There are many elements of Globalization whose discussion and debates could fill a book. I thought I would focus on a couple key elements.
There is a false notion that Globalization will mean fair economic opportunity for all, greater efficiencies in product development and distribution and higher standards of living world-wide.
1. Fair economic opportunity for all
Global trade is one thing, but what acolytes of the globalization movement are pushing is not global trade. What they are pushing for is a global open market for the largest companies of the world to operate in. This means that well established companies that have been started decades ago by people from privileged classes and races (typically upper class white businessmen) during times where diversity was not an important social issue, nor was social justice or fair trade.
Now, when many people and nations are starting to rise out from under oppression, colonial rule, and decades of intentional economic exclusion by the privileged classes, the same people who created the unfair advantages are pressing for the opportunity for them to unfairly compete globally.
Consider it like a race. The starting pistol fires and the privileged class runs off down the track. Meanwhile, the remaining runners try to start running only to realize that someone chained their ankles to large stakes in the ground. The privileged class runners, miles ahead finally hear the concerned voices of spectators calling out that it is not fair. So they order their henchmen to go unlock the chains.
As they are running along, the privileged class, now miles and miles ahead, feeling good about themselves, think, “I am so glad I levelled the playing field for those poor people.”
This is the position many of our Indigenous nations are put under. To make matters worse, we are criticized for not winning even after the playing field was “levelled.” This is same position that all “developing” nations are placed under.
These nations, only now starting to form businesses and economies after a long time of oppression, colonialism and exclusion, now must compete against transnational corporations that have had decades to build their vast empires and resources. These same transnational corporations have received corporate welfare for decades in the forms of grants, tax breaks, incentive packages, waived fees, waived regulatory requirements, etc. The moment government or philanthropists consider offering some meagre support to young businesses from the non-privileged classes, the privileged ones rise up and cry foul.
“That’s not fair to give them welfare” they say. “They should stand or fall in a free market economy!”
Is it a noble goal? Yes. Is it fair economic opportunity for all? No.
2. Greater efficiencies in product development and distribution
The basic concept of globalization is that the processes used in producing a product and subsequently distributing will be more efficient. This, in term, will reduce overall consumer prices.
The problem with this thinking is that somebody is going to have to pay. Either front line workers will endure poor conditions with poor pay, or businesses in the middle of the supply chain will have to suffer cuts into their financial sustainability, or taxpayers will need to be put on the hook for corporate welfare. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to pay for the grossly undervalued products we buy at discount rates.
Another problem with this basic concept is that, in theory, it is supposed to make it easier to acquire the products we cannot produce domestically. In practice, we end up paying others for the right to use our own products!
An example will suffice. We have trees in Canada. We cut them and load them on trucks and trains, ship them to the U.S. where American businesses then do “value-added” work to the lumber. This lumber is then shipped back to Canada, and we buy it for a highly inflated price. Why are we not doing the work ourselves?
This phenomenon is not limited to forestry. It happens with fruits and vegetables, resources and products of all types. For many products, we export as much as we import. It is utter ridiculousness when we could be producing and prepping our own products for our own consumption. Only the excess of what we require should be exported.
Think for the moment. How can apples still be low priced, if we grow them, then transport them to another country (typically the US), transport them back and then sell them to our own people? Taxpayer funded subsidies given over to private companies as corporate welfare. This is part of the anger among the Occupy movement around North America right now.
In this day, when we are concerned with CO2 emissions, we are actually creating a worse problem through the traffic that comes from globalization.
3. Higher standards of living world-wide
The premise behind this claim is that globalization brings about increased living standards. Does it really? There are a number of key questions that need to be asked.
- Who defines what the living standard should be?
- How do you measure living standard?
- How is living standards monitored?
- Are living standards truly “one size fits all”?
Often, living standards are defined as the white, English-speaking, North American lifestyle. This lifestyle is essentially based on material wealth, consumption, individualism, and artificially high value on intangible (ie. Low practical value) knowledge economy careers. In this system, a CEO doing only a fraction of the work that the cashier working at the front end of his business empire does. In practical terms, the CEO’s job is of so little value that he should hardly be paid more than the front line employees. Yet, CEO’s often make anywhere from 10-1000 times what their front line employees make.
A computer technician is often valued in school, while teachers frown upon farmers or hunters or fishermen. Yet, in practical terms, the latter are infinitely more valuable in terms of what they produce than the former.
This is not to say there is no place for CEO’s and leaders and technicians, but it is to say that they are artificially valued above the more practical occupations.
Western lifestyle is also characterized by consumption and waste. Why should we impose such a backward value upon other peoples? Why should a developing nation be measured by how much they consume and waste? Yet, this is precisely what our current economic measurements do.
Living standards cannot be defined by the elite, nor one specific culture. They must be defined at local levels.
Globalization will not lead us to economic fairness. Localization is what is required. This is the process of making local economies strong and sustainable. It is not against global trade, but does insist that we engage global trade in a balanced manner. We trade the excess of what we produce. Why on Earth would one trade away that which one needs and then live in lack?
Global trade, without strong local economies, is an illusion built upon the backs of communities exploited for the benefit of the elite.
Ideas for change and how you can resist an unjust Global economy are here:
No comments:
Post a Comment