bmolloy wrote:
He didn't. He posted an article by William Rivers Pitt, and Pitt
wrote this. Please be more careful in attributing quotes.
Osama bin Laden becomes truly scary when the realization comes that
he is not unique, not singular, not an invention of the universe. He
becomes truly scary when the realization comes that there are
millions of people who have seen what he has seen, who feel what he
feels, and why. He becomes truly scary when the realization comes
that he is a creation of the last fifty years of American foreign and
economic policy, and that he has an army behind him created by the
same influences. Simply, Osama bin Laden becomes truly scary when the
realization comes that he can be, and has been, and continues to be,
replicated.
And this, as articulated by Barnett, is exactly why we need to
shrink the non-integrated Gap by connecting them to the world
economy via globalization.
Although the Osama Bin Laden's of this world will still exist post
economic integration, in my view they cease to be super-empowered
actors and become the crazy tinfoil hat wearing guy on corner once
the rank and file populace of those countries have at least the hope
and potential for economic prosperity and stability. In my view, the
average 19 year old does not become a radical extremist when he or
she has a meaningful future ahead of him or herself. The remaining
sociopaths and ideologs then become a law enforcement/mental health
problem, not a military one.
Ho-hum John. Ho-hum Barnett too.
In probably the most comprehensive study to date, "Scorecard on
Globalization 1980-2000", Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker and other
researchers at the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that
economic growth and rates of improvement in life expectancy, child
mortality, education levels and literacy all declined in the era of
global corporatization (1980-2000) compared to 1960-1980.
Millions of people who could have escaped a lifetime of poverty under
the former rules of market economics under democratic limits were
unable to do so under the new rules of global corporate governance.
"For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last
20 years have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with
the previous two decades... The poorest group went from a per capita
GDP growth rate of 1.9 percent annually in 1960-80, to a *decline* of
0.5 percent per year (1980-2000). By almost every measure, the
progress achieved in the two decades of globalization has been
considerably less than the progress in the period from 1960 to 1980",
especially in the low and middle-income countries.
http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm
The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000 - Twenty Years of Diminished Progress
By Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen July 11, 2001
Economic growth is projected as the road to overcome global
poverty. With economic growth of $100 the rich 20% of the world
population pocket $83 and the poorest 20% get $1.40. Global economic
growth is therefore a highly inefficient way to help the global poor.
Actually most of the poorest 20% don't gain anything, they lose, or
lose heavily, or just starve to death, along with their children.
That's why they breed more - more births raises the chances that some
might survive.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8835
The Way Ahead
Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz holds joint professorships at
Columbia University's Economics Department, the School of
International and Public Affairs, and the Business School. His
forthcoming book, The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's
Most Prosperous Decade, will be published by W.W. Norton & Co. in
October.
The following excerpt is from Globalization and Its Discontents, by
Joseph E. Stiglitz, published by W.W. Norton & Co. in 2002.
"Today, globalization is being challenged around the world. There is
discontent with globalization, and rightfully so. Globalization can
be a force for good: the globalization of ideas about democracy and
of civil society have changed the way people think, while global
political movements have led to debt relief and the treaty on land
mines.
"Globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain
higher standards of living, beyond what they, or most economists,
thought imaginable but a short while ago. The globalization of the
economy has benefited countries that took advantage of it by seeking
new markets for their exports and by welcoming foreign investment.
Even so, the countries that have benefited the most have been those
that took charge of their own destiny and recognized the role
government can play in development rather than relying on the notion
of a self-regulated market that would fix its own problems.
"But for millions of people globalization has not worked. Many have
actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed
and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly
powerless against forces beyond their control. They have seen their
democracies undermined, their cultures eroded.
"If globalization continues to be conducted in the way that has been
in the past, if we continue to fail to learn from our mistakes,
globalization will not only not succeed in promoting development but
will continue to create poverty and instability. Without reform, the
backlash that has started will mount and discontent with
globalization will grow..."
[more]
According to the United Nations Development Programme, the richest 1%
of the world's population receives as much income as the poorest 57%.
The world's richest fifth consumes 86% of all goods and services
while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3%. The richest fifth
consumes 45% of all meat and fish, 58% of all energy used, and 84%
of all toilet paper, has 74% of all telephone lines, and owns 87% of
all vehicles. The world's 225 richest individuals, of whom 60 are
American with total assets of $311 billion, have a combined wealth
of over $1 trillion - equal to the annual income of the poorest 47%
of the entire world's population. (Source: NYTimes, 9/26/98, Week in
Review section.)
This is NOT the way to "shrink the non-integrated Gap":
UN statistics provide evidence of the widening gap between rich and
poor: In nine years, the income ratio between the top 20% and the
bottom 20% has increased from 60:1 to 74:1. Eighty countries have
less revenue than they did a decade ago. The assets of the 200
richest people exceed the combined income of 41% of the world's
total population. (Monday, July 12, 1999, BBC World News)
Virtually all the indicators have worsened under corporate globalisation.
There's a convenient blurring of distinctions here, as there is with
so-called "free" trade - if it's free it must be good. A deliberate
blurring by the likes of the WTO etc, reinforced by sheer witlessness
on the part of a knee-jerk media. "Free" trade has all the freedom
the robber barons of yore had to pillage and exploit, only much worse
- *fair* trade is exactly what it's not.
Same with globalisation - the protestors at the WTO meetings are
always labelled "anti-globalisation", but few if any of them are
against globalisation. They're totally against *corporate*
globalisation though, a very different thing.
Same with the corporate globalisation cant about "wealth creation" -
it turns out to be wealth extraction and poverty creation, with the
wealth concentrated elsewhere. And so on and on.
It's kind of easy to sit comfortably and uncritically in a so-called
"developed" economy and think that if everyone lived like you do
there'd be no problems. It neatly misses the crucial point that the
reason they don't live like you do is exactly that you live that way
- the poor are poor because the rich are rich. In fact there's more
than enough for everyone except the greedy who take more than their
share. It's easy to see who those are (below, for instance).
You think an SUV is more developed than a bicycle? When everyone
dumps their old bicycles and rides an SUV then we'll have the best of
all possible worlds, eh? You think they even want an SUV rather than
a bicycle?
Keith
Inequitable Consumption
* Basic education for all would cost $6 BILLION a year;
$8 BILLION is spent annually for cosmetics in the United States alone.
* Installation of water and sanitation for all would cost $9 BILLION
plus some annual costs;
$11 BILLION is spent annually on ice cream in Europe.
* Reproductive health services for all women would cost $12 BILLION a year;
$12 BILLION a year is spent on perfumes in Europe and the United States.
* Basic health care and nutrition would cost $13 BILLION;
$17 BILLION a year is spent on pet food in Europe and the United States.
* $35 BILLION is spent on business entertainment in Japan;
$50 BILLION on cigarettes in Europe;
$105 BILLION on alcoholic drinks in Europe;
$400 BILLION on narcotic drugs around the world; and
$780 BILLION on the world's militaries.
* 20% of the world's people in industrialized countries account for
86% of total private consumption expenditures,
while the poorest 20% account for 1.3%
* The overall consumption of the richest 20% of the world's people is
16 times that of the poorest 20%.
* The share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income
is 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991.
* There are 16 cars per 1,000 people in developing countries and 405
cars per 1,000 people in industrialized countries.
* On average, developing countries have one doctor for every 6,000
people whereas industrialized countries have one for every 350 people.
Sources:
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2000);
_, Human Development Report 1999 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999);
_, Human Development Report 1998 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
http://learningpartnership.org/facts/global.phtml
Women's Learning Partnership
Facts and Figures
Globalization
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
