Andrej Grubacic wrote:
. . .
>
>QUESTIONING HENWOOD ON GLOBALIZATION
>Richard B. Du Boff and Edward S. Herman
>
>For some reason Doug Henwood feels called upon to play down globalization.
>...

Doug Henwood's reincarnation as an economist from an ex-Jesuit Marxist is
apparently nearly complete since he has successfully assumed the posture of
saying absolutely nothing. It is fortunate for us indeed that he finished
writing his book before the metamorphosis was complete. Now don't get me
wrong. I like Doug Henwood. He has a wonderful speaking voice and knows
just about everyone on the left. What is equally remarkable is that the Du
Boff / Herman article appears to criticize Henwood's thin air but ends by
agreeing with it completely.

It may be time to assess a few things:
1) What is meant by the possibly vacuous term 'globalization'? Is it just
rapid transnational capital flows? Is it just a matter of catching up to
the markets? Can protectionism be a valid response?
2) What, if anything, was accomplished in Seattle? The business press is
portraying the breakdown of the talks as the outcome of the preparedness of
developing nations' delegates to not be run over by the elitist corporatist
overlords. No credit is given to the protests in the streets.
3) Economists who work in public policy think that globalization is the
best available bet on the future (Paul Krugman and Bradford De Long). Why
wouldn't it be the best bet? Sure, the guy who worked at Huffy lost his
job. So what?