Anyone else seen The Corporation yet?

[Agent Sunshine]

I saw it last night, excellent film. I'm glad to see this topic getting broader exposure. Corporate led globalization is a very dangerous and destructive policy, and one that relatively few people are aware of in this country. I'm still not terribly optimistic that we'll reform the system before it crashes on our heads, but the more people who know what is happening, the better.

I'm especially interested to hear what any conservatives who have seen it think.

[zartan]

yeah loved it. good luck finding a conservative willing to challenge their thinking on this issue. LOL.

[uberclkgtr]

there's an excellent book by rutgers political philosopher benjamin barber called "jihad vs mcworld". it came out in the mid-90s. it's an excellent primer on this issue, that is, a fairly objective look at the economic and social issues involved - globalism and tribalism, and how both are destructive to democracy. if you interested how globalism relates to the current war on terror and tribal problems in afghanistan and the mid-east, you should read this. highly recommended.

[Agent Sunshine]

there's an excellent book by rutgers political philosopher benjamin barber called "jihad vs mcworld". it came out in the mid-90s. it's an excellent primer on this issue, that is, a fairly objective look at the economic and social issues involved - globalism and tribalism, and how both are destructive to democracy. highly recommended.

Yeah, I read that, or at least some of it, in one of my politics classes at Oberlin. Very good stuff. One World Ready Or Not by William Grieder is also very good. As is Workers in a Lean World, by someone else. I forget. It's on my shelf at home.

I want to read Gary Hart's new book, as well as RFK Jr's book.

[Light Touch]

Unfortunately, I missed the run @ the Charles. I might have to run down DC-area to see this, otherwise, I'll see it on DVD.

That said, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of corporations as an integral piece of our society and as the strongest illustration of the power of freedom.

[zartan]

will be VERY interested in hearing your reaction, light touch. after seeing that movie its very hard for me to take seriously that statement.

[ramz]

yes, yes, but be sure to dive headlong into challenging your thinking on how industrialized nations are supposed to be able to contribute to the wealth and well-being of developing nations where $10/mo slave labor is the norm rather than the exception if NOT through globalization... This is definitely one of my favorite cake and eat it too situations, kind of like, "cut taxes on the middle class AND spend MORE money on social welfare initiatives" or "guarantee our peace and domestic tranquility but make sure you stop spending so much on the military so that its virtual pot can be used for wealth redistribution" or "let's invest billions in ensuring that joe six-pack has a $13/hour factory job and let's make sure we're looking forward to develop the skills of future workers to guarantee that no one has to work at Burger King"...

[zartan]

in much of the world, the income disparity created by natural resource extraction flowing to the corrupt government IS the problem, not a lack of resources. Africa was never hit by civil wars and famines like they have now until the developed world came and fucked it up.

[ramz]

how about the native populations of the amazon basin who, when given a taste of prosperity happily wield the tools of their own destruction--chainsaws--irrespective of the eventual dessimation of their own environment and well being? the fact is that any citizenry will strive to amass wealth if given the opportunity; the problem is that developed nations don't take more active responsibility in bridling the pocket industrial revolutions... the western world bears a huge burden of blame for the woes of the third world, but it's not because they seized the opportunity of burgeoning markets through globalization; instead, it's the seeming lack of willingness to do something other than hand gunpowder to the natives, sit back and watch what happens in a educational vacuum.

[zartan]

...prop up brutal dictatorships to maintain access to oil...fight proxy wars with the USSR...etc etc.

[zartan]

jason, do you think things like agricultural subsidies in the US and the "free trade" agreements we push on developing nations are fair? Hopefully you konw what I'm talking about - like the fact that we subsidize cotton so ridiculously that we've destroyed much of the third world's textile industry.

[ramz]

...prop up brutal dictatorships to maintain access to oil...fight proxy wars with the USSR...etc etc.is that globalization or is that you grinding idealogical axes? :wink:

With respect to your other post, I question whether or not "fair" or even "fair trade" is really at issue here. My understanding is that we're talking about globalization here, which, if I've been properly indoctrinated to the meaning of the word by my anti-capitalist, anti-west educational upbringing, is essentially the decrying of capitalist imperialism that employs unskilled laborers and fairly unlivable wages, destroys the natural resources of developing nations, and outsources manufacturing, call center, and software development jobs to the third world. I challenge the existance of a direct cause and effect relationship in this matter, but you seem to want to steer the discussion more in the direction of free trade agreements...fair enough...

Farm subsidies are wrong. We spend $200 billion ANNUALLY to support domestic farmers in the endeavors to grown unpopular crops and to push goods that can be obtained more cheaply, readily, and efficiently from a thousand other sources. One could make the cynical argument that we essentially do the same thing with economic incentives to keep manufacturers and assembly lines state-side, but I'll try REALLY HARD not to go there... I suppose what matters is who is represented by collective bargaining and block voting and who is not when it comes to garnering the support of the pro-prolitariat rhetorists...

Of course, there are dozens of nations that do essentially the same thing by dumping steel and lumber on the US market, which is why protectionist trade is ridiculous economic theory that seeks only to destroy the very benefits of free trade.

The social darwinist in me says that free trade should be just that: free, unemcumbered by collective lobbies that engender support for feel-good economic practices that prop up suppliers when demand does not exist. But, then, that would set me at odds with the classic cake-and-eat-it-too illuminati, wouldn't it?

[Light Touch]

is that globalization or is that you grinding idealogical axes? :wink:

With respect to your other post, I question whether or not "fair" or even "fair trade" is really at issue here. My understanding is that we're talking about globalization here, which, if I've been properly indoctrinated to the meaning of the word by my anti-capitalist, anti-west educational upbringing, is essentially the decrying of capitalist imperialism that employs unskilled laborers and fairly unlivable wages, destroys the natural resources of developing nations, and outsources manufacturing, call center, and software development jobs to the third world. I challenge the existance of a direct cause and effect relationship in this matter, but you seem to want to steer the discussion more in the direction of free trade agreements...fair enough...

Farm subsidies are wrong. We spend $200 billion ANNUALLY to support domestic farmers in the endeavors to grown unpopular crops and to push goods that can be obtained more cheaply, readily, and efficiently from a thousand other sources. One could make the cynical argument that we essentially do the same thing with economic incentives to keep manufacturers and assembly lines state-side, but I'll try REALLY HARD not to go there... I suppose what matters is who is represented by collective bargaining and block voting and who is not when it comes to garnering the support of the pro-prolitariat rhetorists...

Of course, there are dozens of nations that do essentially the same thing by dumping steel and lumber on the US market, which is why protectionist trade is ridiculous economic theory that seeks only to destroy the very benefits of free trade.

The social darwinist in me says that free trade should be just that: free, unemcumbered by collective lobbies that engender support for feel-good economic practices that prop up suppliers when demand does not exist. But, then, that would set me at odds with the classic cake-and-eat-it-too illuminati, wouldn't it?

:werd: :yourock:

[empath]

Just saw it, though it was awesome, and actually DID present both sides of the issue.

The lesson to be drawn from the movie is that corporations ARE good, but there need to be limits on what they are able to do in terms of pushing out costs from themselves to the rest of us -- pollution, etc...

[NYGblue]

like the fact that we subsidize cotton so ridiculously that we've destroyed much of the third world's textile industry.

that didn't destroy their textile industry. It was inefficient to begin with and China made up for that. What the subsidies have done is really harm the 3rd worlds ability to sell cash crops where they could rake in the $$$$. Unfortunately they have unfair competition with developed countries that subsidize farmers with better technology which in turn leads to better output per acre/hectare whatever...

As for the rest of this entire thread and the argument over globalisation. Its too muddled for me to even bother to comment. I will say this, I think Ramz is making a damn good point. The only thing I want to point out is that free trade and subsidies are subtopics in the globalisation discussion and therefore warrant time in a globalisation discussion.

My opinion is that globalisation is neither good nor bad. Sadly its neither, in the longterm i hope it is good, but their certainly is a worry over how big corporation will affect that. Noreena Hertz's book "The Silent Takeover" is an excellent counterbalance to Thomas Friedman's "Lexus and the Olive Tree". Both demonstrate the good and the bad. Which means we need to work within that reality to weed out the bad as much as possible but not forget the good. If that makes any sense.