GLOBALIZATION, CORPORATISM AND WORLD TRADE

Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

GLOBALIZATION, CORPORATISM AND WORLD TRADE

On September 29, 2001, the Economist ran a special edition called 'The Case for Globalisation' (available online only to subscribers). It was an important first step in creating meaningful dialogue between the heretofore shrill and inarticulate proponents and opponents alike of largely untrammeled global trade and corporatism. I took issue with the following four points in the report, however:

1. They assert (p.4) that as an inevitable result of enlightened self-interest "society as a whole prospers and advances". That is easy for those blessed with a British liberal education to say. Alas, there can be no enlightened self-interest where there is no enlightenment. In most of the world, intellectual poverty is as huge a problem as material poverty. Most citizens of Earth lack the information, and the cognitive and critical thinking skills necessary for such enlightenment. They are effectively brainwashed from birth, by the state, the church, their parents and everyone else they are likely to meet in their lifetime, and deliberately deprived of both the knowledge needed to make intelligent judgements and the training and permission to exercise that judgement. Most humans simply do not, cannot, and will not ever be allowed to, know what's good for them. There cannot be intelligent grass-roots debate, let alone "prosperity and advancement" in such a vacuum.

2. They claim (p.7) that the financial advantages of exploiting cheap labour "will be competed away as other companies do the same thing and cut their prices". That assumes a much more perfect marketplace than could ever be dreamed of. The trend to specialization means that no "other companies" are really competing in exactly the same market spaces to begin with, and there is no historical evidence that, even where competition is close to perfect, consumers have benefited from an industrial cost savings windfall. Ask the consumer who is earning 0.5% on his chequing account and paying $30 a month in "service charges" how much of the savings from bank automation he has realized personally.

3. They say (p.13) that consumers will choose not to buy from companies whose third-world affiliates are found guilty of extreme worker exploitation or environmental damage. This shows an ignorance of how multinational corporations really operate. These companies know enough not to own negligent and abusive operations -- they (knowingly) buy from such companies instead. The small amount they need to pay to the local "owner" allows them to distance themselves from these horrible organizations while still benefiting financially from them. If the press catches on and things get embarrassing, they simply terminate the "contract" and leave the local "owner" and his hapless employees to fend for themselves. That's simply, and unfortunately, good business.

4. In the argument for globalisation helping the environment (strangely separated from the rest of your report)they state (p.75) free trade agreements "do not stop countries from pursuing whatever level of greenery they want". This argument is right from the worst polluters' spin doctors, and is truly misleading. The Canadian and US governments have both been forced to pay waste disposal corporations in the other country hundreds of millions of dollars because their domestic laws prohibiting the export of toxic waste have been deemed by the NAFTA courts to be an "interference" in the disposal companies' "right" to a level playing field in conducting their "business". So, no, countries cannot pursue whatever level of greenery they want, thanks to the extraterritoriality privileges for corporations in NAFTA, FTAA, MAI, and all the rest of the "free" trade agreements, which subvert national law to the rights of corporations to have untrammeled "free" trade in accordance with the least restrictive laws of any of the signatories. And THAT'S why most of the "misguided" demonstrators took to the streets in Seattle and Milan.

Other than these four points, I thought their report was thorough and even-handed.