Is Globalization Bad? Corporations?

[August1991]

These words are used differently by different people. To the Left, it seems to me, globalization implies genetically modified food, destruction of the environment, US domination and corporations taking over the world. Only a Democratic State can protect ordinary people against this onslaught.

Is it necessary to ensure the State is not controlled by Corporations? How?

What is the difference between Free Trade and Globalization?

Is there such a thing as 'Collective Rights' which should dominate over 'Individual Rights'? When?

[willy]

"To the Left, it seems to me, globalization implies genetically modified food, destruction of the environment, US domination and corporations taking over the world."

If Canada was protectionist and we closed our boarder. We would still need food and science to produce it, we would consume energy that would impact the environment and the organizations government or private who produce the products we consume would influence our lives.

So what is the big deal if we operate with access to others in the world doing the same thing?

This is not to mention that without trade with the US we will have no influence on there environmental and labour climate. At least if we are in dialogue, we can win a few points of interest and access there markets.

[Michael Hardner]

If Canada was protectionist and we closed our boarder. We would still need food and science to produce it, we would consume energy that would impact the environment and the organizations government or private who produce the products we consume would influence our lives.

Actually, I spoke with an economist who explained to me that Canada is actually self-sufficient in terms of natural resources.

To answer the question, corporatization and globalization aren't "bad" or "good". These are means of increasing wealth, which hopefully will increase the general wealth as well. But as Hjalmar proves with every post, the average citizen has no idea what the state of the general wealth is and what affects it.

If we can't have a clear and understandable public consensus on what we're trying to achieve in society, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed first.

[willy]

"Actually, I spoke with an economist who explained to me that Canada is actually self-sufficient in terms of natural resources."

I must work on my written communication because I don't know what you thought I was saying.

Of course we have all the natural resources needed to be self sufficient we have a resource based economy because of it. I was pointing out, be it macro or micro the issues of environment and influence on power is the same globally as it is domestically.

I will admit the bigger the economy the more complex.

"The average citizen has no idea what the state of the general wealth is and what affects it."

Are you an average citizen or do you think of yourself as special?

[Michael Hardner]

I must work on my written communication because I don't know what you thought I was saying.

Sorry, I thought you were saying Canada wasn't self-sufficient.

Of course we have all the natural resources needed to be self sufficient we have a resource base economy because of it. I was pointing out, be it macro or micro the issues of environment and influence on power is the same globally as it is domestically.

I will admit the bigger the economy the more complex.

"The average citizen has no idea what the state of the general wealth is and what affects it."

Are you an average citizen or do you think of yourself as special?

I'm a bit above the level of an "average citizen", being a MapleLeafWeb poster and holding a degree, but not so much that these concepts are crystal clear to me.

[RB]

Is it necessary to ensure the State is not controlled by Corporations? How?

Is Globalization Bad?"

my take is that it is a few forward thinking multinational that provides us this impetus for global think translates to global trade is good

well, look at it this way competition trading brings us cheap prices for goods as efficiently as possible.

my thinking is if were always looking at an efficiency level you always give up something to get the other, so in this case you want to increase productivity then lower you standard of living - i did not mention canada.

this brings me to the a first reason why businesses become er gobal and ends up where human right laws or environmental laws are not a barrier per sa china, brazil and the usual loss to whom? but we do have tax evasion made possible, business and government sleeping arrangements with bribes etc. is besides the point

so few companies have power yes,

now the trade laws, well they tend to favor those power companies, yes.

well, its the same like you own a property yes, the property rights tend to favor those who have owership of property yes

the explanation is that we like to synergise all our resources in order to use it as efficiently as possible

so maybe government should be constrained to operate in the economy by their limited laws. for the good government the explanation is that they are limited because they want a viable market with a flow of investment and jobs to flow into their country.

unless! you can tell me how difficult would it be to design an economy that can control corporate power whilst still operating efficiently?

efficiency is defined as maximising production with a variety of high-quality goods just for cheap while having stable labor

now if this is some kind of conspiracy belief that few multinational corporations constitute gobalization with their juxtaposition feudal arrangements with the state

then here is the proposition:

that it necessary for some other groups to see beyond their own myopic borders

and guess who leads my list TRADE UNIONS, besides religious, non and ex and political groups and other groups

a few companies with agendas cannot solve pressing issues such as: security, the environment, exploitive human rights or other issues in the post

what i mean is that for globalisation to expand creatively we somehow prosper in opposing groups just like competition

[CanadaRocks]

In my opinion, Globalization can be either good, or bad depending on how its accomplished.

If we achieve Globalization by lowering all standards of living to the lowest common denominator? I feel its a bad thing, and this tends to be the current path.

If on the other hand we achieve Globalization by raising all standards of living to the highest common denominator, then I feel it's a good thing.

heh..

[idealisttotheend]

Since both the CBC forum and the "right" to work legislation forum seem to be heading to questions of economics I thought I would resurrect this forum.

All quotes from August1991

You state: "The farther this balance tips (the more we buy vs. the more we sell) the poorer we get." Why? How?

Though I will likely get in trouble with certain people for quoting Lenin, the critical problem of free market economics in my opinion is and has always been how can 1 +1 = 3? To make a widget I spend 1 dollar on labour 1 dollar on materials and sell it for 3 dollars. If everyone does this and the economy represents real goods traded from one person to another where does the third 'dollar' come from?

By definition then I always sell things at a profit (for more than it is worth in intrinsic terms) and always buy things at a loss (for less than it is actually worth in intrinsic terms).

If I sell exactly as much as I buy then I am okay because I have taken as much profit from other people than they have taken from me. But if I buy more than I sell than I have not only lived outside my means in intrinsic terms but I have paid more profit to someone else then I have taken and so lose twice. Therefore I have become poorer in more ways than the obvious (I have spent more money than I have 'earned'). This, and economies of scale, is why money trickles up IMHO

Furthermore the trade deficit will be a major issue in the American political campaign and if Kerry is smart he will focus on it. It cost jobs and the people who lose their jobs often don’t get new ones or if they do they are not nearly as good. That simple.

I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Do you mean that if thousands of poor workers came to Canada and were willing to do our jobs for half the wage, this would be bad for Canadian workers?

In a word, yes. They would put us out of work which would be great for them ( they need it) and bad for us since we‘d become the poor workers. This leads to our next disagreement:

Markets are designed to be price competitive, not competitive. There is a fundamental difference between competition (as in sports) and price competition (as in a price war). Price competition leads to cooperation

You seem to be very confident that if you lose your job you will just go find another one (as you have posted previously). You are confident of economic good times for all (when admittedly markets may seem fairly co-operative and all together ’nice’.) It is not that easy for all of us.

Markets are designed to be competitive period. If you and I are competing for the same job and you are willing to do it for a lower price than me (assuming the same quality of work) than you will get that job. If I don't get a different job then I might not eat and I will not feel that you and I are co-operating. If I lose the competition it is quite possible that I will starve or live in a way I certainly do not want to, it happens everyday. If I am producing widgets and sell them for a lower price than you do and you go broke you are the one on the street. Again we won't feel like we are co-operating. Even if you do lower your prices and drive me out of business but your prices are so low that you don't make a profit that you feel is adequate you will be unhappy with me for driving your prices down not happy that we are co-operating, (it works on the labour side too vis a vie “right to work“ laws and such).

Consider also, how much of our society is geared to showing off how good we are at competing. We buy big houses and fancy cars to show how we've "made it" and that we have been successful in the great Competition. I enjoy listening to ads on CORUS for luxury homes. “You’ve always demanded the best from yourself and those around you. Now it is time to show that success and live like it. This assumes that someone else has not or we would not feel it necessary to flaunt that we have. Winners require losers.

So, by your reasoning, labour saving technology drives down wages too. For example, soon, a $3,000 computer will replace a $25,000/year checkout clerk. By your reasoning, those checkout clerks are going to be impoverished because they'll only earn $3,000.

The checkout clerks will be impoverished because they earn $0 not $3000. And yes jobs will be created to build and service the machines but not as many as they will be replacing (otherwise why introduce the machines at all they would be economically redundant). Therefore there will be a net job/wage loss and to argue otherwise is very silly (though often done). Socially, the checkout clerks probably do not have the skills to get these jobs (building and servicing their replacements) and so will lose doubly.

This is the problem with the wage economy and it must be dealt with soon. Science fiction of twenty or thirty years ago talks of societies where robots do all the menial work and people are left to write poetry all day (writers only write about writers in the end I guess). Yet this does not work in practical terms. The wage economy requires us to solve the 1+1=3 problem by constantly expanding (creating jobs) not contracting even if requiring less work to be done by humans would seem obviously preferable. You have argued recently that technology must be in the best interests of humanity. I used to think this is true but am now not so sure. I wonder if the Hutterites don't know something we don't.

Firstly we still have not resolved the problem of what people who are not needed in the economy are going to do . Ever looked in a bank teller's eyes as they tell you that you can win $500 by using the ATM machine? Or wondered at the sanity of protests on the East Coast when coal mines are shut down. People protesting that they don't have to mine coal anymore? But there is nothing else for these people to do and the market is going to tell them that they are useless and undeserving even though they’ve done nothing to deserve it. Collectively we could continue to pay them and lose nothing we of course practically can't and so by no fault of their own they are left jobless and without a function in society. Furthermore if use of such technology is in everyone's interests than everyone should benefit through lower banking costs for example. Have your bank costs dropped much since ATMs were introduced, have bank profit‘s increased. Currently only the people who own banks (which many of us do through pensions funds etc. I admit) profit.

Second the skilled jobs created replacing unskilled jobs can usually not be filled by the people who are being replaced. This creates significantly greater demand for skilled people and significantly less demand for unskilled people leaving a large gap that cannot be solved simply by reducing the working week to 32 hours as France has done. You need doctors and IT people to work more than 40 hours and clerks and miners to work less than 32 hours if at all. You cannot (despite the Liberal’s “best” retraining programs) simply interchange the two. In effect large portions of the human race would be made economically redundant if technology is used more widely to do the work that used to require human hands.

Thirdly, by not paying these people we stop circulating money therefore reducing the GDP which despite common sense is rather bad for the economy. The people who used to work at the bank have no money to spend at the local coffee shop and the people who own the bank may either be living outside the country or spending their money outside it. This may be passé nationalism, but if the net effect of this technology is a transfer of resources from the local economy to someone in Hong Kong or the Cayman Islands is it in my best interest or yours?

Fourth, even if you pay people not to work what will they do all day?!? Some people may enjoy not working or working much less but most would not know what to do with themselves I assume.

Who knew both Brave New World (economically/socially) and 1984 (politically) would become so prophetic.

Now, imagine it wasn't a $3,000 computer but a $3,000/year worker in Vietnam. What's the difference?

Well...... I am between a rock and hard place here. On one hand in order to defend our standard of living I can't care about the worker in Vietnam except in the case of aid etc. and indeed must compete with him/her. On the other, the "$3000" a year worker in Vietnam is producing things that he/she can't reasonably expect to buy (like running shoes). If any of the scions running the show in Toronto or Montreal really thought that his/her standard of living would be raised significantly (and therefore ours dropped) we wouldn't be there. This may happen or it may be stopped but I don't think it is anyone's honest intention Therefore we are really engaging in a form of economic colonialism and I think Mr. Dodge knows this when he encourages us to "invest in the third world." Investment in the third world is really like giving a man a fish so that he can give you three in return sometime in the future. He may eat better initially but he will owe you in the long term.

Societies that tend to decide collectively through markets (and let rich people have more votes) tend to be societies that are in fact richer and more fair

Interesting but hard to really prove. I mean communist countries have always been relatively poorer but that doesn't necessarily mean communism or capitalism had much to do with it. There are so many variables, where wars have been fought, people to resource ratios, value of resources, foreign policy decisions with economic effects. And most societies today are market - based so there are not a lot of examples.

Looking at Russia though, I don't think that many Russians feel they are richer or more fairly treated, (in fact some of the old communist kingpins have simply become capitalist kingpins leading to a slight problem for ideologues on both sides). Saskatchewan has a history of collective action not through markets and has done pretty well considering it has never had many natural advantages. Alberta is richer but with their oil revenues they ought to be. Actually sticking to Canadian history it would seem to me that only rich societies can afford the free market reforms in vogue now. Albertans can (apparently) afford to pay more than double in car insurance rates and considerably more for electricity etc. than people in Saskatchewan even though economies of scale should ensure just the opposite. No one in Saskatchewan would stand for it. Totally free markets are all the rage in Alberta these days and people talk like they always have been. But when Alberta was one of the poorest provinces Aberhert was all the rage with his funny money and trying to cancel the debts of farmers. Even Conservative governments in Eastern Canada talk about (real) insurance and gas price reforms while such topics are taboo in Ontario and Alberta (yes there are attempts at legislation but they are relatively toothless and say nothing of even considering public systems). It seems to me the poorer the jurisdiction the more non market collective action is employed. I wonder if this isn't really politically motivated though. When everyone is relatively richer the 'free marketers' look smarter and when everyone is relatively poorer the 'socialists' look smarter.

. On the fairness issue, I think we should steal "votes" from the rich and give them to the poor. In particular, we should do this for kids.

Yes. I think competition is natural and necessary (though must absolutely be controlled or will lead to destruction of one sort or another). However the best basis for a fair democracy is to give everyone as equal a playing field as possible and then let them both compete in the market and co-operate at various levels of government.

I think votes are different from dollars though. I don’t deny that dollars are important to getting and influencing votes (though they ought not be -- can you really tell me Bush was superior to a man like McCain or that Martin was so much better than Manely that a leadership convention was almost not necessary). So far as the market does distribute dollars to people who have contributed more to society it is not totally unreasonable for them to have slightly more influence, but not more votes. Once you fail to differentiate between your vote at the ballot box and spending money in the market you do not have democracy, you have fascism.

Mmmm I was trying for shorter posts, next time.

[August1991]

By definition then I always sell things at a profit (for more than it is worth in intrinsic terms) and always buy things at a loss (for less than it is actually worth in intrinsic terms).

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? If I spend $2000 on material/labour digging a hole in the ground, do you mean the "intrinsic" value of the hole is $2000? ($1 billion of material/labour were spent on a gun registry that has basically no "value" (intrinsic or otherwise) at all.)

IOW, if I have an orange (but I'm allergic to oranges), the orange has no value to me. If you have an apple (but are allergic to apples), the apple has no value to you. If we trade apples for oranges, then things previously of no value suddenly are valuable. We created something from nothing. (That's the profit or extra dollar you seem worried about.)

The checkout clerks will be impoverished because they earn $0 not $3000. And yes jobs will be created to build and service the machines but not as many as they will be replacing (otherwise why introduce the machines at all they would be economically redundant).

OMG, IdealEnd!!!! What are you saying? That we should not allow machines/computers/robots that eliminate jobs?

Think of the candlemakers who lost jobs because Edison invented the electric light. Think of the garage mechanics who have lost jobs because cars are more reliable. Think of the horse trainers who lost jobs because of cars! I could go on and on.

I wonder if the Hutterites don't know something we don't.

WTF?

Markets are designed to be competitive period. If you and I are competing for the same job and you are willing to do it for a lower price than me (assuming the same quality of work) than you will get that job. If I don't get a different job then I might not eat and I will not feel that you and I are co-operating.

The person you forget here is the employer. If I am willing to do the job for a lower wage, why should the employer be forced to pay you a higher wage? That's equivalent to saying that you are forced to buy stuff in an expensive store even though another store offers the same products at a lower price.

To me, competition is two guys fighting in a bar over a woman. Or two countries fighting a war. Only one person can win, and frequently, if not always, both sides lose. Unfortunately, competition is probably inevitable in human affairs.

So, you can imagine why the invention of math, numbers and prices was a tremendous change in human relations. Price competition is different. When two people compete on price, a third party benefits. (You mistakenly called it a race to the bottom - it's anything but that.)

When two hockey teams compete, the only benefit is the excitement fans get watching. Imagine instead that competition benefitted a third party in "intrinsic terms" (to use your words).

Moreover, this price competition leads to perfect cooperation too.

[idealisttotheend]

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? If I spend $2000 on material/labour digging a hole in the ground, do you mean the "intrinsic" value of the hole is $2000?

No it means you spent labour and materials with an intrinsic value of $2000, the hole (in this case) may or may not have any intrinsic value whatsoever. But if you sell it will you sell it for $2000, less than $2000 or more than $2000?

OW, if I have an orange (but I'm allergic to oranges), the orange has no value to me. If you have an apple (but are allergic to apples), the apple has no value to you. If we trade apples for oranges, then things previously of no value suddenly are valuable.

This is, if I remember correctly, the crux of Mr. Smith's argument in Wealth of Nations. I do not argue with it (though the apple has some value to me if only as a paper weight etc., it just has more value to you. This was the historical situation in Mr. Smith's time).

But pertinent to the topic, we are not receiving a different product form the third world when we outsource. We receive the same product we already had, manufactured at a lower labour cost to us. There is a fundamental difference.

That we should not allow machines/computers/robots that eliminate jobs?

Perhaps. This is not ideal but under the current wage economy may be necessary. Unless we find a way to deal with the problems they cause.

"By the 1930s, many mainstream economists were suggesting that increased efficiency and rising productivity, brought on by labour saving technology, were only exaberating the economic plight of every industrial nation."

"[Definition of technological unemployment by Keynes] …unemployment due to our discovery of means of economizing the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour"

                    -Rifkin, The End of Work ,1995 P. 24-5

On a practical basis there is no where for these checkout clerks to go until and unless we find new "demands" on their labour. Security is a possibility but other than that I don't see any growth industries they can move into. We would have to find new products to produce and demand in order for them to continue to participate, (but these new products may not required unskilled labour anyway so there is still a problem).

During the industrial revolution, the displaced workers were able (and required) to move into the factories and such. They were not under qualified for the new jobs created, in fact they were overqualified for the new repetitive tasks. This is not the case now as the new jobs are highly skilled jobs. Furthermore the labour saving technologies were balanced by a massive increase in consumable goods leading to an equilibrium (until the Depression rolled around at least). I can't find a number off hand but I don't think this is in doubt. This did make us materially richer but only worked as long as the vast majority of people could be still be employed in producing the goods and service (they just produced more of them).

I wonder if the Hutterites don't know something we don't.

Because no one is redundant in their society because they do not use technology. They do not have as much materially but they also (may) not want as much materially. A man is only poor if he doesn't have something he wants.

I would prefer full use of technology myself but can't see an immediate solution to the labour problem and have recently been able to see benefits (if not ideals) in such societies.

The person you forget here is the employer. If I am willing to do the job for a lower wage, why should the employer be forced to pay you a higher wage?

So that I can afford the products the employer (and thousand of other employers) produce from a strictly "math" perspective. That simple. Of course there are social issues too but the math argument is the best. This is what they did in England by raising wages pre-1900 and what Ford knew when he was able to drop the price of his cars and increase the wages of his workers.

Price competition is different. When two people compete on price, a third party benefits

Possibly but there a many third parties and some also lose. You see economics only in terms of winners and never in terms of losers, in order for their to be winners there must be losers. Unless, of course, you believe in the perpetual growth they were so sure of in 1929.

If I compete with you for a job that allows the employer to push down wages, it benefits that employer and other employers in the same sector (both 'third parties') and hurts other workers since their labour is now valued lower, (also third parties). If the employers compete with each other to hire me, allowing me to push labour prices up then it benefits other labour 'third parties' and hurts other 'third party'' employers. No action without a reaction and all that.

Moreover, this price competition leads to perfect cooperation too

Nothing, besides possibly God/Allah/Buddha, is perfect. This is why I agree with you that competition is inevitable in human relations. But we must co-operate to regulate this competition or both parties will end up losing as you also aptly point out can often happen. If we co-operate to regulate the competition it may not become a race to the bottom. But if we fail to regulate competition than the capitalist snake will eat everything in sight and eventually itself, ensuring we all lose.

[August1991]

But if you sell it will you sell it for $2000, less than $2000 or more than $2000?

If I sell it for less than $2000, then that would be like destroying value. More likely, I'll sell for more than $2000 - which is exactly the story of the apple/orange trade.

But pertinent to the topic, we are not receiving a different product form the third world when we outsource. We receive the same product we already had, manufactured at a lower labour cost to us. There is a fundamental difference.

I see no fundamental difference. IdealEnd, do you make your own clothing? Do you grow your own food? Did you build your own house? Probably not. You "outsourced" all of those things you could have done yourself.

On a practical basis there is no where for these checkout clerks to go until and unless we find new "demands" on their labour.

For thousands of years, we have found new ways to organize ourselves and to apply knowledge to solve practical problems. From fire and flints to penicillin and bar code readers. We all live better lives because of this.

As to the checkout clerks, give them more credit. They will find something; someone will offer them a job. And then we as a society will have more: the checkout computer will do its job and the previous clerks will accomplish new tasks. Canada will have more. (Don't worry about who gets the "more" - more important is to have "more".)

Job losses/gains are a very bad measure of an economy. Have you ever considered this? We could eliminate unemployment in Canada by simply hiring all the unemployed as tax collectors, and then pay them with the taxes they collect. This would cost nothing! (Or would it?)

During the industrial revolution, the displaced workers were able (and required) to move into the factories and such. They were not under qualified for the new jobs created, in fact they were overqualified for the new repetitive tasks.

I thought that argument had disappeared with the 19 th century. Your Rifkin quote is evidence of the contrary.

Forget "job creation". Think of a "job" as a "trade" (or "cooperation"). I help you, you help me - and we're both better off. People will always find ways to do that. There is no end to the help you can offer someone - and for which the person would be prepared to give you something in return.

Because no one is redundant in their society because they do not use technology. They do not have as much materially but they also (may) not want as much materially. A man is only poor if he doesn't have something he wants.

I don't know the Hutterites well. (I was in Edmonton one summer; I prefer Lake Louise.) Do Hutterites refuse modern dental care? Do they take antibiotics? Hutterite men and women seem to "trade" within families.

But the second part of your quote is more interesting, IMV. I agree with you, in a way.

If "job creation" is no measure of economic success, nor is GDP. I am thinking of driving to Nfld this summer (or going to BC, or Fla - where I'v never been). I will camp (or stay with family in St. John's). How much will GNP go up?

IMV, life is the freedom to do such things, and smell the ocean in the morning. My "profit" is huge (to use your $1 example before) but it's not recorded in statistics anywhere.

We all want for something; so I guess we're all poor. At the very least, we might want to lie on a chesterfield and do nothing.

This is what they did in England by raising wages pre-1900 and what Ford knew when he was able to drop the price of his cars and increase the wages of his workers.

Your idea here seems to be: People must have enough money to be able to buy things. If not, we will collapse into poverty. So for the lack of a few scraps of coloured paper (money), Western Civilization is doomed. Really?

You see economics only in terms of winners and never in terms of losers, in order for their to be winners their must be losers. Unless, of course, you believe in perpetual growth they were so sure of in 1929.

WTF? (Excuse my French.) "...in order for there to be winners there must be losers." (???) What is a happy marriage? When two people live well together, they both win, no? When two people voluntarily work together, or trade, they cooperate and both win.

1929? That deserves another thread.

If the employers compete with each other to hire me, allowing me to push labour prices up then it benefits other labour 'third parties' and hurts other 'third party'' employers.

Exactly. Different people view "price competition" differently - depends on the perspective. In general, neither buyers nor sellers like the "market" - which seems to be a strange out-of-control beast.

But we must co-operate to regulate this competition or both parties will end up losing as you also aptly point out can often happen.

Fortunately, someone invented math several millenia ago and so we don't have to "regulate" competition (or the law of the jungle, or the race to the bottom). With price competition, we can wisely cooperate through trade - at the level of a planet with 6 billion people. Imagine.

I have two fears: First, this math, price perfect cooperation solution doesn't always work. So second, people see the problems, get confused and look for weird solutions.

Wordy? Me too. And I tend to correct later.

[idealisttotheend]

The grand solution to all problems in this forum not involving the Liberal party

The GST was created to replace the MST because the MST created an import bias (i.e. importers did not have to pay the manufacturer's tax and so had an advantage). The GST was charged on all things purchased in the country leveling the playing field and was, strangley enough, the smartest thing Mulroney ever did.

Globalization is clearly a race to the bottom, anyone who disagrees can prove that things are now manufactured in counrties with better labour, enviromental standards than they were 20 years ago, they can further prove any benefits in terms of better living conditions for anyone.

Even jobs staying in country are paying less in real wages than they were as a result of globalization.

Therefore our labour standards, enviromental standards, health care and education standards are creating an import bias. Either we need to lower ours or highten other people's.

We've worked too damn long and hard for the quality of life we have in this country to lower our standards now especially as new technologies ought to be making our lives better still. We must not only maintain our standards but improve them and must certainly not sacrifice them to the latest unproven economic theory whatever it may be. The only freedom worth defending is the freedom from tyranny, poverty, sickness and despair. The democratic welfare state is the pinnacle of Western civilazation, it is what we shall be remembered for when this civilization is gone.

Therefore we should change our labour, enviromental etc. laws to better reflect the global economy. We should set these standards not on people in Canada but on the products allowed to be sold in Canada. Nothing that doesn't meet these standards should be sold in Canada.

As productive technologies increase they will cause problems with joblessness on a rampant scale therefore we should increase wages in the third world across the board allowing people there to buy more products and creating jobs everywhere around the world. We can afford this easily, but it will be at the expense of short term corporate profits now rising due to more 'productive' workers in the third world and technology. For people in our counrty who are displaced they should have a right to adequet welfare (say the guarenteed income Manning looked into when he was with Reform) but should have to do significant amounts of socially useful volunteer work.

We should make it a matter of national pride to see that we do everything we can to allievate world hunger and poverty with our technologies and economic 'space' (i.e. the lower costs of production). Not sign stupid treaties to say that we will or make grand statements at the UN for the cameras but put our heads together and get it done. This will create jobs and be our contribution to world security. WWI started because Bismark thought he was losing the race to industrialize. WW2 because Hitler wanted 'living space' and Korea and Vietnam were functions of a cold war that was more about different economic systems trying to save themselves from each other than anything else. A military is well and good but a man whose family all have full bellies is not likely to participate in a war or blow himself up in a plane or at a checkpoint. Such a man will hate the radicals who threaten to take that from him for some stupid ideology (say Mr. Bin Laden's). It is cheaper and more productive to 'nation build' with food and sanitation than with any army, this has never really been in doubt.

We should continue to work together to do these things and not let the mysterious 'laws of competition' drive us apart or undermine public institutions and programs that involve goods and services that we either need or cannot reasonably do without (health care, utilites etc.) If the public sector cannot work efficiently than it's high time we elected people with the skills and know how to make it more efficient.

Is it a manifesto, I guess. Is it radical, only if you believe it is. Can it be done? Damn right it can. Canada is not so much a country but an ideal, a federal state where people, rarely, kill each other over religion, clan affilation or for one shrine or another. We are smart enough to be a leader in innovations of all kind if we invest in it. Politically, we may be boring but we never too far one way or the other and the Truth is almost always somewhere between 40% and 60% grey. We have a proud international reputation as an honest broker. We have one of the best education systems in the world and most people know how to work hard. Can't do it because no one else will? Are we leaders or followers?

I think we can do it. If we want to.

[Hugo]

Globalization is clearly a race to the bottom, anyone who disagrees can prove that things are now manufactured in counrties with better labour

What I can prove to you is that protectionism drives consumer prices up, which makes real income lower and makes everybody poorer.

Take an example. George W Bush recently caved to pressure from the US steel industry and moved to protect it. Now, steel has to come from more expensive domestic sources. What does this mean? Everything that involves steel in its manufacture at some point will cost more! Cars, household appliances, tools, furniture, you name it.

Now everybody will have to pay more for those goods. You still earn the same as you did before, but now your money buys less. Your real income has dropped. This even applies to those in the steel industry. Their incomes have been protected but they still have to pay more like everybody else.

So in this instance, protectionism will make steelworkers slightly poorer and everybody else considerably poorer.

Not to mention the fact that as the USA places protective tarriffs on imports, so will other nations in retaliation as they did in 1929. The USA exports a lot to the countries where cheap manufactured goods come from. Factories in India and China may make the cheap consumer goods, but their factories, machine tools, electronics, air conditioners, even the vending machines were all made in the USA and are sold by American corporations. That trade will all be curtailed too.

So, we protect the steel industry, but the construction, machinist, electronics, vending industries all take a hit. You can protect 3,000 steelworker jobs at the expense of 30,000 jobs in other industries.

Does that make it clearer? Protecting domestic industry will lose domestic jobs and make us poorer. Simple.