TALKBACK 2001: January-February

January 3/2001/POLITALK: Globalization day one

 To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:51:25 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Globalization: Day One

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion

so far. If you haven't introduced yourself yet, please do so and tell

us a little bit about your initial thoughts on globalization, or if

you would prefer, frame the question that most troubles you regarding

this issue.

* * * * * * * * *

I have posted a summary of the introductions from Day 1 along with

links to the original text in the Politalk archives at:

http://www.politalk.com/pages/%7Etopics/wto/participants.html

* * * * * * * * *

Here is my best interpretation of some of what participants had to say:

1) According to Mike Coburn, the US has the most to loose from "Free

Trade" because we are already financially responsible for securing

the existence of international markets and tariffs are our only means

of recouping our expenses.

2) Joel Johnson argued that it is trade that will bring peace and

stability to the world. He argues that International Corporations

have the power to raise wages and living standards in developing

nations and that we need more corporate involvement in developing

nations, not less.

3) While Lori Cannon has some concerns about Globalization, she sees

it as an unstoppable force that may have the power to curb the

current outbreak of ethnic wars. "I don't think globalization is

inherently negative. At any rate, it's a virtually unstoppable

process at this point; the best anyone can do is work to make sure it

produces more positives than negatives."

4) M Charles Swope asks some very important questions.

A) What does globalization mean for our

current political entities?

B) How are business entities that cross national

boundaries to be effectively regulated?

C) Will national governments become less relevant and be

superceded by supranational organizations?

5) Opiyo Makoude makes a specific point regarding the damage that has

been inflicted upon developing nations in the name of globalization.

At the same time, he cautions us to remember that "globalization is

both a process and a trend, perhaps it is flux of several processes

and trends, neither too good nor too bad in themselves. We can make

the processes and trends better or worse, as long as the will and

commitment prevails."

6) Javed Ahmad reminds of us the huge debt burden that many

developing nations are struggling to carry. He seems to ask, how

Globalization will deal with this issue?

7) Lucio Munoz reminds us that whether we are talking of local

development or global development, we must develop in a sustainable

fashion.

January 3/2001/POLITALK: Sovereignty

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:42:07 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Sovereignty

Let's go ahead an open up the discussion:

* * * * * * * * * * *

As I began to research this topic, it became clear to me that one of

the really sticky questions surrounding economic globalization is the

question of national sovereignty.

A byproduct of international treaties and organizations is some loss

of domestic control over environment and labor standards. I'm

wondering if this loss of local control is always negative, or if

some environmental and trade issues don't require

global/international solutions - even at the cost of local control.

Don't the rich or developed nations always have more to fear from a

loss of control than the poor or underdeveloped nations for whom

control is really an abstract theoretical issue anyway?

Can't the argument over national sovereignty be seen as an attempt by

the economically well off nations to protect and preserve the

privilege and economic wealth that they have already accumulated at

the expense of developing nations?

Any comments??

January 3/2001/POLITALK: Sovereignty issue, a different angle

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:54:41 +0100

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Sovereingty issue, a different angle

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

Lucio Munoz:

I've read your message a couple of times and I just don't understand

the cone analogy.

>>Dear Tom, once I made a comment in a worldbank discussion

>>previously linking the globalization process and what I call the

>>"CONE EFFECT of redistrubution

>>processes.

Let me try and repeat what I've understood and you can fill in the

blanks for correct what I'm misunderstanding.

If I understand you correctly, your cone is inverted (wide at the top

& narrow at the bottom), Elites are at the top, poor people at the

bottom.

The wide top represents the opportunity and benefits of being at the

top and lack of pressure. The narrow base of the cone has little

space for benefits and opportunity, but represents the pressure felt

by those at the bottom.

Once you bring "Sovereignty" into the story, I'm lost. I can't figure

out what your trying to say. I'm also not quite sure what you mean by

the top of the cone becoming less wide and the base more acute.

>>Under unchecked globalization, the top of the cone becomes less wide

 

>>Unless we find ways to use globalization forces to open up the base of the

>>cone to normalize the cone effect(ex. equality of benefits and costs and

>>redistributive mechanisms),

 

Any chance that you would be willing to clarify for me,

Sorry,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

--

January 5/2001/POLITALK: Day Two Summaries

To: Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:06:12 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Day Two (Summaries)

There was some positive feedback on my summary of Day One, so I'll

try to summarize some more. This summary is for the purpose of

discussion only and is based strictly on my own perception of what

the author of each post intended to say. Please let me know if I

misunderstood or misrepresented your comments.

The following summary is highly subjective and somewhat random.

Please refer back to the original posts. For an indexed listing of

posts, by author, see:

http://www.politalk.com/pages/%7Etopics/wto/participants.html

Please let me know (privately) if this is useful to you!

* * * * * * * Day Two - Wednesday (some of day one) * * * * * * * * *

Javed Ahmad described working conditions that he has witnessed in

Dhaka, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. He gave a mixed review of both

positive and negative side effects of the industrialization taking

place there. He also suggests that in some cases he felt that

international trade had a positive effect on the working conditions

in the factories. In the end, he seems undecided and asks, "Now what

are you going to suggest? Globalization or no globalization???"

Lucio Munoz replies by agreeing that there may be pros and cons to

globalization, but that the cons by far win the day. He seems to

believe that developing nations are under too much economic pressure

to stand up to abusive international corporations looking for a place

to exploit workers and the environment. For him the question is not

whether or not globalization will happen, but how to "lame the bull"

and make sure that international corporations are held to some

responsible standards regardless of where they locate in the world.

Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr. also seems to reject the choice of

globalization or not. He seems to accept that the development that

comes with international trade is better than no development at all.

The problem is that governments are not adequately protecting their

workers (which is their job), because they are held hostage by the

corporations. He seems to see some hope in "a movement in the world

toward holding governments and corporations to a higher moral

standard than has been done in the past."

Arthur Noot goes further than anyone else in pointing out that our

current stage of international trade, may very well be the precursor

to some form of world government. He doesn't appear to be threatened

by this prospect. He seems to view globalization as unstoppable and

potentially a very good thing. He does express strong concerns about

the concentration of power in a few hands and in particular the

concentration and power of the media.

Lorna Salzman describes herself as a "Shameless Agitator for the

planet." She goes on to say, "Ecology and environment are the most

consistent, powerful and impartial foundations for social and

political change and should be the core organizing principles in any

movement for social change." She wholeheartedly, dismisses

technology, markets, capitalism, "free trade" and globalization as

solutions. In my opinion, Lorna puts forward the strongest

"Environmental" attack on globalization that we have seen in this

discussion so far.

Marc Pilisuk introduces himself and appears to observe that there is

something structural in international trade that REQUIRES a widening

of the income gap, between rich and poor. While he recognizes the

human potential for greed and violence, he also sees hope in our

capacity to care for each other and the environment.

Vici Oshiro says of the the capitalist economic system. "It has great strengths

and great weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is its tendency to

concentrate wealth instead of distributing it broadly. So how to we

modify global capitalism to overcome this weakness?"

Paul J. Lareau describes himself as a former "Free Trader" who has

moved in the other direction. His primary concern is the power that

globalization seems to invest in corporations with no accountability

for their actions. He also appears concerned about the inherent

inequalities in free trade and wonders who will take responsibility

for the losers.

Thomas Day, a direct quote: "I suspect I have, at least, a pair of

biases; 1) globalization is allowing companies (and executives) to

escape responsibility for the harm they do to individuals, cultures,

and the environment and 2) globalization is reducing the always slim

loyalty between corporation executives and their "home" country.

January 6/2001/POLITALK: Ugly is not always bad

Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:20:48 -0800

From: Mike Coburn <t>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Fw: Ugly is not always bad

Lucio Munoz wrote:

> I am sending this message again as I am not sure if it go delivered

> yesterday,

> greetings. Lucio

>

> ..........

> Dear Friends, Very interesting comments by Mr. Hogan and Mr. Coburn.

>

> I got the perception from what I read that the WTO thinks that educating the

> countries under its feet will make them less itchy and reduce the risk of

> confrontation. In my opinion, the issue is not just knowing your rights,

> but also of how to effectively implement those rights. Also the other issue

> is that developing countries have no say on how those rights and

> obligations

> are created in the first place as they are not active members, or am I

> mistaken?.

I believe this to be the real crux of the issue: I certainly do not know what

the WTO is as regards where it gets any _power_ to do anything. How did any

country get to be "under its feet". Did the WTO invade the country and unseat

the current government? If the "developing countries" are not "active members"

then why wouldn't the "developing countries" tell the WTO to stick it? I don't

understand why the USA doesn't tell em to stick it. Seems to me that it is all

simply elitist, nobility bullshit.

> However, I think the move to get educated in those issues in the long-term

> may

> turn out to be good for

> developing countries as it may plant the seeds for the creation of an

> OMBUSMAN INSTITUTION later on and may provide the link to the international

> court/world court, which would help with rights enforcements in an unbiased

> and fair manner.

OK, I'll bite... What is an "OMBUSHMAN INSTITUTION" in twenty five words or

less and no URL pointing allowed.

>

> The world social organization(WSO) and the world environmental

> organization(WEO)

> are just some year away anyway I think; and they also can

> be brought later on under the ombusman institution and the

> international/world court so that they can influece directly WTO behaviour

> or they can intervine at the Ombudsman's level or the world court level.

Gee, this is great... We can just pull bullshit organizations out of our

various orifices and wave them around like so many protest signs. Why would

you think such silliness will accomplish anything?

>

> Two issues I see: The issue with OMBUSMAN INSTITUTIONS is that their

> decision are non-binding which encourages harrassing behavior from those on

> dominants positions as they have the time and money to appeal if needed.

I'm becoming nauseous...

>

> The other issue I see given the concentration of power of enviornmental

> organization in a relatively short span of time is that the WEO may come

> first, and a WIN-WIN WTO-WEO situation may be the biggest barrier to the

> arrival of the WSO; and therefore, it may be the biggest barrier to

> achieving global social accountability. In a micro-cosmo you can compare

> this with today's eco-economic partnerships.

One more left handed acronym and I _will_ puke.

Mike Coburn

January 7/2001/POLITALK: Politalk Discussion

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 01:48:21 +0100

To: Mike Coburn <>

From: Tim Erickson <tim@politalk.com>

Subject: Politalk Discussion

Mike:

I would like to thank you for joining our Politalk discussion. The

purpose of Politalk is to provide a forum for people with differing

points of view to engage in civil and respectful dialogue with one

another.

While I very much appreciate the fact that you are willing to put

your ideas forward in our forum, I must ask that you maintain a

respectful and tolerant attitude with others in this forum who may

disagree with you.

Please feel free to state your disagreement with others, offer

alternative theories, or ask for further clarification. But please,

do not call names, make statements which characterize the motives of

other participants, use unnecessary foul language, or use

deliberately snide remarks to belittle other participants.

For example:

> We can just pull bullshit organizations out of our

> various orifices and wave them around like so many protest signs.

> Why would you think such silliness will accomplish anything?

> I'm becoming nauseous...

> One more left handed acronym and I _will_ puke.

The following was an appropriate request, but unnecessarily

aggressive given the context of the other comments.

> OK, I'll bite... What is an "OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION"

> in twenty five words or less and no URL pointing allowed.

I can assure you, that this kind of post, simply damages the

credibility of your message and accomplishes very little.

A failure to follow the rules and guidelines of this forum can result

in the loss of posting privileges and/or a ban from all future

participation.

I understand that this is a very serious and emotional issue.

Sometimes, when I respond to an issue that I feel very strongly

about, I find it wise to hold my message for an hour or two and

reread it before hitting the send button. This has prevented me from

sending messages that I might have later regretted.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the rules or

guidelines for this forum, please contact me Privately!

I hope that you will continue to participate in our forum with a

civil and respectful tone,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

January 7/2001/POLITALK: Please continue to participate

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 01:56:19 +0100

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Subject: Please continue to participate.

At 8:42 PM -0800 1/6/01, Lucio Munoz wrote:

>My apologies to others but I thought I joined an open and responsible

>discussion, and I would like to continue to believe so.

>However, perhaps this will be my last posting.

Lucio Munoz:

I apologize to you if you feel that you have been personally attacked

for your participation in this group. It is my goal to keep this an

open, responsible, and safe environment to discuss controversial

issues.

I very much value your participation and hope that you will continue.

I will take whatever steps necessary to keep the discussion both open

and responsible. However, in my effort to keep it open, I cannot

assure you that no one will write inappropriate or insulting posts.

However, if they continue to do so, they will be removed from the

group.

If you have any additional difficulties with other participants,

please direct them to me privately. I prefer that we keep personal

matters such as this off-line.

Thanks again for your very thoughtful posts,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

--

January 7/2001/POLITALK: Politalk discussion

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:10:49 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Politalk Business

As we enter the second week of our discussion on "Economic

Globalization," I would like to remind you of a couple of rules

and/or guidelines.

1) Participants are asked (but not required) to restrict themselves

to 1-2 posts per day. On the other hand, this group is intended for a

broad based discussion with as many participants as possible. If you

have not yet posted, please briefly introduce yourself and summarize

your own views on Economic Globalization. We would like to hear from

everyone, not just the "experts."

2) Participants must remain respectful of other participants and

refrain from statements which insult, offend, belittle, or

characterize the motives of other participants.

3) Please direct comments regarding uncivil or disrespectful behavior

to me directly at tim@politalk.com. I prefer to keep these manners

off-line to save bandwidth for selected topic.

3) Participants who are unable to participate in a respectful and

civil manner will be removed from the group!

Thanks for your participation,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

January 7/2001/POLITALK: Ugly is not always bad

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:17:25 +0100

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Subject: Re: Fw: [Pol-US1] Fw: Ugly is not always bad

> I am sending this message again as I am not sure if it go delivered

> yesterday,

> greetings. Lucio

Lucio:

This message did get posted, it has now been posted twice. If you are

ever uncertain about whether or not your post got through, please

contact me. If necessary, I can resubmit your post directly.

Thanks for your participation,

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

January 7/2001/POLITALK: Mr. Ahiakpor's introduction

To: Politalk-MN1 <politalk-mn1@egroups.com>, Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "James C.W. Ahiakpor" <info@politalk.com>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:22:16 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Introduction

I'm sorry I'm entering the discussion this late, but with school

reopened on Tuesday, January 2, getting my courses going left me

little time to read and respond to the contributions any sooner.

Originally from Ghana, West Africa, I have been an economics

professor in North America since 1981, ten years in Halifax, N.S.,

Canada and nine years in Hayward, California. International economic

development is one of my fields of teaching and research interests,

and among my publications relevant to the issues of globalization, I

think, are: "Multinationals and Economic Development: An Integration

of Competing Theories" (Routledge, 1990), "Do Firms Choose

Inappropriate Technology in LDCs?" (Economic Development and Cultural

Change, 1989), "The Profits of Foreign Firms in a Less Developed

Country: Ghana" (Journal of Development Economics, 1986), and

"Multinational Corporations in the Third World: Predators or Allies

in Economic Development?" (Religion and Liberty, 1992).

I think Paul Brenton very much has provided comments along the lines

I would have. May I add a few others that may help address some of

the concerns contributors have expressed regarding globalization.

The first is that an economy experiences change, whether it is open

to international exchange or not. A change in the taste and

preferences of consumers for products, the discovery of new methods

of production (technological change), or the introduction of new

products will all cause pain for people employed in industries whose

products lose demand. Some of these changes may arise from

globalization or the exposure of domestic producers to international

competitors. The temptation is for some people to call for forms of

pain relief to those who hurt from the change, perhaps forgetting

that the success of such a change is a reflection of benefits

perceived by many consumers in the economy. Paul Brenton alludes to

a subsidy for the hurting industry, but correctly notes that the

affected industries may thus not adjust quickly. What needs to be

added is that the subsidies, funded by taxes imposed by the

government, constitute capital that otherwise could have been used

for the production of goods and services in demand in the economy.

Perhaps recommending job-relocation insurance schemes may be a less

economically damaging alternative.

My second point is that far too many of those who are opposed to or

have reservations about globalization appear to have a dim view of

the purposiveness (rational behavior) of ordinary consumers as well

as producers. People enter into economic exchange for the benefits

they expect from them, whether they are buying from or selling to

foreigners. Any form of governmental restrictions -- tariffs or

quotas -- on such exchanges thus must constitute an attempt to

frustrate the attainment of the expected benefits by participants in

the transactions. It seems to me that, were those inclined to resist

globalization cognizant of this implication, they would be less

inclined to do so. Along the same lines, one may rephrase Mr.

Erickson's description of American firms going to "take advantage" of

workers in Mexico as such firms offering Mexican workers

opportunities for jobs, typically at higher wages than available to

them elsewhere. Why else would the workers be willing to be hired by

the "Gringos"? Similarly, one may perceive such IMF

"conditionalities" as deregulating financial markets and freeing the

market for foreign exchange transactions as encouraging governments

to allow their citizens the freedom to seek the best economic

bargains in those markets. Such a perception might lead Opiyo

Makoude to view the IMF as working on behalf of the people who

hitherto had been frustrated their own government with restrictions,

rather than against them.

My third point is that environmental degradation or pollution is a

problem of ill-defined or unenforced private property rights. The

reason many people in the more developed countries do not let their

dogs leave visible waste matter on other people's lawns is that they

would be sued for damages if caught. Thus, it is the duty of

sovereign governments, including those in the less developed

countries (LDCs), to define and enforce property rights. Of course,

some LDC governments may well recognize that insisting on the same

environmental standards as currently obtaining in the more developed

countries (MDCs), which are higher than the standards in those

countries when they were much poorer, may not be a feasible policy to

adopt. People in the MDCs should then respect such choices by LDC

governments rather than keep insisting that everybody live under the

same "minimum standards," as Ms. Vici Oshino suggests.

In the interest of brevity, I end my comments for now. Thanks for

the invitation to participate.

--

James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Economics

California State University

January 8/2001/POLITALK: So where are your ideas Mr. Coburn?

Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:41:32 -0800

From: Mike Coburn <>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] So where are your ideas Mr. Coburn?

Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Dear Mr. Coburn, so far with all my respect you have been just criticizing

> the ideas of others.

> Just criticizing is not enough. If I do not agree with something, I usually

> say why and offer an alternative scenario of my own. Otherwise, I do not

> talk. See my postings, and if I bite I bite with academic teeth or common

> sense, but I do not bite at random.

>

> With respect to my posting, I will clarify for you everything, hopefully

> then you will either take away or add to my posting:

>

> a) Ombudsman Institution refers to " a monitoring agency which could be

> internal or external or could be independent or not. In this case an

> independent external institution would be desirable;

To all persons reading this list: I am NOT going to apologize for attempting

to move the discussion towards something of substance. I have seen _nothing_

that anyone has posted that answers the basic questions about how _any_ of the

known entities or the proposed entities are to be empowered or controlled. Why

do you, Lucio Munoz, believe that we need _more_ academic know it alls than we

already have? More importantly, why do you see this as a solution to the

problem instead of the water muddying mess that it seems to me? My ideas are

very simple: You must control your own government and I must control mine. I

admit that I am doing a very poor job of controlling mine at present, but for

me to control my own government seems the correct approach. I can't even

imagine what the WTO, or these other organizations think they could possibly do

to harm the United States at this point if "we the people" actually controlled

the US government.

>

> b) I believe more global institutions will come representing the environment

> and society to neutralize the economic based institutions, for convinience I

> called them that way, they can be call differently if you would like. This

> institutional evolution is under way through various forms of parnerships.

But where will they get any real power? Again, the only real power is vested

in sovereignty that actually does represent the will of the people of that

sovereignty. My ideas stop at the border and I am of the opinion that you and

everyone else should stay out of my life and I'll stay out of yours. You do

not need to

let multinational corporations rape your nation. Why do you allow it? It

seems to me that you are trying to go _around_ your own government. You need

to fix YOUR government instead of attempting to control mine.

> b) And finally, there is nothing leftist in my postings, it is simply

> SUSTAINABILITY THEORY A LA MUNOZ please visit my website if you would like

> to completely get sick.

Nothing wrong with sustainable resource harvest. I'm all for it. I'm all for

a tax of about $5 a gallon on gasoline and diesel and airline fuels in the USA

or even more. I'm all for not cutting any more rain forests or old growth

forests and all of that. But I can't take over the government of your country

and appealing to yet another advisory board is not going to do any of us any

good. It is _YOUR_ government, and YOU have to fix it just as I have to fix

mine.

>

> My apologies to others but I thought I joined an open and responsible

> discussion, and I would like to continue to believe so.

> However, perhaps this will be my last posting.

>

> My warm greetings to all;

> Sincerely;

> Lucio Munoz

> Vancouver, Canada

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

>

I have NEVER been one for patience or diplomacy. You have asked me for my

ideas and I do not know how I can possibly be any more straight forward than I

have been. My ideas are simply that the IMF, the WTO, and all the rest of

these supposedly smarter than I am organizations can go to blazes. Each nation

state is a nation state because the people of that nation state have agreed to

a certain morality on which to base their laws. I am not to mess with that and

whether I do it through some high minded global committee or not is

irrelevant. The presentation of ideas and ideals is one thing and the wielding

of power is another. So I have ventured to ask in my own inflammatory and

caustic fashion how it is that all of these think tanks (WTO, IMF, World Bank)

can be controlled so as to do the real producing people any good, and what

I get is a proposal for more think tanks. The answer seems to be that there

actually is no way to control such organizations. These organizations will

continue to be funded by the corporations and the bankers so as to thwart the

will of the producing people of the world. And since that is the case then

they are worse than useless. More of them is not a very good answer. Less of

them and totally ignoring those that might exist would seem to be a better

thing to do.

Mike Coburn

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Mike Coburn" <>

> To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 6:20 PM

> Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Fw: Ugly is not always bad

>

> > Lucio Munoz wrote:

> >

> > > I am sending this message again as I am not sure if it go delivered

> > > yesterday,

> > > greetings. Lucio

> > >

> > > ..........

> > > Dear Friends, Very interesting comments by Mr. Hogan and Mr. Coburn.

> > >

> > > I got the perception from what I read that the WTO thinks that educating

> the

> > > countries under its feet will make them less itchy and reduce the risk

> of

> > > confrontation. In my opinion, the issue is not just knowing your

> rights,

> > > but also of how to effectively implement those rights. Also the other

> issue

> > > is that developing countries have no say on how those rights and

> > > obligations

> > > are created in the first place as they are not active members, or am I

> > > mistaken?.

> >

> > I believe this to be the real crux of the issue: I certainly do not know

> what

> > the WTO is as regards where it gets any _power_ to do anything. How did

> any

> > country get to be "under its feet". Did the WTO invade the country and

> unseat

> > the current government? If the "developing countries" are not "active

> members"

> > then why wouldn't the "developing countries" tell the WTO to stick it? I

> don't

> > understand why the USA doesn't tell em to stick it. Seems to me that it

> is all

> > simply elitist, nobility bullshit.

> >

> > > However, I think the move to get educated in those issues in the

> long-term

> > > may

> > > turn out to be good for

> > > developing countries as it may plant the seeds for the creation of an

> > > OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION later on and may provide the link to the

> international

> > > court/world court, which would help with rights enforcements in an

> unbiased

> > > and fair manner.

> >

> > OK, I'll bite... What is an "OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION" in twenty five words

> or

> > less and no URL pointing allowed.

> >

> > >

> > > The world social organization(WSO) and the world environmental

> > > organization(WEO)

> > > are just some year away anyway I think; and they also can

> > > be brought later on under the ombusman institution and the

> > > international/world court so that they can influece directly WTO

> behaviour

> > > or they can intervine at the Ombudsman's level or the world court level.

> >

> > Gee, this is great... We can just pull bullshit organizations out of our

> > various orifices and wave them around like so many protest signs. Why

> would

> > you think such silliness will accomplish anything?

> >

> > >

> > > Two issues I see: The issue with OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS is that their

> > > decision are non-binding which encourages harrassing behavior from

> those on

> > > dominants positions as they have the time and money to appeal if needed.

> >

> > I'm becoming nauseous...

> >

> > >

> > > The other issue I see given the concentration of power of enviornmental

> > > organization in a relatively short span of time is that the WEO may

> come

> > > first, and a WIN-WIN WTO-WEO situation may be the biggest barrier to

> the

> > > arrival of the WSO; and therefore, it may be the biggest barrier to

> > > achieving global social accountability. In a micro-cosmo you can

> compare

> > > this with today's eco-economic partnerships.

> >

> > One more left handed acronym and I _will_ puke.

> >

> > Mike Coburn

January 8/2001/POLITALK: Adjustment and specialization

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sender: info@politalk.com

From: Mike Coburn <>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:19:44 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Re: Adjustment & Specialization

"Paul J. Lareau (by way of Politalk)" wrote:

> Paul Brenton noted:

>

> > During this process [of specialization due to globalization] some

> > groups in society will be made worse off - the costs of adjustment

> > will be determined by how long it takes for displaced workers to find

> > similar jobs elsewhere or to retrain and acquire new skills that are

> > required by the industries in which the domestic economy increasingly

> > specialises...

>

> > However, not many would

> > advocate constraining technological progress - but would support some

> > form of assistance to those who have been adversely affected by the

> > introduction of new technologies.

>

> It is fine to say that this occurs, but we are not talking about

> generic "groups" who will ultimately adjust and become better off

> than they were before. We have to constantly remember that we are

> speaking about individual human beings, and that the improvement

> about which we speak will not occur in their lifetime. It may well

> benefit their children or grandchildren, though even that has to be

> taken by them with more than a grain of salt. From their point of

> view, the companies have effectively ended their lives, especially

> those who are older, less educated, and have nontransferable skills.

> They may scrape by taking minimum wage service jobs, if they're

> lucky, or they must depend on the state for their survival.

I have been accused of not offering solutions. My solution to this

problem is called LVR, asset taxation, and a huge transportation

fuels tax. And some VERY SMALL import duties and no more

immigration. LVR is Land VAlue Redistribution and it is the

confiscation of 80% to 90% of land rent and the egalitarian

redistribution of the proceeds. Land was not created by and is not

the fruit of any man's labor and cannot be morally owned. Land value

arises from nature and from actions of the community and not from

actions of any owner. Such redistribution is not economically

distorting and we will have achieved a guaranteed minimum income

through such redistribution. The government is to be split into two

separately accountable entities of left and right. The right side of

government is defense, law enforcement and physical infrastructure

and this right side of government is to be supported by a 2%

(probably less) tax on asset values.

see http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2578/

The left hand of government is education and social insurance and

this is to be supported by excise taxes and primarily a very large

excise tax on transportation fuels. There will be no more income of

FICA (wage) taxes.

And that is what needs to be done in the Unites States of America and

the borders will be sealed and the people in other countries can fix

what is wrong with their governments too. We can trade with anyone

who wants to trade. Why do we need the IMF, the WTO, or the World

Bank? We reserve the right to tax imports to pay for the worldwide

police force, but that is not really necessary. If asset taxes are

the only way that the military can be supported then we will see the

demise of the military and that will be the end of it. I have no

desire to be the world's police department.

>

> This is even more painfully true where the company that provided the

> raison d'etre of a locality. The occupationally dispossessed living

> there are also faced with the inability to move, as there is nobody

> to buy the house that may well be their only major asset, and the

> ability to find any kind of even minimum wage work in a town with

> 30-40% unemployment is hopeless.

>

> No, most people would not advocate constraining progress, and it

> would be futile even if they did. Globalization will occur, no

> matter who opposes it. There are too many profits to be made by very

> powerful people.

No problem. Just send money to pay for all those aircraft carriers

and subs and missiles and bombs and stuff. It's ok , we will just

tax the goods as they come into the country and use that to pay for

all the hardware and personnel, or, even better, we'll quit being the

world's policeman and let the other nations just go ahead an

nationalize the smart ass corporations that moved their headquarters

to some other country.

>

> Paul correctly notes that "...the economy as a whole benefits from

> trade and specialisation and thus these gains can be preserved whilst

> public policy intervention can target funds to compensate those who

> lose and to help them adjust to the new economic environment." It is

> my belief, though, that we are living during a quarter decade in

> which the majority of Americans do *not* support forms of assistance

> for these people, at least none that would impact their pocketbooks.

> We see welfare limitations springing up everywhere, even in formerly

> humanitarian Minnesota. "Leave it to the Churches, or to family

> members," is the cry from the Americans most benefiting from the

> global economy, unless, of course, it is their parents who are

> affected!

>

> What is truly sad is that we are unwilling to charge the companies

> and those who profit the most from global trade for the trail of

> ruined lives they leave behind when they depart seeking higher

> profits. We need to seriously consider mandating a reasonable

> pension for all workers so affected (depending on length of service,

> not age), along with a cash settlement with the government to be

> placed in trust to assist in resettlement/retraining. In order to

> provide teeth to such a plan, the payment of such expenses could be

> assessed as a condition of the company continuing to do business in

> the USA or in the state.

>

> --

> Paul J. Lareau

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You need to seriously consider taxing land and assets instead of

taxing income. That solves the real problem instead of the apparent

problem(s).

Mike Coburn

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

January 8/2001/POLITALK: RE: Introduction

To: Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

Sender: info@politalk.com

From: Victoria Oshiro <info@politalk.com>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:38:44 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Re: Introduction

The justaposition of posts from Paul Lareau and from James Ahiakpor

highlights an obvious point which we frequently talk around but fail

to face directly.

Economics is about allocating resources for the efficient production

of goods and services.

But society is about organizing ourselves and allocating resources

for the benefit of people - frequently one person at a time. And an

economy operates within a society. Our questions are not so much

pure economics as the extent to which the efficient production of

goods and services should be modified to serve non-economic ends.

Maximizing efficiency may not serve the goals desired by society.

Failure to recognize this point can frustrate both the economists and

non-economists among us. The economists give us the economic facts

and the non-economists suggest goals that go beyond economics.

Vici Oshiro

Burnsville, MN

January 9/2001/POLITALK: No need to apologise

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "sandra" <>

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:57:41 -0500

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] No need to apologise

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

<...>

> Dear Mr. Coburn, let's assume that there are only two countries in the

> world, the United States and Canada. The United States is under your

> control and Canada is under my control, and so we are all the world. No

How would your illustration look like if the only two countries in the world

were the US and Bolivia? I'd really like to see one.

 

> WTOs, and therefore no need for neutralizing forces such as WEO and the

WSO,

> and therefore no law of action and reaction. You do not want Canadians at

> the border, and I do not want Americans at the border. You do what you

> want, I do what I want. Nothing I do affects you, and nothing you do

> affects me. No need for global police as you mind your internal business

> and I mind mine. Does not this implies, no trade, no interdepence, and

> therefore, perfect selfsuficiency and isolation and totally closed

systems?.

> This means no changes for globalization and no changes for combining our

> gene pool to perhaps produce something better. Is that the type of world

> you really want for you and your kids?. While I respect your choices, I

> would not like to live in such a closed world. I agree, so far as humans

we

While most of us would probably agree about interaction, trade and openness

between the two countries, you have to make a distinction between the

interaction where both sides (the US *and* Bolivia) are benefiting from it,

and the interaction which hurts one, and benefits the other.

The starting points for the two sides are quite unequal (and not because

Americans have been smarter than Bolivians through the last few centuries),

and the *existing* rules (IMF, WB, WTO) are just ensuring the preservation

of this inequality. The 'trickle down' effect is something I get so mad

about, whenever it's mentioned, because it's very easy to find out that the

wealth (in already poor countries) goes to very few hands, while the huge

majority of people get poorer and poorer. I've recently read that Bolivia,

as one of the 'richest' (in natural resources) countries in the world, has

the standard of living below Ethiopia's. Even if this was an exaggeration,

I'm sure it's not too far from the truth.

I think it was Kike Roach that once said something like: "If you had this

law that allowed you to take my coat, and my father's coat, and my

grandfather's coat, and now you change that law and tell me we're equal -

how can we be equal when you still have all our coats, and my family is

freezing to death?". I most probably dramatized it a bit, but you get the

idea.

> have failed to account for all economic, social, and environmental issues

at

> the same time since the biginning of humanity due natural and/or

artificial

> competition, and that is why in my opinion we are into this environmental

> and social mess right now. But this does not mean to me that we have to

go

> back to our old caves. We have to evolve as well as our institutions

toward

> sustainability it is our destiny or else we may all perish.

I don't see anything natural or competitive in the history of conquest and

colonization. I see cruelty and ignorance on one side, and suffering on the

other.

Ask Mexicans why we're in this mess and they might give you quite a

different picture: because of the mass migration of North American dirty

industry to their country, where labour rights and environmental protection

are virtually non-existent. Try reading 'Desert Capitalism' by Kathryn

Kopinak.It might tell you lot about the greatness of interaction, openness

and inter-dependence of the North America and Mexico.

 

Sandra

January 10/2001/POLITALK: Accountability and the Manna Economy

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "James C.W. Ahiakpor" <>(by way of Tim\ Erickson)

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:04:42 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] ACCOUNTABILITY AND MANNA ECONOMY

I would like to respond to Mr. Erickson's questions on

accountability. My straight answer is that we don't need a

"democratic political institution" to supervise any free trade

arrangement. Sometimes a dictator who well understands the

principles of economic liberty may do better for the economy (and

society, for that matter) than an institution established in a

democracy. The relevant principle is that people on their own pursue

their self-interest when they engage in exchange with others --

economic or otherwise. Short of providing the means to redress

occasions of fraud, the government should leave people alone to

pursue their own interests.

Indeed, when one takes the time to ponder it, it is hard to disagree

with Adam Smith when he wrote in the Wealth of Nations that "The

statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner

they ought to employ their capital, would not only load himself with

a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could

safely be entrusted, not only to no single person but to no council

or senate whatever, and which would no-where be so dangerous as in

the hands of a man [or woman] who had folly and presumption enough to

fancy himself [or herself] fit to exercise it." Who has the

requisite knowledge about people's preferences (and abilities) on a

daily basis to be managing their lives with rules and designs rather

than simply assuring that people pursue their own preferences in

peace or liberty?

Democracy is the process by which we select those who rule or make

laws for us. In a democracy it is quite possible, and often does,

for the majority to enact laws to confiscate the proceeds of others

labors or frustrate those who are more endowed in resources or

talents from employing them to their best advantage. Such inimical

laws as rent control, minimum age, exchange controls, and protective

tariffs or quotas are often enacted in democracies because they

appear to suit the political taste of the electorate (majority). But

they surely hinder economic progress -- production of more goods and

services that would satisfy the wants of more people. The appetite

that these laws satisfy is the appearance of hindering some from

making more economic gain than others -- the proverbial gap between

rich and poor.

Some quick examples may suffice to illustrate the point. Until the

1980s the world's largest democracy, India, was mired in inimical

economic laws that retarded its economic progress. And until Hong

Kong was turned over to China, it was not a democracy, but a colony

of Britain -- ruled by a governor. I don't think consultation with

locals is the same thing as democratic election of one's rulers. And

Hong Kong's economy prospered because of its pursuit of economic

liberty. On the other hand, China is not a democracy, but since Deng

Xiaoping's economic reforms since 1976 -- allowing greater economic

liberty for the people -- that economy has experienced one of the

fastest real growth rates in the world. And it shows in the lives of

the people, compared with what they looked like under Mao's

dictatorship -- economic and political.

Are such institutions as WTO and GATT or arrangements as NAFTA or

European Union necessary or helpful? If these enable more

governments to reduce trade restrictions among their members, then

their existence encourages greater well-being than otherwise. Thus,

without NAFTA, buyers of textiles and shoes in America would have

been held hostage to American producers of those goods who would

charge them higher prices. Reducing or eliminating tariffs on these

goods between the US and Mexico means that people in America can buy

from a cheaper source, if Mexicans happen to produce those goods more

cheaply. (And what the Americans save on the cost of textiles or

shoes they can save and invest or buy some other commodities as

well.) Meanwhile, the Mexican producers get to sell their wares at a

higher price than otherwise.

I don't know what those who want to attend the meetings of WTO and

other organizations want to know. I think international

organizations should be applauded when they act to lower or remove

trade restrictions, and rebuked when they act to restrict the freedom

of trade. So I don't think being open to "more public oversight" is

what is needed. Some of those I heard demonstrating against the WTO

meeting Seattle simply were against the freedom of international

trade, period. Letting them into the meetings would have produced no

good for humankind, I believe.

On Tom Cordaro's reference to a manna economy, I would like to point

out that the principle is irrelevant to any real economy. Their was

no production going on. Manna simply fell from heaven. Were people

to have employed their resources, land, labor, capital, and

entrepreneurship to produce goods and services to be consumed, we

would first find that different people would generate different

outputs. Short of charitableness on their part, those who produce

more would not be content simply to hand over some of their output

to those who produce less than themselves. The equivalent of a manna

economy is being invited to a party. Common etiquette requires that

one take only what one "needs" at the party. In real life or

non-party environment, we all have to work for what we consume, short

of the charity of friends and family. This is what the biblical

injunction of charity is about.

And, yes, it is hardly useful to characterize some people as having

"too much" wealth. Such characterization invites the urge to

confiscate the "excess" and give to those who have "too little."

Most wealth is accumulated as a result of serving the needs of people

in the marketplace. That's how Bill Gates, for example, got to be a

billionaire. It is quite immoral, I find, to turn around and seek

confiscation of the rewards to those whose provision of goods and

services in the marketplace has produced the accumulated income

(savings) we call wealth. And remember the 10th commandment: Thou

shalt not covet their neighbor's property.

James Ahiakpor

--

James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Economics

California State University

January 10/2001/POLITALK: Regulation

To: Politalk-US1@egroups.com

From: mckeever <>

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:59:34 +0000

Subject: [Pol-US1] Regulation

Dr. James C.W. Ahiakpor in a recent post repeats some of the neoliberal

mantra to suggest that regulation is not required since self interest will

balance out competing interests.

This mantra is composed of several items of fuzzy thinking, among them: it

is not possible to have regulation in a democracy.

If a democracy is a form of representative government in which the will of

the people is expressed, then it is surely possible for the people to

express their will that a regulation be imposed on conduct the people deem

reprehensible.

For example, in most places it is a criminal offense to dump toxic waste

into a communities water supply; in those places where it is not

specifically forbidden by law, no one can imagine anyone doing such a cruel

thing.

I invite serious students of this issue to peruse the archives of a list I

moderate on corporate ethics; the reference is corp-ethics at www.egroups.com

These archives contain references to and abstracts of serious studies of

corporate behavior and studies of regulation.

Cheers,

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr.

Economics Instructor, Vista Community College, Berkeley, CA

January 10/2001/POLITALK: RE: Accountability question

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Paul Brenton <info@politalk.com>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:54:45 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] RE: Accountability Question

Dear Tim

This to me is a very important and crucial issue since it is

essentially the political framework which dictates the environment in

which economic activity and globalisation takes place. With regard

to trade agreements and the WTO there is a perception that these are

undemocratic. The main problem for the WTO now is how to ensure

effective representation of the interests of all of the country

members, and in particular small countries and the developing

countries. Under the GATT, agreements were essentially formulated via

back-room discussions between the main industrial countries with

large developing countries often being invited to participate.

However, under this system all members could decide whether to adopt

agreements on particular issues (codes) or not. The main feature of

the WTO is that it is a single (all or nothing) undertaking. Thus,

there is now a need for all member countries to be involved in

negotiations. With over 130 members this is a difficult task. A key

element of this is to increase internal transparency within the WTO

and a more inclusive approach from the large industrial nations

towards the developing countries.

But basically the WTO is not an undemocratic organisation. Trade

agreements are achieved by negotiators (usually civil

servants)attempting to satisfy mandates set down by (in the case of

most members) democratically elected governments. It is these

governments which then decide whether to accept any proposed deal.

For this reason I am very sceptical of greater involvement and

lobbying by NGOs at the WTO - except where they can bring important

expertise to improve decision making - for example in dispute

settlement cases. The NGOs should be seeking to influence the

democratically determined decisions and not the actions of civil

servants. Thus, the frustration with the WTO and the attempts to

directly influence it are perhaps a reflection of problems with the

democratic system and the perception that those who are concerned by

the impact of globalisation, the environment, and labour standards

are unable to properly participate in the system. This is perhaps

compounded by the view that big business is much more effective in

influencing political outcomes.

Being a simple economist I feel that I am now on thin ice and look

forward to comments from those with a better understanding than I of

political realities.

Best wishes

Paul Brenton

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Tim Erickson [SMTP:]

> Sent: mardi 9 janvier 2001 12:28

> To: Paul Brenton

> Subject: Accountability Question

>

> I've posted the following question to the group, but am particularly

> interested in your thoughts on this subject. So far, your

> contributions have been very interesting and useful.

>

> * * * * *

>

> Does a free market need democratic political institutions to provide

> oversight and accountability to society? Does our current system of

> international trade provide for that oversight and accountability? If

> not, what are the most pressing reforms needed to provide such

> oversight and accountability or what new institutions need to be

> formed?

>

> Is the current system under which trade agreements are negotiated and

> ratified to secretive? Would it be possible/desirable to open up the

> process to more public oversight?

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tim Erickson

> Politalk Moderator

> --

January 10/2001/POLITALK: Recent Intellectual History of Markets

To: Politalk-US1@egroups.com

From: mckeever <>

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:40:47 +0000

Subject: [Pol-US1] Recent Intellectual History of Markets

Here follows a long piece about the philosophy of markets and economic

thought; it is directly on the discussion - that is why I forward it.

Delete now if not interested in forwarded items.

Cheers,

McKeever

New Statesman [www.newstatesman.co.uk]

8 January 2001

Cover story - The New Statesman Essay - Markets 'R' Us

Business is the new religion; in an extraordinary historical reversal,

those who oppose it are arrogant elitists, frustrating the people's

will.=20

By Thomas Frank

In 1998, a commercial for IBM's Lotus division danced across American

television screens to the tune of REM's Nietzschean anthem, "I Am

Superman". As throngs of humanity went about their business, a tiny

caption asked: "Who is everywhere?" In response, IBM identified itself

both with the people and with the name of God as revealed to Moses:

the words "I Am" scrawled roughly on a piece of cardboard and held

aloft from amid the madding crowd. The questions continued, running

down the list from omnipresence to omniscience and omnipotence - "Who

is aware?", "Who is powerful?" - while scenes of entrepreneurial

achievement pulsated by: an American business district, a Chinese

garment factory, a microchip assembly room, and the seat of divine

judgement itself, the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange. "I

can do anything," sang a winsome computer voice.

If there was something breathtaking about this particular bit of

corporate autodeification, there was also something remarkably normal

about it. Americans had already made bestsellers of books such as God

Wants You to be Rich and Jesus, CEO. "The Market's Will be Done" was

the title that Tom Peters, guru of gurus, chose for a chapter of his

bestselling 1992 management book, while the techno-ecstatic Kevin

Kelly, in his Out of Control (1994), referred to his list of "new

economy" pointers as "The Nine Laws of God".

What the term new economy really describes is not some novel state of

human affairs but the final accomplishment of the long-standing agenda

of the richest class. Once, Americans imagined that economic democracy

meant a reasonable standard of living for all - that freedom was only

meaningful once poverty and powerlessness had been overcome. Today,

American opinion leaders seem convinced that democracy and the free

market are simply identical. There is little that is new about this

idea, either: for nearly a century, equating the market with democracy

was the familiar defence of any corporation in trouble with union or

government. What is new is this idea's triumph over all its rivals;

the determination of American leaders to extend it to all the world;

the belief among opinion-makers that there is something natural,

something divine, something inherently democratic about markets.

Wherever one looked in the 1990s, entrepreneurs were occupying the

ideological space once filled by the labour movement. It was

businessmen who were sounding off against the arrogance of elites,

railing against the privilege of old money, waging a relentless war on

hierarchy. They were market populists, adherents of the most powerful

political mythology of the age.

Their fundamental faith was a simple one. The market and the people

were essentially one and the same. By its very nature, the market was

democratic, perfectly expressing the popular will through the

machinery of supply and demand, poll and focus group, superstore and

internet. In fact, the market was more democratic than any of the

formal institutions of democracy - elections, legislatures,

government. The market was infinitely diverse, permitting without

prejudice the articulation of all tastes and preferences. Most

importantly of all, the market was militant about its democracy. It

had no place for snobs, for hierarchies, for elitism, for pretence.

As the Newsweek columnist Robert Samuelson said in 1998, "the market

'R' us". Whatever the appearances, it acted always in our interests,

on our behalf, against our enemies. This is how the New York Stock

Exchange, long a nest of privilege, could be understood in the 1990s

as a house of the people; how any niche marketing could be passed off

as a revolutionary expression - an empowerment, even - of the

demographic at which it was aimed.

Market populism was just the thing for a social order requiring

constant doses of legitimacy. It builds all manner of populist

fantasies: of businessmen as public servants, of industrial and

cultural production as a simple reflection of popular desire, of the

box office as a voting booth. By consuming the fruits of industry, we

the people are endorsing the industrial system, voting for it in a

plebiscite far more democratic than a mere election.

As business leaders melded themselves theoretically with the people,

they found powerful arguments against those who sought to regulate or

control private enterprise. Since markets express the will of the

people, virtually any criticism of business could be described as

despicable contempt for the common man. According to market populism,

elites were no longer those who spent their weekends at Club Med or

watched sporting events from a skybox or fired half their workforce

and shipped the factory south. Since the rich - particularly the new

rich - were the chosen of the market, they were the very emblem of

democratic modesty, humble adepts of the popular will. Elitists were

the people on the other side of the equation: the labour unions and

Keynesians who thought that society could be organised in any way

other than the market way. Since what the market did - no matter how

whimsical, irrational or harmful - was the will of the people, any

scheme to operate outside its auspices or to control its ravages was

by definition a dangerous artifice, the hubris of false expertise.

This fantasy of the market as an anti-elitist machine was couched in

the language of social class. Businessmen and right-wing politicians

have always deplored the use of "class war" by their critics on the

left; during the 1990s, though, they happily used the tactic

themselves, depicting the workings of the market as a kind of

permanent social revolution in which daring entrepreneurs were

endlessly toppling fat cats and snatching away the millions of the

lazy rich kids. The new economy was a narrative of class warfare:

wherever its dynamic new logic touched down, old money was said to

quake and falter. Opera-going chief executives were giving way to

those who wore goatees and fancied the rhymes of the street; the

scions of ancient banking families were finding their smug selves

wiped out by the new-jack trading of a working-class kid; the arrogant

stockbrokers of old were being humiliated by the online day-traders;

white men were getting their asses kicked by women, Asians, Africans,

Hispanics.

Market populism encompasses such familiar set pieces as Rupert

Murdoch's endless efforts to cast himself as a man of the people beset

by cartoon snobs such as the British aristocracy; or Detroit's

long-running use of Americans' liking for cars to depict even the most

practical and technical criticisms of the automobile industry (seat

belts, airbags, fuel efficiency and so on) as loathsome expressions of

a joyless elite. When the public began to sour on the big American

cars of the 1950s, according to the culture critic John Keats,

"Detroit decided . . . that the criticism was nothing but a lot of

nittering and nattering emanating from a few aesthetes and

intellectuals from the effete East - from the kind of people who drove

Volkswagens and read highbrow magazines just to show off".

In the 1990s, these fantasies flowered spectacularly. Not only was the

new economy, that vision of the market unbound, believed to be

crushing the privilege of inherited wealth, but it was also said to

constitute a standing refutation of the learning of traditional

elites. Its stock market valuations, so puzzling to economists and old

brokerage hands, were crystal clear to the little guy. New economy

companies were doing without entire layers of experts and bureaucrats;

they were turning their backs on standard methods of teaching and

learning; they were tearing up the carefully designed flow charts and

job descriptions of old.

Historically, populism was a rebellion against the corporate order, a

political tongue reserved by definition for the non-rich and the

non-powerful. The "common people" were the working class: the "elite"

the owners and managers of industry.

>From 1968, this primal set piece of American democracy changed its

stripes. The war between the classes somehow reversed polarity. It was

now a conflict in which the patriotic, blue-collar "silent majority"

(along with their employers) faced off against a new elite, the

"liberal Establishment", and its spoiled, flag-burning children. This

new ruling class - liberal journalists, liberal academics, liberal

politicians and the shadowy powers of Hollywood - earned the people's

wrath not by exploiting workers or ripping off family farmers, but by

showing contemptuous disregard for the wisdom and values of average

Americans. Backlash populism proved immensely powerful and for 30

years right-wing populists were forever reminding "normal Americans"

of the hideous world that the "Establishment" had built, a place where

blasphemous intellectuals violated the principles of Americanism at

every opportunity, a place of crime on the streets, of unimaginable

cultural depravity, of disrespect for men in uniform, of judges gone

soft on crime and politicians gone soft on communism.

In 1988, George Bush managed to win the presidency by spreading alarm

about flag-burning, a now non-existent threat that older voters

remembered with horror from 20 years before. This was not a trick that

could be repeated too many more times. Even though the culture wars

reached their outrageous peak in the decade that followed - the

bombing of abortion clinics and government buildings, the brief

notoriety of gun shows and right-wing militias, the impeachment of

President Clinton - they also began visibly to subside. It was during

the impeachment proceedings that the backlash, running now on little

more than 30-year-old rage, reached a state of obvious exhaustion. The

public was slipping away. In the battle of the focus groups, the

president was winning easily. Nobody seemed to care any more about the

betrayal of the bureaucrats, about the secular humanists' designs on

family values, about the flag-burning kids from the rich suburbs, or

even about the communistic professors, trashing the great books and

blaming America first. Clearly, something new was needed.

This was where market populism came to the rescue. Backlash populism

had envisioned a scheming liberal elite whose members thought they

knew what was best for us - bussing, integration, the coddling of

criminals. Market populism simply shifted the inflection. Now the

crime of the elite was not so much an arrogance in matters of values

but in matters economic. Still, those elitists thought they were

better than the people, but now their arrogance was revealed by their

passion to raise the minimum wage, to regulate, oversee, redistribute

and tax.

But there were other critical differences. While the backlash had been

proudly square, market populism was cool. Far from despising the

1960s, it broadcast its fantasies to the tune of a hundred psychedelic

hits. Its leading think-tanks were rumoured to pay princely sums to

young people who could bring some smattering of rock'n'roll street

cred to the market's cause. And believing in the market rather than

God, it had little need for the Christian right and the moral

majority. It dropped the ugly race-baiting of the previous right-wing

dispensation, choosing instead to imagine the market as a champion of

the downtrodden. Market populism abandoned the "family values" of

Ronald Reagan; it gave not a damn for the traditional role of women or

even of children. The more who entered the workforce, the merrier.

This change has been difficult for many to grasp. For writers schooled

in the culture wars, the most important conflict was and will always

be the one between the hip and the square, the flag-burning and the

church-going, the hippie and the suit. But as the 1990s progressed, as

jeans replaced suits in the offices of America and as the ultra-hip

culture of cyberspace became the culture of the corporation generally,

business increasingly imagined itself on the other side of the

equation.

For the majority of American workers, wages in the 1990s either fell

or barely kept pace with inflation. But for top corporate executives

these really were years in which to stand up and say "I Am". Between

1990 and 1999, chief executive income went from 85 times more than

what average blue-collar employees got to around 475 times more. In

Japan, meanwhile, that multiple stood at about 11 times, and in

Britain - the country most enamoured of new economy principles after

the US itself - 24 times.

Market populism, and the concept of the new economy, have helped to

legitimise all this. They add up to a set of beliefs that, once

enacted into public policy, has permitted an upward transfer of wealth

unprecedented in our lifetimes; it is a collection of symbols and

narratives that understand the resulting wealth polarisation as a form

of populism, as an expression of the people's will.

It is a fraud. The formula "one dollar, one vote" - invented by the

influential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman - is not the same

thing as universal suffrage, as the complex, hard-won array of rights

that most Americans understand as their political heritage. Nor does

it mitigate the obscenity of wealth polarisation one whit when the

richest people ever in history tell us they are "listening" to us,

that theirs are "interactive" fortunes, or that they have unusual

tastes and work particularly hard. Markets may look like democracy, in

that we are all involved in their making, but they are fundamentally

not democratic. We did not vote for Bill Gates; we didn't all sit down

one day and agree that we should only use his operating system and we

should pay for it just however much he thinks is right. We do not go

off to our jobs checking telephone lines or making cold calls or

driving a forklift every morning because this is what we want to do:

we do it because it is the only way we can afford food, shelter and

medicine. The logic of business is coercion, monopoly and the

destruction of the weak, not "choice" or "service" or universal

affluence.

"Democracies prefer markets but markets do not prefer democracies,"

writes the political scientist Benjamin Barber in Jihad vs McWorld,

one of the most thoughtful recent books on the new capitalism. "Having

created the conditions that make markets possible, democracy must also

do all the things that markets undo or cannot do." Markets are

interested in profits and profits only; service, quality and general

affluence are different functions altogether. The universal,

democratic prosperity that Americans now look back to with such

nostalgia was achieved only by reining in markets, by the gargantuan

effort of mass, popular organisations such as labour unions and of the

people themselves, working through a series of democratically elected

governments not daunted by the myths of the market.

The thinkers behind market populism have a word for this argument:

they call it "cynicism". One comes across denunciations of this

cynicism constantly from journalists, advertising executives,

futurists, management theorists, stock market gurus. The correct

intellectual posture, they admonish, is the simple faith of childhood.

Indeed, children of the most exaggerated guilelessness turn up

everywhere in the corporate speech of the 1990s, hailing the glory of

the internet, announcing corporate mergers, staring awestruck at new

computers, clarifying the bounds of history, explaining the fantastic

surge of the Dow, and raising their winsome voices to proclaim the

unanswerable new management logic that showed - as all previous

management logics had also shown - just why it was that labour must

submit to capital.

The masters of the new economy may fancy themselves an exalted race of

divinities, but they counsel the rest of us to become as little

children before the market.

Copyright 2000 Thomas Frank

Thomas Frank is a founding editor of the American magazine The

Baffler. This essay is extracted from One Market Under God, published

by Secker and Warburg on 9 January (=A318.99)

January 11/2001/POLITALK: Politalk discussion

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:25:58 +0100

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Subject: Politalk Discussion

Lucio Munoz:

Given your experience on this issue and discussion like ours, I am

hoping that you might give me some private feedback on how success

you feel that our discussion has been so far?

I am also interested in any ideas you might have for a final question

to all of the participants?

Thanks very much for your very interesting contributions, I'm very

glad that you took part in our discussion.

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

--

January 10/2001/World Bank's Globalization conference

Subject: [globalization] IISD e-conference on poverty and sustainable development

To: "Globalization E-Conference" <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

From: "Development Forum" <devforum@worldbank.org>

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:11:55 -0500

Many of you may be interested in the following announcement from the

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

*************

E-CONFERENCE - POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:

EXPLORING THE LINKS

http://www.iisd.org/pe/pov_sd/e_conference.htm

The International Institute for Sustainable Development is pleased to

invite you to join an important E-Conference on poverty alleviation and

sustainable development, beginning January 9, 2001.

The goal of this forum is to solicit your expertise and opinions on

this topic. Your inputs will be presented to senior Canadian

policymakers at a workshop to be held in Ottawa on January 23, 2001. A

primary aim of the E-Conference and workshop is to inform the direction

of new aid policies. A final report will be sent to all E-Conference

participants. We thank you in advance for your participation.

OBJECTIVES

This E-Conference is a response to the growing concern over poverty

alleviation programs executed by the multilateral and bilateral

agencies. The recent Quality of Growth E-Conference organized by the

World Bank Institute addressed some of the issues related to the World

Bank's new strategic initiatives to address the poverty problem. It

questioned the paradigm of quantity of growth versus the quality of

growth. This conference is an extension of that discussion. But before

we can start discussing solutions or new strategies; we need to do some

soul-searching on what has gone wrong. As our first objective, it is

imperative that we go through this introspective exercise before we can

begin to look for new strategies or solutions. The second objective is

to find new workable solutions.

ORGANIZATION OF DISCUSSION

The conference runs for a total of four weeks. The first two weeks of

discussion will support the January 23 workshop. Three keynote speakers

will be presenting papers on various aspects of the poverty nexus.

Their papers plus the conference overview paper and the synopsis of the

discussions for the first two weeks will form the framework for

discussion at the workshop.

PROPOSED THEMES

Week 1 - January 9-14: Five Decades of Under-Achievement

- Confusing the means with the ends

- The use of generalized policies across countries

- The follow-the-leader syndrome among aid agencies

- Competition among the donor agencies and a lack of cooperation

leading to divergent and conflicting policies

- Lack of attention to the role institutions play in economic growth

- The prioritization of economic growth versus sustainable development

- The pursuit of personal agendas by the donors leading to sub-optimal

outcomes for recipient countries.

Week 2 - January 15-23: The Way Forward: A Sustainable Development

Framework

The World Bank's Comprehensive Development Framework and Poverty

Reduction Strategy Papers

-Strengths and Weaknesses

The Stiglitz New Paradigm of Development

-Strengths and Weaknesses

The Sustainable Development Framework

-Strengths and Weaknesses

Weeks 3 and 4 - January 24 - February 6: Feedback from the Workshop and

the Way Forward

A Working Model

The basic unit of analysis as point of departure

-Individual, family, community

Integration of formal and informal institutions

-Between stakeholders

The three pillars: natural, physical and human

-The links between the three pillars and the stakeholders

The role of the private and public sectors

TO JOIN

Visit http://www.iisd.org/pe/pov_sd/e_conference.htm. At this page, you

will find an overview paper (pdf) as well as a link that will allow you

to sign up.

January 12/2001/POLITALK: Summary of online debat on globalization and poverty, May 2000

To: "Politalk-US1" <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "J Cheung" <>

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:11:33 +0800

Subject: [Pol-US1] Summary of Online Debate on Globalisation and Poverty, May 2000

Participants of this Globalization Form may be interested in the summary

below, of an online debate on Globalisation and Poverty held in May 2000.

The summary is given in this webpage

http://www.panos.org.uk/environment/globalisation_and_poverty_online.htm

For your convenience, I cut and paste below the first paragraph of the

write-up.

John Cheung

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Globalisation and Poverty Online Debate

Over 5,000 people around the world subscribed to this on-line debate on

Globalisation and Poverty, initiated by the World Bank Development Forum and

co-moderated by the Development Form and Panos through the month of May

2000. Contributors included academics, development professionals, economists

and many concerned individuals, as well as several World Bank staff members.

They discussed the impact of globalisation of trade and communications on

poverty and development - from theoretical perspectives and from personal

experience. There were some sharp disagreements over basic free-market

principles. However, even the most committed neo-liberals among the

contributors shared their opponents' view that in practice many poor

countries and people are excluded from any benefits of globalisation; and

that governments and international institutions should take steps to

mitigate the negative impacts of globalisation on the poor or to help them

access the benefits.

January 11/2001/POLITALK: Message Index

To: Politalk-MN1 <politalk-mn1@egroups.com>, Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:05:03 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Message Index

In case anyone is interested, I've also posted all of this

information at the Politalk web site:

http://www.politalk.com/pages/%7Etopics/wto/participants.html

This is a list of everyone who has posted to this discussion, so far,

with links to their archived posts.

Javed Ahmad: I am an Asian American, working with the UN system as an

expert in information and communication. My main area of work is in

population.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/531

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/496

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/489

James C.W. Ahiakpor: Originally from Ghana, West Africa, I have been

an economics professor in North America since 1981, ten years in

Halifax, N.S., Canada and nine years in Hayward, California.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/538

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/534

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/521

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/516

David Barkin: Dr. Barkin received his doctorate in economics from

Yale University and teaches at the Xochimilco Campus of the

Metropolitan University in Mexico City. He was elected a fellow of

the Mexican Academy of Science and a member of the National Research

Council of Mexico.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1128

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1097

 

 

Malcolm Bradley: From Perth, Western Australia - I am pushing slowly

towards 30... Once upon a scientist / miner, I retired young...

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/31

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/9

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/8

Paul Brenton: I am an economist who specialises in analysing

international trade and investment issues. I work for an independent

research institute in Brussels, the Centre for European Policy

Studies. Previously I worked as a lecturer at a University in the UK.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1134

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1119

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1111

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1102

 

Lori Cannon: I live in Minnetonka but will be moving to Boston on

Sunday. I'm starting grad school in two weeks for international

communications and plan to go into international journalism.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1112

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1090

Dr John Cheung: I just semi-retired from being a university professor

of engineering in Singapore, a modern global city-state in Southeast

Asia.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/88

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/77

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/23

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/10

Mike Coburn:

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/81

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/56

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/37

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/29

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/20

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/6

Tom Cordaro: I am the National Council Chairperson of Pax Christi

USA, a national section of Pax Christi International, the

international Catholic peace movement.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/527

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/502

Sandra Cvilj: I'm originally from Sarajevo ,Bosnia, now living in

Ottawa, Canada. I'm finishing my fourth year of Computer Science at

the University of Ottawa, and working as a software developer for an

Ottawa company. The only really relevant biography detail would be

that I maintain the COAT (Coalition Against the Arms Trade) website (

http://www.ncf.ca/coat ).

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/64

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/30

http://www.ncf.ca/coat

Thomas Day: I work in medical devices, for a St. Paul company that is

about as "global" as companies get.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/492

Tim Erickson - Moderator - St. Paul, Minnesota:

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1096

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1078

Harvey H. Glommen: I am a retired clinical social worker, but most of

my life has been spent in innovative program development. My primary

areas of interest are poverty, its antecedents, and its social

implications.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/61

L Hogan:

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/76

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/62

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/48

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/47

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/32

Joel Johnson: I am a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. I am

interested in Globalization because of my belief that trade should be

free, and because of my belief that the one thing that can bring

peace to the world is trade, not politics.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1133

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1108

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1091

Paul Lareau: of Little Canada, MN, husband of Beth (a political

consultant), father of one, grandfather of two. I'm a former

librarian, and a longtime information analyst for a large Twin Cities

corporation, which reports more than half its sales to non-US

customers. Politically, I am a former member of the Socialist Party

USA, and have been an active DFLer since moving to Minnesota in 1973.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/523

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/515

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/493

Dwaine Lindberg: I am 75 years old, a retired social worker. I grew

up in a small Minnesota town and have lived in Minnesota all my life

with the exception of time in the service during WWII and a period

when attending graduate school.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/541

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/505

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/494

Opiyo Makoude:

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/488

Manuwoto: I am from Indonesia. I am working as an obserrver on

various aspects of development and trade. I am interested with the

discussion, particularly on the subject of the souvereignty aspect in

globalization.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/46

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/45

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/36

Micheal Pierce McKeever, Sr.: From Oakland, California, USA. I teach

economic theory at Vista Community College in Berkeley and

occasionally comment on the issues.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/84

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/79

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/75

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/71

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/59

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/54

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/34

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/22

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/11

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/13

http://www.mkeever.com

Lucio Munoz: I am an independent researcher based in Vancouver, Canada.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/82

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/72

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/63

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/50

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/49

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/39

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/28

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/26

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/18

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/17

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

Art Noot: My wife and I live in the Flambeau River State Forest area

of Northern Wisconsin ~ at some distance from our three adult

children, four grandchildren, and two additional lives still in

development, expected by mid-year.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1084

Vici (Victoria) Oshiro - Burnsville, Minnesota: My interest in

globalization stems from a long-standing interest in economic justice

and the gap between the rich and the poor both within nations and

among them.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1130

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1118

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1110

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1087

Marc Pilisuk: I am a retired prof of Human and community development

, the University of California and currently professor at the

Saybrook Graduate School and research Center in San Francisco.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/506

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/490

Lorna Salzman: I am an over-60 Shameless Agitator for the planet.

Worked for Friends of the Earth for ten-plus years, for other enviros

and for three years in the NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Organized NY Greens in 1985; active in Green politics up through

today, ran as US Senate candidate for Green Choice in 1998.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/14

Carolyn Stephens: I am a professor of environmental health and

policy, currently based in Northern Argentina working on sustainable

agriculture, health and inequalities. I am from the UK but have

worked and lived for over 20 years in India, Ghana, Liberia, Brazil

and now Argentina. My background is a mix of literature/philosophy

(to try to understand why the world is so badly run by an ostensibly

intelligent species) and public health medicine (which is a handier

trade). I teach ethics, and work with colleagues in universities all

over the South on trade,health and inequalities.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/539

Charlie Swope: I am from St. Paul and I work in the on-line

information business. My expertise is in the organization of

information.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1104

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1085

Bayan Tabbara: I am a social researcher at the Economic and Social

Commission for Western Asia in Beirut - Lebanon and am working on the

impact of globalization on the labour markets of the ESCWA region.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN2/524

Laura Waterman Wittstock: I am a Seneca Indian from western New York.

I have lived in Minneapolis since 1973. My work is in nonprofit

education. I am a writer, columnist, and nonprofit executive. I am

married with five grown children and three grandchildren under the

age of seven. My husband and I are active grandparents and see the

children every day.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-MN1/1114

Chetly Zarko:

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/60

gchand4059: I am a retired engineer who took up the U.S. Federal

Reserve System as a hobby. I got drawn into IMF subjects by my

mininster. She asked me to look into it. She got too much information

from Jubliee 2000.

http://www.egroups.com/message/Politalk-US1/15

January 11/2001/POLITALK: Challenge for US

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "Dwaine Lindberg" <info@politalk.com>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:51:48 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Challenge for US

Achieving a sustainable economy seems to me to be one of the biggest

challenges in a developing global economy--emphasis on sustainable.

I believe it is generally accepted we in this county are now

consuming natural resources at a rate far exceeding our any other

country and contributing more than our share to environmental

degradation. I believe our planet could not support a world

population consuming at the rate we have come to accept as our right.

So what happens when the countries with developing economies begin to

approach our life style? Will we as a nation be willing to do our

part in assuring a sustainable level of economic activity? Isn't our

reluctance to accept the Kyoto agreement only the tip of the iceberg?

Dwaine Lindberg

Edina, MN

January 11/2001/POLITALK: RE: Challenge for US

To: Politalk-MN1 <politalk-mn1@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: "Day, Thomas (STP)" <info@politalk.com>(by way of Politalk)

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:53:18 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] RE: Challenge for US

From: Dwaine Lindberg [mailto:]

> . . .Isn't our reluctance to accept the Kyoto agreement only the tip

> of the iceberg?

It's probably not even the tip. If the Clinton administration wasn't

willing to accept any limits on national energy consumption and

pollution output, the Bush administration will be a total black hole

for those issues. Based on who Bush wants to put in charge of the

Interior, I'd say we're in for another filthy four years, at least as

bad as we saw during the Reagan/Bush years. The American vote for

Bush was a vote to tighten the focus of the nation's tunnel vision.

January 15/2001/POLITALK: Transcript

To: Politalk-MN1 <politalk-mn1@egroups.com>, Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:25:01 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Transcript

An updated transcript of the last two weeks discussion on

globalization is available at:

http://www.politalk.com/pages/%7Ediscuss/globalization.html

This transcript is about 90% complete at this time.

If you would like a text file of the transcript e-mailed to you.

Please let me know. Available in Word 6.0 or text file.

--

January 15/2001/POLITALK: Next politalk topic?

To: Politalk-MN1 <politalk-mn1@egroups.com>, Politalk-MN2 <politalk-mn2@egroups.com>, Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:41:17 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Next Politalk Topic???

Given the interest in Globalization and the wonderful group of

international participants that we have assembled, we are considering

beginning another two week discussion on Political and Cultural

Globalization.

However, I would like some feedback from the group. Is there interest

in the topic as outlined below? Will you be participating? And do you

have any additional ideas or suggestions on how to approach this

topic or who we might invite to participate?

If you would prefer that I remove you from our mailing list at this

time, please let me know.

Please respond to this post privately!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Proposed Next Topic: Political and Cultural Globalization

As our world experiences a period of rapid economic integration, we

need to look closer at the political and cultural implications.

National boundaries, ethnic identity, and political institutions will

all be affected by or affect the process of economic integration.

This discussion will look deeper at the "other side" of

globalization. We will focus on ethnic and national identity in an

increasingly global environment. We will also address the need to

form or reform international institutions that serve the needs and

protect the rights that we have as "global citizens."

Some of the specific questions that this discussion may address, are:

1) National boundaries, historical events, and cultural similarities

all work together to influence an individuals view of their own

identity. How has/will the trend towards globalization affect the way

that we see ourselves as individuals in global environment?

Example: Am I first and foremost a citizen/member of a community

(Munich), nation (Germany), an international community (the European

Union), or the Planet Earth?

2) To what extent, will globalization increase or decrease the

influence of cultural subgroups or special interests that transcend

national boundaries? Examples; Catholics, Muslims, Kurds, Economic

Elites, international trade unions, Greenpeace, etc.

3) Will globalization diminish the importance of national boundaries?

4) Are the United States, Singapore, Mexico, Canada, Ethiopia, Great

Britain, and other countries ready for more centralized political

authority? Why or why not?

5) Are there lessons to be learned from the European Union? What if

any political institutions have they created to balance/control

economic integration? How has integration affected the political

identities of citizens (if at all)? Have national borders become more

or less important?

--

January 18/2001/Message: Sustainability views

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:37:37 -0200 (EDT)

From: Odo Primavesi <>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: My warm greetings Odo

 

 

Dear Lucio!

Work, positive thinking and God's help will result in a happy end.

About the Politicalk discussion in USA, I will see the E-transcripts,

althought I dont like to surf homepages. Its easier to see a

specific written text.

I dont know what is happening, but the time seems to be shorter. I begun

the millenium with to much work. A Collegue told us that it is because the

year span will be shorter fraction with the increase of our life span.

With 1 year = 1/1, 50 years = 1/50, 100 years = 1/100.

About your sustainability model: with the time flow it will be clearer to

me that the economical component is a stone on the path. And this only

because it is seen as our main objetive at expenses of the social and

environmental, instead of having as the main goal the life quality based

on the environmental quality, with acceptable support of the economical. We

need to consider the economical component as a healthy consequence and a

tool, but not the individual-communitary life goal. The

individualistic system as practiced today is not sustainable, because

of the dependence of the individuum of a community, liking or not.

The exclusion of the communitary concept (local to global) is our death.

So, the individualistic competition on global basis is only a very big

predatory action, resulting in a self destruction (autophagy) of our

economy and business. I did hear a talk in which the forwarded information

was that only 5% of the capital flux in world is feeding the

productive work. 95% are speculative actions. Isn't this unsustainable?

So, my idea is to rethink the importance and the function of the

economical component in the sustainability concept.

With the best regards, and good luck,

Odo

January 18/2001/Message; Projecto de vulnerabilidad

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:43:26 -0800

From: "Arana, Bego" <>

Subject: RE: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

To: 'Lucio Munoz' <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Estimado Sr. Munoz:

Primeramente agradecer su inter=E9s en el proyecto de Vulnerabilidad

frente a desastres naturales en Honduras y sobre todo el habernos enviado sus

comentarios.

Respecto a su solicitud, le sugiero que se ponga en contacto con el

Equipo de trabajo del proyecto, cuyos nombres y direcciones de contacto

aparecen en la p=E1gina web.

Esta es la direcci=F3n de la p=E1gina para acceder directamente a la

informaci=F3n sobre el equipo de trabajo:

http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/vulnerabilidad/equipo.htm

<http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/vulnerabilidad/equipo.htm>

Un saludo y gracias nuevamente por su inter=E9s.

Bego=F1a Arana

Comunicaciones SIG

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Lucio Munoz [mailto:munoz1@sprint.ca]

Enviado el: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:14 PM

Para: b.arana@

Asunto: Metodologia de vulnerabilidad

 

Estimado Sr. Arana, lei lo disponible de esta metodologia enviada por

REDECO en su pagina WEB.

Me gustaria de ser posible tener acceso a los detalles de los indices y

Su construccion.

Me fue dificil ver como ustedes separan los impactos posible de

TERREMOTOS O TEMPORALES o otros tipos de desastre; o como ustedes conectan

o separan un indice con el otro; o si su metodologia puede combinar sub-indices

para formular indices generales; o ver como el proceso de prioratizacion

esta conectado con las capacidades actuales de responder a emergencias.

Con mucho gusto yo revisaria su metodologia y proveeria comentarios

positivos, especialmente si tienen copias duras para discusion que me

podrian enviar.

Yo he desarrollado un systema de indices el cual se podria ajustar a

algo en linea con lo que parece que ustedes estan haciendo o han hecho, y estoy

pensando aplicarlo para determinar indices locales, nacionales, y =

regionales de vulnerabilidad.

Saludos;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC, Canada.

January 18/2001/CAEE/Message related to El Salvador

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:15:28 -0600

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: "Arq. Jorge Cabrera" <>

Subject: Re: Porque las colonia estaba ahi va a ser central en los dias

de calma, parece

Asi es , ayer sobrevolamos el area y seria interesante ver si hay

fotografias de la zona antes del deslizamiento ya que la otra parte tiene

cobertura pero la cima no y se ven grietas en el terreno, ademas los suelos

son muy arenosos y la pendiente es pronunciada..

hay mucho que hacer, pero es cuestion de semanas y todo vuelve a ser como

antes , nunca aprendemos y nunca estamos preparados, siempre la plata es la

que manda y no la sabiduria desafortunadamente

saludos

Jorge

At 11:38 a.m. 16/01/01 -0800, you wrote:

>Estimado Carlos y amigos, estas preguntas de quien es responsable van a

>tomar un sitio central una ves la situacion empiesa a calmarse. El analysis

>puede ser sencillo, cerro sin casas y cerro con casas. Asumiendo que el

>cerro se iva a caer de todos modos bajo un terremoto de la misma magnitude,

>la diferencia de dan~o humano y economico aparece por que las casas estan

>ahi. Sin casas, la atencion de las prensa hubiara estado en los otros

>lugares de el pais afectados. El hecho de que el projecto colinas/santa

>tecla fue approvado y la gente compro las casas tiene implicaciones

>politicas, sociales, y economicas propias.

>

>Si el desastre pasa en un pais desarrollado todos los que propusieron y

>aprobaron el project son responsbles y pueden ser llevados a la corte por

>poner vidas humanas en peligro y/o por no prevenir projectos de alto riesgo,

>especialmente si luego en la corte ellos no puede justificar la decision de

>implementar el projecto cientificamente.

>

>Me imagino que la atencion hoy va a ir especificamente a el projecto y a su

>estudio de factibilidad y evaluacion de riesgo ambiental/eventos naturales.

>

>En el caso de El Salvador, me imagino que instituciones internacionales

>financiando ese projecto, si hubieron, tambien puede que sean responsables

>ya que ellos tienen/deberian de tener formas independientes de monitorear

>este tipo de projectos previo dar el financiamiento, or por lo menos para

>justicarlo de su lado.

>

>Si el proceso de busca de explicaciones se hace profesionalmente, sin

>recelos personales o politicos, puede que este desastre siembre la semilla

>para disenar un modelo de desarrollo mas responsable or por lo menos

>claramente responsable para evitar/eliminar este tipo de projecto que de

>seguro contribuyen a aumentar las consequencias sociales, economicas, y

>ambientales provenientes de desastres naturales.

>

>Dada la pendiente de esta colonizacion y el peso de las casas sobre esas

>pendientes, es posible que el cerro se hubiara caido en tiempos de un buen

>temporal tipo Mitch tambien ya que la colina esta casi deforestada

>completamente especialmente en las laderas. Aparentemente, el potencial de

>desastre estaba ahi, y con las casas y los duenos y negocios el potencial

>for desastre humano y economico aparecio y se hizo evidente con este

>terremoto, esta ves.

>

>Es una lastima que se necesiten desastres de esta magnitud para recapacitar

>y emprender cambios positivos. Espero que cambios positivos se pongan hoy

>en marcha, y que aprendamos mucho de esto, especialmente en terminos de

>urbanizacion, reforestacion, construccion, y provision de ayuda de

>emergencia a todos los lugares afectados lo mas pronto posible en forma

>equitativa.

>

>Saludos;

>Lucio

>

>----------

>Carlos escribio:

>

>Resulta que tal urbanizacion fue opuesta por el alcalde,

>> quien veto el plan, y por ;las cominidades aledan~as. La compan~ia llevo

>> el caso a la Corte Suprema de Justicia de pais y por supuesto gano. La

>> corte dio la luz verde y he aqui los resultados dos an~os despues. Quien

>> es culpable: La Madre Naturaleza, la compan~ia costructora o la Corte?

>>

>>

>> Bueno es hora de recuperar la serenidad, es espekunnante.

>>

>> Saludos,

>>

>> Carlos R. Ramirez-Sosa

>> NYC

>>

January 18/2001/POLITALK: Moral Economics

To: mckeever@ccnet.com

From: mckeever <>

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:10:43 +0000

Subject: [Pol-US1] Moral Economics - 16

SIXTEENTH ESSAY 1-18-01

Moral Economics - Essays On The Relation of Economic Theory to the Moral

Perspective in POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: AN INTER-FAITH PERSPECTIVE.

[www.wfdd.org.uk/]

This is the sixteenth of an occasional series of short essays about how

economic theory interacts with a moral perspective. Readers are invited to

discuss and to re-post widely, but please quote the source.

 

DEVELOPMENT WHICH HURTS SOME MEMBERS OF A GROUP IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

"...it is not possible to understand humanity merely by focusing on the

individual...Development strategies need to embrace the notion of community

by strengthening the natural social bonds of the poor."

[POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: AN INTER-FAITH PERSPECTIVE, para 6.0]

ECONOMICS FOCUSES ON THE INDIVIDUAL

Economics has an inherent conflict with faith based communities in that

economic practice measures material gains by individuals in order to

determine if progress is made. By doing so, economics misses the point that

the well-being of the community may be made worse off if some members of the

community are made worse off. Faith based thinking says that all members of

the community should be better off if progress is made.

Many economic growth policies allow social inequality to increase during

economic growth. Such policies "...almost always benefit the better off,

while often actively harming the poor, and they certainly do not contribute

to the building of peaceful communities or to true social cohesion."

[POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: AN INTER-FAITH PERSPECTIVE, para 6.0]

ECONOMIC PRACTITIONERS MUST CHANGE THEIR FOCUS

Any economic practice which ignores the overall effects on a community and

counts only the average material gain of a community runs the risk of

creating active harm to communities. It will be difficult for economists to

change their thinking in this regard since most training in the subject

deliberately avoids such issues.

NEW FOCUS MUST BE EXTERNALITIES

It is the writer's opinion based on some forty years' experience in the

field that the single biggest failure of economics is its persistent and

deliberate ignorance of external costs, or 'unintended consequences'.

For example, automobile manufacturers calculate their profits based on the

sales price of their products less the costs of their products. But, no

automobiles could be driven or sold without roads, service facilities, air

pollution or fuel. The costs for these necessities is born by society as a

whole and not by the automobile manufacturers; these costs are external to

their profit calculations.

However, these are very real costs to the community. Similarly, the cost of

increasing social inequality from poorly designed growth policies is a very

real cost to the community which is not factored into the calculations of

cost and benefit derived from these programs.

Economists who begin to calculate those external costs into their policy

recommendations are acting morally, in this writer's opinion.

 

Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr.

Economics Instructor, Vista Community College, Berkeley, CA

URL: www.mkeever.com [Note: no 'c' in mkeever]

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Partial transcript of this discussion available at:

http://www.politalk.com/pages/%7Ediscuss/globalization.html

January 22/2001/POLITALK Second Conference on Globalization: Introductions

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:27:53 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] 3) Introductions

 

For those new to this discussion, here are brief introductions cut

from posts in our previous discussion. Most of the following people

are likely to participate in this discussion as well. If you did not

post in the previous discussion or your introduction is not listed

below, please include a brief introduction with your first post!

(I'll re-post this list next week including any new participants, if

you would like to amend the introduction I've used below, please send

me a private note).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Javed Ahmad: I am an Asian American, working with the UN system as an

expert in information and communication. My main area of work is in

population.

James C.W. Ahiakpor: Originally from Ghana, West Africa, I have been

an economics professor in North America since 1981, ten years in

Halifax, N.S., Canada and nine years in Hayward, California.

David Barkin: Dr. Barkin received his doctorate in economics from

Yale University and teaches at the Xochimilco Campus of the

Metropolitan University in Mexico City. He was elected a fellow of

the Mexican Academy of Science and a member of the National Research

Council of Mexico.

Paul Brenton: I am an economist who specialises in analysing

international trade and investment issues. I work for an independent

research institute in Brussels, the Centre for European Policy

Studies. Previously I worked as a lecturer at a University in the UK.

(Note: Mr. Brenton will not be participating directly this time, but

will submit some comments to our discussion in week 2).

Lori Cannon: I live in Minnetonka but will be moving to Boston on

Sunday. I'm starting grad school in two weeks for international

communications and plan to go into international journalism. (Note:

By now, Lori is in Boston and has started school. Good luck, Lori!!!)

Dr John Cheung: I just semi-retired from being a university professor

of engineering in Singapore, a modern global city-state in Southeast

Asia.

Tom Cordaro: I am the National Council Chairperson of Pax Christi

USA, a national section of Pax Christi International, the

international Catholic peace movement.

Sandra Cvilj: I'm originally from Sarajevo ,Bosnia, now living in

Ottawa, Canada. I'm finishing my fourth year of Computer Science at

the University of Ottawa, and working as a software developer for an

Ottawa company. The only really relevant biography detail would be

that I maintain the COAT (Coalition Against the Arms Trade) website (

http://www.ncf.ca/coat ).

Thomas Day: I work in medical devices, for a St. Paul company that is

about as "global" as companies get.

Harvey H. Glommen: I am a retired clinical social worker, but most of

my life has been spent in innovative program development. My primary

areas of interest are poverty, its antecedents, and its social

implications.

Joel Johnson: I am a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. I am

interested in Globalization because of my belief that trade should be

free, and because of my belief that the one thing that can bring

peace to the world is trade, not politics.

Paul Lareau: of Little Canada, MN, husband of Beth (a political

consultant), father of one, grandfather of two. I'm a former

librarian, and a longtime information analyst for a large Twin Cities

corporation, which reports more than half its sales to non-US

customers. Politically, I am a former member of the Socialist Party

USA, and have been an active DFLer since moving to Minnesota in 1973.

Dwaine Lindberg: I am 75 years old, a retired social worker. I grew

up in a small Minnesota town and have lived in Minnesota all my life

with the exception of time in the service during WWII and a period

when attending graduate school.

Manuwoto: I am from Indonesia. I am working as an obserrver on

various aspects of development and trade. I am interested with the

discussion, particularly on the subject of the souvereignty aspect in

globalization.

Micheal Pierce McKeever, Sr.: From Oakland, California, USA. I teach

economic theory at Vista Community College in Berkeley and

occasionally comment on the issues.

Lucio Munoz: I am an independent researcher based in Vancouver, Canada.

Art Noot: My wife and I live in the Flambeau River State Forest area

of Northern Wisconsin ~ at some distance from our three adult

children, four grandchildren, and two additional lives still in

development, expected by mid-year.

Vici (Victoria) Oshiro - Burnsville, Minnesota: My interest in

globalization stems from a long-standing interest in economic justice

and the gap between the rich and the poor both within nations and

among them.

Marc Pilisuk: I am a retired prof of Human and community development

, the University of California and currently professor at the

Saybrook Graduate School and research Center in San Francisco.

Carolyn Stephens: I am a professor of environmental health and

policy, currently based in Northern Argentina working on sustainable

agriculture, health and inequalities. I am from the UK but have

worked and lived for over 20 years in India, Ghana, Liberia, Brazil

and now Argentina. My background is a mix of literature/philosophy

(to try to understand why the world is so badly run by an ostensibly

intelligent species) and public health medicine (which is a handier

trade). I teach ethics, and work with colleagues in universities all

over the South on trade,health and inequalities.

Charlie Swope: I am from St. Paul and I work in the on-line

information business. My expertise is in the organization of

information.

Bayan Tabbara: I am a social researcher at the Economic and Social

Commission for Western Asia in Beirut - Lebanon and am working on the

impact of globalization on the labour markets of the ESCWA region.

Laura Waterman Wittstock: I am a Seneca Indian from western New York.

I have lived in Minneapolis since 1973. My work is in nonprofit

education. I am a writer, columnist, and nonprofit executive. I am

married with five grown children and three grandchildren under the

age of seven. My husband and I are active grandparents and see the

children every day.

gchand4059: I am a retired engineer who took up the U.S. Federal

Reserve System as a hobby. I got drawn into IMF subjects by my

mininster. She asked me to look into it. She got too much information

from Jubliee 2000.

January 22/2001/POLITALK Second conference: Question

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:17:01 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Question

 

I'm sorry for this initial flood of e-mail, but I'm trying to lay the

groundwork for our discussion. After sending the quotes, it occurred

to me that the discussion questions should have come last, so here

they are again.

(Nothing more from me today - I look forward to hearing from you).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1) Do you believe that the process that we call globalization is

changing the way that individuals identify themselves with groups or

communities? Are we becoming more likely to identify with

trans-national groups (religious, economic, consumer, or special

interest) or has globalization intensified nationalistic tendencies

and ties to local communities?

2) Do you believe that globalization (or is it americanization) is

creating a global culture at the expense of local and national

traditions? If so, is it a good thing, a bad thing, or is it mixed?

Please explain......

Please send your posts to: politalk-us1@egroups.com

--

January 25/2001/POLITALK Second Conference: Summaries

To: Politalk-US1 <politalk-us1@egroups.com>

From: Tim Erickson <designit@visi.com>

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:35:31 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Summaries

 

My summaries were popular last time, so I'm going to give it another go.

I apologize in advance to anyone, if I've misunderstood or

misrepresented your views. Please feel free to correct me either

publicly or privately.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My impression so far, is that overall we seem to be pretty much in=20

agreement that economic class is the most important factor in

determining how an individual defines their identity.

The argument being, that poor or working class people are more likely

to respond to globalization by adopting a more nationalistic identity

while the educated upper classes are more likely to see themselves as

a part of an international community.

If I understood everyone correctly, there also seems to be a

recognition that some cultural homogenization is taking place.

Participants in this group seem pretty resigned to this fact and not

feel that it is a big deal. The assumption is, that this will not

necessarily be an American Culture, but an international culture.

There also seems to be a feeling that this international culture can

survive in harmony with ethnic diversity and the preservation of many

unique cultural traditions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dwaine Lindberg: Dwaine kicked off the discussion by pretty much

saying that an international culture is forming, but not necessarily

an American one. He also drew upon the experience of the United

States in bringing a confederation of different states together into

a single nation. He implies that the nations of the world are moving

toward some kind of loose confederation with a common international

culture but maintaining unique regional or ethnic characteristics.

- - - - - - - -

Paul J. Lareau: Paul asserts that identity is tied to class and that

the poor will become more nationalistic as they compete against the

poor from other countries to get jobs. At the same time, the rich

will form an elite international class, less tied to any particular

nation (yet maintaining some ethnic identity).

Paul seems to argue that cultural homogenization is a good thing,

given that the more similar that we become culturally, the less

likely we are to engage in hostile and violent interactions.

- - - - - - - -

Lucio Munoz: Lucio describes the world as a dynamic and changing

environment. He draws attention to the changing policy that is likely

to come out of Washington, with a new administration.

He describes a clash between "Morality" based liberalization that

respects human and environmental concerns - and "Practicality" based

globalization based purely on economic efficiency. He seems to

believe that the clash between the two ways of looking at

globalization is inevitable and that the sooner it occurs, the sooner

we can move onto a sustainable "Morality" based liberalization which

supports openness and diversity as opposed to secrecy and homogeneity.

Lucio, was I even close to what you meant??

- - - - - - - - - -

Bayan Tabbara: Bayan points out that age is a big factor in=20

determining how we identify ourselves in this new global world. She

points out that our children will have a dramatically different view

of their place in this world than we do (at least those of us who are

old enough to have kids). The difference that she describes, is that

younger people are more likely to identify with an international

consumer culture than their elders, who are more likely to maintain

at least some of their traditional ethnic identity. She points out in

the end, that we must share our traditional culture with our children

and hope that they learn to value it, despite the international

culture in which they will live.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Joseph Ngu:Joseph put forward perhaps the most articulate argument so

far, that economic class is rapidly becoming the most important

element in determining our identity. He points out that the poor in

New York city are most likely to identify with the poor and

impoverished peasants around the world.

Joseph also sounds the alarm against the possibility of unchecked

globalization created a mass of disenfranchised poor people with few

or no ties to their state or nationality. He suggests that the

resulting instability could prove dangerous.

He concludes by saying "We must globalize with a human face and I

believe we have the means of doing so."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Ana Mar=EDa Acevedo: Ana Mar=EDa points out that in the last ten years of

globalization, the standard of living has declined for the Peruvian

people where she works and lives. She says that more effort must be

made to help the "little" markets and the "little" businesses who

cannot compete in the "big" markets with the big transnational

corporations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chetly Zarko: Chetly argues that globalization and nationalism need

not be at odds with one another. He says it quite clear in his own

words:

"I do see it as possible that globalization would continue in earnest

while nationalistic or racial identity forces continue to define

local cultures. Of course there is going to be some cultural bleed

together, but retaining local identity and autonomy are both possible

and necessary to the process. Of course, to tight of an adherence to

local or nationalistic beliefs could hinder or prevent globalization,

or at least create conflict."

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Vici Oshiro: I'm getting lazy, so I'll let Vici speak for herself as well:

"Be ready to accept differing answers for differing groups of people.

Some may want to develop a local community that is largely

self-sufficient with few ties to the global community. Most, I

think, will want to be thoroughly integrated into the global

community - at least economically. Many will find ways to maintain

many aspects of their own culture even within the global economy;"

she goes on to imply that others will pick and choose aspects of

different cultures and meld them together.

Vici also points out that cultural homogenization is not new, it also

goes in many directions. She points out the many different cultural

traditions that have been absorbed into American culture. She also

points out that the dominant role of America in defining

international culture is unlikely to last.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lori Cannon: Lori points out the backlash against Americanization in

countries like France. She points out that globalization has provided

cover for many xenophobic policies. However she also seems to believe

that people will gradually adopt more transnational identities over

time.

While she laments some of the signs of Americanization that she sees

in foreign countries, she concludes: "Globalization does not have to

mean homogenization--people can feel an international

identity and a global responsibility without losing their cultural heritage=

."

January 26/2001/POLITALK Second Conference: Some negative consequences of globalization

To: Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com

From: mckeever <mckeever@ccnet.com>

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:44:45 +0000

Subject: [Pol-US1] Some negative consequences of globalization

 

Here are some of the reasons that compel me to treat globalization gingerly:

1. Opening up national markets to world food markets frequently means that

local producers are priced out of the market; then, the population becomes

dependent on imports for food. If there is a crop disease or armed conflict

in the food producing countries, the national population may starve. Alos,

crop diversity is reduced.

2. Allowing free movement of capital has resulted in speculators attacking a

country's currency leading to a devaluaion that is not warranted by

underlying economic factors. This devaluation causes capital flight,

recession and, in the case of Indonesia, armed conflict and many deaths.

3. Corporations move manufacturing plants to locations where environmental

regulation is lax or susceptible to bribery and where wages are low. When

companies in high wage countries cannot compete due to a lack of tariffs,

then wages in all countries 'race to the bottom'.

4. Rules based trading through the WTO and other international bodies

regularly overturns national regulation because some international

corporation loses profits. We have endorsed the idea of ceding national

sovereignty to multi-national corporations.

5. Increased trade makes income disparities worse in all countries, even

when that trade raises GDP and average incomes.

Here is a national policy list which can reduce the negative effects of

globalization:

a. Begin with the concept that a national government exists to protect its

weakest citizens from harm, which harm may come from well-meaning policies

as well as more recognizeable actors.

b. Eliminate free capital movement from the country, auction foreign

exchange to the highest doemstic bidder.

c. Encourage unions and collective bargaining as a means to create a more

equitable distribution of wealth.

d. Erect trade barriers to protect domestic industries with the objective a

balancing trade so that imports and exports are equal and so the currency

becomes a stable commodity.

e. Fire the IMF, borow no money from them; this will not be a problem since

their primary function is to lend in case of foreign exchange deficits,

which will disappear from the country.

f. Recognize that there will be pressure from selfish interests against

these proposals. Note that these policies do not indicate a withdrawal from

the global economy, but they do indicate an assertion of national control

over corporate activities.

 

Read more background at my web site.

Cheers,

Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr.

Economics Instructor, Vista Community College, Berkeley, CA

URL: www.mkeever.com [Note: no 'c' in mkeever]

January 26/2001/CAEE/Related Terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Joe Franke" <>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>,<alexagui" <>,"caee" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>,

"Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <>

Subject: Re:_El_Salvador_bajo_la_amenaza_de_nuevos_derrumbes_y_mas_tragedias:_ las_opciones_construyen_un_dilema?=

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:00:28 -0800

 

This may sound terribly callous, given the immense suffering that has =

occurred during the recent earthquake in El Salvador and the flooding, =

mudslides and other miseries caused by hurricane Mitch. The question =

should be asked, however, concerning how responsibility should be shared =

in preventing future disasters caused, at least in part, by the lack of =

political will to take deforestation and other ecological considerations =

into account?=20

Are donor nations simply to stand by and wait for more such disasters, =

while governmental officials in countries that are sure to suffer many =

more such incidences do next to nothing?=20

Do any members of this list see mechanisms, both on the internal =

political level, and on the part of European, and North American =

disaster relief agencies, NGOs and governments, to encourage proactivity =

on these matters?=20

Joe Franke

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: alexagui ; caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:50 PM

Subject: Re: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s =

tragedias: las opciones construyen un dilema

 

Estimado Alexis y amigos. Estoy de acuerdo en lo que se menciona en =

este articulo, el riesgo de contruir en las faldas de la cordillera de =

el Balsamo a incrementado a tal forma que danos similares seran posibles =

bajo accion sismica o de lluvias. =20

Esto implica que contemplar la posibilidad de permitir reconstruir o =

reparar is contractoria ya que parece que hay un acuerdo en general que =

el dan~o economico y social resulto en primer lugar parque las casas =

estaban en un lugar donde no deberian de haber estado. =20

Por eso el hecho que el articulo ahorita este enfocado en soportar o =

no una decision a corto plazo o no de reconstruir me parece extrano =

porque no menciona las implicaciones economicas y sociales de esas =

decisiones. =20

Yo comprendo la situacion que el abandono de la colonia para =

reforestar crearia, ya que implicaria la nececidad compensar a todos los =

duenos de terrenos y casas, en pie or no y a las personas afectadas =

viviendo ahi para que obtengan los recursos para relocarse, pero esto =

pueda que no sea fisible o afordable para el gobierno en este momento. =20

Por el otro lado, permitir reconstruccion/reparacion implicaria =

tambien la necesidad de proveer parcial or totalmente los recurson =

necerios para eso, lo que convierte la situacion en un DILEMA ya que =

haciendo esto implicaria poner a la colonia en el mismo sitio a un mas =

alto riesgo. =20

Por eso, prevencion parece que seria una opcion mas costo effectiva. =

Todo lo anterior y el articulo no menciona nada de los factores humanos =

que podria ser responsables y sus implicaciones legales.

Parece que se asume en el articulo, si no estoy equivocado, que si se =

permite reconstruir/reparar o no, los afectados van a pagar de su propio =

bolsillo. Lamentablemente, las limitaciones economicas pueden llevar a =

una situacion en la cual cualquier decision que se tome puede complicar =

las cosas en un future, incluyendo la decision de no hacer nada. Deseo =

que todo salga bien.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----=20

From: alexagui=20

To: caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:00 AM

Subject: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s =

Tragedias

 

http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c26001.htm=20

January 28/2001/CAEE/Related: Terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Joe Franke" <>

To: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>, "alexagui" <>,

"caee" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>,

"Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH" <>

Subject: Re:_El_Salvador_bajo_la_amenaza_de_nuevos_derrumbes_y_mas_tragedias:_ las_opciones_construyen_un_dilema?=

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:57:05 -0800

Estimado Lucio,

>>>Such a disaster like this shows these links clearly in terms of the =

value of alternative uses: the socio-economic value was deemed higher =

than the environmental value so it was deforested. If the project would =

have been in flat and safe land, it would have been apparently a wise =

socio-economic decision, but the project was located in a steep and =

apparently known unsafe area. Whether the risk factor was included =

appropriately is another, but related issue.

*** The passage above seems to be a highly sanitized way of saying =

that the people responsible for making the decision to site the project =

(and many thousands more like it) simply didn't sufficiently give a damn =

about the "environmental" consequences of their decision, which of =

course lead to the unfortunate "socio-economic" condition of having =

people buried under mud. After so many incidences like this, I find it =

hard to believe that much more in the way of fieldwork needs to be done =

before the decision-makers can discontinue their pleas of ignorance or =

whatever else they hide behind once such horrors occur.=20

>>Perhaps another way of dealing with disasters at least to create the =

seed money for emergencies and preventions would be the creation of a =

GLOBAL WARMING IMPACT MINIMIZATION FUND, which I had envisioned as a =

part of a WORLD POVERTY FUND to pair both environmental and social goals =

from now and on. =20

The views above are mine and I may be wrong so please express your =

views.

***This is a wonderful idea, but unless the EU governments and large =

NGOs can be convinced of the importance of proactively working on these =

problems, we can expect little action. I'm wondering if this could be =

sold to some of the NGOs that presently pick up the bill post facto, =

after the disasters occur, to invest some money into the idea of proper =

risk management, and perhaps USAID and other government-funded agencies =

might someday see the light and follow suit. Have you or anybody else on =

this list ever discussed these ideas with people powerful enough to =

affect some change?=20

Joe=20

----- Original Message -----

From: Joe Franke=20

To: Lucio Munoz ; alexagui ; caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:00 PM

Subject: Re: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s =

tragedias: las opciones construyen un dilema

 

This may sound terribly callous, given the immense suffering that =

has occurred during the recent earthquake in El Salvador and the =

flooding, mudslides and other miseries caused by hurricane Mitch. The =

question should be asked, however, concerning how responsibility should =

be shared in preventing future disasters caused, at least in part, by =

the lack of political will to take deforestation and other ecological =

considerations into account?=20

Are donor nations simply to stand by and wait for more such =

disasters, while governmental officials in countries that are sure to =

suffer many more such incidences do next to nothing?=20

Do any members of this list see mechanisms, both on the internal =

political level, and on the part of European, and North American =

disaster relief agencies, NGOs and governments, to encourage proactivity =

on these matters?=20

Joe Franke

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz=20

To: alexagui ; caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:50 PM

Subject: Re: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y =

m=E1s tragedias: las opciones construyen un dilema

 

Estimado Alexis y amigos. Estoy de acuerdo en lo que se menciona =

en este articulo, el riesgo de contruir en las faldas de la cordillera =

de el Balsamo a incrementado a tal forma que danos similares seran =

posibles bajo accion sismica o de lluvias. =20

Esto implica que contemplar la posibilidad de permitir reconstruir =

o reparar is contractoria ya que parece que hay un acuerdo en general =

que el dan~o economico y social resulto en primer lugar parque las casas =

estaban en un lugar donde no deberian de haber estado. =20

Por eso el hecho que el articulo ahorita este enfocado en soportar =

o no una decision a corto plazo o no de reconstruir me parece extrano =

porque no menciona las implicaciones economicas y sociales de esas =

decisiones. =20

Yo comprendo la situacion que el abandono de la colonia para =

reforestar crearia, ya que implicaria la nececidad compensar a todos los =

duenos de terrenos y casas, en pie or no y a las personas afectadas =

viviendo ahi para que obtengan los recursos para relocarse, pero esto =

pueda que no sea fisible o afordable para el gobierno en este momento. =20

Por el otro lado, permitir reconstruccion/reparacion implicaria =

tambien la necesidad de proveer parcial or totalmente los recurson =

necerios para eso, lo que convierte la situacion en un DILEMA ya que =

haciendo esto implicaria poner a la colonia en el mismo sitio a un mas =

alto riesgo. =20

Por eso, prevencion parece que seria una opcion mas costo =

effectiva. Todo lo anterior y el articulo no menciona nada de los =

factores humanos que podria ser responsables y sus implicaciones =

legales.

Parece que se asume en el articulo, si no estoy equivocado, que si =

se permite reconstruir/reparar o no, los afectados van a pagar de su =

propio bolsillo. Lamentablemente, las limitaciones economicas pueden =

llevar a una situacion en la cual cualquier decision que se tome puede =

complicar las cosas en un future, incluyendo la decision de no hacer =

nada. Deseo que todo salga bien.

Mis mas cordiales saludos;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----=20

From: alexagui=20

To: caee ; Felix Aguilar, MD, MPH=20

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:00 AM

Subject: El Salvador bajo la amenaza de nuevos derrumbes y m=E1s =

tragedias

 

http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c26001.htm=20

January 28/2001/ELAN/What to do if natural factors were to be blamed for global warming?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Julio Cesar Centeno" <>,

"ELAN LIST" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Subject: What to do if natural factors were to be blamed for global warming?

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:14:36 -0800

 

Dear Friends, just a positive comment about this issue highlighted by Dr. C=

enteno. The global warming issue boils down to whether or not global tempe=

ratures are rising and if they are rising, then why they are rising.=20=20

The drive is there to show once and for all, as I can see in this article, =

that temperatures are rising, and once this is established the next unavoid=

able question is why. In general additive thinking, there are only two pos=

sibilities, natural causes or human causes.

The panel is now saying that human causes are the most important ones, and =

so now it is hope that this will lead to sharing responsibilities, determin=

ing remedial actions, implementing and monitoring those actions.=20=20

My question is, had the panel determined that natural factors were the most=

important ones driving global warming, what its recommendations would have=

been?. We can not affect most natural factors with today technology to my=

knowledge, so do nothing?. And would have they ruled then that it was fine=

to leave human activity unchecked given their small contribution?. I wond=

er. What do others think?

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, BC., Canada.

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Julio Cesar Centeno=20

To: ELAN LIST=20

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:10 PM

Subject: VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

 

A BLEAK VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE

World Bank External Affairs Dept - Dev News

Jan 23 2001

The debate over global warming gained new intensity yesterday with the re=

lease of an authoritative new report showing that global temperatures are r=

ising faster and higher than most experts feared only a short time ago-fast=

er, in

fact, than at any time during the past 10,000 years according to one clim=

ate scientist-reports the International Herald Tribune (p.1). The report, =

issued at a conference on climate change in Shanghai, pictured a world not =

too far in the future when tens of millions of people could be forced from

low-lying coa stal areas, while others are driven from the land because of

searing temper atures and drought.

The results of new models persuaded the Intergovernmental Panel on =

Climate Change (IPCC) to declare unequivocally for the first time th=

at mankind is responsible for global warming rather than changes brought =

by the sun or other natural factors, adds the Washington Post (p. A1). "W=

e see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved, and we're pr=

ojecting future climate changes much more significant over the next 100=

years than the last 100 years," said Robert T. Watson, an American scient=

ist who is chairman of the panel as well as chief scientist and director fo=

r environment at the World Bank.=20

A leaked draft of the report was widely discussed during the climate=

change talks in The Hague last year, notes the FT. In spite of the sens=

e of urgency, the talks failed because European ministers rejected a p=

roposed deal on the grounds that it made too many concessions to the US=

. The European ministers hoped for a better deal at the next meetin=

g aimed at finalizing the Kyoto Protocol for climate change, scheduled fo=

r later this year. But during the US presidential election campaign, Repub=

lican George W. Bush declared his hostility to the Protocol-although he sig=

naled on another occasion that he was prepared to accept the scientific evi=

dence for global warming.

Even though the report's conclusions are unlikely to convince all the sk=

eptics, its latest findings are likely to have a powerful influence on the=

debate about global warming, the story says. If its sober but alarmin=

g assessment cannot persuade governments to take action, it is hard to ima=

gine what will.

Commenting in an editorial, the FT (p.16) says even the relatively=

modest measures now being proposed are proving unpopular. Industries d=

o not want to sacrifice their competitiveness and consumers do not want =

higher fuel prices. The idea that a switch to nuclear power may be=

needed to control carbon emissions is disliked even more.

The world's political leaders must try to overcome these objections wh=

en they resume their discussions in Bonn in May, says the editorial. Pr=

ogress may be slower than many European governments would like, particular=

ly after the switch to a Republican administration in the US. Compromi=

ses will be needed but an international consensus must be rebuilt. The unc=

ertainties are great-but so are the dangers.

Writing in the IHT (p.8) meanwhile, Greenpeace International Executive D=

irector Thilo Bode says if automakers were genuinely interested in p=

rotecting the environment, they would be doing many things much differentl=

y. Why aren't they supporting the Kyoto Protocol? Why are their ind=

ustry associations still lobbying against clean air regulations? W=

hy aren't they working with environmental groups to lobby for a be=

tter policy framework for sustainable technologies?

January 29/2001/POLITALK Second Conference: More Summaries

To: Politalk-US1 <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

From: Tim Erickson <designit@visi.com>

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:56:45 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] More Summaries

 

Since my last summary post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/124

Lucio Munoz: In Lucio's next post, Lucio tries to describe a possible

scenario that reflects the ideas that many participants expressed

earlier in the week. From Lucio's viewpoint, there is space for two

different models to develop at the same time, in combination forming

a sustainable and "morally" based globalization.

1) a rich global culture among communities willing and able to pay an

"international price."

2) poorer communities that remain diverse and local.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/125

Paul Lareau: Paul tried to jump ahead of things a bit (which is fine)

and more the discussion towards the reation of states to the

potential loss of political power at home in an environment of

globalization. I think I'll just repost his entire post again

tomorrow.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/126

Arthur E. Noot: Arthur describes from his personal experience the

"backlash" against globalization in his own Wisconsin community. In

particular he describes a growing distrust of the government, a

bitterness over imported products that used to be made in the USA,

and anger at "illegal" aliens and the "lawyers" that defend them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/127

Bill Ellis: Bill jumps in with what he believes is a counter

argument. He says "IMHO the future culture will not be a single

culture American or other. There is a strong trend toward a global

world of diverse cultures." Bill believes that that nations are

breaking down with cultural pride on the rise. He sees a future of

small nations seeking out their own identity.

He also envisions a decentralization "with the proliferation of

social innovations that empower people in their communities."

- - - - - - - - - - -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/128

Vici Oshiro: Vici asks the following question in a message that I

found in the archive, but never received in my e-mail in-box:

Lucio Munoz writes about an international/global culture and a

local/nationalistic culture.

My fear is that the first can, will and has too often wrecked the

latter. Is this the experience of those closer to the situation than

I?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/129

Harvey H. Glommen: Harvey argues that culture is tied to economics

and cannot be separated. He goes on to relate several personal

stories that illustrate the conflict between "economic progress" and

cultural knowledge/values. He argues "Economic forces seem to me to

be totally without conscience or feeling. They breed a culture, no

demand a culture with greed as its mothers' milk, while without

conscience depriving the people of their very most important need;

dignity."

He concludes with this "I believe that the most prevalent cultural

value today is "Change". Whether it changes by evolution, revolution

or "missionary" we can decide. If the fundamental changes occur by

default, chaos!!!""

- - - - - - - - - - - -

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/130

Michael Pierce McKeever, Sr.: Michael outlines a number of objections

to globalization, which cannot easily be summarized any more than he

has already done so. He then outlines "a national policy list which

can reduce the negative effects of globalization."

January 29/2001/POLITALK Second Discussion: Re: Lucio Munoz

To: Politalk-US1 <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

From: Tim Erickson <designit@visi.com>

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:19:29 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

 

Before moving on to the next stage of this discussion, I would like

to challenge members of this group to go back and respond to some of

the posts from last week. There were several questions or

controversial ideas that were posted and never responded to. I think

that we all like to know that our posts are being read and responded

to others, its part of the reason that we participate in these

discussions.

I'm going to respond to two posts from last week:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is my own summary of Lucio's post:

At 8:56 AM +0100 1/29/01, Tim Erickson wrote:

>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Politalk-US1/message/124

>Lucio Munoz: In Lucio's next post, Lucio tries to describe a

>possible scenario that reflects the ideas that many participants

>expressed earlier in the week. From Lucio's viewpoint, there is

>space for two different models to develop at the same time, in

>combination forming a sustainable and "morally" based globalization.

>

>1) a rich global culture among communities willing and able to pay

>an "international price."

>2) poorer communities that remain diverse and local.

Lucio, if I understand you correctly, you seem to imply that there is

a higher "international" price that comes with globalization, and

that poorer communities can stick with the cheaper, local economy and

remain diverse.

Isn't the situation, that the global elite pay less for their global

culture by passing the ecological and social costs along to poorer

communities who bare the burden of the process. While the maintenance

of a local and diverse economy will cost more, due to the actual

inclusion of a social safety net and ecological protections, making

such an economy too expensive for 'poor' communities to support on

their own.

I guess, that I don't believe that you can separate the rich and the

poor into two separate economies existing side by side, in some way

the economically elite have always and will always have to subsidize

and support the poorest segments of society.

In my own opinion, the model for a morally based and sustainable form

of globalization is one in which some form of global income tax

(transfer of wealth) can be used to address environmental and social

costs. It would seem to me, that the two model you described would

prohibit this.

I think that Vici was trying to get at a similar point in her post!

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Does anyone else want to comment on this?

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

January 29/2001/CAEE/Message relacionado con Terremoto en El Salvador

From: "Komar, Oliver" <>

To: "'Alexis Aguilar'" <>,

Central American Ecology & Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: RE=3A_Gobierno_salvadoreno_ejecuta_plan_para_disminuir_riesgos_tras_sismo?

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:05:07 -0600

 

Alexis, u otros miembros de la red:

Los =FAltimos informes mencionan m=E1s de un mill=F3n de damnificados

Como resultado del terremoto. =BFCu=E1l es su interpretaci=F3n de la palabra

"damnificandos"? Siempre entend=ED que significa personas que quedaron =

sin hogar. =BFSer=E1 que hay una interpretaci=F3n menos grave, o hay =

realmente casi 20% de la poblaci=F3n salvadore=F1a ahora sin casa?

Gracias por aclarar esta duda.

Atentamente,

 

Oliver Komar

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Alexis Aguilar [mailto:]

Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:52 AM

To: Central American Ecology & Environment

Subject: Gobierno salvadore=F1o ejecuta plan para disminuir riesgos =

tras sismo

 

http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c29002.htm

<http://www.laprensahn.com/caarc/0101/c29002.htm> =20

January 29/2001/CAEE/Related to Terremoto en El Salvador

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:46:53 -0500

From: "Carlos Ramirez-Sosa" <>

CC: "Komar, Oliver" <>, "'Alexis Aguilar'" <>,

Central American Ecology & Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: Gobierno salvadore=F1o?= ejecuta plan para disminuir

riesgos tras sismo

Lucio:

De que tipo de "valor" estas hablando??

CRRS

January 29/2001/POLITALK Second Conference: RE: Lucio Munoz

To: Politalk-US1 <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

From: Victoria Oshiro <vicio@>

Mailing-List: list Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com; contact Politalk-US1-owner@yahoogroups.com

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:24:04 -0600

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

 

Tim in commenting on Lucio's post:

"Isn't the situation, that the global elite pay less for their global

culture by passing the ecological and social costs along to poorer

communities who bare the burden of the process. While the maintenance

of a local and diverse economy will cost more, due to the actual

inclusion of a social safety net and ecological protections, making

such an economy too expensive for 'poor' communities to support on

their own."

Tim: Aren't you overlooking the many ways in which the poor are

subsidizing the rich - through low wages for instance?

Vici

January 30/2001/POLITALK Second Conference: RE: Lucio Munoz

To: Politalk-US1 <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

From: Tim Erickson <>

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:10:51 +0100

Subject: Re: [Pol-US1] Re: Lucio Munoz

 

>Tim in commenting on Lucio's post:

>

>"Isn't the situation, that the global elite pay less for their global

>culture by passing the ecological and social costs along to poorer

>communities who bare the burden of the process.

Vici wrote:

>Tim: Aren't you overlooking the many ways in which the poor are

>subsidizing the rich - through low wages for instance?

I don't think so, that was exactly the point that I was trying to

make, although I might not have been clear.

I think the confusion was in my poor use of the phrase "the rich have

and will always have to subsidize the poor." What I should have said,

is that in a healthy and sustainable economy, the wealthy will be

billed for the social costs of producing the wealth that they

possess. This bill comes either in higher prices for goods, ensuring

that workers are adequately compensated for their work, or in taxes

that are later used for social programs that, to some extent, offset

the social costs of not paying the workers well.

The biggest problem with our global economy, is that is does not

provide for either of these mechanisms for paying the "real" costs of

generating wealth.

February 2/2001/THEOMAI/ARTICLES IN SECOND ISSUE

Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:27:44

To: ELAN@csf.colorado.edu

From: Guido Galafassi <ggalafassi@>

Subject: Second isuue of Theomai Journal. Society, Nature and

Development Studies

 

Dear colleagues,

the second issue of <bold>Theomai Journal. Society, Nature and

Development Studies</bold> is on line.

You can visit it in:

<underline><color><param>0000,0000,fefe</param>http://www.unq.edu.ar/revist=

a-theomai/numero2/index.htm

</color></underline>

In this issue:

 

<bold>Articles

</bold>*Para una cr=EDtica del concepto de "Globalizaci=F3n" <italic>(Carlos

Antonio Aguirre Rojas)

</italic>* The concept of social metabolism in classical sociology

<italic>(Dario Padovan)

</italic>* Unprotected Areas, Protected Areas, and Sustainability Under

GreenDevelopment Policies: Which Are the Expected Impacts? <italic>(Lucio

Mu=F1oz)</italic>=20

* Ense=F1anza agr=EDcola y medio-ambiente en la Regi=F3n Pampeana,1910-1955

<italic>(Tal=EDa Violeta Gutierrez)</italic>=20

* Caminos y comercio como factores de cambio ambiental en las planicies

=E1ridas de Mendoza (Argentina) entre los siglos XVII y XIX. (<italic>Mar=

=EDa

del R. Prieto y Elena M. Abraham)

</italic>* La estructuraci=F3n territorial del partido de Quilmes a fines

del siglo XIX y principios del XX <italic>(Cintia Russo)

</italic>

<bold>Notes and Comments</bold>=20

* Countries y barrios cerrados . Algunas sugerencias relativas a la

gesti=F3n sustentable de estos empredimientos. El caso de Manzanares,

Pilar, Provincia de Buenos Aires <italic>(Ver=F3nica Paiva, Javier G=F3mez,

Marta Kaplanski, y Ana S=E1nchez Espi=F1eira)

</italic>

<bold>Debats and discussions</bold>=20

* La storia della famiglia nella storiografia europea: alcuni problemi

<italic>(Franco Ramella)

</italic>

 

<bold>Editorial Board:

</bold>

<bold><italic>Editors

</italic></bold>Guido Galafassi (Quilmes University and CONICET,

Argentina)

Adrian Zarrilli (Quilmes University, La Plata University and CONICET,

Argentina)

<bold><italic>Editorial Committee

</italic></bold>Andres Dimitriu (Comahue University, Argentina)

Dario Padovan (Padova University, Italy)

Hugo Gaggiotti (CONICET and La Pampa University, Argentina)

Mar=EDa V. Secreto (Campinas University, Brazil)

Omar Miranda (INTA - San Juan, Argentina)

Chris Van Dam (Salta University, Argentina)

 

<bold><italic>Interantional Advisory Board

</italic></bold>Immanuel Wallerstein (Yale University and Fernand Braudel

Center, USA)

Pastor Arenas Rodriguez (Buenos Aires University and CONICET,=20

Argentina)

Carlos Antonio Aguirre Rojas (Universidad Nacional Aut=F3noma de M=E9xico,

Mexico)

Gilberto Cabrera Trimi=F1o (La Habana University, Cuba)

Horacio Capel (Barcelona University, Spain)

Francesco Chiarello (Bari University, Italy)

Roberto Fernandez (Mar del Plata University, Argentina)

Floreal Forni (Buneos Aires University and CONICET, Argentina)

Takis Fotopoulos (North London University and editor of Democracy &

Nature Journal, England)

Noemi Girbal (Quilmes University, La Plata University and CONICET,

Argentina)

Marta Kollman (Buenos Aires University, Argentina)

Enrique Leff (PNUMA, Mexico)

Jorge Morello (Buenos Aies University, Argentina)

Guillermo Neiman (Buenos Aires University and CONICET, Argentina)

Ligia Osorio (Campinas University , Brasil)

Luc=EDa Sala de Tour=F3n (La Rep=FAblica University, Uruguay)

Ivano Spano (Padova University, Italy)

Pedro Talavera Deniz (Barcelona University, Sapin)

Ileana Valenzuela (ACOFOP, Guatemala)

Jose Mar=EDa Vidal Villa (Barcelona Universtiy, Spain)

February 5/2001/POLITALK Sencond Conference: End of globalization discussion

To: Politalk-US1 <Politalk-US1@yahoogroups.com>

From: Politalk <info@politalk.com>

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:22:38 +0100

Subject: [Pol-US1] End Of Globalization Discussion

 

Technically, our discussion on globalization was scheduled to end

last Friday. However, given that I didn't give list members proper

notice and some of you MAY have a final statement to make, I'll allow

ONE final statement on this issue (one per person) over the next two

or three days. I don't expect many messages, but would like to give

everyone a final opportunity to post their concluding comments, if

they have any.

If you would like to post any comments on the usefulness or lack of

usefulness of this type of discussion, ideas for future discussions,

or other comments - please do so!

I would like to thank everyone for their participation, this

discussion was very helpful to me. If I have time, I'll try to post

some concluding thoughts of my own (but may not have time).

Tim Erickson

Politalk Moderator

February 15/2001/Message from Ni Ni

From: "Ni Ni" <wrtc@wrtcburma.org>

Subject: Please update my e-mail address and stay in touch with me

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:13:08 -0800

To: freetime@…dblain@, samanito@

cc: msulaiman@………..bork@, tomcordaro@

 

Dear Respected Colleagues around the world,

(whom I met virtually with in the Globalisation conference last year)

I read with great interest what each of you wrote/discussed in that great=

event and learnt a lot. Thank you again for enlightening me. I transferr=

ed as much as I received then. Hence I got a nick name 'busy-bee, good at=

knowledge pollination', they said.=20

I am now writing to update you all with my new e-mail address, i.e., <wrt=

c@wrtcburma.org>. I would be most grateful if you update my e-mail in you=

r address book and stay in touch with me.

with best regards,

NiNi

Dr. Khin Ni Ni Thein

Ph.D. Hydroinformatics

Gender Ambassador

Executive Director

WRTC

February 16/2001/Quote on TRUE SUSTAINABILITY

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:41:42 -0800 (PST)

From: Nabil El-Khodari <khodari@>

Subject: True Sustainability

To: NileRiver@

Cc: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

SUSTAINABILITY

------------

Quote:

The necessary and sufficient condition for True

Sustainability to take place is the presence of optimal

social, economic, and environmental development at the same

time.

(Lucio Munoz: Ing.Agr./National University of El Salvador;

MS AgrEcon./The Ohio State University, USA; PhD Degree in

Progress/The University of British Columbia)

------------

There is agreement that theory must match the practice to

achieve consistency, yet there is not a well accepted

general sustainability theory to deal with sustainability

failures. Due to this, non-system thinking is being used to

address systematic problems. In my opinion, this

inconsistency between additive theory and systematic

practice must be eliminated. In other words, how can we

expect to solve systematic problems using non-system based

theoretical tools?

There can be many types of sustainability, yet there can be

only one type of true sustainability: the point where the

society, the economy, and the environment optimize their

interactions. The identification of true sustainability

positions permit for example the determination of how far

different types of sustainability are from the true form.

This view provides a different way of looking at

development issues.

To read more of Lucio Munoz intriguing discussion of

sustainability, please visit:

http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/munoz/

=====

Nabil M. El-Khodari

"If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." David Suzuki

Join the Nile Basin Society:

February 16/2001/THEOMAI: re: Environmental Sustainability Index released

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:56:55

To: "listatheomai List Member" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

From: Guido Galafassi <>

Subject: [listatheomai] INFOTERRA: 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index released {01}

 

Reenvio informacion de interes.

Guido Galafassi

><<=20

> 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index

> An Initiative of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow

> Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum

> January, 2001

>=20

> The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and this

> report are the result of collaboration among the World

> Economic Forum=92s Global Leaders for Tomorrow (GLT)

> Environment Task Force, the Yale Center for Environmental

> Law and Policy (YCELP), and the Columbia University Center

> for International Earth Science Information

> Network (CIESIN).

>=20

> The Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) is a measure

> of overall progress towards environmental sustainability

> developed for 122 countries. The three highest ranking

> countries in the 2001 ESI are Finland, Norway, and Canada.

> The three lowest are Haiti, Saudi Arabia, and Burundi.

> Examples of countries scoring in the middle include Ghana

> and Honduras. A high ESI rank indicates that a country has

> achieved a higher level of environmental sustainability

> than most other countries; a low ESI rank signals that a

> country is facing substantial problems in achieving

> environmental sustaina-bility

> along multiple dimensions.

>=20

> The ESI scores are based upon a set of 22 core

> =93in-dicators,=94 each of which combines two to six vari-ables

> for a total of 67 underlying variables. The indicators and

> variables were chosen through care-ful review of the

> environmental literature and available data combined with

> extensive consultation and analysis. The ESI permits

> cross-national comparisons of en-vironmental progress in a

> systematic and quantitative fashion. It represents a first

> step towards a more analytically driven approach to

> environmental

> decision making. The ESI enables:

> =95 identification of issues where national envi-ronmental

> results are above or below expec-tations;

> =95 policy tracking to identify areas of success or failure;

> =95 benchmarking of environmental perfor-mance;

> =95 identification of =93best practices=94; and

> =95 investigation into interactions between envi-ronmental

> and economic performance.

>=20

> ESI 2001 Rank Country

>=20

> The top 10 countries (USA came as 11th)

> =20

> 1 Finland

> 2 Norway

> 3 Canada

> 4 Sweden

> 5 Switzerland

> 6 New Zealand

> 7 Australia

> 8 Austria

> 9 Iceland

> studied.

> =20

> 67 Egypt

> 81 Uganda

> 82 Kenya

> 94 Tanzania

> 107 Sudan

> 115 Rwanda

> 119 Ethiopia

> 120 Burundi

> =20

> Copies of the report and associated materials may be

> accessed at:

> http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/

>=20

>=20

> Nabil M. El-Khodari

> "If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." David Suzuki

>=20

> Join the Nile Basin Society:

February 16/2001/message INFOTERRA: TRUE SUSTAINABILITY

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:34:41 -0500

Subject: Re: INFOTERRA: True Sustainability

From: "Bryan Farrell" <bfarrell@>

To: "Nabil El-Khodari" <khodari@>, NileRiver@,

INFOTERRA@cedar.at

CC: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

 

Thank you for the interesting quote on sustainability.

If I interpret correctly non-systemic thinking is being used to address

systemic problems. I agree and so too are linear tools being used for

non-linear problems such as those affecting ecosystems.

I agree it would be nice to have a theory of sustainability. I doubt this is

possible. Look at it as a series of guidelines for the time being and think

how useful it would be to have more and more workable theory of complex

systems which all ecosystems largely are.

There is a growing body of knowledge on both sustainability and complex

systems and many problems are being addressed by adaptive management.

Complex systems are forever evolving and are subject to change and

instability. Although it would be nice to think of the maintenance of

optimal conditions as Lucio Munoz apparently does. This would only be

attainable under linear conditions of permanent stability. As this is

unattainable in a universe of complexity we will have to wish hard for

another definition.

This will be forever, as fields of study and frameworks are forever

changing as they too are complex non-linear subsystems. And beside every

culture must have its substantial input toward sustainability so in reality

we should expect many quite different interpretations of SD which is

appropriate.

It is strange that Lucio Munoz should think this way because UBC was in a

way the birthplace, or at least one of them, for innovative thinking about

terrestrial and marine ecosystems and fisheries in non-loinear ways. C. S

Holling did excellent work there and the first trials of adaptive management

were centred on the Gulf Islands, and Carl Walters who has done as much as

anyone to advance adaptive management is still there. Lucio should engage

him if he hasn't done so already to learn about uncertainty and

sustainability and the function of adaptive management.

All the best

Bryan Farrell

----------

>From: Nabil El-Khodari <khodari@>

>To: NileRiver@

>Cc: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

>Subject: INFOTERRA: True Sustainability

>Date: Feb, 16 2001, , 5:41 AM

>

> SUSTAINABILITY

>

> ------------

> Quote:

> The necessary and sufficient condition for True

> Sustainability to take place is the presence of optimal

> social, economic, and environmental development at the same

> time.

>

> (Lucio Munoz: Ing.Agr./National University of El Salvador;

> MS AgrEcon./The Ohio State University, USA; PhD Degree in

> Progress/The University of British Columbia)

> ------------

>

> There is agreement that theory must match the practice to

> achieve consistency, yet there is not a well accepted

> general sustainability theory to deal with sustainability

> failures. Due to this, non-system thinking is being used to

> address systematic problems. In my opinion, this

> inconsistency between additive theory and systematic

> practice must be eliminated. In other words, how can we

> expect to solve systematic problems using non-system based

> theoretical tools?

>

> There can be many types of sustainability, yet there can be

> only one type of true sustainability: the point where the

> society, the economy, and the environment optimize their

> interactions. The identification of true sustainability

> positions permit for example the determination of how far

> different types of sustainability are from the true form.

> This view provides a different way of looking at

> development issues.

>

> To read more of Lucio Munoz intriguing discussion of

> sustainability, please visit:

> http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/munoz/

>

> =====

> Nabil M. El-Khodari

> "If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." David Suzuki

>

> Join the Nile Basin Society:

February 20/2001/CRIPDES/Segundo terremoto en El Salvador

From: "cuenta CRIPDES" <cripdes@es.com.sv>

To: "Wolfgang Seiss" <wolfgang.seiss@…….. "ALAP" <alap@>,

"Administrador de Correo" <postmast@>

Subject: De CRIPDES sobre Terremoto

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 04:25:31 -0600

 

Continua la actividad s=EDsmica en El Salvador.

Este s=E1bado pasado (17 de feb) en horas de la tarde El Salvador

experiment=F3 nuevamente un movimiento altamente sensible entre la

poblaci=F3n, esta vez el epicentro de la actividad s=EDsmica fue la

ciudad capital. Inmediatamente la mayor=EDa de negocios comerciales

cerr=F3 actividades y las personas se abocaron hacia sus hogares, con

lo que el tr=E1fico llen=F3 las calles r=E1pidamente y luego de unas

horas =E9stas quedaron totalmente desiertas, en esta ocasi=F3n

afortunadamente no se reporta ning=FAn tipo de da=F1os personales,

solamente algunos derrumbes. Durante el resto de la tarde y en las

primeras horas de la noche se continuaron los movimientos, cortos pero

altamente sensibles, los y las capitalinos pasamos una noche en vela,

muchos hogares tomaron nuevamente las aceras y las calles para dormir.

Ya el domingo no fueron sensibles mas que dos movimientos con menor

intensidad que los del d=EDa s=E1bado.

El Ministerio de Educaci=F3n que el d=EDa viernes hab=EDa anunciado

reinicio de clases para este lunes 19 (hoy) inmediatamente en horas de

la noche del s=E1bado anunci=F3 de nuevo una suspensi=F3n de car=E1cter

indefinido de las labores en centros educativos p=FAblicos y privados.

Seg=FAn dijo habr=E1 que realizar una nueva evaluaci=F3n t=E9cnica y

espera que los centros educativos realicen una asamblea general con el

50% mas uno de los padres y madres de familia en la que se apruebe el

inicio de labores y exima de responsabilidades a las autoridades

educativas de lo que pueda suceder. Un factor importante es la salud

metal de educandos, maestros y madres y padres de familia se=F1alo la

titular del ramo.

En horas de la noche del domingo el gobierno anunci=F3 a trav=E9s del

Comit=E9 Nacional de Emergencia, un plan de Rescate Invernal para

eventuales inundaciones y/o deslizamientos en todo el pa=EDs, pero

principalmente en 265 zonas declaradas proclives a deslaves por lluvias

en los 6 departamentos que son los mas afectados de la actividad

s=EDsmica en el pa=EDs. Al mismo el servicio meteorol=F3gico ha

pronosticado que durante el invierno que llegar=E1n por lo menos 7

huracanes y 4 temporales, aunque ello no signifique que efectivamente

afecten el territorio salvadore=F1o.

Este lunes ha bajado considerablemente la actividad sensible entre la

poblaci=F3n, percibi=E9ndose solamente dos movimientos leves en horas de

la ma=F1ana, la tendencia es hacia la calma, pero cada vez que un

movimiento es percibido, la histeria y la angustia se apodera de la

mayor=EDa de la poblaci=F3n, afectando mayormente la salud mental

ni=F1os y ni=F1as, asi como poblaci=F3n en la tercera edad.