Post-Autistic Economics Forum Home

Dear Fiona Antonia Feitz Like all the other proponents of globalisation you fail to realise that opponents view the battle as primarily moral, not economic. You see, I don't want cheaper goods at the expense of my fellow Australians' jobs. I don't see the benefit of destroying a well-functioning dairy industry just so milk might be cheaper either. I place a higher value on family farms and functioning communities than on getting the cheapest goods.... You wrote, "... there is no arguing the benefits of economic globalisation." Excuse me, but there is a substantial body of criticism of globalisation. How about Paul Hellyer, former Deputy PM of Canada? or Dani Rodrik, or Paul Ormerod, or David Korten, or Viviane Forrester. Even some Australian voices - such as Hugh Stretton's  - are finally being heard. They have realised that to maintain civil society, nations must provide a range of employment for ALL their people, not just the favoured so-called intellectual workers. This means a level of economic nationalism. Even arch capitalist George Soros has pointed out globalisastion's many defects which people such as yourself choose to ignore in your paeon [to globalisation]. The fact that the word 'losers' is disgracefully part of public discourse proves that not everybody benefits. Your claim that globalisation has brought increased standards of living and fairer income distribution are not true. Some people have done extremely well, but others are going out backwards. Few ever mention that it takes two incomes to keep the standard of living one used to provide. Fewer ever mention the massive downgrading going on as skilled jobs with good wages and conditions are replaced by servile  low-paid jobs with lousy conditions in the hospitality 'industry'. Such workers have not improved their standard of living nor have they received a fair share of the national income. Quite the reverse.... Not so long ago even the poorest aged pensioner was treated with respect and courtesy by staff at such institutions as banks and the offices of public utilities. Now they're BOZOs [below zero value customers], forced to bank in the public street whatever the weather and with no concern for safety. How can anybody think such a disgusting development is progress? The relentless drive for ever bigger profits no matter what it takes is the ugly side of globalisation. Everything - civility, courtesy, care and responsibility, service, respect for the aged - is sacrificed to maximizing profits and the result is barbarism. I think it was Bob Birrell who noted that one half of Australia doesn't know how the other half lives and increasingly doesn't care. Hanson arose out of this destruction of our society and she'll remain as long as it continues. She keeps telling people that if the major parties were doing their job properly she wouldn't be on the scene... You claimed globalisation has 'significantly' brought down costs for the consumer... Why are brand name shoes like Reeboks still very expensive though made in Indonesia where wages are a pittance? ... Globalisation has meant the end of quality for ordinary people. Good quality Australian manufactures have been replaced by third world junk. A favourite claim by globalisation's cheerleaders is that people really are all better off they just won't admit it because they're envious of others' success... To force decent, honest, hard-working farmers off their land when they are among the most efficient in the world is criminal. To turn prime agricultural land into hobby farms for globalisation's winners is criminal. To make small business buckle under the BAS [business activity statement, a quarterly nightmare] when they are the backbone of the country is criminal. To destroy genuine competition in the name of a competition policy is criminal. To allow the destruction of Australian industry is criminal. Governments can tell people they are enjoying record prosperity till the cows come home, but people know it isn't true because they see the decay and decline all around them. It's time governments understood that Australia is more than  Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne. Australians are sick and tired of their country being 'managed' for the exclusive benefit of investors instead of being 'governed' for ALL Australians.  As Dr Mahathir recently said, "The idea that the market knows best is promoted by those who dominate the market and want their financial strength to determine what is best for themselves."  Quite so... You mentioned 'growth'. The Treasurer crows about growth too. Apart from record spending on mergers and acquisitions, where is it? Companies seem to 'grow' by shedding jobs. Viviane Forrester noted that eliminating jobs is the height of managerial probity. Well, we can do without such 'growth'. Economists and commentators love to quote streams of figures to prove the case for Australia's alleged record prosperity. Figures can say whatever people want them to. What good is the average full-time wage figure when one third of workers now have part-time jobs?  ... As for unemployment figures - what a sick joke when as little as one hour's work counts a person as 'employed'. Finally, globalisation IS undermining national sovereignty and that is what really enrages people all over the world. Just last week the Australian reported that member states of the EU are waking up to the fact that they have ceded some sovereignty. The European Commission in Brussels has for the first time invoked its considerable powers to enforce economic policy co-operation on members. Ireland received a formal caution that its planned tax cuts were "inappropriate", and Britain was ticked off for running a deficit to spend money on health, transport and education. While the politicians vowed they wouldn't tolerate EU interference in domestic affairs, it was all just bluster for home consumption. And in Australia? Back in 1996 Peter Hartcher wrote, "As John Howard swept into the chanderliered banquet hall to address top executives of 100 of the world's biggest banks this week, he could hardly have known that a trap had been laid for him. "The bankers, the most internationally influential audience Mr Howard has confronted since taking office, had spent half a day discussing the price they would demand from countries round the world for bankrolling them. "In an increasingly capital-thirsty world, international financiers, the commissars of capital, have become modern potentates with the power to dictate policy to states which have long considered themselves sovereign... By the time Mr Howard took the lectern in Sydney, the speakers at the invitation-only International Monetary Conference had already set out a check-list of policies. "Most explicit was the chairman of the big US investment bank Goldman & Sachs & Co, Mr John Corzene, a former central banker, who was asked by the group to specify conditions for what he called the 'inherently blunt process that leaves many worthy initiatives and investments without resources ...'" (AFR, 7/6/96) Needless to say John Howard was pronounced credit-worthy because he was moving on all the conditions: no let-up with privatisation; tax reform (introduce a GST and cut company taxes); labour reform (cut wages and conditions and make unions irrelevant); eliminate domestic industry protection (but 'encourage' - ie bribe -  multinationals); cut the public service; reduce pensions ...  So much for sovereignty.... Finally here's George Soros on global capital: Billionaire financier George Soros is scornful of the economic sacred cow that markets are self-sustaining and that market excesses will correct themselves provided governments or regulators don't interfere. In an article in The Atlantic Monthly he listed five major defects of global capitalism. ("Towards a global open society", Atlantic Monthly, January 1998) 1. Benefits are unequal.  Capital is better off than labour because capital is mobile.  Financial capital is better off than industrial capital. Even though multinationals enjoy flexibility in transfer pricing and can exert clout in investment decisions, they can't compete with the international portfolio investors. Consequently capital is attracted to the financial centres. It's not a productive use of capital. 2. Financial markets are unstable and notorious for boom-bust cycles. The instability can cause serious economic and social dislocation. Markets can't correct themselves because they tend to overreact. 3. Competition is reduced. Soros: "The goal of competitors is to prevail, not to preserve competition in the market place." Hence there is a tendency to monopolies and oligarchies. Soros is adamant that the only way to constrain the tendency is through regulation... 4. Capital can avoid tax while labour can't. Consequently the state's capacity to provide for the welfare of its citizens has been impaired. Soros noted Rodrik's observation that globalisation increases the demands on the state to provide social insurance while reducing its ability to do so. He fears the resulting social conflict will lead to protectionism and perhaps a 1930s-style break-down in the capitalist system. Pauline's [Hanson's] role is merely that of the canary in the mine. Instead of abusing her, the mainstream media ought to be thankful to her for warning of catastrophe. 5. Markets have no human values because they reduce everything – including people - to commodities. But all societies need shared values for social cohesion. Soros: "We can have a market economy but we cannot have a market society." Ding, ding!- anybody awake? Again echoing Rodrik, Soros said society needs institutions to serve such goods as political freedom and social justice. Such institutions only exist at the national level. Unless a global society develops alongside the global economy, global capitalism won't survive. By global society he didn't mean a global state, but diverse nations sharing the values of the open society. The previous global capitalism was held together by the imperial powers. If the new one is to survive "it must satisfy the needs and aspirations of its participants." I wonder if Howard and Costello, Beazley and his mob [Australian pollies] would call George Soros a Luddite, an ignoramus, a spouter of Hansonomics, and an economic troglodyte for uttering such heresies? The increasing social unrest that Australian politicians stupidly dismiss as resentment and envy is occurring precisely because globalisation is NOT satisfying the needs and aspirations of people. A society where singles in their twenties earn six figure salaries while fathers of families are thrown out of work due to deliberate economic policy is an unjust society and decent people will always object to injustice.