No, The World Is ROUND, You Idiot

One of my big time pet peeves is how we as a society have completely bought into the idea that ‘Globalization is Inevitable and Good’. You see it everywhere, even on the so-called economic left. Most pundits, economic advisors, and hell even many of our trusted left-leaning fiscal bloggers all treat the issue as an unquestioned net plus for society.

Hogwash.

There are many issues to be fixed in this country. I believe the biggest five are ending the war, restoring our constitutional balance, environmental crisis management, health care reform and economic reform. Of these five, I believe we as left-leaning advocates are furthest behind in developing our economic arguments and policies.

Actually let me start with a caveat. I believe myself to be an economic centrist. Following my tried-and-true approach of letting the facts lead me to my conclusions, I believe we have gone so far off-center in our economic approach we are virtual extremists at this point.

Why do I say ‘off-center’ instead of ‘to the right’? Because beginning at the turn of the 20th century, advocating a liberalized trade policy became a pet issue of liberals, not conservatives. That’s why they called it a liberalized trade policy in the first place. Liberalized ‘free’ trade was seen as an egalitarian dream. Open markets were supposed to work to everyone’s benefit by lowering prices and distributing wealth equitably.

But corporate greed and a willingness to exploit workers and the environment have turned yesterday’s Free Trade ideal into today’s global farce. One need look no further than the situation in Mexico to see the evidence. Factories have opened in small towns to great fanfare, only to see them become deserted environmental wastelands a few years later as corporations move to more fertile, even cheaper fields.

We need to raise public awareness as to the extremist economic policies of our government today. Here are some examples of how I think we should frame the discussion:

Hands-Off Free Trade is a Corporatist agenda. It is neither Liberal nor Conservative. Protecting consumers from poisoned pet food, ensuring our children don’t lick lead paint off their toys, and helping our entrepreneurs avoid unfair trade practices are American ideals. Advocating a common sense approach to this issue is not a communist plot.

Industry Deregulation is a Corporatist agenda. It is neither Liberal nor Conservative. Allowing workers to return home each night if they work in a mine, ensuring hazardous chemicals don’t get into the environment, and providing minimum standards for health and safety are American ideals. Advocating a common sense approach to this issue is not a communist plot.

Massive Industry Consolidation is a Corporatist agenda. It is neither Liberal nor Conservative. Ensuring a competitive playing field for industry and allowing for multiple points of view in our public discourse are American ideals. Advocating a common sense approach to this issue is not a communist plot.

Ignoring Environmental Issues and Worker’s Rights in Trade Deals is a Corporatist agenda. It is neither Liberal nor Conservative. Requiring companies to ensure they don’t destroy the environment in Mexico and stopping them from exploiting workers in other countries are American ideals. Advocating a common sense approach to this issue is not a communist plot.

I think you see what I’m getting at. We need to change public perception on these vital issues away from it all being about Liberalism vs. Conservatism, Communism vs. Capitalism.

This is all about Corporate Extremism vs. the Public Good. Period. End of Story.

Personal Note – I started writing about a lot of this stuff over at the Big Orange. I included beaucoup de facts and figures but I wasn’t getting much traction. In the future, should I continue to write about this stuff here, I’ll dazzle y’all with numbers and fancy links to back up my crazy talk. For now, I just wanted to lay the groundwork. Cheers.

23 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. The world is not flat. It is round. We’ve been over this before. I’ll tell you what is flat. Your book is flat. And so is your head.

    In my little fantasy world, one day you and I will meet Tom. When we meet, I’ll ask you to sign your book for me. And then I’ll take your flat book and introduce it to your flat head in a forceful (but not harmful or overly cruel) manner.

    Have a nice day.

  2. corporate subsidies are hardly ‘hands-off’

    and facts and figures are yummy!!  keep ’em coming!!

  3. but the way it is being done is FAR from good.

    We are one planet and one people….like it or not. We have to figure out how to deal with that. The current ‘plan’ is a planetary nightmare.

  4. Man, that guy is all about sunny optimism; everything is going to be alright if we just let the corporations do what they think is best.

    Which in my book means he has never looked at human nature–or history.

  5. It’s not as touchy as I/P but it does cause incredible conflict among the left. There is nothing ‘free’ in our markets. Even our candidates (other then Edwards sort of) don’t talk at all about the busting of trusts and regulation or fair trade.

    Me I’m a socialist at heart, but can live quite happily with capitalism, that is fettered and regulated. I do not believe in the concept of personhood for corporations. This run amok version of capitalism is truly not sustainable, same with globalism, the human misery is to big a price to pay for cheap tube socks. 

    • LoE on September 20, 2007 at 22:50

    …the end of “corporate personhood”.  If corporations were, by law, more subservient to the public good, it would be an improvement.

    I don’t really know much about legalities elsewhere, though.  Do other countries have the same kind of setup?

    • snud on September 20, 2007 at 23:37

    But have we ever had a president who supported a Corporatist agenda more than Dubya?

    I do believe I understand your point that it started out differently, but of the two parties it sure seems to me that the right-wingers lean quite a bit more in that direction with their “drown gubment in a bathtub” mantra and “capitalism solves everything” approach.

    But hey, how about that “debate” in the Senate today? Who knew Move On and Sally Fields are right up there with Osama?

    It’s not like they have anything more important to discuss. Man, I’m so sick of these idiots.

  6. the upcoming vote on the Free Trade Agreement with Peru? Apparently the Dems are in support, following the lead of Charlie Rangel. Some concessions for labor and environmental issues have been made.

    I’m still wary myself and want to see far more fair trade than free at this point. Living close to the border has made the negative effects of NAFTA very obvious to me.

    Here’s a recent article about the Peru deal and a couple of snippets from the Shrub, just to make ya queasy.

    President George W. Bush urged Congress on Thursday not to give into protectionism and instead pass four pending free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

    “We’ll work hard to get all four trade agreements,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “If they don’t get through, it’s a sign that the protectionists are beginning to be on the ascendancy here in Congress and that would be a mistake.”

    link

  7. http://www.augustreview.com

    • pfiore8 on September 21, 2007 at 17:03

    begged, and pleaded:

    i can’t seem to find Tom Friedman’s e-mail, so I’ll go through you. Please ask Tom Friedman to STOP writiing about Iraq. He’s wrong and it’s become like nails on a blackboard. Unbearable.

    that was sometime after Nov 2004… head-exploding is what is was

    love your essay Stranger!!!!

    • Turkana on September 22, 2007 at 07:06

    add the facts, figures, links, etc.

    one of our goals, on this site, is to discuss things in greater depth than is usual, on the blogs. we have a lot of people with specific types of expertise. we can teach each other quite a bit.

Comments have been disabled.