Globalization, Diminishing returns to cynicism and Collective Action...

["Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would seem from John's quick review of Friedman's book, that Friedman is
trying to establish himself as heir to Leonard Silk at the NYT.

That being said, the challenge for any genuine post-nationalist economic
strategy for alleviating poverty should be compelling enough to theorists
and policy makers of a significant number of countries to balance wealth
distributive policies with both resource productivity enhancements and
'rules of governance' that enhance incentives to alleviate market failures
for pollution, employment, housing, nutrition, education, workplace rights
etc.

Now, if we agree that there is a causal relation between inequality and
economic performance, and that the degree of inequality is due to the
distribution of property and claimancy rights at multiple scales of
governance--municipal, regional and federal, it follows that one of the
major challenges for economists is to identify and target those institutions
which have the greatest possibility for leveraging change in the
distribution of the above rights.  In addition, we need to identify those
social professions which are most likely to be enjoined to ameliorating the
injustice we see all around us.

This means, first and foremost, the legal community that lines both K Street
in DC and the law firm enclaves in London, Berlin, Paris, Tokyo etc. etc.

The lawyers doing all the arbitrage work are the ones needing major,
paradigm shattering, intellectual encounters.  All you EPI econs. on this
list know the firms I'm talking about in DC.  We need to identify and find
the ones scattered in the major financial centers of the globe.  They, far
more than the man on the street, need significant enlargement of their
knowledge of the CAUSAL dynamics of the global economy on a year to year,
decade to decade time (and ecological) scale.

Resource productivity is the great challenge and disciplinary matrix where
economists and engineers must meet.  Perhaps 20,000 Phd's. in the next 10 to
15 years will set us on a sustainable epistemic path towards sustainable
forestry, mineral extraction, clean burning fossil fuel plants, renewable,
etc....I remember back in 1993-1994 when even Alan Greenspan was behind SOME
form of energy tax to catalyze the folks on Wall Street out of their
dogmatic slumbers.
Well, sure enough Mancur Olson's theories came true on that policy proposal.
It was actions like that which demonstrated to members of my generation that
our cynicism was: 1)justified and 2) something we would struggle all our
lives to overcome.

The larger question, in the face of mounting kakistocratic and kleptocratic
governance structures and neo-mercantilist approaches to resource
acquisition in a thoroughly Darwinian world, is, what is the future of
ACOUNTABILITY--the ultimate 'reason' for the development of democracy after
the treaty of Westphalia...

My generation knows that hope doesn't cost a dime, and that cynicism has
reached the point of diminishing returns, but what do we DO, ON THE FRONT
LINES OF THE WORKPLACE, to make for a more just 'globalism'?

"Politics without accountability just IS fascism"  Terrence McKenna

Peace,

Ian Murray
Seattle, WA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of John Gelles
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 1999 1:13 AM
> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT
> Subject: Re: Globalization, a journalist's view
>
>
> 	"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
>
>
>