goods at artificially low levels, which is inconsistent with free trade doctrine
-Excluding competitors from CAFTA-DR markets so as to protect U.S. textiles & apparel under the 'Yarn Forward' Rule; summarizing the U.S. Trade Representative, the 'yarn forward' rule requries that apparel using yarns and fabric from the United States and CAFTA-DR countries qualify for duty-free benefits. This includes fabrics, yarn, garment pockets, thread, narrow elastic fabrics, and visible linings. The legal implications are that any garments produced with fabrics originating from countries other than the U.S. (particularly China, which is a main competitor of the U.S. in this area) will be subject to tariffs, creating a protected market for U.S. textiles, yarns, threads, fabrics, and more
-Non-reciprocal & anti-free trade sanction measures allowing the United States to impose tariffs on certain goods in the event of 'import surges'
-Protection for International Investors including equal treatment for U.S. investors and CAFTA-DR domestic investors
-Corporate entities would be entitled to full compensation for the market value of any properties, natural resources, or goods that are nationalized or expropriated by Central American countries
-The right for investors to sue governments and be compensated for violations of CAFTA-DR
-Privatization of all social services and access for U.S. companies to bid on these privatized public services, including education and environmental services
-Increased protections for socially contentious patents and intellectual property rights, including trademarks, and pharmaceutical test data that is currently used to produce cheap, generic drugs that are far more affordable to the poor
-Protecting plant DNA patents and allowing for the patenting of nature; enforcement mechanisms would include requiring any farmer caught growing patented crops, whether intentionally or in the event of the unintentional 'contamination' of their crops by genetically modified varieties, to destroy their fields or face imprisonment and/or fines
-Limiting public access to cheap, generic pharmaceuticals, which will most greatly impact poor
-Environmental protection mechanisms will be limited to market-based 'No Punishment, Voluntary Atonement' solutions disallowing local governments from sanctioning gross violators of environmental laws
-The explicit elimination of the possibility that labor and environment violations can be punished by means of sanctioning or withholding trade access
-Labor & environment disputes are relegated to a toothless public hearings procedure with no binding enforcement mechanisms
The notion that these kinds of polluting industries have a right to force their externalized costs onto local communities is completely at odds with any basic understanding of democracy—which, one must remember, does not equate with the 'freedom to do business,' but rather the freedom to control one's own life within the social landscapes that one operates.
Of what value is freedom in any sense, if one cannot have the ability to maintain the safety of the most basic necessities of life: our water, our food, and our air? Communities do have a democratic right to limit corporation's externalized costs, especially when those externalized costs do not just inhibit our freedom to live in a toxin-free environment, but also may inhibit our right to prevent those toxins from entering our systems.
www.globalizethissf.org
© 2000–2007 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Sat, September 29, 2007 - 8:58 AMI hope they vote it down. I have a zillion inlaws down there. CAFTA would be bad news for Central America. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 16, 2007 - 8:48 AMAnd yeah. Another victory for the fuckin' Bush Administration. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 16, 2007 - 9:24 AMI was very disappointed by the results but at the same time, not surprised.
-
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Wed, October 17, 2007 - 10:42 PM
Tedster et al,
You know, I've never understood why so many just assume that free trade equals trashing the environment. Environmental responsibility is very important (I, for one, kind of like this planet and want to stay here, and besides, it's not like we've any other choice), but free trade and globalization isn't necessarily a horrible thing. Millions of people are being lifted out of poverty thanks to free trade, and globalization has been one of the biggest (if not _the_ biggest) forces for positive change with regards to oppressive and corrupt governments the world over. Why are the two Koreas talking again? Why has China allowed so many new things in its' society that, 30 years ago, were unthinkable? I highly suspect that globalization, and the benefits it can bring, have a lot to do with it. Globalization, unchecked, definitely can have very negative repercussions on the environment, but it need not be this way, and I have a very hard time justifying protectionist behaviors, which haven't exactly resulted in responsible stewardship of our environment, either.
I regularly fast (if it can even be called that, when compared to many on this planet) for anywhere from 1-3 days (and by regularly, I mean perhaps 2-3 times per month). What do I hope to accomplish with these endeavors? The biggest reason is just to remind myself that I, like so many of us reading this page, are _very_ fortunate to have a ready supply of food and clean water. There are _countless_ people on this planet who are nowhere near as fortunate, who are in the midst of famine (which is defined far more by bad policies of oppressive / war-torn governments than by actual crop loss), who have no idea when their next meal will be. Globalization has lifted, and continues to lift, _millions_ (and millions _more_) out of poverty, and to say that the gap between rich and poor is widening due to globalization, when there are still _so_ many poor whose governments continue to oppress them (read: free trade and globalization haven't forced a regime change yet) is somewhat disingenuous. If I water the fruit trees on one side of my backyard, but neglect to water the fruit trees on the other side, the gap between healthy and unhealthy fruit trees grows, but to say that the water itself is responsible for this increasing gap is just plain wrong.
In other words, I _really_ hate seeing our environment trashed around the world, but what I hate even more is the fact that _so_ many children in very poor countries run by oppressive and corrupt governments don't make it to the age of 5.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
P.S. I think GWB is an incompetent f*ck who will go down in history of one of the worst presidents the USA has ever had (and he deserves no better).
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Sun, October 21, 2007 - 11:30 AMWhat you are describing--trade and globalization that is just--is couched in the phrase 'fair trade'. And I am not opposed to that.
I hesitate to say that people are being lifted out of poverty via free trade; stats or it isn't real! :P -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Sun, October 21, 2007 - 3:50 PM
Axo,
Thanks for your response. It's funny -- i'm a software engineer, music composer, avid tree-hugger and animal nut, yet i'm also an economics geek (certainly no expert, but I find the field fascinating). It's sometimes hard reconciling all of the above, but with me, the choice of apparel (black, black and more black) is a common thread (pun intended) :-)
I think the operative words here are "fair", "free" and "just." These terms are easy enough to define when the group of people involved is small, homogenous in some form (live in the same city / subscribe to the same political perspective / have similar income levels / etc). The definition gets much harder as you scale out, though. A case in point:
I purchased a few books at Stacey's (a local SF bookstore) recently. I could have got the books cheaper from Amazon (and i've purchased books there as well), but I put value in the convenience that Stacey's is close to work as well as on the way to the ferry terminal. So, even though I would have paid less than I would had I shopped at Amazon, I still think the price I paid was "fair" -- some others might disagree (maybe because Amazon is cheaper, maybe for some other reason).
Now, if I go farther out, it gets harder for me to define these terms, at least with my western SF-bay-area leftist-leaning sensibilities. Was the paper mill which produced the paper for the book located in the USA? If so, i'm more likely to think that the workers were paid a fair wage (though this is already more difficult -- said paper worker might think that my wage for writing code is exhorbitant, or they might think it would be better if California fell into the ocean, or whatever). If not, I might assume that they weren't, regardless of whether the worker _themselves_ thought that their wage was fair (their definition of "fair" defined by their own locality, peers, group, other job prospects available to them, etc).
Every market transaction (buying / selling a book, seeking / providing employment, etc.) _aspires_ to be fair, in that all parties are trying to maximize their own utility given the available information on the product / service (which is why transparency is important) offered. This is not to say that all market transactions are fair, but the markets that work well have a much higher likelihood of a fair transaction occuring than an unfair one -- again, fairness being defined by the people doing the transaction, not by some compiler / ethereal music / nature / four-legged furry creatures / economics geek in San Francisco (me). Markets that are more free (transparent) are much more likely to be more fair than markets that are less free (opaque), because all parties are trying to get the most value out of the transaction, so whatever price they arrive at will be "fair" in their terms.
So, this is why I think that free trade (and hence globalization), even with its' flaws, is better than protectionism / high tariffs / etc. Countries / societies that benefit from globalization have to have a transparent market (which almost always equals a transparent / non-corrupt government accountable to its' citizens), a responsible / sound fiscal policy, and an open attitude to learn from others (invest in "human capital" i.e. the heads and hearts of their people, by educating them how to succeed in their market).
Regards,
John, who, frankly, shuddered at the # of times he used the word "market" in this post -- eeks! :-)
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Sun, October 21, 2007 - 6:48 PMSorry that I haven't responded sooner. The "Free Trade" laws is really one of the biggest misnomers about them. The environmental aspect is really bad, because part of the agreement is to cut many of the environmental laws. Also, since NAFTA, Mexico has been forced to accept corn, a plant native to Mexico, from the United States which subsidiaries it to the point that it is cheaper than to buy it than raise domestic corn. This has forced many Mexicans to become economic refugees and forced to illegally immigrate to other countries, especially the United States. CAFTA and other so called Free Trade laws are based on similar problems. Haitians for example used to grow there own rice, but are now unable to raise it because of the same problem that Mexico has with corn. In short order, Free Trade laws are causing starvation. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Sun, October 21, 2007 - 7:06 PMAccepting these free trade deals pretty much forces them to abandon their domestic environmental and worker rights laws in favor of the generally lower to non-existent international standards created by first world countries for use against the third world. US companies use chemicals that would be illegal to use in the US, and they spray them WHILE these workers are in the fields. This has caused deaths and hundreds of thousands of men to go infertile in south America alone. Suing the mega-corporations proves difficult internationally especially when these people are poor. Their own governments do little to help them when US dollars are lining their pockets.
Personal responsibility of corporations in place of protection laws is a bullshit stance until you also abolish the laws protecting the private property rights of the mega-corporations. Without the governments protecting western interests, the people would seize the lands occupied by western corporations, much of which is the indigenous homeland of the local inhabitants. Without laws protecting the property rights of foreign corporations and exploiters the poor would be better off. However, abolishing environmental and workers rights laws without abolishing property laws and granting the right of land use to the indigenous inhabitants is about the worst thing you could possibly do to these people. Its good for the US economy though, other than the fact that our working class poor lose jobs.
-
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:30 AM
"... always hopeful yet discontent,
knows changes aren't permanent (but change is) ..."
-- Rush, "Tom Sawyer"
Axo, Tedster, Sentience et al ...
I really feel that I need to explain globalization better, to correct possible misconceptions about it. So, here goes:
1. Globalization eases poverty. This is easy enough to explain -- the main reason that multinational corporations build plants in other countries is simply cheap labor. I'm sure everyone understands this, but if we think about it, there would be no cheap labor in these countries if there wasn't a labor market (read: people who can't find jobs, and would gladly work in a sweatshop vs. have no job at all). The average multinational pays wages that, though a pittance by our standards, is usually twice the wages that the worker would be able to earn working anywhere else in their local economy. That means that said worker is able to feed themselves and their familes twice as well, and support their local economy (whatever there is of it) twice as well; it also means that said worker is now only 50% as poor as they were before. Please let this sink in: if there weren't people in these countries who needed jobs, these multinationals would not be able to find workers, and if they couldn't find workers, why would they build a plant there?
2. Globalization can be better for the environment. This is also fairly easy to see. What is the biggest cost of doing business for western corporations? It is not keeping up with environmental standards (which perhaps costs 2-3% of their revenues) -- it's the cost of labor, which is many times costlier (30-40% or more of their revenues). Corporations don't build plants in developing countries to escape environmental laws of developed countries -- they build plants in developing countries because they're after cheap labor (see point #1). Furthermore, for several reasons (economies of scale, similar infrastructure across plants, etc.), the plant that they build in the developing nation will be very much like the plant that they would build in a developed nation -- including environmental controls.
3. Globalization creates more jobs than it destroys. Old ways of doing things are replaced by new ways -- anyone who has been a part of any work force knows this. Between 1993 and 2002, approx. 310 million jobs were lost in the USA. However, during the same period, approx. 327 million jobs were _created_ in the USA. Times change, and our skills need to change as well if we want to remain competitive in any job market (as a software engineer, I know this all too well -- I _always_ have to learn new stuff). Furthermore, these 327 million jobs aren't even counting the millions of jobs created in other countries, including developing countries. Because labor is so cheap in developing countries, a corporation can hire many more workers for the same cost as one worker in the USA. So, let's compare: one job (say, $20 / hour, $160 / day) lost in the USA, vs. 80 jobs gained (at $2 / day -- 80 x $2 = $160) in a developing country. Is it worth denying 80 people the means to lift themselves from poverty, to keep that _one_ job here? Also consider that there is a social safety net in the USA -- there is no such thing in most developing countries. Also consider that the one worker here can retrain for another job. Those 80 workers in the developing country don't have _any_ job retraining programs if there aren't any jobs _available_ (see point #1).
4. Globalization opens new markets and increases choices. One thing that I always found kind of odd is that many people will see a McDonald's or KFC (usually a locally owned franchise) in Shanghai and say, "ugh -- globalization is killing local culture." Yet, many of these same people will go to a sushi, Thai or Indian place in NYC, SF or any major city in the USA, and think nothing of it.
I hope i've cleared up some misconceptions about free trade and globalization. It's certainly not perfect, but it represents the best hope for countless people in developing countries of escaping from poverty, forcing a positive change in government (foreign investment in developing countries does not happen when the government of said developing country is corrupt), education (foreign companies bring new skills and technologies to developing countries), and helping to lift their own local economies. Globalization is not the enemy any more than change itself is the enemy -- and if we think that change is bad, then globalization is the __least__ of our problems.
Regards,
John
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:50 AM
Also, let me say this: I don't like the idea of anyone working in a sweatshop any more than anyone else, and I think that $2 / day is a horrible wage for what is often very hard work in really bad conditions. The human rights issue is indeed a valid one, but I have a hard time with the premise of denying a job to someone who is in the depths of poverty in a developing nation -- someone who could feed themselves / their families much better with that $2 / day -- just because I (as an Amnesty International member since 1990) think their rights are being violated. The way I see it, denying them that job is an even more egregious infringement on their rights as a human being. One of the basic tenets of economics is that everyone wants to make their lives better, and they should be afforded the opportunity to do so. If that means taking a job that pays a pittance (but is more than they could make otherwise, and is better than no job at all), then we have no business denying them that.
That being said, we should _definitey_ make it known to these corporations that we want them to treat their workers in developing nations better. They are respsonsible to their shareholders, and share prices generally don't react well to negative news, so if enough of us speak out, they will (and _do_) listen.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:54 AMI think thats a bunch of bullshit.
For starters, once the mega corporations buy up all the land and put themselves in a position where they control the local job market then the people are not voluntarily choosing to work because the pay is so good, but because the job supply has been cornered. If you believe you are doing the third world a favor by cond ucting dirty business like this you are confused and mislead.
I dont really care to respond point by point, but there is ample evidence showing that not everybody benefits from globalization the way that the western corporations do. China seems to be making it work for them as a nation, but the workers themselves suffer for it. Even when we are providing some kind of future to these people, we are supporting oppressive governments and conditions that promote slave labor in order to exploit it. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:59 AM
Sentience,
That's not true, though. Globalization _hates_ oppressive and corrupt governments. No foreign company is going to invest in a country where the rule of law is not held, where they have to bribe countless government officials to get anything done, and where some dictator rapes his country for all its' worth. It would be foolish for any company to invest in such a place -- this is why globalization actually _promotes_ good government.
Regards,
John
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 1:02 AM"Globalization _hates_ oppressive and corrupt governments."
Globalization in itself is indifferent because globalization is a concept, not a moral agent. If globalization could "hate" it would hate all governments that promote regional autonomy and protect the inhabitants from the one world system.
"No foreign company is going to invest in a country where the rule of law is not held"
What about the GAP? The law is not always the measure of ethics. Sweat shops and child slave labor IS used to produce our products.
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 6:31 AM
Sentience,
Globalization is far from indifferent when it comes to oppressive, corrupt, or fiscally irresponsible governments -- it can't afford to be. Foreign investment by multinational corporations won't happen if it costs too much to set up shop, and no foreign company will invest in a government if said company can't be reasonably assured that the law will protect them (just as you or I would hesitate to settle down somewhere where the law doesn't afford us some level of protection). The same goes for invididual investments -- you or I can go to our local Fidelity / Schwab / whatever, and invest in "developing" funds. These funds basically buy bonds issued by governments of developing nations, and each bond has a specific rate of return and a maturity date (much like a CD at your local bank). Governments are encouraged to issue bonds for this reason, as they can be used to raise capital. These "developing" funds are managed by mutual fund managers who are just as accountable to their investors (and employers) as other mutual fund managers are. So, what happens is this -- if a government is corrupt (grossly inefficient), they will have a difficult time convincing anyone to buy their bonds, because there is simply no guarantee that, when the bond matures, they bond holder will be paid. If a government is fiscally irresponsible or becomes corrupt (or has successfully hidden its' corruption until some event happens that exposes it), many (or even all) of its' bond holders will try to cash their bonds in early. Governments work much like banks do -- the money they raised with bonds is spent on other projects, hopefully doing the people some good and generating a return that can be used to pay the bond holders when their bonds mature (or if the government is corrupt, maybe the money just lines the pockets of the rulers *sigh*). If too many people try to withdraw funds from your local bank, eventually the bank will have to turn people away, which is a recipe for destruction i'm sure you'll agree. If too many people try to cash in their government bonds, the government will eventually run out of money to pay them (and if the government is corrupt, who is to say that the rulers will give back the money that they fleeced the bond investors for?). Bad things happen -- their currency is devalued, inflation goes hyper (because the currency isn't worth as much as it was before, so prices rise), and these same multinational corporations that built a plant to take advantage of cheap labor start having big problems, because the $2 / day that they pay their workers isn't worth anywhere near as much as it once was. These workers aren't stupid, and eventually, because basic economics says that everyone is out to maximize their own utility, the workers will reach the point where they just won't show up anymore (because their wages are no longer enough to make their lives better / feed their families / etc). All too often, when this happens, people will turn to crime (if it pays more), or participate in the corruption themselves (it's difficult to blame them when they have families to feed). Either way, society spirals downward, which eventually overcomes any semblance of law that the government had. It's just _all_ kinds of bad at this point.
... and this is why globalization hates corrupt, oppressive and fiscally irresponsible governments. Multinationals will avoid these countries, investors will avoid them, and hence their people will continue to be in abject poverty. To the extent that investment has already happened, the country will be punished harshly (and this is a very sad thing, esp. when the local citizenry believed in their government enough to buy those government bonds that have now lost so much value and might not even be worth the paper they're printed on -- witness the fall of the Mexican peso in 1995 and the Thai baht in 1997). Try telling any of those locals that globalization is "just a concept."
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 6:59 AM
... as an aside, it is _truly_ disheartening to see how many of the worlds' poor are in that state because of really crappy government -- it really makes me quite sad. Corrupt and oppressive governments stifle innovation, the entrepreneurial spirit, etc. _Everyone_ wants to make their lives better for themselves and those that they care for, and to see _so_ many denied this really bums me out. Corruption can poison an entire society -- if the citizenry of a country is afforded the opportunity to better their lives, educate themselves and participate in the economy, they can become very disillusioned by any calls for change. "Our government told us that many times before, and it never amounted to anything." As if holding bad governments accountable for their transgressions against their people wasn't bad enough ... *sigh*. It's easy to see why many economists, once they really start to think about why the worlds' poor are that way, find it difficult to think about anything else.
Regards,
John
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 7:01 AM
oops -- "if the citizenry of a country is _not_ afforded ..."
Regards,
John, kinda bummed now
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 7:27 AM
eeks, "as if holding bad governments accountable for their transgressions against their people wasn't _hard_ enough"
Regards,
John -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 11:39 AMFormer Top UK Trade Official Admits Globalization Hurts the Poor
"I WAS WRONG. FREE MARKET TRADE POLICIES HURT THE POOR"
The IMF and World Bank orthodoxy is increasing global poverty
By Stephen Byers
The Guardian
May 19, 2003
In November 1999, during the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle, I watched from my hotel room as thousands demonstrated against the evils of globalisation.
Anarchists clad in black marched alongside grandmothers dressed as turtles and steelworkers from Philadelphia. They saw international trade as a threat - to their jobs, the environment or simply as part of a capitalist conspiracy.
As leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom, I was convinced that the expansion of world trade had the potential to bring major benefits to developing countries and would be one of the key means by which world poverty would be tackled.
In order to achieve this, I believed that developing countries would need to embrace trade liberalisation. This would mean opening up their own domestic markets to international competition. The thinking behind this approach being that the discipline of the market would resolve problems of underperformance, a strong economy would emerge and that, as a result, the poor would benefit.
This still remains the position of major international bodies like the IMF and World Bank and is reflected in the system of incentives and penalties which they incorporate in their loan agreements with developing countries. But my mind has changed.
I now believe that this approach is wrong and misguided. Since leaving the cabinet a year ago, I've had the opportunity to see at first hand the consequences of trade policy. No longer sitting in the air-conditioned offices of fellow government ministers I have, instead, been meeting farmers and communities at the sharp end.
It is this experience that has led me to the conclusion that full trade liberalisation is not the way forward. A different approach is needed: one which recognises the importance of managing trade with the objective of achieving development goals.
No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africas share of world exports by just 1% could generate around 43m pounds - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.
This has led President Museveni of Uganda to say: "Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far. We are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in western markets. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty."
The World Bank estimates that reform of the international trade rules could take 300 million people out of poverty. Reform is essential because, to put it bluntly, the rules of international trade are rigged against the poorest countries.
Rich nations may be prepared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.
The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.
This is not intervention for the sake of it or to prop up failing enterprises, but part of a transitional phase to create strong businesses that can compete on equal terms in the global marketplace without the need for continued protection.
Just look at some examples. Taiwan and South Korea are often held out as being good illustrations of the benefits of trade liberalisation. In fact, they built their international trading strength on the foundations of government subsidies and heavy investment in infrastructure and skills development while being protected from competition by overseas firms.
In more recent years, those countries which have been able to reduce levels of poverty by increasing economic growth - like China, Vietnam, India and Mozambique - have all had high levels of intervention as part of an overall policy of strengthening domestic sectors.
On the other hand, there are an increasing number of countries in which full-scale trade liberalisation has been applied and then failed to deliver economic growth while allowing domestic markets to be dominated by imports. This often has devastating effects.
Zambia and Ghana are both examples of countries in which the opening up of markets has led to sudden falls in rates of growth with sectors being unable to compete with foreign goods. Even in those countries that have experienced overall economic growth as a result of trade liberalisation, poverty has not necessarily been reduced.
In Mexico during the first half of the 1990s there was economic growth, yet the number of people living below the poverty line increased by 14 million in the 10 years from the mid-1980s. This was due to the fact that the benefits of a more open market all went to the large commercial operators, with the small concerns being squeezed out.
The evidence shows that the benefits that would flow from increased international trade will not materialise if markets are simply left alone. When this happens, liberalisation is used by the rich and powerful international players to make quick gains from short-term investments.
The role of the IMF and World Bank is also of concern. The conditions placed on their loans often force countries into rapid liberalisation, with scant regard to the impact on the poor.
The way forward is through a regime of managed trade in which markets are slowly opened up and trade policy levers like subsidies and tariffs are used to help achieve development goals.
The IMF and World Bank should recognise that questions of trade liberalisation are the responsibility of the WTO where they can be considered in the overall context of achieving poverty reduction and that it is therefore inappropriate to include trade liberalisation as part of a loan agreement.
This represents a departure from the current orthodoxy. It will be opposed by multinational companies who see rich and easy pickings in the markets of the developing world. But such a change would benefit the worlds poorest people and thats why it should happen.
Stephen Byers is Labour MP for North Tyneside. He is a former trade and industry secretary and was a cabinet member from 1998 to 2002.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. India Resource Center is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 1:58 PM
Sentience,
Globalizationa and free trade _does_ help the poor, though. Let me illustrate:
1. multinational corporation builds plant in developing country where there is a labor market
2. said plant hires locals from said labor market
Now, we just need to ask ourselves two questions: Who are the people who said multinational hired for said plant, and why are they working there? If they're rich or middle-class, then they surely don't need to work in bad conditions for super-low pay. Maybe they're doing it just for fun? Or maybe said multinational never hired anyone, and just staffed it with their own people (who make much more than the very low wages that said multinational would pay the poor) or has the entire plant automated (in which case, the whole anti-sweatshop movement would be more than a bit silly, for there _are no_ workers).
I have a feeling that those people who the plant hired were poor. They now have a job where they had none before. Presto -- globalization helps the poor. I'm not trying to be condescending, i'm only trying to make this point as cogently as I can.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
P.S. BTW, regarding Mr. Byers, I understand some of his sentiments. I am also concerned about subsidies -- _real_ globalization means _no_ protectionist behaviors like that. In fact, the environmental damage done by the US subsidized farm market is great indeed (look to the Florida Everglades, which are in real danger due to runoff from fertilizer applied to sugar cane fields). Much less damage would be done if we let the areas of the world who grow sugar the best (with the least fertilizer) do their thing i.e. the USA should eat its' own dog food.
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 2:22 PMI think you are either intentionally dumbing your argument down, or are perhaps completely ignorant of the reality of the third world.
Of course there are examples where international trade has helped economies, but in there examples of where it has helped it has generally been in a somewhat controlled environment. China does not allow free reign of the western markets, though they have somewhat opened themselves up to western markets, China absolutely controls their domestic resources. Under these circumstances China is becoming a first world power, though despite their economic gains their environment is going to shit and the farmers are poorer now due to a shifting industrial economy and they are becoming ill from the poor environmental regulations and the government is not paying for it. Shanghai is a dirty dirty place.
You should really take a trip to Latin America....not just the resort towns along the coast or the tourist areas, but spend some time in the Urban centers and the rural farming areas around the smaller and medium sized towns. You will find that when a megacorporation buys up all the land in an area for growing coffee they generally LOWER the workers wages even from where they were before and in cornering the market they drive out competition while funneling resources back to the west without investing the peoples money back into the land.....China wouldnt put up with that shit though.
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 2:31 PM"_real_ globalization means _no_ protectionist behaviors like that."
I support abolishing "protectionist behaviors" that protect the property rights of foreign investors at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants. Governments for example should not sell land that is in use by indigenous tribes or peasants who lack deed titles to their traditional homeland. The peasants should simply occupy the land and seize the factories for themselves without interference from "protectionist" government agencies.
Occidental Petroleum should give back the native lands they "bought" from governments who are not the rightful owners of the land to begin with.
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 3:46 PM
Sentience, Tedster, Axo et al ...
I'm in _agreement_ with you -- unchecked, uncontrolled globalization is not something I support; unchecked globalization often only helps the rich and trashes the environment along the way, but this whole discussion has been about globalization that helps the _poor_, and I completely agree that globalization works best (to help the poor) when it is controlled. The old adage of the Lexus and the olive tree, and how either can trump the other, is certainly true. I really somehow feel that i've not communicated my point very well, though i've certainly tried. Globalization _does_ help the poor, when the developing country involved has procedures in place to limit its' bad effects (taxes on externalities, fiscally responsible government, property rights, free press, etc). All of the economics books i've read say this. The entire case i've been trying to make is that globalization is not necessarily anti-poor or anti-environment. I am in no way advocating a lack of property rights for indiginous peoples (and for a really good analog of that, we need look no farther than how the USA has treated its' own indiginous people ... in a word, horribly), and i'm certainly not advocating cutting down what little rainforest there is left just to produce rubber, for example.
I tried (perhaps I didn't succeed so well, but I did try to stress this) to explain how globalization can (and often does) help the poor. Untamed, it can (and sometimes does) run amock and basically trash everything. Countries have to have the necessary tools to benefit from globalization and free trade, without letting the beast run them over and leave them for dead. It is incumbent on us in the developed world to assist with this as much as possible (and the IMF and WTO do not do anywhere near enough in this regard, imho).
Economics is something that fascinates me, and it's all about the management of resources -- not just money, but the environment and others as well. I'd really like to engage in fruitful discussion with everyone on how we can do this.
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 4:56 PMIn countries where poorer nations have made money off globalization the poor are often not any better off despite of it, and sometimes they are much worse off because of it. Globalization hurts the poor and sometimes helps some of them but mostly helps the multi-national megacorporations helping to put more and more money into fewer and fewer hands. Some workers get jobs out of it, while smaller companies cant compete and fire their workers as they close down. It promotes the ruin of small business in favor of mass production.
Even when it does help local economies, it wreaks havoc on the environment. Just the shipping alone is environmentally unsound. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 5:46 PM
Sentience,
Now, this is more like it -- hopefully we all understand each other a bit better now :-)
OK, I can respond to this. I think the way it's _supposed_ to work is this (and i'm not an economics expert by any means, though the field does fascinate me): if a developing country wants to participate in globalization (read: benefit from its' good points without suffering because of its' bad ones), it needs to get its' house in order. This means putting into place a more transparent and corruption-free government (hopefully accountable to its' people, though China seems to have gotten away with not implementing that part fully yet), with basic protections for its' citizens like the rule of law, property rights, a functional court system, basic environmental protections, etc. If a developing country is _willing_ to do this, I think the IMF is supposed to help them by funding the process (and forgiving past debt if it seems like the right thing to do). I also think that, once a country has set this stuff up, the WTO is supposed to give them the chance by admitting them, which lets the globalization bull loose (read: foreign companies will start to invest and build plants, employing people and making their lives better at least in the short term, and foreign investors will start to buy the government bonds of the developing country), if I may use a rather cliche analogy -- i'm not sure if it's the right one, but i'll use it for now.
At this point, the idea is for the developing country to stay fiscally responsible, not let corruption seep in, develop their banking systems (making sure to offer some amount of protection for depositors, like the FDIC in the USA) grow their economy at a sustainable rate, keep inflation down, stop or severely limit deficit spending (something GWB seems to have a really big problem with, as if his propensity for getting us involved in wars for false reasons wasn't bad enough, f*cking grrr) and give the foreign companies breathing room to run while remaining responsible to its' citizens (read: making sure the law is applied evenly and fairly, make sure the foreign company isn't trashing the place, etc).
Is this your understanding?
Regards,
John
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 5:50 PM
Oh -- and as the economy of the developing country grows, the lives of their people are enriched -- not just in the short term, but a much longer one. Education becomes something people endeavor towards, their citizens start to enjoy a better life, etc.
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 4:59 PM>I'm in _agreement_ with you -- unchecked, uncontrolled globalization is not something I support;
This is why I oppose most Free Trade Agreements. They are not really free. I don't oppose any agreements that would benifite the poor, but the devil in the details rarely get discussed. You don't find poor people celebrating Free Trade agreements, because of what has ended up happening in countries that do have them. Much of the civil strife in Mexico is the result of NAFTA, where many farm workers who had very little before are finding that the land they farm on is sold off. A slow brewing civil war is happening there as a result. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 5:52 PM
Tedster,
Please see my response to Sentience. Your input is encouraged -- i'll get to this, but I can only handle one thread at a time here :-)
Regards,
John
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 7:57 PMThe homeless rate is higher in the US than it is in many much poorer countries. Your views are ultra simplistic to the point of being naive. Just because the "US Economy" seems to be on an upswing according to the newspaper doesnt mean it is for everybody. Sometimes we see economic growth as jobs are lost instead of gained, and when jobs are gained we see more and more people working for slave wages at places like walmart.
Globalization and lassie fare capitalism is not always whats best for all people. Sometimes denying national soverinty from the global economic elite is much more harmful than it is helpful. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Wed, October 24, 2007 - 12:01 AM
Sentience,
I think we'll have to respectively agree to disagree. I remain pro-globalization, though I understand some of the issues you have with it. Protectionism is not the answer, though -- my inner pragmatist tells me that.
Perhaps we can come together in agreement on another topic. I tend to put a lot of faith in people (I don't believe in any sort of god), and stranger things have happened :-)
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:05 PMJohn, after reading your article, it made me wonder if you read the two I made above. I was almost tempted to copy and past my post were this post read, because it would have been a rebuttal what you said. You are a waste of time. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:31 PMSome people cant see past their own nose. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 12:37 PMThats because their noses are to big to see what's in front of it. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Tue, October 23, 2007 - 1:25 PMHey, I have a fantastically large nose myself.
Uh...John (not you Tedster)...what the heck? I am mystified by your defense of free trade and globalization. While I think that there are some forms of globalization out there that ARE good, they are not the ones that laissez-faire capitalism and multinational corporations support. Globalization in any form is not greener, in any case, as it creates incentives to ship or fly more goods from far off places. I say this even as I enjoy buying my organic Gala apples from New Zealand or Chile. I would prefer to buy locally if I can--but globalization, even when its heart is in the right place, doesn't support that.
I don't think that your arguments that multinationals avoid unstable or impoverished governments holds water. Time after time, large corporations happily make deals with the leaders of junta governments and banana republics. Just look at DeBeers' association with tribal warfare in Africa, or Dutch Petroleum/Shell's collusion with Nigeria to KILL Ken Saro-Wiwa, or the collapse of the Southeast Asian economies in the late 90's, or mining in Indonesia or the Philippines. The list of callous decisions made by businesses goes on and on, and all in the name of free trade. Oh yeah, the use of sweatshops in Saipan. That is globalization to a T.
I don't think that comparing the takeover of local cuisine by McDonalds is a fair comparison to a US citizen eating sushi or Indian food. There is no global conglomerate of Sushi™ that is invading every corner of the globe. -
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Wed, October 24, 2007 - 8:25 AM
Axo,
I am pro-globalization simply because it has shown that it has a huge capacity to help the poor. I've demonstrated several ways that this happens already (by giving jobs to the jobless, by supporting better government practices, by giving developing countries a chance to lift themselves). Can globalization hurt the poor as well -- of course, and not every free trade agreement is the best (I think that the USA continuing to subsidize its' farmers is a big mistake), but witness the resurgence of China, who as recently as 1978 was desperately, desperately poor. By some estimates, they are adding a million to their middle class per month. There are many other examples as well.
Protectionist behavior, trade barriers and high tariffs may help a country in the short term, but in the long term they're more harmful than not. Globalization need not be adverse to the environment, either.
Now, people don't have to agree with me -- that's ok. There are all kinds of other points we can agree on (i'm endeavoring to go completely solar in early 08 -- i've almost enough saved up to do this, I live in a very sunny area, i've loads of roof space up there, and there are some rebate / tax incentives as well that could be beneficial -- California has a particularly nice one).
Regards,
John
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
P.S. I think the McDonalds / KFC argument still applies -- most of the franchises are locally owned, and no one is _forcing_ anyone to eat there. Is it the best example of what the USA has to offer -- far from it, but if there is a market, business will take advantage of said market to whatever extent the local government allows (which is why transparent, accountable government is important).
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Wed, October 24, 2007 - 12:58 PMYour views are too simplistic John. I think we could have a healthier debate if you could see both sides of this issue and also realize the potential for harm. From that point we could have a discussion about what conditions help make a situation more helpful or harmful. At this point you just sound like a broken record, and you have failed to address most* of the points we have brought up. This doesnt even feel like a debate.
Free trade that follows its own laws that protect business and deny sovereign nations the right to pass laws which they believe will favor or protect them (You can debate whether or not they do) is generally an argument that is given from a pro-corporate perspective. Most of the common people WANT some environmental protections, fair wage laws for workers, and laws protecting foreign investors from obtaining monopolies over domestic industries.
Of course most of these countries DO want trade, for better or worse for the environment, but they dont want trade at the expense of their national sovereignty. They want standards loose enough to support business, but not so lax that they have no say over their domestic resources or labor laws.
-
-
Re: CAFTA Dividing Costa Rican Society
Wed, October 24, 2007 - 11:19 PM
Sentience,
I sound like a broken record because I have addressed all of your points, yet it doesn't seem to be getting through. Let me try once more:
1. regarding seeing both sides of the issue, I have communicated that globalization has the potential for harm as well. In my reply to Axo's post above, I state that "Can globalization hurt the poor as well -- of course". Please read that post again. From my response from Tuesday, 3:46pm, I stated that "unchecked, uncontrolled globalization is not something I support; unchecked globalization often only helps the rich and trashes the environment along the way." Please read that post again as well.
2. regarding "free trade that follows its' own laws that protect business and deny sovereign nations the right to pass laws which they believe will favor or protect them", I addressed this several times as well. I've mentioned several times the need of these developing nations for a transparent, responsible, accountable-to-its'-citizenry government -- i'll leave the finding of these as an exercise for you. Now, whether they _should_ adopt protectionist (i.e. not free) policies or not would be an interesting debate to have, and i'm open to your perspectives there (as long as you're open to mine as well).
3. regarding standards that are "loose enough to support business, but not so lax that they have no say over their domestic resources or labor laws", in the post I made on Tuesday, 5:46pm, I wrote "give the foreign companies breathing room to run while remaining responsible to its' citizens (read: making sure the law is applied evenly and fairly, make sure the foreign company isn't trashing the place, etc)" If you would read this post again as well, i'd be appreciative.
Regards,
John
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
