This is why Johan Norberg, a 30-year-old Swede with roots in the anarchist left, is so important. He is the author of In Defense of Global Capitalism, which makes a powerful moral and economic case for globalization. Norberg throws rhetorical Molotov cocktails both at left-wing critics who would condemn developing countries to poverty by insisting on First World workplace and environmental standards as a prerequisite for trade and at Western governments whose free market rhetoric is shamefully undercut by draconian tariffs on textiles and agriculture, the two areas in which the developing world can actually compete.
Norberg focuses on the human dimension of globalization, how increased and freer trade is the best way to help the wretched of the earth.
In this stage of globalization, the countries pushing for more liberal trade are the third-world countries and the countries clamoring for protectionism are in North America and Europe. Why? Because globalization has much greater immediate benefits to the poor "southern" countries and harm the entrenched labor interests and corporate welfare beneficiaries of wealthier, developed nations.
some good points, though he seems to have left out any discussion of slave labor (a form of cheap labor that provides no benefit to workers or local economies), and he's still rooted in the old way of thinking that environmental protection is more expensive. he also left out the fact that some communities in poor nations were once able to provide for themselves through farming but are now dependent on industrialization. nice to see someone speaking out against western protectionism, however. on balance, i think the WTO is a useful forum to have, but it still needs to be reformed.
I seem to agree with him on most point perhaps I'll pick up the book.
s5 said:
he also left out the fact that some communities in poor nations were once able to provide for themselves through farming but are now dependent on industrialization.
This is the case everywhere else though too, or at least it seems to me. Look at any major western city and all the industrial processes we rely on.
Distribution of resources seems to be better facilitated in the industrial or post-industrial (I'm still not convinced these really exist) economies. One of the positives of globalization I think is an increased reliance/dependency on each other. This creates shared interests and brings us together.
I am curious about the notion of interplay between sustainability and the globalization process. I imagine this is what s5 was getting at, am I wrong?
What about when countries artificially deflate the true value of their currency by 40%, to lower their cost of goods by that much, and therefore drive manufacturing out of most other countries?
BTW, that would be China, and the largest victims of their unfair trade practices are the US, Canada and Mexico and the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their jobs in those places.
Free trade is only free trade when all parties play by the rules. Artificial currency deflation is just another form of anticompetitive practices, like dumping and unjustified tariffs.
Sean
STAFF
Los Angeles, CA
DEC 23, 2003 04:20 PM