Re: Globalization, a journalist's view

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

	"INEQUALITY,  UNEMPLOYMENT,  INSECURITY,
	INSTABILITY" -- THY NAME IS GLOBALIZATION!

	"Just what is globalization? ... Many people see it as
	a malignant force that is crushing millions of workers'
	aspirations while exacerbating inequality, unemployment,
	insecurity and instability.  Others argue that ... it will
	deliver profound worldwide prosperity."

		-- Review of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree",
		by Tom Friedman;   review by Christopher
		Farrell, contributing editor, Business Week,
		April 26, 1999


	Just after reading the BW review I exchanged private
	emails with a fine member of our forum who saw only
	the worst in store for us all -- he objected to my idea
	that Friedman wrote from a non-ideological point of
	view:
	        All optimism in the face of current change IS
	ideological, he implied.  I countered his arguments
	against investment, trade, and anything short of a
	giant step toward equality, full employment, economic
	security (for all), and economic stability, with the
	thought that we had achieved the vote and would
	therefore achieve the rest.

	He replied,  "I can tell you from my own experience
	we no longer live in a democracy.  It is precisely
	because so many US citizens are politically and
	economically illiterate that the possibilities for the
	evolution of democracy are much diminished.
	Our politicians do not currently have the skills or
	will to break free of the agendas of their campaign
	contributors.  Americans have rarely been good
	at collective action unless things have really hit the
	fan."

	He concluded,  "To my generation the extremes
	brought on by globalization reflect collective insanity.
	They reflect poor prioritizing in a radically different
	world than the one the technocrats imagine. The
	future of accountability is so imperiled that one can-
	not help but see what is happening, (that Friedman
	may applaud), as the acid bath dissolving democracy
	in front of our very eyes.  Mere voting by an ever
	shrinking electorate is not going to reverse the tide
	anytime soon."


	So how do our two positions stack up against the BW
	review?  (I believe the actual book will present my
	friend's arguments as eloquently as he has.)

	        The reviewer, like Friedman, is well aware of
	the good and the bad in today's world of business and
	labor.  He is no union busting business booster. He
	does not use my word "non-ideological", rather he sees
	two views of change -- one optimistic, one pessimistic.
	For my part, I say he calls our email exchange a "draw".

	Farrell (the reviewer) goes on to say, "The book explores
	how globalization is built on three fundamental changes:
	(1) the spread of technology, (2) the rise of the individual
	investor, and (3) the democratization of information. Each
	informs and reinforces the turbocharged capitalism of
	today.  Any nation, company, or people desiring to grow
	needs to embrace the rules of free-market capitalism.
	Opt out? Go ahead, says Friedman, but you'll end up
	with the living standards of a North Korea."

	This view of the matters we care about, standing alone,
	supports my friend's fear that insanity is driving the bus.
	To claim that the "rules of free-market capitalism", not
	the "rules of one-man, one vote democracy", control our
	future, is NOT my position -- and it won't be anyone's
	for long -- unless free-market capitalism is made truly
	subordinate to democracy by the enactment of rational
	labor and environmental standards in every market.

	        These standards, aimed at greater equality, fuller
	employment, individual economic security, systemic
	stability, and environmental protection and health, must
	be our battle cry of the moment.  Friedman and Farrell
	know that, as do I and my friend.

	        No doubt we, as always, are in a race with nature
	and human nature to combat the possibility of  war and
	economic calamity.

	        In a very short span of decades slavery is gone,
	the franchise is nearly universal, upward mobility
	is common.  Literacy is widespread.  Science and
	technology have done the impossible.

	        Where are we falling behind or frozen in time?
	In justice, especially economic justice.  Perhaps
	because we have law schools and economics
	departments, both of which are missing "justice" in
	their names and in their curricula.
	
		John Gelles



---------- original message follows ---------

From: John Gelles <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Globalization, a journalist's view
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 3:35 PM

	Tom Friedman of the NYT is the journalist. "The Lexus and the
	Olive Tree" is the view.  He is a booster of the new global
	competitive market (digital and real) but would boost even
	harder a global safety net that reflects our best instinct and
	talent not the meanest..

	He presents a modern post-ideological-warfare view of global
	capital movements, as well as, global trade in goods and services.
	Global politics is never far from his main focus. Writing readable
	journalism, unencumbered by irrelevant economic literature, but
	interested in Shumpeter, Keynes and Marx,, he is able to say both
	what's happening and what's wrong with our habits and values.

	Two things, at least, are wrong.  Things are moving too fast
	for anyone to enjoy anything.  And too many people are being
	made poor with no decent safety net or standard of living aimed
	to help those most in need.  The result will be, as always, poverty
	and violence that nobody wanted -- but nobody cared to prevent.

	Friedman cares.  Do we?

		John Gelles