WTO Protesters

If there are any of you out here, I give you props. Fight the good fight.

im not there in body but 100% in spirit.

this is the first one i havent been able to make, but im doing what i can from home here on the imc site. ftaaimc.org

peace and solidarity
neil

Shit...
It is fucking killing me seeing that shit.
I can't tear myself away from those sites today.
It is a shame that my city has such little solidarity when it comes to action.

Try and be safe everyone....
-D

I guess everyone here has jobs or something, that's why they couldn't make it to Miami.

That I do.

I have to say I am impressed that someone admitted they did not understand something and wanted to learn rather than just bashing people who MIGHT have a different stance...especially if they don't understand the other side of an argument.
Thanks Sean.
-D
edited to add: I am looking for unbiased general info sites for you...if that is what you need?

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by D]

I wouldn't mind learning more about this as well

Over the past few days I have been learning more about this, myself. I would love links to other informational resources as well. This is a simple little description of what the WTO is, copied off of this webpage


"The World Trade Organization (WTO) is among the most powerful, and one of the most secretive international bodies on earth. It is rapidly assuming the role of global government, as 134 nation-states, including the U.S., have ceded to its vast authority and powers. The WTO represents the rules-based regime of the policy of economic globalization. The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede all others. Any obstacles in the path of operations and expansion of global business enterprise must be subordinated. In practice these "obstacles" are usually policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty."

Well according to one anti-globalization site globalization is defined as "The process of exploiting economically weak countries by connecting the economies of the world, forcing dependence on (and ultimately servitude to) the western capitalist machine."

Unbiased? I don't think so.

I can see their point though. Since most developed countries have minimum wages, unions, and safety regulations, I suppose it makes (shortrun) economic sense to hire people from some hellhole where the wages are measured in cents per hour instead of dollars. Like it or not, money is power in a capitalist system, and it's as corrupting as ever. At its worst globalization could end up like the robber-barons of the nineteenth century only on a worldwide scale.

Honestly I'm kinda surprised that more people from the US and other first-world countries aren't concerned about it. At least from what I've heard, it's the middle class that would have the most to lose in cases of exploitative globalization. One of the major criticisms I've heard is that it will turn the entire world into a third-world nation, and while that's bad for the places that already are, it's much worse for the ones that aren't.

Personally I don't think connecting the economies of the world is an inherently bad thing, as long as it's carried out responsibly. And although I'm sure some of the WTO protesters are against it for stupid reasons, I doubt there would be as many as there are if its policies weren't causing harm. I don't really know though, so I'm off to try and find out more info.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by remarek4]

i.e., the WTO might actually force member countries to do away with tariffs, subsidies, and other restrictions on trade; much of which composes the corporate welfare that the left is so opposed to.

I know this is hard to fathom, but corporations favor restrictions and regulations that enable them not to face global competition. Free trade is something that forces them to work hard and adapt to.

Not only that, but free trade opens American markets to agricultural products from the poorest nations. Anti-globalizationalists often cite concern about the exploitation of developing world labor, as if hopeless unemployment is somehow better. Developing economies, comprising BILLIONS of people, have the most to gain from globalization. And here are these turkeys in Miami marching against that.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by stockula]

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by stockula]

I'll put this into my little 'truth' equation:

((IFG.org quote) + (what they WTO claim themselves to be)) / 2 = approx. truth

I know it's hard to find unbiased sources nowadays, but seriously, "The central operating principal of the WTO is that commercial interests should supersede ... policies or democratic processes that act on behalf of working people, labor rights, environmental protection, human rights, consumer rights, social justice, local culture, and national sovereignty"? That's about as ridiculous as someone claiming that the WTO cures cancer.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by carbauja]

basically i think stuff should be made here
cuz hell its closer!
i mean companies make stuff in china and then have it shipped
here and its still cheaper to make it there!
why? well because they pay the people a shitty wage
i think it makes more sense to make stuff here then you dont have to
spend as much to move it..
and it seems like having stuff shipped from a far off place would waste energy
i tried emailing the wto asking about what they did but they never emailed
me back...

I know the US isn't holding up its obligations to the WTO. I'm well aware of that. The US is very protectionist in its trade policies and I dont like that, getting the US to concede is what these meetings are all about.

At this stage in the game, reform is the only way to go. Complete abolition would send the world into a such a depression that it would take years to clean-up.

My biggest concern is the people at the helm. Even though their motives seem to be good and justifiable, how it's then handled (if the data is reliable) is questionable.

I think the best slogan I've heard is the "Think Globally, Act Locally" one. Increased reliance on foreign imports leaves countries vulnerable since, and how I understand it, through the WTO, participating countries must choose a number of products that you produce well, and then ramp up production. With increased funding, man-power etc. there is an instant drop-off in other areas of your local economy, thereby creating an increased reliance on foreign imports for even basic necessities.

All well and good if all things considered are equal (basic flawed economic theory).

Where I see the problem is that if, for instance, you're country focuses mainly on corn production, and in one particularly bad year you miss your quota, immediately you're in a deficit. In order to get out, you appeal to the IMF and World Bank, which then step in. Their formula is standard; force cuts in other areas (usually social funding, schools, health-care etc.) in order to help the inflicted area thereby increasing exports and reducing the deficit. In turn, you've then got a massive debt to take care of, which usually results in further cuts to other areas. It sort of spirals from there.

That's one problem.

My other complaint is that it's being done irresponsibly. Corporate entities care about ROI and nothing more. If you choose to export production to either country A, or country B, and country B is cheaper due to the fact that there is lower, or even non-existent labour laws and staff are forced to work 15-18 hours a day, then usually that's the winner. I'm not saying that the executives at these corporations know this is happening, but the fact is that they just don't care. They sub-contract to another sub-contractor etc. etc.

Blah, enough rambling.

Edit: Eck. Re-read, and spelling, spelling, spelling.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2003 by spacemen3]

This is a very good article (though long). I see the WTO protesters as the foot soldiers for the radical left. I'm proud of them.

naaa, some of us are just too poor to get halfway around the country.

How could a poor nation or an indigenous group possibly keep up in a free trade world market? They end up not being able to even live as subistence farmers. If free trade is such a good thing for the small working farmer, then why are the indigenous in Mexico so against it? The Zapatistas revolted the day after NAFTA went into effect, and this was not coincidence.
Honestly, these are questions I have...its a real confusing system and its hard to get a full understanding of it.

The point is they're being screwed by the existing regulated protected system.