On Ignorance and Globalism
After running errands in downtown Portland, I sauntered past a small table covered in leaflets and other political material. Affixed to the front were two large pieces of white butcher paper, and written on both were the following:
After scoffing at the stand, as I walked towards the MAX station I realized my rant about it would be better served if I possesed a leaflet or two. So I turned around and approached the booth, looking for the operator. There were three guys loitering around it, all mid twenties. I inquired after the owner of the booth, and one of the pack spoke up. He was dressed attire I can only describe as Moby-esque. Very clean. Very bland. Very quasi-intellectual. I asked him who produced the publications, and he told me it was none other than LaRouche the Douche. Our conversation from that point went a little something like a dis:
In my view, there is no more ignorant or irresponsible a political view than to be anti-globalization. To be anti-free trade in certain instances is one thing, as is being against NAFTA and the WTO and certain of their policies. But to be just completely and arbitrarily against it for no other reason than the vaguely touted argument that makes poor people poor is ridiculously stupid at best.
When you see the demonstrations (and riots) against Globalization, what they're complaining about is that imports of products from outside a country can displace local industry and put local workers out of business. Which is true.
But the argument in favor is that in the long run it is better for all products to be made where they can be made best and most efficiently, because in the long run more people will benefit more overall because of it. In zones where relatively free trade has existed, that has been the result: old industries were often displaced or even shut down, but new ones arose to replace them and overall everyone did much better.
But it does cause short term displacement and short term pain; people do lose their jobs. The argument is whether that price is too high a one to pay. The demonstrators think it is; I disagree.
But if we, as a nation, are going to embrace the economic policy of globalization (also known as "free trade") then we have to realize that it goes both ways. Sometimes the industries which will be displaced will be ours. The clothing industry has been facing that one for years; the US hardly makes clothes any more. We import all of that. By the same token, shoes are no longer made here. The US doesn't make televisions, or most low-grade consumer electronics.
And when those changes took place, there was screaming, and demands for protection of those industries. But while there may have been some efforts in those directions, they were mostly resisted -- and we now have a very low unemployment rate (even during this time of recession) and a very high per-capita GDP.
So when I read that catfish producers in the Mississippi delta are complaining about the fact that their product is being displaced by fish from Viet Nam, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic. That's what happens.
At least they're not actually trying to limit imports. Instead, they're requiring labeling changes; the Viet Nam fish has to be called "Basa" or "Basa catfish". (Next they'll require that all the native catfish be delivered with an American Flag sticker, just so that we all know it's patriotically-produced-product.)
After the Philippine "People Power" revolution kicked out Marcos, a group of American congresspeople went to visit Cory Aquino and asked her what the US could to help? Aid? Loans? She responded that she didn't want any of those things. What she wanted was for the US to open its sugar market and stop limiting Philippine imports. Alas, it didn't happen. (Because of Archer Daniels Midland, but that's a different story.) But it should have because she was right..
The best way for us to create a peaceful world is to increase prosperity everywhere. The best way to get nations to participate in free trade is to let them benefit from it. The best way to help the people of the Third World is to give them jobs, so they can support themselves. Sometimes that means that the US will export jobs. That is good; we should do so even though it causes short term pain here. We'll find something else to work on. Viet Nam is a desperately poor nation and it needs to come up with things to sell overseas; if we can help them by eating their fish and drinking their coffee (another cash-crop they've started producing in quantity) then all the better.
The EU constitution failed, therefore Globalism is dead!
and
The Founding Fathers fought against free trade!
After scoffing at the stand, as I walked towards the MAX station I realized my rant about it would be better served if I possesed a leaflet or two. So I turned around and approached the booth, looking for the operator. There were three guys loitering around it, all mid twenties. I inquired after the owner of the booth, and one of the pack spoke up. He was dressed attire I can only describe as Moby-esque. Very clean. Very bland. Very quasi-intellectual. I asked him who produced the publications, and he told me it was none other than LaRouche the Douche. Our conversation from that point went a little something like a dis:
Aubrey: So, why are you against free trade?
QI Dude: Well, it makes people poor, and the economists all say that it will fail. the EU constitution failed, so globalism will fail.
Aubrey: Have you read the constitution that failed? have you read any of the previous drafts? Do you know why the current proposed constitution failed?
QI Dude: No (to all)
Aubrey: Have you ever been to Europe? Have you ever been overseas at all? Have you ever seen first hand the effects of globalization except what you've read in Z magazine?
QI Dude: I don't need to. I believe what I've read is true.
Aubrey: Do you have a degree in Economics? Do you major in Economics?
QI Dude: Oh, no, man I hope to never be that brainwashed.
Aubrey: Exactly what about free trade do you disagree with?
QI Dude: Well, you know Adam Smith right?
Aubrey: Yes I know Smith. I've read Wealth of Nations several times. Have you ever read it?
QI Dude: No
Aubrey: Have you ever read 'Principals of Political Economy' by John Stuart Mill?
QI Dude: No, you don't have to read every book in existence to know that globalization is bad.
Aubrey: Right, but have you read any? Can you give me one Adam Smith quote?
QI Dude: Well, he was all supply and demand, and economists all say that globalization will fail.
Aubrey: You know what? I only wanted to know who was running this booth. And now I know.
In my view, there is no more ignorant or irresponsible a political view than to be anti-globalization. To be anti-free trade in certain instances is one thing, as is being against NAFTA and the WTO and certain of their policies. But to be just completely and arbitrarily against it for no other reason than the vaguely touted argument that makes poor people poor is ridiculously stupid at best.
When you see the demonstrations (and riots) against Globalization, what they're complaining about is that imports of products from outside a country can displace local industry and put local workers out of business. Which is true.
But the argument in favor is that in the long run it is better for all products to be made where they can be made best and most efficiently, because in the long run more people will benefit more overall because of it. In zones where relatively free trade has existed, that has been the result: old industries were often displaced or even shut down, but new ones arose to replace them and overall everyone did much better.
But it does cause short term displacement and short term pain; people do lose their jobs. The argument is whether that price is too high a one to pay. The demonstrators think it is; I disagree.
But if we, as a nation, are going to embrace the economic policy of globalization (also known as "free trade") then we have to realize that it goes both ways. Sometimes the industries which will be displaced will be ours. The clothing industry has been facing that one for years; the US hardly makes clothes any more. We import all of that. By the same token, shoes are no longer made here. The US doesn't make televisions, or most low-grade consumer electronics.
And when those changes took place, there was screaming, and demands for protection of those industries. But while there may have been some efforts in those directions, they were mostly resisted -- and we now have a very low unemployment rate (even during this time of recession) and a very high per-capita GDP.
So when I read that catfish producers in the Mississippi delta are complaining about the fact that their product is being displaced by fish from Viet Nam, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic. That's what happens.
At least they're not actually trying to limit imports. Instead, they're requiring labeling changes; the Viet Nam fish has to be called "Basa" or "Basa catfish". (Next they'll require that all the native catfish be delivered with an American Flag sticker, just so that we all know it's patriotically-produced-product.)
After the Philippine "People Power" revolution kicked out Marcos, a group of American congresspeople went to visit Cory Aquino and asked her what the US could to help? Aid? Loans? She responded that she didn't want any of those things. What she wanted was for the US to open its sugar market and stop limiting Philippine imports. Alas, it didn't happen. (Because of Archer Daniels Midland, but that's a different story.) But it should have because she was right..
The best way for us to create a peaceful world is to increase prosperity everywhere. The best way to get nations to participate in free trade is to let them benefit from it. The best way to help the people of the Third World is to give them jobs, so they can support themselves. Sometimes that means that the US will export jobs. That is good; we should do so even though it causes short term pain here. We'll find something else to work on. Viet Nam is a desperately poor nation and it needs to come up with things to sell overseas; if we can help them by eating their fish and drinking their coffee (another cash-crop they've started producing in quantity) then all the better.
posted by Aubrey at 8:39 PM
<< Home