By Bernard Hickey
In just over a week's time Donald Trump is expected to be trounced in the US Presidential election, but that will not be end of the anti-globalisation backlash that is now sweeping the globe.
Trump's own personal shortcomings look likely to hand Hillary Clinton the top job, but the revolt he represents is not over and is just a symptom of a similar movements and reactions all around the developed world against a 40-year-long trend of globalisation of the movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi could lose a referendum on December 4 that many Italians see as a vote of confidence in the European version of globalisation. Marine Le Pen, who wants to shut down migration and pull Europe out of the euro single currency zone, is a genuine threat to become the French President by the middle of next year. Germany is set to hold Federal elections in October next year and Chancellor Angela Merkel could lose her job because of the rise of an anti-migration and globalisation party called Alternative fur Deutschland. New British Prime Minister Theresa May is set to trigger a two-year countdown to a 'hard' Brexit from the European Union by March next year.
Just this week, a bunch of dairy farmers in Belgium managed to kick up enough of a stink to torpedo a new trade deal between the European Union and Canada. The prospects of a meaningful trade deal between New Zealand and Europe that would allow more dairy exports into Europe are receding by the day. A TPP-style deal between Europe and the United States is also stalled because of growing opposition in Europe, not to mention the United States. And even if Mrs Clinton wins next week, few expect she will be able to revive the TPP.
There is also a growing clamour in Europe, Britain and Australia to control and reduce migration flows, along with the imposition of various taxes and bans on capital movements, particularly into housing markets in the likes of London, Vancouver, Sydney and Melbourne.
There are good reasons why so many workers in the developed world want to stop the 40-year project to free up movements of goods, services, people and capital. There is no doubt that these freer movements make economies in particular and the world in general richer on average. The key is the 'on average'.
Economists and income researchers have crunched the numbers and found that globalisation has made a lot more people richer in general, but some have missed out, and some have benefited enormously. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in Asia and China in particular. That is a great thing. But millions of workers in the rust belts and factory towns of Europe and America have seen their well-paid jobs exported and have not been compensated or retrained to soften the blow. Many blame migrants and trade deals for their woes, but it is their own Governments' failure to provide income support, re-education and social support that is to blame. There has also been a failure to redistribute the benefits of the gains in developed countries from the ultra-wealthy to poorer.
Former World Bank economist Branko Milanovic has demonstrated that more than half of the absolute gains in income over the 20 years to 2008 went to the richest 5% of the global population.
That has worsened since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) as the richest 5% have benefited most from booms in property, bond and stock markets since then because of extremely low-to-negative official interest rates. Bank managers and shareholders were also protected by Governments who used taxpayers money in general to bail out the banks during the GFC.
Understandably, the Trumpites and Brexiteers are revolting and lashing out at any proposals and leaders who want more of the same policies that have not helped them, and in some cases hurt them. That is not going away, even if throwing out the baby of global trade benefits with the bathwater of this backlash actually hurts the poorest workers even more by slowing economic growth and increasing the costs of imports.
New Zealand is in a healthier position, but faces some of the same stresses and cannot ignore the lessons of the last 30-40 years. The 'easy' trade deals of the last 20 years will be much harder to find and there is a risk that a full-scale backlash hurts us too by slowing global growth and forcing many New Zealanders home, further inflating our own population pressures from migration. New Zealand should be doing everything it can to ensure the losers from globalisation are compensated and retrained, while ensuring the biggest beneficiaries share some of the bonanza around. That will prevent the worst of Trumpism migrating here.
Trump may be about to exit stage left, but anti-globalisation is here to stay.
A version of this article also appears in the Herald on Sunday. It is here with permission.
127 Comments
As those 'soft' immigration rules for older non earners start clogging up our health and superannuation systems we too shall bear the brunt of ignorant governance and in particular the ingrained mantra of National [ Personal insult removed. Stick to issues and policy. Leave the personal smears out of it. Ed.] in particular to retain power at any cost.
That figure isn't exactly the same as Milanovic's 'elephant graph', but it is clear that it is difficult to measure the gains to globalisation: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-14/the-world-s-most-imp…
That said, I totally agree with Bernard in that we have not done enough to look after those who lost most from globalisation.
Although I generally agree many in the the first world economies have become lazy and are not prepared to do manual jobs etc. Many of the Western Economies have to understand there is a change in the world order. The bottom line is the younger generation in many countries are not necessarily going to have it as comfortable as their parents and grandparents.
A you look at the map of England & how England voted for Brexit, then it was all against London, the city corporate created by PM Thatcher. Our present government too runs our country as if a corporate. Even our local councils are run as a corporate. It's all about the balance sheet, nothing else. Trouble is corporates are corrupt. Think Enron, Lehmanns, Barclays, RBS. Corporate big shots are only about want they earn, and how they earn it is immaterial. No concern about minority shareholders whatsoever. Corporate NZ does not care about its minority shareholders either, they just call us tax payers.
BREXIT started with the Lisbon Treaty. The UK Economy has been built on immigration that was CONTROLLED. Once there was free migration from Europe and the lazy lot from the likes of Romania turned up and caused huge resentment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501637/Brown-signs-EU-Treaty-ex…
At least we can control our immigration. We are very lucky compared with most Countries. That's why our economy should do well over the next 20 years as long as we don't stuff it up.
Too true, but Enoch Powell rather pre-dated the Lisbon Treaty. Not all but a lot of his dire predictions have come to light. Not saying he was right because the UK needed cheap labour to underpin her industries but you cannot deny the existence of extreme racial tensions being around for a long time now. Ironically if you go there now it seems that London no longer belongs to England. Perhaps another reason why the rest of England Brexit voted against London.
Talking to friends this morning in the States who will now no longer be voting Hilary. Don't underestimate middle America's hatred of corruption, perversion and injustice. Even if Hilary is elected she will face a barrage of questions and possible impeachment.
Is this what a revolution at the ballot box looks like? Corbyn was an interesting example of the old elite losing in a leadership battle
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/09/corbyn-wins-in-stunning-defeat-of-…
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/how-jeremy-corbyn-won-l…
I agree Justice. Too many are confusing the anti trump media campaign with voters on the floor. I am no fan, but I believe he has a much greater chance than the media portray. In fact I suggest the ongoing media campaign against him indicates just what a close run thing is going on here. All bets are off .
The game is already over.
Polling of the 20 million who have already voted gives Clinton a 15% lead over Trump.
There is near zero chance of Trump win.
Big issue is the Senate and House.
Remember other than foreign policy and military a President can do very little. Laws are passed by the Congress - not the President.
You can't draw much of a conclusion from those numbers. They represent a sample from a sub-population of less than 10% of eligible voters - Clinton in particular has been urging supporters to vote early and it's likely her hardcore supporters are more organised and politically savvy than Trump's. There's also the not so minor detail that these votes were cast before Comey signalled a renewed investigation into the Clinton email debacle.
You'd have to be particularly naive for this latest news to have a material effect on your voting decision, as it's really nothing new, but it seems as though many do fall into this category.
And of course, to impeach or not to impeach - that is a question for the elected representatives;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
Trump has hardly "imploded".
Professor who’s predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly is doubling down on a Trump win
I think he has a very good chance of winning especially now that the FBI has reopened the case against Hillary. People are rebelling against globalism, political correctness and useless wars.
And, apparently against central bank placemen.
According to several British newspaper, such as The Times and Mail Online, Mark Carney’s "self-imposed deadline" for declaring whether he will stay in office beyond 2018 is fast approaching, and the central banker may decide to step down as soon as next week. Read more
Interesting link. But it suggest in this statement:
Who knows, perhaps the BOE - with little to lose - will be the first modern central bank to retain an "Austrian" governor, although we won't be holding our breath.
That the only alternate economic school is the Austrian School, which of course discounts Marxian economics altogether. To me it seems the general public 'mood' is for someone in charge to admit there is a crisis in capitalism (a Marxian perspective) - and start thinking about and using his/her analytical critique/power and influence internationally to speak these 'truths' - focus some sunlight on the crippling game that has been waged by their cohorts on the wider populations.
Zachary,
However flawed Clinton is-and she certainly is-she has nothing on Trump.Apart from the fact that his much vaunted business acumen looks much less impressive when put under the microscope,he is a simply appalling human being: deeply misogynistic, racist, a congenital liar.
However,I think you will find that the Electoral college system gives Clinton a significant advantage and that she will win.
Of course,the forces that have put Trump in the position of possibly winning,cannot be ignored. If Clinton does little or nothing to address these issues,then I think real trouble will follow.
New Zealand should be doing everything it can to ensure the losers from globalisation are compensated and retrained, while ensuring the biggest beneficiaries share some of the bonanza around.
That's not going to happen and it wont work anyway. Pie in the sky, social justice warrior, nonsense.
Nothing wrong with the notion of social justice, but its proponents ought not use the word "compensation" - as really it is simply about a fair deal - equality of opportunity, which just does not exist presently where the masses are concerned. Even Trump himself is a minnow - part of the masses - not in the club, so to speak. He's 'new money' in US terms - something laughed off by the true US elite.
Bernard, and many others, underestimate the inequality that has been developing in NZ the last 20 years.
I saw a stat the other day - in the last 20 years those in the lowest 20% of income earners in NZ have gone from paying 20% of their disposable household income on rent to 45%
No, A/S although based on a sliding scale does have a maximum limit and rents are not capped through regulation. Therefore, it (the supplement) can't ensure that accommodation does not exceed 25% of income as the amount paid/granted has a maximum, regardless of income.
The political elites have had a fair suck of the sauce bottle for a couple of hundred years and have done a pretty poor job of running things to end up in the current situation that produced a GFC
In handling the GFC interest rates have been lowered in order to prop up and support asset values for the financial elites who have seen their lot improve more than substantially since 2007
The masses have seen their lives ground down. There is now a ground swell as those masses have seen the elites ignore their plight and flaunt their success - enough is enough
It will require a destructive shift to break the hold of the elites, but if that transition requires a Trump style shift to initiate the change so be it
The elites have had a fair innings, and a fair warning their time is up, and they haven't acted and they haven't shared any of the pain - the opposite - they have benefitted at the expense of the masses
hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in Asia, but at the expense of jobs in the US. Trump will be elected. This means he will put tariffs on goods coming from Asia and Mexico, which will boost US manufacuring jobs. China will no longer have this growing middle class and be able to buy milk and meat. The Chinese migration to big cities will reverse as factories close and more people move back to their villages and become peasant farmers.
The EU is hurting too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12136090/Mapped-Europe-div…
That map is indeed horrifying.
By comparison New Zealand's unemployment rate map ranges from 3.2% (Canterbury) to 10.6% (Northland).
It's half way down this StatsNZ page:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_an…
Any form of extremism is bad. Current national government policies favouring rich and overseas buyers by selling anything and everything in NZ be it land, property, business or residency in the name of prosperity will not only result in #Jkexit but will be by humilating margins and the only solace that national will have is that 3 term is NZ norm and may be by now the national ministers are aware of it (though showing a brave face in public) and are preparing for life after their ouster.
Becoming a global world is definitely something to aim for, we are by no means ready for it. It is being driven from the corporate world and that alone is enough to be extremely suspicious of it. Any movement toward it must come from the bottom up, and ideally, the world needs to be singing off the same song sheet. This business of the government of another country now running a major industry of ours as in Silver Fern Farms, is not right. Also not right is the freedom of people from one country able to buy up houses and turn the residents of one country into their tenants.
Globalization, if and when it does happens, will have to have some serious belts and braces around it to mitigate the inevitable exploitation of the many by the few.
Back to the drawing board, guys, or the world WILL have to deal with nincompoops like Donald Trump running one of the biggest economies in the world.
It is actually inevitable, let's figure out how to do it well, instead of just burying our heads in the sand. Look forward, young man. Currently it scares the crap out of me but I would prefer to see how we can mitigate the bad effects rather than just retreat completely.
But we're not "burying our heads in the sand", we're building a movement, raising an army, to resist becoming faceless slaves in a New World Order.
The actors and singers in Les Miserables chopped people's heads off? I did not know that.
Anyway you are the one enamoured with Marxist ideals not me, I support the Monarchy.
Many think globalisation simply wont work as you admit when you say it will need both (serious) belts and braces to stop the ill fitting trousers falling down around our ankles.
Good grief, just because I can see that Marx' philosophies could well be right does not make me enamoured. I at least have a bit of an open mind.
And on the revolutionaries, where is your imagination? And no, under present circumstances globalization is not a go, but the human race will inexorably move toward it, with or without you, or me, for that matter. That we can so easily communicate with just about anyone in the world via what we are doing right now, is part of that.
You support the Monarchy and have an affinity to Donald Trump.
Did you ever consider that perhaps you are simply drawn to explicit "shows" of wealth?
Not being critical or humorous here - as it is a very typical part of the modern consumerist psyche. We are all drawn to it - as is evidenced by the rise in popularity of many of the current stock of TV programmes. No more Gliding On for us here in NZ anymore - we've graduated from the days of the woolen cardie :-). NZ is far more worldly and sophisticated these days, as is evidence by the number of kitchen renos with marble benchtops :-).
Zachary,
I feel sure that you are a decent person and that we would have have much in common,but from your posts,we see the world from very different viewpoints.
I have just finished a short course from The Open University on global income and wealth inequalities and the evidence worries me,not personally,but for for my grandchildren and their generation. Bernard's graph above on the growing income inequalities,is just one of many I have seen. The figures are stark and the implications are beginning to appear in the in the shape of Trump,Brexit,the rise of the far right in Austria,France,Greece and elsewhere.
I am a child of capitalism and in retirement,qualify as a rentier. However,I am beginning to think that this age is passing and that before the end of the century,the world will be a very different place politically. Of course,part of that change will come from increasing climate change pressures,as well as social justice pressures.
You are right, at some point we have to just band together and become the human race. But it won't happen anytime soon given the current thinking around money.
Globalisation was always doomed to fail. It is entirely reliant on Manufacturing in the cheapest possible place/way, then selling the product in the richest possible place. So that the few at the top of the chain earn the most.
Problem is, eventually the richest place has no more work, that results in no money, which results in no more purchasing.
NZ is a good example of this, on the supply side, we are competing with the likes of China and India for Wages. On the demand side we are paying the highest global market price for Milk, Meat, and Veges, because if we don't they get exported.
Not sure what you mean by: Globalization, if and when it does happen.
In political science terms, it is accepted as being an established ideology - in fact the most dominant ideology of our times;
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/es4cefpg6ifj1.pdf
or
http://blog.oup.com/2014/01/globalization-manfred-steger-vsi/
Yes, if NZ made itself ready for globalisation in a world that is not ready for globalisation it would be unique which is an anathema to globalisation. Honestly you are not going to get any traction pushing for globalisation especially, as you admit, that the world is not ready for globalisation.
Yes, I was genuinely interested in how we were going to change the narrative and I believe the solution is a shift back to nationalism and self interest. All the information is available for countries to make their own citizens prosperous. We can share our ideas in the interest of globalisation but we need not share out our actual wealth. The West has no obligation to help the rest of the world look after their excess population but it does have an obligation to look after its own citizens and to look after its own ecosystem. That's what I believe. I don't trust Leftist/Greens as they are inclined to be bleeding hearts and lean toward internationalism. We need a Right/Green movement that has a philosophy of personal responsibility and conservation, that cares for its people and its environment equally above everything else.
That is where you get the most desirable mixed economy, a bit of left, a bit of right. The caring bit is one of the left's contribution to that.
Right wingers seem to be so brainwashed about left wing politics that anything desirable from it, seems to have to be re-labeled.
Globalisation has led to political corruption. For globalisation to suceed, democracy must die. Democracy is alive and well in the US. The FBI are non political and have to follow constitutional law. The US will not elect a woman who thinks she is above the law. This is a historical turning point.
Don't rule out the "Pirate Party" in Iceland
Voters in Iceland to choose between Pirate Party and establishment
Founded four years ago by an assortment of hackers, political activists and Internet freedom advocates, the Pirate Party has made big gains among Icelanders fed up with established parties after years of financial turmoil and political scandal.
Polls suggest the Pirates are vying with the center-right Independence Party to become the biggest group in the volcanic island nation's parliament, the Althingi.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/85874137/Voters-in-Iceland-to-choos…
Iceland's government broke ranks and refused to make bank losses a public liability. They stood strong against all the international establishment kickback and have done well for the people of Iceland's wealth since.
There is an established and successful freethinking trend there already. The Pirate party is the the next logical step.
A rise in political correctness is hiding a shift away from having democratic rights. Anyone who questions the system is attacked on grounds of politcal correctness. This is why i admire Trump, even though on the face of it he may seem to be a buffoon, he is the only one who has had the guts to stand up to the corrupt system.
That's the part I just don't understand. He's the personification of 'corruption' on a personal level (in how he thinks, he's a narciscist, probably a sociopath), in his business life (in how he uses his bully tactics to trample others), in his political life (as a demagogue). He is everything anti-elite people dislike about the current system. And yet they hold him up as their leader. This has to be a massive failure of critical thinking, and/or a massive failure of the education system for some.
If he wins, you are going to get both disappointed and screwed. He will take from the 'little people' he despises, especially those who supported him. They could well lose the protection of the rule of law.
I am not claiming Clinton is lily-white. She clearly isn't. But between the two, it should be no contest.
I suppose the attraction is the same as other 'strongman dictators' get. Never the majority, but enough to screw everyone else.
The last thing the world needs is a third major egomaniac. (First Russia, now China. with tin-pot ones in the Philippines, Malaysia, Africa, Mid East, NK, etc.)
Yes DC, you don't understand tim12s point. But try again. Perhaps a way to look at it is the New Zealand example. I believe individuals and small business is screwed by the big crony monopolists - but they do it politely. The weird thing is we would revolt if they behaved no worse, but were rude about it.
I think you are reacting to his challenging mannerisms, not his policy.
Here's the answer, David on the rise of Trump;
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/18/12210500/diagnosed-dysfunction-republican-…
The party elite themselves, particularly when not in power in the White House started the rhetoric, and Trump just ran with it. Hopefully this election will herald a death toll for the two party system in the US. They (the US) need a Geoffrey Palmer, as electoral reform is to my mind the only way out of the mess the "republic" has become.
"He is everything anti-elite people dislike about the current system"
Evidently not the case, David.
"And yet they hold him up as their leader."
Yes, an actual leadership figure. Imagine that.
"This has to be a massive failure of critical thinking, and/or a massive failure of the education system for some."
Conventional wisdom dictates that not everyone thinks about him the way you do, David, but good try anyway with the shaming tactics. I hear they're working really well for the Democrats right now.
If they hadn't undermined their own man Bernie, then Trump would have a real a fight. The resentment over Bernie is massive. Trump has taken the anti establishment role, and for that he will be rewarded. The people are tired of establishment and media bull dust ..The more shyyt wheeled out on Trump the more it's all back firing.
The GOPe are foolish and their candidate Evin McMullin is a joke. Cruz would be eviscerated by HRC's appeals to progressivism and inclusive values, and few bernocrats would have voted for him. Trump on the other hand is on track to capture a significant portion of the minority vote considering he's running as a republican.
I will say it again. It's NOT about Trump as a person. It's about a very large portion of the US citizenry feeling absolutely screwed over and not listened too since the GFC. They are out for revenge against the US establishment, regardless of Democrat or Republican and they see Trump as the man who can upset the apple cart. And you know what? HE IS!
The US media are feeding into it. Little do they know most Americans hate them also. They see the media as the leaders of the post 2008 betrayal.
In January my American wife and I are off to the US for two months. We don't know what kind of US we will find, but we DO KNOW the America we left.
At that time I will provide feedback as to what I see.
Very much in agreement. We are heading back to visit next month to visit relatives for thanksgiving. It will be fun to see the reactions.from the election then.
I was hoping for Sanders to get the nod so that both the D and R candidates were outsiders, the current two parties are well past their use-by date.
I'm still struggling with the two current candidates. A third of a billion people, and these were the best two that they could find??? Much of the current voting is due to not the desire for a particular candidate, but instead for an even stronger dislike for the other candidate. If Trump wasn't such a buffoon, he would be leading by a huge margin with the exact same positions... it is to no small degree, a choice between a candidate with personal failings and one with professional/ethical failings.
The Failure of Democracy
Trump may be a blowhard but at least he will receive media scrutiny. That is more important in a democracy than the leaders personal failings. Look not no further than Bill Clinton and Kennedy. Look at the free ride Hillary gets - even Bernard notes Trumps personal failings but doesn't bother to mention the other candidates raft of personal failings and dishonesty.
What has the free trade ever done for us? "The far greater benefits of free trade are much less obvious. Consumers get a wider variety of goods at cheaper prices. Middle-class Americans gain an estimated 29% of their purchasing power from foreign trade. In other words, the average middle-class American can buy 29% more for each dollar than if there was no trade. The effect is even bigger – 62% – for the poorest tenth of American consumers.
Trade makes exporters stronger, more efficient, and more productive. The benefits are shared among workers: Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers found that, on average, US export-intensive industries pay workers up to 18% more than non-exporting firms.
Opposition to free trade ignores our interconnected reality. Some 80% of trade happens along supply chains within or organized by transnational firms, according to a 2013 UN report. While some US politicians call for tariffs against Mexico, the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that about 40% of the value of Mexican imports to the US is actually added within the US itself.
These arguments are all part of the overwhelming economic case for free trade. But the strongest argument is a moral one. Cost-benefit analysis shows that freer trade is the single most powerful way to help the world’s poorest citizens.
Reviving the moribund Doha Development Round of global free-trade talks would reduce the number of people in poverty by an astonishing 145 million in 15 years, according to researchcommissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The world would be $11 trillion richer each year by 2030, with $7 trillion going to developing countries – equivalent to an extra $1,000 for every person every year in these countries by 2030.
Moreover, trade also carries much broader benefits for society. Economic globalization has been shown to reduce child mortality and extend life expectancy, owing to increased incomes and better information."
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/free-trade-benefits-for-gl…
The benefits to society would be much greater and far more visible to the masses if the major corporate behemoths paid their fair share of local (i.e., in-country of sale) taxes. But, because they don't, consumption taxes and land taxes in-country keep rising well above the rate of inflation and well above the rate of GDP growth. But it is not only international taxation that needs reform under a globalised world - the environmental destruction caused by these major corporate interests is never appropriately remedied or compensated.
The main problem with globalisation is that notion (which Steger speaks of in his paper linked above) that "nobody is in charge [of globalisation]" - meaning the political elite (to date) have refused to regulate their monied backers.
Poor Kate suffering from first world guilt problems. "No one is in charge"?! Who gives a toss about corporate tax if the result of free trade is decreased child mortality, extended life expectancy, greater purchasing power for the poor, higher salaries for exporting firms, environmental benefits etc etc. Get some perspective.
Countries are always going to compete with lower tax rate carrots - "corporates" would be morons to not adapt to conditions or their competitors would eat them alive.
"Cost-benefit analysis shows that freer trade is the single most powerful way to help the world’s poorest citizens."
"The world would be $11 trillion richer each year by 2030, with $7 trillion going to developing countries – equivalent to an extra $1,000 for every person every year in these countries by 2030."
But the greatest problem is "no-one is in charge" - that is a problem? The benefits seem to out weigh that problem somewhat.
The globalisation claim that "No one is in charge of globalisation" is an ideological claim - in other words part of the 'belief' system of the particular type of political ideology.
Of course there are those in charge - the political elite - but so far in the West they've been puppets of their monied masters.
Definitely not first world guilt - as the fact of the matter is that globalisation has been far more destructive outside the OECD, than inside it. So your notion of poorer peoples of the world becoming wealthier is merely part of that 'belief' system.
It's not first world guilt I have, but rather first world disgust.
Globalisation has seen such an escalation in environmental destruction - leading to scarce resources, leading to conflict and unrest.
Yes, this notion that "no one is in charge" needs to be dispensed with.
It doesn't matter how many trillions in fiat gets transferred around a world with no fish in the sea, profile.
I have to side with Kate on this.
I see that the police in France are getting fed up with things:
https://www.thelocal.fr/20161020/in-their-own-words-why-french-police-a…
Diversity causes internal conflict inevitably.
Because free trade is quantifiable - transparent and free of conditions and interference from vested interested. Fair trade is just political meaningless construct. Who gets to decide what is "fair" not the consumer. No consumer ever complained about having a cheaper car or purchasing online - only the unions, the corporates/vested businesses, politicians etc. bleat on about "fair" trade.
We have free trade in hamburgers in NZ and fair trade in houses. Compare those two markets for their "fairness" to the consumer.
"your notion of poorer peoples of the world becoming wealthier" - it's not a notion it is cold hard fact - just like lower infant mortality and extended life spans. Do you have any facts to back up your notions?
Fish?! The good old days before globalistion worked out just great for whales and the the moa. I think you are blaming a lot of the world's ills on globalisation. Granted I may be attaching a lot of the world's advances to globalisation.
"In 1820, the vast majority of people lived in extreme poverty and only a tiny elite enjoyed higher standards of living. Economic growth over the last 200 years completely transformed our world, and poverty fell continuously over the last two centuries. This is even more remarkable when we consider that the population increased 7-fold over the same time (which in itself is a consequence of increasing living standards and decreasing mortality – especially of infants and children – around the world). In a world without economic growth, an increase in the population would result in less and less income for everyone, and a 7-fold increase would have surely resulted in a world in which everyone is extremely poor. Yet, the exact opposite happened. In a time of unprecedented population growth we managed to lift more and more people out of poverty! Even in 1981 more than 50% of the world population lived in absolute poverty – this is now down to about 14%. This is still a large number of people, but the change is happening incredibly fast. For our present world, the data tells us that poverty is now falling more quickly than ever before in world history. The first of the Millenium Development Goals set by the UN was to halve the population living in absolute poverty between 1990 and 2015. Rapid economic growth meant that this goal – arguably the most important – was achieved (5 years ahead of time) in 2010."
https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/
"This bias in the gains from trade toward poor consumers hinges on the fact that
these consumers spend relatively more on sectors that are more traded, while high-income indi-
viduals consume relatively more services, which are among the least traded sectors. Additionally,
low-income consumers happen to concentrate spending on sectors with a lower elasticity of sub-
stitution across source countries. Larger expenditures in more tradeable sectors and a lower rate
of substitution between imports and domestic goods lead to larger gains from trade for the poor
than the rich. While this pro-poor bias of trade is present in every country, there is heterogeneity
in the di erence between the gains from trade of poor and rich consumers across countries."
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/akhandelwal/papers/mugft_FINAL.pdf
LOL to the reference to the Millennium Development Goals being achieved. The UN is captured by the ideology, still measuring its success in GDP terms for those LDCs - and little of those notional increases find their way to the masses, all the while ignoring the environmental cost of this notional GDP growth. On the African continent, charitable efforts have done more to improve living conditions, such as establish clean water supplies, vaccinations and HIV treatments, than the respective political administrations whose GDP may have grown under MDG reporting. And the refugee crisis gripping the world wouldn't be gripping the world if living conditions had been so lifted by globalisation as the globalists would suggest.
The way I see it globalisation has seen a massive growth in the movement of capital across boarders, but that capital has not benefited the masses - and now the masses are moving themselves across boarders. Mexico is another good example - one would have thought that post-NAFTA would have seen a huge decrease in the number of Mexicans seeking to cross the boarder into the US illegally. It just isn't what is happening on the ground.
Do we need to trade globally? Yes, But we need fair trade, not free trade. Ignoring the difference is part of the globalist ideology. Mike Moore in his recent interview was the perfect example of this. The fair trade initiative via the WTO is over - it has been gazumpted by bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements.
Forget what happened over the last 200 years and look at what has happened over the last 50. Massive changes, much accelerated destruction of both landscapes, plant and animal species and human lives.
Read the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2015 as opposed to the MDG report - nature is telling the story, not GDP.
True, we could at the very lease start measuring green GDP, which measures the cost of environmental pollution as well as the profits derived from stripping the earth of its resources..
.
On the one hand, yes, Health and Safety standards in the developed world have made the workplace safer, and quite possible - if we reduce the economy back to scale as to what it was 40 years ago - better for the environment. In the developed world. For some industries.
On the other hand, global corporations have outsourced a lot of their factories to countries where the same H&S standards don't apply, nor the environmental standards.
We haven't improved a lot. We've improved some (ozone layer, leaded petrol), but a lot of it, we've merely shifted so it became someone else's problem.
.
The true environmental costs are still socialised, whilst corporate profits are privatised more then ever (increased tax minimisation and evasion, due to - you guessed it - globalisation.....)
DFTBA - see the MIT link. Also "Between 1990 and 2008, US manufacturing output grew by one-third.* Yet air pollution from US factories fell by about two-thirds:How did this happen? One possibility is that by cracking down on air pollution, we simply pushed our dirtiest factories overseas to countries like China. If so, that would be bad news — it would mean we're offloading pollution elsewhere rather than cleaning it up.
But this gloomy story doesn't appear to hold up. In a recent NBER working paper, Georgetown economist Arik Levinson estimated that more than 90 percent of the drop in US factory pollution since 1990 was due to companies adopting cleaner production techniques — things like switching fuels, becoming more efficient, recycling, or adopting pollution-capture technology."
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/8/7999417/US-factory-pollution-offshoring
Kate I don't think you'd be able to find any data but thanks for all your notions. The capital has not benefited the masses? Facts unrelated to GDP such as global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015 - there is a ~50 year time frame for you. Massive change. The NGO parasites continue to kill and blinds millions annually through their opposition to cheap electricty, golden rice and opposition to DDT (which WHO support btw). NGO's would much sooner hand out moquito nets and feel good about themselves than actually try prevent malaria like Europe and the US did or the golden rice travesty.
"Fair" is subjective ideology - free is transparent. Generally Governments, NGO's and corporates hate transparency and prefer weasel words like "fair" so they can pander to their special projects and interests and the consumer is left to pay for it.
As for the "nature" goal post shift.
"We have found that trade appears to have a beneficial effect
on some measures of environmental quality, though not all,
ceteris paribus. The effect is particularly beneficial for some
measures of air pollution, such as SO2.
Our examination of
seven different measures of environmental quality provides
little evidence that trade has a detrimental effect overall. We
reject the hypothesis of an international race to the bottom
driven by trade. There is also no evidence for the pollution
haven hypothesis, which claims that trade encourages some
countries to specialize in dirtier environments."
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0034653053327577?journa…
I don't think you'd be able to find any data
Say what?
You've mad e a lot of goal post shifts Kate it is hard to keep up. First it was corporates paying tax then "So your notion of poorer peoples of the world becoming wealthier is merely part of that 'belief' system". Do you have any data to show the that gloabisation has made poor people poorer when all the indicators presented suggest the opposite?
Then you are on to the "no is in charge" construct. Mate that just isn't a problem in comparison to child mortality improvements.
Millenium goals aside "Even in 1981 more than 50% of the world population lived in absolute poverty – this is now down to about 14%. This is still a large number of people, but the change is happening incredibly fast. For our present world, the data tells us that poverty is now falling more quickly than ever before in world history." That is a good thing certainly helped by globalisation and doesn't support your notion that "but that capital has not benefited the masses".
Then on the environment - from the world's largest economy for the past 150 years
"...about 1970
a great reversal began in America’s use of
resources. Contrary to the expectations of
many professors and preachers, America
began to spare more resources for the rest of
nature, first in relative and more recently in
absolute amounts. A series of decouplings
is occurring, so that our economy no longer
advances in tandem with exploitation of land,
forests, water, and minerals. American use of
almost everything except information seems
to be peaking, not because the resources are
exhausted, but because consumers changed
consumption and producers changed
production. Changes in behavior and
technology liberate the environment."
"The incipient re-wilding of Europe is
thrilling (
photos inside back cover
). Salmon
have returned to the Seine and Rhine, lynx to
several countries, and wolves to Italy. Reindeer
herds have rebounded in Scandinavia. In
Eastern Europe bison have multiplied in
Poland."
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
We should all be thankful to the corporations for setting up in countries where they don't have to pay tax and can make the highest profits because they don't have to pay high wages, but these aren't the real reasons, it's to help get rid of world poverty? In a democracy i want to vote for the government that creates jobs and business opportunities in my country, the rest is PC drivel.
Slick Willies wife has said that it is deeply troubling that the FBI have released this imformation so close to the election.
She also said that they appeared to be wanting to influence the election result.
I suggest that the only thing influencing the election result will be the behavior of the 2 candidates.
Yes there are parallels alright. Two would be:
A growing focus on nationalism, and a growing distain for immigration from the Trump side.
On the Hillary side, the loss of power being blamed on other nations such as Russia and China, and the growing sentiment of sabor rattling
Lots of parallels actually
Blaming other races
Blaming prior Govt for everything including military failure.
Promising increased military.
Making a lot of false hysterical contradictory statements
Inciting to kill(HCX2)
Threatening attitude(esp to sue his assault victims, and lock people up)
Threatening to expel based on race
Extreme narcissism
Weird body language.
Appears to appease Russian leader
A fair dose of Fuhrerprinzip...
etc
Are the people happy with globalisation? The polls will decide. You have to respect the system. The UK government can't just ignore the brexit vote. Trumps popularity is based on him saying he is willing to fight for the American people and bring back US manufacuring jobs. This isn't racism, it's democracy.
In the UK people are willing to trade economic growth for fewer immigrants
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-24/britons-happy-to-sacr…
It occurs to me that we really haven't defined globalisation on this thread. Is it synonymous with 'open borders'? As Kate intelligently notes:
In political science terms, it is accepted as being an established ideology - in fact the most dominant ideology of our times
That is globalisation in a very general sense, really synonymous with a global network of trade and communications.
Yet when I looked it up on Wikipedia I found this interesting tidbit:
The word itself came into widespread usage, first and foremost in the United States, from the early 1940s. This was the period when US global power was at its peak: the country was the greatest economic power the world had ever known, with the greatest military machine in human history. Or, as George Kennan's Policy Planning Staff put it in February 1948: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. […] Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity"
I see my quote comes from an article on Globalism which shouldn't be confused with Globalisation they say although both articles mention Steger - globalism relates to ideologies that can go global like jihad for example.
Globalisation is a process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.
One of the good features of mono-culturalism was that you didn't have to respect other people's ideas. In fact we used to go at each other hammer and tongs concerning culture and religion. This is something that we are not allowed to do anymore. Globalisation enforces the integration of foreign ideas and forbids protest on the grounds of cultural sensitivity. Globalisation is enforced integration of foreign concepts.
If you want a definition - Chomsky is the guy to go for :-) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME
I particularly like the 'rational peasant' explanation. We have all become, rational peasants.
I think globalization is hugely over-rated. Listened to Mike Moore being interviewed on The Nation this morning, he represents that dogma totally which includes accepting big business controlling sovereign countries, ie secret investor/state provisions in the TTP/TTIP. And, it has allowed big business to shirk their tax paying obligations for decades which has cost all of us a huge amount in fiscally poorer, more indebted governments being unable to meet their citizens' needs better.
Trump - why write him off Bernard? Surely you don't believe the bought US media and over-sampling poll results? Everything I've read suggests Trump has a good chance of winning, especially now that the FBI is back on the case. I certainly hope he does win. Most of the good things he says are not reported on the bought media - like how he will support African-Americans in start-up business allowing them to convert welfare payments to forgivable loans, ie micro-loans. This election is a case-study in the bought media and the agenda they are instructed to roll out.
Yes, the Mike Moore interview was interesting. Thing is (which he didn't admit) - his notion/vision for globalisation as a movement was progressed by him through the WTO, and of course that 'ideal' caved in long ago as it never had any 'teeth' as a regulator - and the ptb (that being the corporate entities subject to it) stymied and challenged its regulatory status at every corner.
Hence the rise of bilateral and multilateral "free trade agreements" and their corresponding ISDS provisions - such that trade disputes are now able to be adjudicated by the very entities that are supposed to be being regulated.
Mike I think needs to accept that his notion of fair trade via his vision for world trade was defeated by the very subjects he was supposed to be regulating. In other words, his vision of fair trade was defeated - and globalisation has a new meaning in reality (that of "free" not "fair" trade); one that he seems unprepared to accept as reality.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.