babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Minimum global standards

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Minimum global standards
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 07 October 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In this thread, babblers were discussing the export of technical jobs abroad, and job outsourcing generally. Dr. Conway mentioned,

quote:
That having been said the next best thing is even more idealistic and less practical and that would be to strictly enforce a global minimum wage under a fixed-exchange-rate regime. As well, a standard global labor law with real teeth would accompany the global minimum wage, with appropriate tools for enforcement.

Now, agreed that the powers that be would fight this tooth and nail. Yet it is, I think, an outcome worth fighting for! Thus, I ask:

(a) Have any existing organizations proposed such an "international labour standard"? Where can I find out more?

(b) What would babblers feel strongly should be included in such a standard?

For example, I would advocate a "fixed minimum wage" as Dr.C advocates, but also a "local cost of living" addendum to the minimum wage (hourly or annual) that allows for local conditions. Thus, wages in industrialized areas would still be higher.

To compensate for this fact, however, I would append a "local benefit fee". The lower the local cost-of-living, which presumably reflects poorer local conditions, the higher this fee. Thus, the company would still pay just as much for a worker in rural Africa as urban America; it's just that in the industrialized nations, this will all go into the wage (and presumably come back out again in taxes). In poorer areas, a fraction would go to wages, and the rest to a "local benefit fund". This fund would be used for such useful things as developing local infrastructure, public services, and so forth. The aim, of course, is to raise the local standard of living to eventually match that of industrialized nations. It's essentially a really big labour tax, but if the fund is administered by international organizations, the companies won't be able to complain about corrupt local governments hogging it all.

For necessary labour law provisions, what do we need? Hm. Right to unionize, right to safe and sanitary workplace conditions, right to terminate employment (I was just reading about indentured farmhands in Brazil), right to reasonable hours with sick leave and vacation time... I'm sure I'm leaving a lot out.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 07 October 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes yes - and we should kick out all undesirable leaders and we should overthrow gov'ts who mistreat their people.

And while we're at it, why don't we convert those damn non-christians.

I'm sorry, but that's a bankrupt moral policy. It's one thing to prevent a country like america from going out and impacting another country like argentina. Or iraq. So if amercia wanted to pass a law that says it's industries may only deal with companies or whatever that pay decent wages, that's one thing.

But a global set of rules telling countries how to run themselves internally, with 'real teeth'? Economic or military warfare as a threat to ensure 'compliance with our beleifs' you mean.

Countries and populations have to be allowed to evolve normally if at all possible. If they intend to directly attack you - or even possibly a neighbour, that's one thing. They're the ones stepping outside their boarders then. But to dictate what they will do inside their own boarders? To 'enforce' rules on their populations?

I think you guys are walking awefully close to the 'dark side' there.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2003 04:57 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But a global set of rules telling countries how to run themselves internally, with 'real teeth'? Economic or military warfare as a threat to ensure 'compliance with our beleifs' you mean.



It is called the WTO Foxer.

And a lefty thinks it can be reformed to do just what DrC ordered. Others disagree. Me among them.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 07 October 2003 05:04 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Even the WTO doesn't go that far. Even the world bank doesn't DEMAND that people HAVE to deal with them. And i'm not happy with them as they are.

I'm more worried that they'll become what the good doc suggested than supportive of the idea. I think countries have to follow their own path as much as possible, even if that means that some of their population suffers for it. You can't 'legislate' freedom for people that aren't your own.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even the WTO doesn't go that far

Sure it does.
The WTO dictates, for example, that a member nation cannot stockpile food for emergencies. It dictates that the enviornment is not an accepted reason for curtailing trade. Nor are human rights. And much more. You should become accustomed with the terms of the WTO, Foxer. You might find it scarier than gun registration.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 07 October 2003 05:52 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was thinking of a treaty-structure arrangement, in fact, as with any other international law. So countries would pretty much have to "opt-in".
From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2003 06:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Such is the WTO.

In Guatemela, the government adopted a UN program that prohibits marketing baby formulas with images of pudgy children. The logic is mothers might stop breast feeding if they believe the formula will provide their children with healthy alternatives.

Gerbebrs threatened an action before the WTO. Guatemela backed down.

The European Union was fined $100 million by the WTO for banning meat imports containing artificial growth hormones known to be harmful to humans.

Do you think, April, the WTO can be reformed and form the basis of a world body which protects more than just corporate interests?

One idea:
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_article.html?article=412


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 07 October 2003 11:05 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For necessary labour law provisions, what do we need? Hm. Right to unionize, right to safe and sanitary workplace conditions, right to terminate employment (I was just reading about indentured farmhands in Brazil), right to reasonable hours with sick leave and vacation time... I'm sure I'm leaving a lot out.

Such standards already exist through the International Labour Organization (ILO) which is a United Nations body. The ILO has been around since 1919.

Supposedly, most countries of the world have ratified the various ILO conventions on labour rights. Unfortunately, there is no genuine enforcement mechanism. That's the fundamental problem. Corporations can get their economic rights enforced, but ordinary people can not get their social and human rights enforced.

There are no fines or penalties for violating social and human rights.

Both the federal and various Canadian provincial governments have been found in violation of ILO conventions over the years but all they can say is that "you broke the rules...please don't do this".

You'll find the fundamental ILO Conventions on international labour standards here:

Fundamental ILO Conventions - International Labour Standards


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2003 02:12 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:
I'm sorry, but that's a bankrupt moral policy. It's one thing to prevent a country like america from going out and impacting another country like argentina. Or iraq. So if amercia wanted to pass a law that says it's industries may only deal with companies or whatever that pay decent wages, that's one thing.

But a global set of rules telling countries how to run themselves internally, with 'real teeth'? Economic or military warfare as a threat to ensure 'compliance with our beleifs' you mean.


What the hell rock do you live under? What the hell do you think the WTO and its associated treaty obligations mean for nations which sign on?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 08 October 2003 02:59 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What the hell rock do you live under? What the hell do you think the WTO and its associated treaty obligations mean for nations which sign on?

I'm under the rock that has the sign out front saying 'at least they signed on - it's not manditory'. And I don't like the way the wto is working. Results that YOU put me onto seem to suggest the same.

So - you'd take it a step farther? It's not good as it is, so we should take the premise farther? Hey - i may live under a rock, but i'd appreciate it if you didn't bang it too often with yours

Your motives may be worthy, but your thinking isn't. It will soon be perverted even if you did do it.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 08 October 2003 11:39 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ok, foxer they signed on.if i wanted to get crazy I'd go into a rant that iraq signed onto the war because they tolerated the leadership of a monstrous dictator , although it's relatively clear he was imposed and supported by foreign power.
More clearly , some research clearly indicated that the unregulated movement of foreign capital largely imposes minimum social standards,because that's what business requires,to maximize profit.Accomplishing this is largely a matter of draining exports, but more commonly in recent decades, of exploiting native labor.
Value-added products,utilizing barely survivable labor standards and non-sustainable environmental practice add wealth to elite communities, through electronic transfer of debt within international funds.people are devalued and amortized.
the IMF and world bank, as well as a milieu of lesser heard-of entities, routinely influences the governance of millions of workers in far-off and easily forgotten places. you will never even meet most of those people, most of you.Until they fly a plane into your building.
Financially competent people follow the money,and do what makes more of it. socially involved people try to improve social conditions. the problem occurs when economics attempts to develop justification for predatory policy.
many people have "signed on" by drawing their first breath. responsible society requires that we,at the very least,do not derive profit from that person's suffering loss.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 08 October 2003 02:01 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And while we're at it, why don't we convert those damn non-christians.
I hope you're not equating an attempt to globalize a decent standard of living with cultural imperialism, because that is just too fucked up, beyond moral relativism.

From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 08 October 2003 02:41 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yours is an admirable goal, April Follies and a great idea, I think. The problem as I see it is enforcement. Military strength clearly is used in local situations- Colombia springs to mind, and paramilitaries have been used in Jamaica and elsewhere to quell labour unrest. Of course, this is all in the services of large corporate officers, shareholders and their government lackeys *cough* Paul Martin and John Manley *cough* who dominate the Bretton Woods Alphabet Soup Trio WBIMFWTO, but is not where their power lies. The financial pressures that can be levied through these organizations include calling in/ refusing loans, re-direction of raw materials and manufactured goods, closure or shrinkage of previously opened markets, "dumping" of competing products into fragile domestic markets, price-fixing and gouging and imposition of punitive fines via WTO tribunals.

All of this is only possible because the largest multi (trans)-national corporations are all on board.

Nobody can get the US or Israel to honour UN resolutions.

Who's going to enforce rules, even those sanctioned by an international body (UN?), that run counter to the interests of the 50 largest corporations on the planet?


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2003 02:49 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which is why, I would argue, the WTO cannot be reformed. But is there a solution?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 08 October 2003 05:53 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Radiorahim: Thanks, that's just the information I was looking for! It's so much easier if you can just boil it down to: "Enforce ILO standards, which have already been agreed on by member nations..." Etc.

WingNut: Monbiot makes a great deal of sense to me - thanks for that article. Starts to give me some ideas of where things stand and what's being done.

(You guys are really helping my education in economics. I hope you won't mind more dumb questions - please remember, I'm just an undereducated American. )

OK, so if the standards are basically there, it seems to come down to a question of enforcement. This pretty much puts it in the same category as, e.g.,the International Treaty on the Rights of the Child - but (a) it lacks quite the emotional impact to average people in industrialized nations, and (b) Rights of the Child isn't in quite as direct an opposition to corporate interests.

Hm. For me, of course, the first answer is almost always "educate people!" Linking the job-migration issue, which is big in US news of late, to ILO enforcement might just spark interest, especially on the part of those whose jobs are migrating. If a consensus exists, or at least a significant fraction feels that ILO is necessary, it may become easier to pass enforcement measures. (Holy shades of IWW campaigns, Batman!)

Maybe an analogue to the "Fair trade" movement and similar could also work as an approach - have people band together to announce they'll preferentially buy from companies shown to measure up to ILO standars. I gather that boycotts against the worst offenders are already common practice in some circles.

Now, the WTO has, as has been pointed out, clearly been hijacked by corporate interests. So I guess the issue is: (a) How to create a replacement group, and (b) how to prevent said replacement from being similarly hijacked. As Sisyphus says, how to fight the power of the 50 largest corporations. Ponder, ponder.

I really think it's a matter of changing the terms of the dialogue, when you get right down to it. Those in industrialized nations need to understand that the only thing that will protect them in the face of globalization job-shifts is an enforcable world standard. I think part of the reason this system has survived so long is that the penalties mostly fell on developing nations. Thus the industrialized nations were free to prop the system up, because their citizens really didn't care what was happening in Faraway Places.

Now, though, one can point out that it's no longer something that happens to other people - this is your job. This is your job on globalization. This is your job in Singapore... I believe the European citizenry has managed to exert some influence already in corporate practices (as they affect Europe, of course). Perhaps this angle can shove governments, like that of the US, toward signing and abiding by labor enforcement treaties - if we can make it just too politically costly for them to do otherwise.

Basically what went wrong with the WTO is that larger economies could point their economic guns at smaller nations and say "vote our way or else". I really can't see any other way than for the citizens of the nations with larger economies to take the guns away, by insisting their UN trade representatives favor ILO standards.

There's a couple of things promoting progress in this area, I think:

* Developing countries are banding together more often to tell the Big 7 to get knotted. This may cause the WTO to essentially self-destruct in the near future anyhow, and if not, at least help to block it from taking certain actions.

* People have the ability to put more pressure on the corporations directly, as the Internet helps to organize such efforts.

Are there any activist organizations that go through the gruelling process of "rating" major corporations according to labour standards and so forth? I know CorpWatch campaigns against abuses when they're brought to its attention, but are there any really systematic efforts, a la Public Citizen?


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 October 2003 07:30 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have you ever seen what happens when a rich multi (say a mining company) sets up in a destitute area and pays a whopping two dollars an hour? People flood to the area hoping for a job. The local cost of living sky rockets and slums are created over night. The dis-location is severe.

Consequently, I like April's somewhat idealistic (idealism is good) idea of paying the going rate while spreading the wealth in the area. The big western companies cannot be allowed to just plunder. They have to be responsible for the social and environmental changes that they inflict.

The WTO is as good a vehicle for this as any. It's just that the trans nationals have thought that the WTO was for them exclusively. It needs to act for the welfare of all.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 08 October 2003 07:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The WTO is as good a vehicle for this as any. It's just that the trans nationals have thought that the WTO was for them exclusively. It needs to act for the welfare of all.

But you see, it never will.

Consider even are own NAFTA. The Liberals touted the side agreements on labour and the environment after breaking their promise to tear up the deal.

There has not been a successful case brought before the NAFTA tribunals (which like the WTO meet in secret) in defense of labour or the environment. And even if there was, there are no penalties.

So, you see, if we accept the vehicles of corporations, we will always be left in the back seat, on the hump and without a seatbelt.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2003 08:34 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Foxer, you have a particular hobby horse. That would be in gun legislation.

Mine is fixed exchange rates.

The twin prongs of a fixed-exchange-rate regime and putting teeth into international labor legislation, and perhaps a statutory global minimum wage, is to tackle some of the big problems that bedevil creating a "good globalization".

Fixed exchange rates eliminate currency speculation, which would stabilize trade flows and end the use of derivatives as currency risk transfers when governments should be taking on the job of guaranteeing currencies against risk.

They also allow for a transparent accounting of the cost of living, since the currency units would be convertible at known rates, and thus reveal what the tariff premium needs to be, or equivalently what a "cheap labor tax" would need to be in order to take away the advantage of shipping production overseas and paying workers in other nations far less for about the same productivity.

In short, to lessen the size of the tariff bite or the differential-cost-of-labor tax, corporations would have to pay workers better wages. This would have the salutary effect of stimulating demand within the countries that we in the west import from, and thus creating a new middle class where none previously existed in those nations.

The statutory global minimum wage is a bit of a nebulous concept, I grant, but through the fixed exchange rates, it could be set at a given level and no corporation that pays workers below it would be permitted to export from the country in question. The wording of the regulations could be structured to allow for existing minimum wage laws such that if the prevailing minimum wage in a country exceeds the statutory global minimum wage, then the country's own minwage must be met.

I find it very ironic, Foxer, that you seem to have no issue with the WTO - or, in effect, large corporations, backed by the US, Canada and Europe - ordering around the governments of the non-Quad nations (although in recent years this bullying seems to be having less effect) in order to satisfy the cost structure of the multinationals. Yet in the same breath you bring forth your horror at the implications of the idea I came up with.

[ 08 October 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 08 October 2003 08:58 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I always thought your hobby horse was "tax the rich" even though I've never figured out what that word means [simplistically it seems to translate to "make everyone that makes more than me pay for it" whatever it may be ]

However, the first problem I see with fixed exchange rates is that it seriously restricts the ability of any country to have any sort of independent economic policy. For example, if the Canadian dollarn were to be locked at 75 cents US it would be impossible for the Canadian Gov't to change interest rates unless it were in lockstep with the US. To be honest, it would probably have the same effect and be easier to handle if the world were to adopt a common currency. How about the world (or at least North America) adopting the US dollar.


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 October 2003 09:00 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the Bretton Woods Agreement
quote:
(iii) To promote the long-range balanced growth of international trade and the maintenance of equilibrium in balances of payments by encouraging international investment for the development of the productive resources of members, thereby assisting in raising productivity, the standard of living and conditions of labor in their territories.

Bretton Woods Agreement

I understand WingNut's frustration with international agreements. As you can see from the purposes of The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which became the World Bank (I think), the original idea was good. Unfortunately, the rich and powerful lobbied for fifty years, and are still lobbying, to undermine it.

We don't have to look outside our borders to see the problem. The Bank of Canada was supposed to balance the needs of the wealthy with the needs of labour. It is presently only concerned with the wealthy. Public utilities were established for the benefit of all. Now we see them being sold off and de-regulated.

Collectively, we need to be more vigillant. The selfish forces of greed will do whatever it takes to make changes in their favour.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 October 2003 09:19 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by abnormal:
I always thought your hobby horse was "tax the rich" even though I've never figured out what that word means [simplistically it seems to translate to "make everyone that makes more than me pay for it" whatever it may be ]

Well, when you make $20k a year and have to remit between 20 and 25% of your income in total taxes not including the damn GST, you can begin to see why I like taxing the rich, especially as under the tax system I propose, I'd cut my own tax burden to nearly nothing. Har har har.

quote:
However, the first problem I see with fixed exchange rates is that it seriously restricts the ability of any country to have any sort of independent economic policy. For example, if the Canadian dollarn were to be locked at 75 cents US it would be impossible for the Canadian Gov't to change interest rates unless it were in lockstep with the US. To be honest, it would probably have the same effect and be easier to handle if the world were to adopt a common currency. How about the world (or at least North America) adopting the US dollar.

The way the Bretton Woods agreement end-ran this problem was actually to sacrifice something else: Instead of rigidly demanding no independent fiscal-monetary policy, it used to be a requirement of the Bretton Woods system that nations in the framework would control capital flows.

Under the gold standard system, a fixed-rate regime was held up by all countries involved carefully orienting their monetary policies this way and that so that nothing ever got out of whack. This usually meant, far too often, that the lack of independence in monetary policy would result in economic dislocation and high unemployment, or stagnant wages (a classic example is the British situation post-1925, wherein wages were brutally forced down across the board in order to get Britain's balance of payments into sync).

The Bretton Woods system, as I said, sidetracked the problem entirely by sacrificing something else - that being free capital mobility. Control over capital flows meant exchange rates could be set virtually at will, and be nailed in place for twenty years (Japan is a good example - the yen was fixed at 360 to the US dollar from 1951 to 1973).

In summary, you can sacrifice monetary policy autonomy, capital mobility, or exchange rate stability.

Today we have sacrificed the third, of course, but it is not inevitable.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 09 October 2003 12:25 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that we have to do something about corporate power, but I am at a loss as to how that realistically can be done. I am afraid that a minimum wage for all will result in a loave of bread costing approximately the same every where and it would cost a corporation the same to produce it in Canada or the Sudan. It probably will result in strengthening those counties that have now the production capacity. I believe that is what happen to former East Germany, when it reunited with west Germany it raised the East german wage close to west german standards, but the efficiency of production was missing. Resulting in most east German plants having to close down.

I think a better aproach might be to link income to a local minimum standard that would allow one to have a roof over one's head, food on the table and an education system. Even in a country like Canada it would create distortions to have a uniform minimum wage. An other approach might be to severly restrict the movement of capital, it would result in keeping the wealth where it is created, but it would mean that we would have to find another way of trading surplus goods, or we have to apply ingenuity and find a way to live from what our local environment can produce.

Just some thoughts.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 09 October 2003 10:52 AM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can't we just get organized and boycott companies who utilize sub-standard labour practices?

There are already organizations out there watching what corporations are doing. They're doing the research for us, essentially--we just have to use it. And like others have said, we should be really vigilant.

The only thing Corporate Pigs understand is money and profit. If we make it clear to them that they're not going to make any money off us as long as they're exploiting people and/or destroying the environment etc., then maybe they'll see some value in changing their strategies.

We have to all cooperate, though. It won't make a difference at all if just a couple of us participate in a boycott here or there...


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 09 October 2003 11:50 AM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Bretton Woods system, as I said, sidetracked the problem entirely by sacrificing something else - that being free capital mobility. Control over capital flows meant exchange rates could be set virtually at will, and be nailed in place for twenty years (Japan is a good example - the yen was fixed at 360 to the US dollar from 1951 to 1973).
Well, pretty much since Nixon abandoned the gold standard and floated the US dollar, monetary and banking policy has been deregulating. How bad or good, how fertilizing or destabilizing, depends on how well you've done or are doing. If you think flexibility and increased growth are a good tradeoff for stability and predictability, then you're a big fan of today's Casino Capitalism.

Now, if you're Japan, and your banking system is too archaic to keep up with today's frenetically-paced rollercoaster of a world economy, you suffer. Big time. But if you're a big economy like Japan, that doesn't translate into horrific ruin for the average person. In a smaller, less developed country it does. I think that Bretton Woods is a good system for developing a solid, stable economic base for a country struggling into the 21st century, dealing with a large rural population and poverty issues. But once certain benchmarks have been achieved, then a more contemporary, de-regulated policy might get them where they're going.

But of course, the World Bank and the IMF policies of the 80s so completely fucked up even those countries who were making decent headway (like Tanzania), that without completely abandoning SRPs and developing debt-forgiveness policies, those countries and their vulnerable citizens are going to continue at the subsistence level. Which, it would appear, is where multinationals would like them and their slave-labour pool.

Hard to say whether the greedy bastards will pull their heads out of their poop vents long enough to see that globalization will spell ruin so long as the current exploitation model continues. In a multi-lateral and globalized context, equity is required. Without it, gains are short term and instability rampant.

Juz my two cents.

But one thing the left and anti-globalization folks might want to consider is that it is too too late to abandon the project. What they need to do is embrace it, and exploit it for the purpose of ensuring that healthy equity. How this should be accomplished, I have a few ideas, but by and large, don't really know. That's for bigger brains than mine, I suspect.

Edited: for typos and brain-farts

[ 09 October 2003: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 09 October 2003 11:57 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some suggested reading .look who's selling it

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2151735&sourceid=1500000000000000040820
they really aren't worried at all, and that's worrisome. will we really go down without a fight?
think I'me going to suggest that Wall-mart participate socially by giving out free copies to anyone requesting this book and Id like it bound in an attractive paper cover printed with local labour and social assistance organizations.
and everybody should really try and read and have a think about this.


From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 October 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What all of you, and pretty much most of the world, notice is that there are a lot of trade-offs in economics. There was a time when governments and national banks and international finance types tried to find balance among the trade-offs. Now, it seems that only very large corporate interests are on the table; everyone else can just opt out.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 09 October 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The problems with reforming institutions such as the WTO are enourmous and probably insurmountable.

First, democracy requires openess and business institutions are inherently secretive. Democracy requires inclusiveness and business institutions are inherently exlusive. Democracy requires participation and business institutions are inherently arbitrary.

And finally, the needs of people and of corporations are irreconcilable. People need adequate food, clean water and shelter. Corporations require profit. The scarcity of clean water leads to higher prices and higher profits for the corporation. Control of the food supply from seed to shelf ensures not just profits but political power as well.

Keep in mind governments and business have invited civil society to participate in the WTO and other international arenas. But always as guest and never as equal partners. And there participation is always relegated to the periphery while the real negotiations and decisions are made behind closed doors. In short, civil society becomes window dressing for these institutions.

I don't know whatthe solution is either. But I am certain that the WTO cannot and will not be reformed.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 October 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wingnut says,
quote:
. . . I am certain that the WTO cannot and will not be reformed.

Ideally, it could, but I doubt that it will. I think it would take another Great Depression in the west, particularly the US for the political pressure to force the necessary changes.

I often think that the nastiest bit of economics is the 90 day balance sheet. It stops long term planning. It pushes companies into making stupid short term decisions. It makes them do things that only have to do with share price, often at the expense of long term profit. There is some evidence that companies that can maintain five, and even ten, year plans do much better than those which get stuck on the 90 day balance sheet.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 October 2003 07:37 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
90 day balance sheet?!?! I thought corporations usually went with annual balance sheets.

To Rebecca West:

The Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates doesn't depend on a linkage to gold in the strictest sense; it simply requires comprehensive exchange controls.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 October 2003 07:52 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
I often think that the nastiest bit of economics is the 90 day balance sheet.

[nitpick]
I think what you're really referring to here is an Operating Statement. A Balance Sheet can be run on any day, or for that matter at any moment in time - it's a snapshot of the current financial situation. It's the Op Statement that covers a period of time be it a month, a quarter or a year.
[/nitpick]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 October 2003 08:20 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Agreed, Slim, but even though it's technically wrong, all I've ever heard it called is the 90 balance sheet.

Yes, there is an anual balance, and a 30 day balance; but 90 days seems to be the killer. There's far too much emphasis on it. I've seen salesmen break all sales records during one year and fired the following April 1 for under producing. I've seen machines manufactured sub standard because the short term budget won't afford doing it right and they can be fixed on the next 90 day's budget. The worst part is that 90 days prevents any imagination, any research and development taking root. 90 days just stifles innovation! So, big companies go out and buy up small companies just to get their innovation.

Ever buy a shoddy product and wonder how it got out? Chances are that the engineers designed it right and the bean counters cut costs.

There is a word, which I can't remember, for transfering costs from manufacturing to end user. There are actually people who figure out how much the company can get away with. The worst example was the Ford Pinto with the exploding gas tanks; the bean counters figured that it would be cheaper for Ford to pay the lawsuits than fix the tank.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 09 October 2003 08:54 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
Yes, there is an anual balance, and a 30 day balance; but 90 days seems to be the killer. There's far too much emphasis on it.

I think that's because public companies report to their shareholders on a quarterly basis. So all effort goes towards making that next quarterly financial statement look good, even if the decisions being taken are just dumb in the long term.

quote:
The worst part is that 90 days prevents any imagination, any research and development taking root. 90 days just stifles innovation! So, big companies go out and buy up small companies just to get their innovation.

The small companies are privately held and don't have to play the stock market game. So they're free to sacrifice short term earnings for the sake of developing a better product in the long run. Then they get gobbled up. What you've just described is Microsoft's modus operandi. MS is a great marketing company but they don't create, they buy other people's creativity.

quote:
Ever buy a shoddy product and wonder how it got out? Chances are that the engineers designed it right and the bean counters cut costs.

I have to intervene here on behalf of bean counters. Some of them know better. Hell, some of my best friends are bean counters.

quote:
There is a word, which I can't remember, for transfering costs from manufacturing to end user. There are actually people who figure out how much the company can get away with. The worst example was the Ford Pinto with the exploding gas tanks; the bean counters figured that it would be cheaper for Ford to pay the lawsuits than fix the tank.

I can't remember the term either, but you've reminded me of a film called Class Action. Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio. Hackman was the lawyer bringing suit against the auto manufacturer. Mastrantonio, who played Hackman's daughter, is working for the big firm defending the manufacturer. It was about exactly the scenario you've described. At the centre of the case was a statistical study the auto company had done that concluded it would be cheaper to ignore a flaw and settle with the claimants. I won't go any further so I don't spoil the movie. Besides, I'm really drifting now.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca