Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The beginning of the end of Globalization....Doha FAILS!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 10:38 AM
Original message
The beginning of the end of Globalization....Doha FAILS!
Edited on Thu Jul-27-06 10:39 AM by Joanne98
This is very good news for people who hate globalization! (which is almost everybody)

News Analysis: Collapse of global trade talks
By Tom Wright International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/25/business/trade.p...

Published: July 25, 2006


GENEVA Two weeks ago, members of the World Trade Organization agreed to a set of rules that would make it easier to track two-way and regional trade deals. The fear was that their proliferation would take attention away from efforts, already faltering, to reach a global pact on trade liberalization.

On Tuesday, a day after those global talks were shelved for the foreseeable future, interest in regional deals moved from the sidelines to the forefront.

"Europe cannot refrain from addressing bilateral and regional priorities," said Peter Mandelson, the European Union trade commissioner. "We need to focus on new economic opportunities in Asia."

India's commerce minister, Kamal Nath, said that his government was in the process of signing an agreement with Japan and was also in discussions with the EU. "India will pursue economic engagements on a bilateral basis with other countries and regional groupings," Nath said.

Politicians are not willing to pronounce the multilateral talks dead, largely because the potential economic gains from a global agreement would outstrip the effects of regional deals that include only a few countries. But given the stalemate in WTO talks started in Doha, Qatar, in 2001, regional agreements are likely to become a more important motor of trade liberalization in years ahead, further sidelining the WTO, said Guido Glania, director of international trade at the Federation of German Industries.

"Since the Doha Round is more or less dead," he said, "that means regional deals are the centerpiece of the new trade policy strategy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. The first round of globalization provided jobs and wealth
for the third world while it provided Americans who were still pretty well off with goods and services that were much cheaper than domestic goods and services.

The second round found people in the third world waking up to the fact that the jobs and wealth were accompanied by sweatshop conditions and massive pollution. The west started to notice the disappearing jobs were resulting in lower wages for all of us.

Now we're ready for the third round. The west is deeply in debt, thanks to exporting all the paychecks while importing all the bills. The balance of trade debt will have us in hock to the third world forever, with no way to make up the difference through a service economy of dead end jobs, selling all the stuff made elsewhere to each other.

If we are very lucky, the nations who hold this debt will call it, thus provoking the kind of economic crisis it will take to get a sense of proportion back and rein in the corporations that allowed this country to be looted. If we are unlucky, the third round will continue to play out until we are sucked dry, reduced to a peasant nation and powerless to change anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Heading toward Feudalism
in very fast cars
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Good analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmosh42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-27-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Bring back tariffs!
Globalization was just a name for what American 'big business' wanted to break the unions, and the well paid middle class. When both parties were running around saying that our workers could compete against the rest of the world, we knew they were full of it. Well, not all of us. But it stands to reason that we can't compete against slave labor, or just above it. Well now we have lost decent jobs for a couple generations until we get another bunch of politicians who have some loyalty to the USA. Maybe they should bring back the 'Unamerican activities' committee when the Dems take over. Only this time instead of a commy hunt, we'll bring in those 'big businessmen' and their lobbyist and see how they were 'disloyal'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MardiGras Bandit Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
5. good news for people who hate globalization! (which is almost everybody)
who hasn't taken econ 101.

Kids work in sweatshops because it is better then being a 12 year old prostitute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. The key is following it up with econ 102
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Well, I've taken Econ 101, 102,...
... along with reading numerous books and articles by the likes of John Kenneth Galbraith and Ernst F. Schumacher -- and I can say that I absolutely despise corporate commerical globalization while wholly embracing the free distribution of information that has come about as a result of it.

Saying things like, "Kids work in sweatshops because it is better then being a 12 year old prostitute," is simplistic thinking that is indicative of either a lack of serious analysis or a desire to spread propaganda. One major reason that 12-year old kids work as prostitutes is that commercial globalization destroys the fabric of rural communities and cultures, causing massive and uncontrolled urbanization in the process. Working in a sweatshop is really just another manner of them selling themselves, hardly anything to be lauded as "progress".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MardiGras Bandit Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. About the kids.
I'll admit that my defense of sweatshops goes over badly with, how to put it, everyone. I just use it to make a jarring point about the benefits of globalization. People are being provided with jobs and opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have and everyone benefits from lower prices and higher trade.

Also, in defense of myself: I'm now being labeled a troll and freeper (I have no idea what that is, but I assume it is bad) on some other threads. Supporting globalization does not equate someone to a member of the extreme right wing. Bill Clinton was an important supporter of globalization and free trade, it is one of the things I most admire him for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That's because sweatshops are totally indefensible
You're completely missing the point I made in the previous thread. Rampant prostitution is quite often the result of people who were formerly rural flooding to the cities due to economic "development" -- especially when the cities are totally unequipped to deal with them. Rural ways of life are completely undermined when countries take on outside influences of "development" (read: corporations).

The idea that everyone benefits from globalization is a bunch of bullshit, a false bill of goods that many, many people have swallowed. What globalization has done is shifted the two-tiered economic arrangements -- the haves and the have-nots -- from a nation-state phenomenon to a global class phenomenon. By that, I mean that it has certainly empowered a small investor and entrepreneur class throughout the world in countries where such opportunities were not normally available. But, at the same time, it has negatively impacted people who are not lucky enough to become members of this class. That is why the US has switched from a manufacturing-based economy with good-paying working-class jobs to a service-based economy with mundane and low-paying jobs for the working class.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with the idea that "increased trade is good for everyone". The things that increased trade -- at least in the sense of globalization -- does are largely negative. It takes decision-making for the use of resources out local communities and makes them centralized, in many instances so that these decisions are made by people who never even set foot in the place those resources are harvested. It also creates a need for more energy to manufacture and transport the endless supply of goods. Both of these effects have contributed significantly to the ecological crises we now face -- global climate change, loss of biodiversity, loss of rainforests, peak oil, etc.

Furthermore, they encourage the view that economic exchanges are completely devoid of any human element, an arrangement that increases the frequency of "rational thinking." By that, I mean decisions that are impeccable from a logical standpoint, but completely immoral and inhumane. A great example of this would be the memo circulated by Lawrence Summers while chief economist at the World Bank (he was later Clinton's Treasury Secretary after Rubin and Prez of Harvard) in which he said that the WB should encourage the moving of high-polluting industries to developing nations, because those nations had the capacity to absorb the pollution and the developed nations did not.

I'm not going to label you a troll nor a freeper for expressing these views -- there are actually many DUers who express them. I will, however, tell you that you are expressing a point of view that, if carried out, will ultimately remove us from the very kinds of interactions that make us human and destroy the ecosystems upon which we depend for our basic survival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. why, oh why, cant we have a truly just and righteous globalization
why must our increased ability to communicate and ship goods result in one group of people enriching themselves at everyone else's expense.

Why cant we have the end result of our technologies ending up in a bigger pie for all? Why cant we pay folks in developing countries fair wages so that they can become a bigger consumer market for us back here in the US? Why cant the prospect of having a huge and wealthier global consumer market translate into the demand for more goods and services produced by an ever increasingly larger and wealthier American workforce? Why must it be one class of folks having to shove a lower class into deeper and deeper poverty and misery?

Why cant we have certain jobs go overseas and Americans retrained into better ones that pay better? Why must our investments go into slave labor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Because corporate globalization only works one way? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drduffy Donating Member (739 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-28-06 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. go here for a great vid on Carlyle Group
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 20th 2014, 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC