Search

This article reports on the reexamination of globalization occurring within the financial and economic community. Former IBM executive Ralph Gomory is one of the most prominent critics of globalization as it impacts America. His book "Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests" has sparked a debate among economists.

The backstory for this election year lacks the urgency of war or of defeating George W. Bush but focuses on a most fateful question: When will this hemorrhaging debtor nation be compelled to pull back from profligate consumption and resign its role as" buyer of last resort" for the global economy? Despite ebbs and surges, the gap between US exports and imports has been steadily widening across three decades. For several decades, in fact, the federal government has tolerated and even encouraged the dispersal of American production overseas--first to secure allies during the cold war, later to advance the fortunes of US multinationals. No other major economy in the world accepts perennial trade deficits; some maintain huge surpluses. But American leaders and policy-makers are uniquely dedicated to a faith in "free market" globalization, and they have regularly promised Americans that despite the disruptions, this policy guarantees their long-term prosperity. Present facts make these long-held convictions look like gross illusion.Yet no one running for President has found the nerve to discuss these facts in a straightforward manner. Nor do the candidates have anything to say about how the country might avoid a potential calamity. Given our rapidly deteriorating condition, it is not too soon to begin considering how the nation might dig out, lest popular confusion and bitterness generate reactionary politics instead.

As he travels around the country, musing aloud on his hopes for the future, U.S. President Bill Clinton inspires an unintended melancholy about his presidency. He has big dreams for the country, and he states them passionately, as always. He worries about global warming and warns that the U.S. must confront the problem. Clinton, as President, consigned the malfunctioning global economy to the reform energies of the Business Roundtable and Wall Street. His Administration led cheers for multinational commerce, opened fragile economies to the manic surges of global capital and created the World Trade Organization to judge whether new social standards are, in fact, barriers to trade and therefore forbidden.

The World Trade Organization's (WTO's) failure at settle commercial disputes in Seattle, Washington, has inspired a new organizing slogan: "Fix it or nix it?" WTO is the visible symbol of globalization and the network of forty country-based campaigns that produced Seattle is working now on when to stage another international day of action. The U.S. coalition is, meanwhile, gearing up for another crucial fight, blocking the U.S. Congressional action that would give China a permanent "good housekeeping seal," instead of annual approval of most-favored-nation status, as it joins WTO.

Leaders of U.S. government, business and finance are still behind the curve-dangerously so--because they still assume that, with a few deft policy adjustments, the global economy can be restored to "normal." The global system will either be reformed in fundamental ways or public will watch passively as the destabilizing dynamics of unregulated markets continue to deliver random destruction around the world, compounding the misery for innocent bystanders. The urgent objective is to pull the global economy out of this muck--before everything gets stuck. A deflationary spiral is far more difficult to reverse, once under way, than it is to avoid with timely ameliorative action.

The article focuses on the economical condition of the U.S. and global economy. The collapsing currencies and stock markets is vivid confirmation of the new interconnectedness that globalization and financiers have fashioned. Forcing the usual financial remedies upon the troubled developing economies may simply feed the imbalances that already exist, aggravate instabilities and possibly set off a chain reaction of collapsing credit and economic activity. Labor rights is about saving U.S. jobs and about human freedom, but people also must understand that labor rights is fundamentally about saving the global economy from its own threatening excesses.

In this article, the author offers his observations on whether or not free-market globalization can survive in a world ruled by the military power of the U.S. The author asserts that the proponents of globalization should understand that their vision of a New World Order is incompatible with that of President George W. Bush. The author observes that the regime of globalization promotes an unfettered marketplace as the dynamic instrument organizing international relations. Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Development is seeking proposals from U.S. construction companies to rebuild Iraq's roads and bridges, the electrical grid, housing, schools and hospitals after the attacks.

It is informed that globalization is entering a fateful new stage, in which the competitive perils intensify for the low-wage developing countries much like the continuing pressures on high-wage manufacturing workers in the U.S. and other advanced economies. In Mexico, the manufacturing wage level rose a bit in the last couple of years and is now around dollar 1.50 an hour. In China, it is 20-25 cents an hour. Electronics was supposed to be one of Mexico's bright spots, but Mexico now claims China is exporting its surplus output at a price below what it costs in China. According to Business Week, Guadalajara, a production center for dozens of U.S. technology companies was down 16 percent in exports and has lost 15,000 jobs in the first half of the year.

The article focuses on the question put by New York Times to the major players of business and finance. The question, which was asked, was "After the Attacks, Which Side Is the Left On?" At a deeper level, the patriotic sense of unity collides with familiar assumptions advanced by the architects and cheerleaders of corporate globalization. The nation-state has been eclipsed and no longer has the power to determine its own destiny. The national interest now lies in making the world safe for globalizing commerce and capital. The much-admired CEO of General Electric (GE), Jack Welch, portrayed GE as a "borderless company," and he brutally enforced the logic.

The economics of U.S. President George W. Bush may be broadly described as lukewarm Reaganomics, but his plans for regressive tax cutting and more dismantling of the public sphere are airbrushed with the same touchy-feely moderation the Republican candidate projects for himself. It's no secret that Bush lacks intellectual depth, and the stubborn ideological self-confidence. To craft his program, Bush assembled a team of economists that roughly reflects elements of the old coalition of Ronald Reagan but without the hard-edged, zany fervor. On many large matters like globalization, the Bush administration would take its cues not from academic economists but from the business and financial establishment.

The article focuses on one-sided coverage of globalization by mass media. The media has have embraced the mantras of globalization as the new sustaining ideology for the role of the U.S. in the world. The antidote for biased coverage is more honest reporting, on the ground reporting where the story is happening, free of abstract presumptions promoted by the established order. The press does not lead the way when a new social movement arises but usually follows hesitantly, reluctant to side with dissent until the public itself is greatly aroused or the story is too big and obvious to be ignored.

The article looks at the issue exposed by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during his debate against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, which is how globalization has influenced prosperity for the American working class. Topics include the decision of companies to abandon the U.S. and move good jobs elsewhere, how Germany has succeeded in the age of globalization, and thoughts from labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan on why U.S. citizens are confused by their own government's propaganda.

The article offers commentary on the decisions U.S. President-elect Barack Obama needs to make to deal with the U.S. financial crisis, and discusses the major obstacles to this reform which include the size of the bailout and his economic stimulus package, the possibility of nationalizing the U.S. banking system, and the reforms needed to stabilize the world economy. The author discusses the obstacles to reform caused by the dysfunctional U.S. economy and the problems caused by globalization.

The author addresses issues surrounding globalization that he believes should be addressed by the U.S. Congress. Sweatshop labor laws should be enforced on items imported to the U.S. Higher taxes should be imposed on companies who assign jobs overseas. Imports to the U.S. should be limited in order to achieve a trade balance. U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan is quoted.

A tide of corporate high-mindedness seems to be sweeping the globe, inspired by last year's ruckus in Seattle and a continuing series of confrontations. One international organization after another has scurried to catch up with the popular rebellions against globalization by announcing initiatives to promote human rights, the environment and worker protections. Leading multinations have been eager to sign up as co-sponsors, since the new codes or compacts are all voluntary and toothless. If corporate declarations of good intent were edible, the world's hungry would be fed. The purpose obviously is public relations improving the tarnished images of global corporations and portraying weak-willed international institutions as attentive and relevant to the turmoil of worldwide controversy.

The article discusses the failures of free trade. Professor Paul Samuelson's "Economics: An Introductory Analysis" has been the bestselling college economics textbook for more than fifty years. Now comes Samuelson to announce an important correction. In certain circumstances, when a very poor but ambitious nation is trading with a wealthy advanced economy, free trade can turn into a very ugly loser for the wealthy country--inflicting permanent economic loss, stagnant wages, greater inequality and other hurtful consequences. The professor's reasoning is expressed in the abstract language of orthodox economics, but he does name the two countries he has in mind--the United States and China. Free trade, the professor elaborates, will deliver real gains to both rich and poor nations in the initial stages, but this can change dramatically as the poorer nation begins to acquire the technological capabilities to innovate and improve its productivity--in other words, become more like the advanced economy. The abstracted models worked out by economic scholars, most notably Samuelson, leave out the complexities of human existence--politics, society, culture, history, irrational greed. If one wants to understand China's energetic rise in the global system, read the economic history of the United States.