Balance of the article is provided below.
At 02:52 PM 12/9/97 -0600, valis wrote:
>Appearing in The Nation:
>
>
>SAVING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
>
>By WILLIAM GREIDER
>December 15, 1997
>
>Enough. Americans will be infuriated, I expect, when they grasp what's
>happening. Progressives should propose some forward-looking bargaining
>demands the public can support. No bailout money until the borrowing
>nations undertake concrete reforms on labor rights. No more financial
>relief for banking and capital markets unless they concede the centrality
>of the w
>
>cdp ignored 5566 excess bytes
>
>[Greider's analysis, as received, stops here and thus.
> Is anyone able to supply the conclusion?
> valis]
Enough. Americans will be infuriated, I expect, when they grasp what's
happening. Progressives should propose some
forward-looking bargaining demands the public can support. No bailout money
until the borrowing nations undertake concrete
reforms on labor rights. No more financial relief for banking and capital
markets unless they concede the centrality of the wage
problem, the need for capital controls and other reforms. If bankers spurn
these proposals, let them eat their own losses.
A U.S.-financed rescue of the deeply corrupt Suharto regime in Indonesia
seems especially obscene. His bloody record runs
from massacres in East Timor to the brutal smashing of Indonesia's
independent labor movement. At the moment, the heroic
leader of Indonesia's independent labor federation, Muchtar Pakpahan, is in
prison and gravely ill, charged with "subversion," a
capital offense. His movement has been crippled, perhaps beyond recovery,
but he refuses to give up. Will our Treasury
Secretary ask Suharto to free Pakpahan when he signs off on the loan? Will
our President? (In fact, Representative Bernie
Sanders charges that the I.M.F. loan being speeded to Indonesia is illegal.
A 1994 law sponsored by Sanders and
Representative Barney Frank requires the United States to insist that labor
rights be an element considered in all I.M.F. workout
loans.)
Capital Controls: Restoring Stability
Whatever happens next, the globalizing financial markets will continue to
produce panics and collapses until some moderation is
imposed on the lightning-quick flows of capital across borders. How many
times must the world flirt with breakdown before
governments recognize that unregulated capital is dangerous? Rescuing
reckless investors with periodic bailouts does not
produce either stability or equity.
The desire for national controls has growing support among developing
countries held hostage by the quirky enthusiasms of
foreign capital. But even the largest developing nations, like Brazil, dare
not express their anxiety--not in the present crisis. If
they did, they would be savaged by global finance for apostasy.
So, Americans have to open this subject for debate because it is our
orthodoxy that rules; our bankers who are demanding that
other governments surrender sovereign control of their domestic financial
systems. Reviving controls on foreign exchange might
include modest transaction taxes that will yield enormous revenues while
nicking the profits of speculators. At a minimum, poor
nations need the right to impose temporary controls on capital when they are
faced with panic flight or speculative assaults.
Capital controls would not stop development and foreign investment but would
restore some accountability to the system.
Corporate Loyalty: The Buried Contradiction
Americans already know that premier multinationals--I.B.M., Boeing, General
Electric and others--are determined to become
known as "global" corporations rather than U.S. ones. Yet it is still U.S.
taxpayers who pony up billions in direct subsidies and tax
breaks for these same companies, even as they shed ever more U.S. workers.
Leading exporters have even demanded that the
Export-Import Bank relax or abolish its U.S.-content rules so that they can
use more foreign labor in their "U.S. exports."
It's time to force a showdown on this issue: Target the various forms of
public subsidy for these corporations and abolish them,
perhaps shifting the aid to smaller domestic enterprises. If the
multinationals want to offer a compromise or alter their globalizing
strategies, that's fine, let's talk. But the old claim that exports
translate into general prosperity should no longer be believed,
because it no longer matches reality.
Confronting the 'Dark Satanic Mills'
Lurid examples of the random inhumanity in global production are abundant
and not restricted to sweatshops. We are talking
about elementary matters like fire protection in factories and control of
toxic chemicals, or simply obeying labor laws. None of the
abusive behavior by major corporations is necessary to global commerce or to
anyone's prosperity. It continues because no one
stops it. Americans can.
We can start by imposing some firm rules on U.S.-based
companies--stipulating what we expect in their behavior, what we will
not tolerate from toymakers or shoemakers or auto and aircraft
manufacturers. Then we can incorporate those principles in our
trading terms--as penalty tariffs if necessary--and finally in the global
system's trading rules. At each stage, business will predict
dire consequences, just as it did a century ago when humane standards were
written into U.S. law to curb similar abuses.
An important precedent was established by Congress last summer when it
authorized U.S. Customs to police the new labeling
system activists have created for India's rug exports--consumer labels that
guarantee no indentured children were used in their
manufacture. This example can be expanded to other imports, product by
product. Like any other regulation, it shifts the cost of
antisocial behavior from the victims to the perpetrators.
There are more issues to discuss, a lot more. But my essential point is that
Americans already know the bad news. We are laden
with insecurities, doubt and resentment. We are told repeatedly there is
nothing we can do except passively accept whatever the
global system deals out. Yet progressives should be proclaiming a different
message: one of optimism with an agenda for
positive action. The defeat of fast track shows the way. Once people win a
few victories, the global problems will not seem
insurmountable, the established powers will no longer seem invincible.
Join a discussion in the Digital Edition Forums.
Or send your letter to the editor to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Nation Digital Edition http://www.thenation.com
Copyright (c) 1997, The Nation Company, L.P. All rights reserved.
