Okay, fellow totseans. I ask of your opinion once again.

How do you feel about the way globalization has affected the rest of the world? Positively, negatively?

How do you feel about international multilateral trade organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank? Do you believe that these organizations are completely unbiased, or do they pander to Western interests, specifically established transnational megacorporations? How do you feel about the tactics these groups use when pressuring countries to accept free trade or suffer mandates and penalties?

Do you believe in a laissez-faire, free market where there are no tariffs on exports or imports and the markets are left alone by the governments of the world? Or do you believe that markets should be regulated, businesses should be subsidized, and international trade should become "fair"?

lol. I'm taking International Relations now.

How do you feel about the way globalization has affected the rest of the world? Positively, negatively?

both. Globalization has a potential for good, but it can also be used to manipulate the world via groups like the IMF, WTO, ETc.

How do you feel about international multilateral trade organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank? Do you believe that these organizations are completely unbiased, or do they pander to Western interests, specifically established transnational megacorporations?

they pander to Western Interests. the IMF has a weighted system where the Western Nations get the most influence and can manipulate the poorer nations via debts, etc.

Also see things like those Structural Adjustments (I think it's the WTO) that is forcing nations to privatize things from their Water supplies, etc. Fucked up


How do you feel about the tactics these groups use when pressuring countries to accept free trade or suffer mandates and penalties?


it's fucked up and I have no problem with some of the tactics the Anarchist Black Bloc, Hackers, Internet Liberation Front, Anarcho-Communists or whoever tries fucking up the G8, WTO, IMF, Bilderburger meetings and whatnot


Do you believe in a laissez-faire, free market where there are no tariffs on exports or imports and the markets are left alone by the governments of the world?

Not currently. There would be a bias. Flooding other markets with cheap goods and whatnot as is being done in africa by the US/EU and in the past the US did that in Central America.

Or do you believe that markets should be regulated, businesses should be subsidized, and international trade should become "fair"?

I do. I'm a socialist with some leanings towards anarchism and communism so yes.


EDIT: regarding globalization and war or peace. It's not as good as you think. Germany and the UK traded a lot before WWI and they still fought.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/62848/

Also see things like those Structural Adjustments (I think it's the WTO) that is forcing nations to privatize things from their Water supplies, etc. Fucked up


They are not "forced," they are stipulations for loans. The countries don't have to get loans in the first place, but they know what the stipulations will be for continued loans. Is it "fucked up?" Not really. Do they have an agenda? Of course.



EDIT: regarding globalization and war or peace. It's not as good as you think. Germany and the UK traded a lot before WWI and they still fought.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/62848/

That is very isolated, but I think overall globalization is a step towards peace, via international organizations, trade barriers, etc. There are now ways to punish rogue states and even illiberal states through trade and not just war/intervention. The more accountable states become to international organizations and international law, I believe the less rogue actions and wars we will see.

Also see things like those Structural Adjustments (I think it's the WTO) that is forcing nations to privatize things from their Water supplies, etc. Fucked up


They are not "forced," they are given stipulations for loans. The countries don't have to get loans in the first place, but they know what the stipulations will be for continued loans. Is it "fucked up?" Not really. Do they have an agenda? Of course.


EDIT: regarding globalization and war or peace. It's not as good as you think. Germany and the UK traded a lot before WWI and they still fought.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/62848/[/QUOTE]

That is very isolated, but I think overall globalization is a step towards peace, via international organizations, trade barriers, etc. There are now ways to punish rogue states and even illiberal states through trade and not just war/intervention. The more accountable states become to international organizations and international law, I believe the less rogue actions and wars we will see.

Okay, fellow totseans. I ask of your opinion once again.


How do you feel about the way globalization has affected the rest of the world? Positively, negatively?

Well, just like mercantilism and other forms of imperialism before it, it has its mixed blessings. On one hand a lot of people outside the first world have opportunities to prosper that they never had before. On the other hand no other system of social organization is being given a fair chance.

How do you feel about international multilateral trade organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank? Do you believe that these organizations are completely unbiased, or do they pander to Western interests, specifically established transnational megacorporations? How do you feel about the tactics these groups use when pressuring countries to accept free trade or suffer mandates and penalties?


They abso-fucking lutely pander to corporate interests, especially putting corporate interests above the interests of the inhabitants of said country. There is no doubt about it. Warsie covered the gist of it. It's worth a whole separate thread to discuss the issue .

Do you believe in a laissez-faire, free market where there are no tariffs on exports or imports and the markets are left alone by the governments of the world? Or do you believe that markets should be regulated, businesses should be subsidized, and international trade should become "fair"?

Chicago school and austrian economics is based on fantasy and the ignoring of statistics. It is a faith-based dogma that claims to have the right scientific model to claim that it is a superior form of organizing humans. If there is a hell I hope Milton Friedman is rotting in it right now. There is no invisible hand and every pseudo-intellectual that was moved by ron paul and went on to learn everything they could about libertarianism obviously ignored the existence of chile, uruguay, brazil, argentina, indonesia, poland, russia, and china, which were among the many countries that have gotten to experiment with a pure form of capitalism(a lot less regulation than the US, which is the rightest-leaning 1st world country) that is supposed to balance everything out :rolleyes: .

Globalization should be a win win for everybody.

Rigged exchange rates however have allowed the USA in particular to leech off of the rest of the world and consume far far more than they produce. Any other country inflating their currency and borrowing money from abroad to finance government deficits and running obscene trade deficits for so long should have had it's currency steeply devalue.

The devaluation of the exchange rate would bring things back into balance, but the fucked up system post Bretton Woods has meant they've been able to get away with it in the short term and fuck themselves royally in the long term.

There's going to be a lot of pissed off countries when Trillions in US private and Public debt inevitably becomes worthless.

Sweet, guys, thanks, I tend to agree with just about everything you guys said. IMO, the WTO represents what is called the Washington plan--it is extremely biased towards existing prosperous markets (usually Western). For example, hypothetically, India's auto market is pathetically poor and there's no way they can compete with Japanese and American auto makers (and America can't even compete with Japan anymore). So, say India puts a tariff on all imported goods because they are trying to strengthen their local economy, as well as infrastructure (roads, services, education, etc.). Japan and America don't like that, and so they petition the WTO. The WTO or IMF places a mandate on India--an ultimatum, if you will. They say, "get rid of this tariff or we won't trade with you anymore/it will become impossible for you to survive in the world market." What a bunch of shit.

Usually what WILL happen is, for example, let's say India's chip company, India Chips Co., is doing well until American-based Frito-Lay comes along with better quality and lower prices. Obviously, India Chips can't compete with this. So Frito-Lay offers to buy up India Chips for a certain amount. If India Chips refuses, then Frito-Lay FLOODS their market with Frito-Lay, lowering the already-low price (supply/demand). India Chips slowly goes bankrupt and THEN Frito-Lay buys up India Chips at a much lower price than before.

Also, like the man above me said, countries will take out loans from the World Bank and the Bank will say, "you have x amount of time to pay this back with x amount of interest." These countries are mostly developing/third-world and third world countries are usually experiencing some tough times, run by irresponsible or corrupt leaders. The leaders of these countries will spend all of these loans on military expenses and whatnot while the rest of the people die from starvation. The World Bank then comes back and says "time to pay up." the country can't produce the money because of their markets which have been destroyed by huge western corporations. The government begins producing more money to pay the Bank and so there's massive inflation. These countries usually see a HUGE gap in rich and poor (usually with about 1-5% of the people owning about 80-90% of the country's wealth) and they can't come up with the money they owe the World Bank, especially with all this interest added on. Each year they can't pay, the Bank adds on more and more interest. It's a downward spiral. This is what destroyed Latin America in the '80s. Countries took out loans from the World Bank and weren't able to pay back the ridiculous interest rates the Bank demands and so sinks deeper and deeper into debt. They are eventually coerced (or forced) to sell off public services like water or healthcare to private corporations. This is called privatization. Now every time they want to get a checkup or even get a drink, they are forced to pay a large western corporation that owns their resources. Absolutely disgraceful.

I adopt an economic theory that is somewhere between anarchy and participatory economics with elements of socialism and captalism. Neo-classical economics is completely outdated, the GDP is not an accurate representation of a country's wealth, the world debt NEEDS to be cancelled, and evil institutions like the WTO (whose representatives aren't even elected by the American people--most Americans don't know about the WTO because their meetings are held in secret) and IMF should be abolished.

Usually what WILL happen is, for example, let's say India's chip company, India Chips Co., is doing well until American-based Frito-Lay comes along with better quality and lower prices. Obviously, India Chips can't compete with this. So Frito-Lay offers to buy up India Chips for a certain amount. If India Chips refuses, then Frito-Lay FLOODS their market with Frito-Lay, lowering the already-low price (supply/demand). India Chips slowly goes bankrupt and THEN Frito-Lay buys up India Chips at a much lower price than before.


This would be considered anticompetitive behavior in most countries and entities engaging in such behavior would quite likely get hauled up before the regulator and find themselves royally assfucked.

Of course we're talking about domestic markets there... there is no global competition regulator, there aren't effective means with which to deal with 'dumping' of products to destroy competitors when the context is world markets.
However anticompetitive behavior of one sort or another certainly isn't limited to companies based out of western countries, there's a little thing called OPEC after all...

They are not "forced," they are stipulations for loans. The countries don't have to get loans in the first place, but they know what the stipulations will be for continued loans.

given the US Policies of overthrowing governments that nationalize their oil or other industry or unionize, sending thugs in to kill them or place in a government that is friendly to corporate industry, yes they do FORCE nations to. If they don't do it their government gets overthrown.

I thing the Zeitgeist movie add-on mentions this in more detail.

Is it "fucked up?" Not really.

yes it is :P


That is very isolated, but I think overall globalization is a step towards peace, via international organizations, trade barriers, etc.

that was one example. I think there were more. Sticky power and whatnot does helps to stabilize but national leaders can still be tempted to tear it away due to divids.

There are now ways to punish rogue states and even illiberal states through trade and not just war/intervention.

That's fucked up given the hipocrisy of the US and whatnot in applying those laws to others and not themselves. See Iran and nukes vs Israel and nukes.

The more accountable states become to international organizations and international law, I believe the less rogue actions and wars we will see.

That is also true. Liberalism and whatnot.

Warsie covered the gist of it.

you don't know who I REALLY am do you ;)

If there is a hell I hope Milton Friedman is rotting in it right now.

damn that's mean. I don't agree with him completely but damn...

which were among the many countries that have gotten to experiment with a pure form of capitalism(a lot less regulation than the US, which is the rightest-leaning 1st world country) that is supposed to balance everything out :rolleyes: .

That is true, but they could use an argument and say China and the USSR are State Capitalist, and even after the collapse of the USSR that there was no 'free' market because the government and whatnot still was harassing things.


Rigged exchange rates however have allowed the USA in particular to leech off of the rest of the world and consume far far more than they produce.

IIRC they aren't rigged anymore as you said after Bretton Woods.

The devaluation of the exchange rate would bring things back into balance,

true, but it'd be very quick wouldn't it? And shaky for the whole world.

Yes there should be a reorganization of the economic system, starting with some policies done by the Federal Reserve and banks and credit cards..

There's going to be a lot of pissed off countries when Trillions in US private and Public debt inevitably becomes worthless.

the entire world would be pissed. Then again they're already pissed off at the US for its' hegemonic policies and whatnot, and its' manipulation of the economy.

Then again China isn't innocent of that either..

Sweet, guys, thanks, I tend to agree with just about everything you guys said.

cool :)

IMO, the WTO represents what is called the Washington plan--it is extremely biased towards existing prosperous markets (usually Western).

well yes it is. Hard to deny that.


These countries are mostly developing/third-world and third world countries are usually experiencing some tough times, run by irresponsible or corrupt leaders.

may I also remind everyone in this thread of the history of the US (and other western nations, the UK and France mainly I believe) to overthrow governments and replace them with those who would privatize everything? that happened to Mosadegh in Iran and a bunch of other people


and this link
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatreallyhappened.com%2FWRHARTIC LES%2Fusinterventionism.html%3Fq%3Dusinterventioni sm.html&ei=tdsgSYKdFoiCNcGd9d8J&usg=AFQjCNFCogI3J1mN7O2yRDNOFT4JdFOz0w&sig2=YWC2Pvmmg1bSBQde6JVULg

These countries usually see a HUGE gap in rich and poor (usually with about 1-5% of the people owning about 80-90% of the country's wealth)

that shit is happening in the US. the Wealth inequity is HORRIBLE

the GDP is not an accurate representation of a country's wealth,

I heard of that actually. People were saying use one of the other measurements as well as somethign else reflecting the health of a population, happiness, etc.

and evil institutions like the WTO (whose representatives aren't even elected by the American people--most Americans don't know about the WTO because their meetings are held in secret) and IMF should be abolished.

fuck yeah!

Actually the WTO, etc. meetings are well-known. At least anti-globalization organizations and whatnot spread the news. The Bilderberger meetings are more 'secret' and hidden. Only say, Alex Jones and some others report on them. They need a little Black Bloc 'love' :D

Do you remember the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999?

Warsie, I highly recommend a book titled "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. He claims to have worked for the NSA, selling Western pyramid schemes to the rest of the world that said "Look! See what amazing benefits you will reap once you open your markets to Western companies! Take out some big loans from the World Bank while you're at it too!" And if government leaders didn't buy that spiel, there is a group of men he calls "jackals", basically government-trained assassins and spies who will kill or overthrow the leader. Allende, Torrijos, and many others fell victim to that scheme. For example, the US has been keeping the repressive Saudi family in power for the past 50 or 60 years because they give us cheap oil at the expense of the Saudi Arabians' lives, freedoms, and finances. Or in the 1980s in Nicaragua, when the US sponsored the terrorist Contras. Or when Bush invaded Panama in 1989. These were all solely economic decisions.

Do you remember the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999?


Hell yeah! I was only 8 at the time. I'm 17 now. I would give anything in the world to have been there, smashing Starbucks windows and throwing back gas canisters at the riot police guarding their precious McDonalds stores and Niketown.

And yeah, the WTO at least TRIES to hold their meetings in secret, except after Seattle, the news spreads when people find out they're coming to their town. They used to be held in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO evolved from a treaty called The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) but turned into the WTO in 1995. A little US history for you there.

Warsie, I highly recommend a book titled "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. He claims to have worked for the NSA, selling Western pyramid schemes to the rest of the world that said "Look! See what amazing benefits you will reap once you open your markets to Western companies! Take out some big loans from the World Bank while you're at it too!" And if government leaders didn't buy that spiel, there is a group of men he calls "jackals", basically government-trained assassins and spies who will kill or overthrow the leader. Allende, Torrijos, and many others fell victim to that scheme. For example, the US has been keeping the repressive Saudi family in power for the past 50 or 60 years because they give us cheap oil at the expense of the Saudi Arabians' lives, freedoms, and finances. Or in the 1980s in Nicaragua, when the US sponsored the terrorist Contras. Or when Bush invaded Panama in 1989. These were all solely economic decisions.

that was referred to in the Zeitgeist add-on movie. THE SAME EXACT THING. They also mention how Chavez managed to avoid getting killed and actually stayed in power and opposed the neo-liberal BS the US Gov't and corporations has been doing

EDIT: also reminded me of the book "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler. He admits he was a "gangster for capitalism" and helped the "robber barons". He explained the corporate influence in WWI and how they made money off it. 2 decades before Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial Complex
Hell yeah! I was only 8 at the time. I'm 17 now.

same for me. turn 18 in November 20

I would give anything in the world to have been there, smashing Starbucks windows and throwing back gas canisters at the riot police guarding their precious McDonalds stores and Niketown.


ditto. not too sure regarding Starbucks but yeah. At least to witness it and all. I didn't hear about Starbucks until I was maybe 13 when I saw it in a suburban mall (I live in the south side of Chicago, real nigga :D)

Kind've like the 2001 and 2005 counter-inauguration. People protesting and rioting in the streets, the Internet Liberation Front hacking Republican sites, etc.

And yeah, the WTO at least TRIES to hold their meetings in secret, except after Seattle, the news spreads when people find out they're coming to their town. They used to be held in Geneva, Switzerland.

oh yeah. I remember some TOTSE threads form 2005 on anti-globalization protests in Switzerland. Apparently the police were pretty mean.


The WTO evolved from a treaty called The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) but turned into the WTO in 1995. A little US history for you there.

thanks for the info.

here's some International Relations info for you too!
http://www.peace.ca/glossaryoftermsforir.htm

They are not "forced," they are given stipulations for loans. The countries don't have to get loans in the first place, but they know what the stipulations will be for continued loans. Is it "fucked up?" Not really. Do they have an agenda? Of course.
.

Considering that Nelson Mandela, for example, is denied a loan for something that would be similar in structure to the Marshall Plan and instead is forced to whore out his country, and is forced to pay off all debts accumulated under apartheid, yes it is. Very fucked up.

The "ultimatums" usually include extreme measures, and are extremely hypocritical in not allowing the same level of social[ism] democracy that exists in european countries. It's debt slavery.

Ziga Vodovnik: From the 1980s onwards we are witnessing the process of economic globalization getting stronger day after day. Many on the Left are now caught between a "dilemma" - either to work to reinforce the sovereignty of nation-states as a defensive barrier against the control of foreign and global capital; or to strive towards a non-national alternative to the present form of globalization and that is equally global. What's your opinion about this?

Howard Zinn: I am an anarchist, and according to anarchist principles nation states become obstacles to a true humanistic globalization. In a certain sense the movement towards globalization where capitalists are trying to leap over nation state barriers, creates a kind of opportunity for movement to ignore national barriers, and to bring people together globally, across national lines in opposition to globalization of capital, to create globalization of people, opposed to traditional notion of globalization. In other words to use globalization - it is nothing wrong with idea of globalization - in a way that bypasses national boundaries and of course that there is not involved corporate control of the economic decisions that are made about people all over the world.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17625

Yeah, I've got nothing.

Considering that Nelson Mandela, for example, is denied a loan for something that would be similar in structure to the Marshall Plan and instead is forced to whore out his country, and is forced to pay off all debts accumulated under apartheid, yes it is. Very fucked up.

The "ultimatums" usually include extreme measures, and are extremely hypocritical in not allowing the same level of social[ism] democracy that exists in european countries. It's debt slavery.

The Marshall Plan did nothing but slow economic recovery. It simply stifled entrepreneurship and crowded out private investment.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1374

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102303f.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6138

Bailing countries out of paying debt is not a good idea. It promotes the idea that you can run up massive amounts of debt and possibly not pay it back. By requiring countries pay back their debt, we are reinforcing fiscal discipline. The proper road to economic growth is not huge government spending, it is allowing the poor to participate in capitalism (http://ild.org.pe/en/articles/hidden).

IIRC they aren't rigged anymore as you said after Bretton Woods.


Yeah, they are, much worse then Bretton Woods.
The way oil is priced for one thing, but there's almost certainly some concerted effort on the part of central banks holding dollars at the moment as well.

Look at exchange rates in the past year - it isn't just random walk unpredictability, there's something fucked there.

The Marshall Plan did nothing but slow economic recovery. It simply stifled entrepreneurship and crowded out private investment.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1374

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed102303f.cfm

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6138

Bailing countries out of paying debt is not a good idea. It promotes the idea that you can run up massive amounts of debt and possibly not pay it back. By requiring countries pay back their debt, we are reinforcing fiscal discipline. The proper road to economic growth is not huge government spending, it is allowing the poor to participate in capitalism (http://ild.org.pe/en/articles/hidden).

Austrian school, chicago school, and the heritage foundation always ignore context to shove down everyone's throats the notion that everything that can go wrong with the free market is the fault of the government. No marshal plan= spread of communism.

Also, the marshall plan was a better recovery plan than anything that's been attempted in other third world countries with economic instability. Give me a case study where the IMF and the World Bank's economic bullying has led to the same economic prosperity that exists in europe? Even the Asian tigers South Korea and Japan were allowed leniency with social programs. The same is not allowed of countries that come to the IMF for help.

Jefferey sachs for example, successfuly contained inflation in bolivia and poland, but also expanded the rich-poor gap and slashed a lot of beneficial social programs, enriching multinational corporations at the expense of the people.

Nelson Mandela's country failed because they were forced to pay back debt accumulated under apartheid, and economic sabotage by the whites transferring power. They even created a powerful central bank on their way out.