Hi all,
I think it very important to separate the economic issues from the political
ones. In my mind, the major down side of the WTO is the abrogation of
government powers to specifically non-democratic, greed oriented
international bodies with no recourse to any counterbalancing judicial
body.
Those who are willing to give up control by the masses for short term
gain are truly a threat to democracy world-wide.
Granted there are important economic issues too such as have been mentioned.
But we can work these out in ways that benefit large populations. But when
we regress back to robber barons and monarchic non-accountability, we are
truly risking much of the benefits that the western world has obtained over
the last century.
Dennis Paull
Silicon Valley, CA
At 11:54 PM 12/3/1999 , you wrote:
>To comment on just one sentence in Andrew's contribution:
>
>>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
>>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
>>time--perhaps another 20 years?
>
>Yes, I agree, but I think the turbulence will last for much longer than 20
>years--probably at least another two or three generations. It won't really
>stop until the whole world has arrived at similar standards of living.
>
>I follow with my summary of a recent article from The Independent by Hamish
>McRae. This condensation will be one of many short articles that will
>appear in a new type of Web site that will start life in the next few weeks.
>
><<<<<
>3. FIVE NIGGLES ABOUT FREE TRADE
>
>Keith Hudson
>
>On balance, and over the longer term, free trade is immensely beneficial
>but, over the short to medium term, there are understandable worries and
>these must be paid attention to
>
>---------
>
>The violence of protestors at the meeting of the World Trade Organisation
>(WTO) at Seattle means that the WTO is not seen as an obviously benign
>organisation by some of the young.
>
>In order to avoid the crippling protective measures and competitive
>devaluations of many national governments in the 1920s and 1930s, which
>caused so much unemployment and economic suffering, three new international
>bodies were planned at Bretton Woods in 1944, even before World War II had
>come to an end. These were the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
>and the WTO. The first two were established quickly but the last never got
>off the ground at the time because nation-state governments continued to
>quarrel among themselves. An interim body was founded—the General Agreement
>on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)—and this was able to stagger along and achieve
>some reforms until WTO was finally launched in 1995.
>
>However, there are are at least five real concerns which should not be
>ignored. They are:
>
>1. A freeing up of trade of any particular good will cause temporary
>unemployment at a particular time and place before the workers concerned
>find new employment;
>
>2. Increased free trade adds to the pressure on world resources, and if
>every country were to try and live at the present standard of living of
>North Americans and in their present style, then this would be impossible;
>
>3. Some countries have such a lack of resources, and such low standards of
>education and technological know-how that they cannot get even a modest
>share of increased trade in the foreseeable future;
>
>4. Increasing global trade also involves increasing capital and investment
>flows but these, given the nature of modern financial systems, can be
>rapidly withdrawn from particular sectors or countries at the first sign of
>trouble causing unexpected unemployment;
>
>5. The world economy is becoming increasingly dependent on information and
>this, at present, is unequally available to people in different parts of
>the world, effectively isolating many people from any immediate share of
>increased trade.
>
>
>Summarised from "Five reasons to worry about free trade" by Hamish McRae
>(The Independent, 2 December 1999)
>>>>>>
>
>Many types of reforms are implied in the above article, but competitive
>protectionism by one country after another is not one of them. If the
>youthful protestors at Seattle had their way they would certainly bring
>about a repetition of the 1920/30s in which tens of millions of people
>would suffer -- that is, additional to those who are already suffering
>(for quite different reasons than trade) -- and only hurt multinational
>corporations marginally. (One or two of them might fold up, of course, but
>then multinationals are being formed and are dying all the time -- it's
>their natural state of existence.)
>
>Keith Hudson
>
>
>
>At 13:03 03/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>I must admit that I am often torn between supporting those who want freer
>>trade and those who are interested in protecting workers in core countries
>>like the US.
>>
>>On the one hand, laborers in the US have fought for decades to attain fair
>>wages and reasonable benefits for the hard work they do. Making trade
>>freer gives management a huge leverage and bargaining tool: either take
>>our offer or we will do a serious cost/benefit about whether we should
>>move to Juarez/Singapore/Thailand, etc. Of course this is a threat to the
>>livelihood of core-country laborers and their unions. I think of it as
>>macro-level union busting.
>>
>>On the other hand, providing good jobs in other countries is not such a
>>bad thing either. How many workers in SW Indiana complained when Toyota
>>built a factory there? People were lining up to work there because jobs
>>are scarse in such rural areas. The same happens when an American company
>>moves to a rural part of another country: they line up for those jobs
>>because for them, they ARE good jobs. If the jobs paid a relatively awful
>>wage in that country, there would not be such a demand to become an
>>employee.
>>
>>In my opinion, after listening to the many distinguished voices on this
>>list, we are in a period of turbulence which will last for some
>>time--perhaps another 20 years? After which time, the dust will have
>>cleared, and most jobs will have workers who are paid the rate that
>>benefits stockholders the most. Whether or not that result is a living
>>wage capable to sustaining a quality standard of living has yet to be
>>determined.
>>
>>I don't see protests in Seattle as changing this verdict in the least.
>>It was happening before the WTO, and will continue whether that
>>organization is abolished or not. As someone who does care about workers
>>both in core and peripheral countries, I think the best thing is to use
>>what little nation-state power there remains to increase the diversity of
>>precisely the stockholding ownership that drives this system.
>>
>>Make more people owners. Active owners. Both in core AND in peripheral
>>countries.
>>
>>Any other answers? Concerns?
>>
>>Andrew U. D. Straw
>>Fredericksburg, VA
>>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com
>6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
>Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>________________________________________________________________________
