Sender: |
|
Mime-version: |
1.0 |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:13:25 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
on 12/8/99 5:22 PM, Bergesons at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Tresy, first of all thanks for the pictures-- both strident and gorgeous.
You're welcome. Thanks for visiting and making the effort worthwhile.
>
>> Well, we don't have many illusions about Clinton's labor record, but he
>> quite evidently felt compelled to throw us a bone when he spoke
>> here (coming
>> out for labor standards), and the reaction inside the WTO was swift and
>> harsh.
>
> Yes, it was almost jarring to hear Charlene Barshefsky call the protests a
> "democratization of the trade negotiations." Clinton has used his legendary
> ability to "feel your pain" to particularly dramatic effect here. Very few
> powerful men have the political acuity to agree so heartily with serious
> criticism. His agreements and praise then can be followed up with business
> as usual.
Almost certainly. But he has also perhaps opened a Pandora's box with labor
that he won't be able to control down the road. That remains to be seen.
>
>> My main beef is with those who preach the benefits of
>> Schumpterian 'creative
>> destruction," while being well-insulated from it themselves. If
>> globalization took into account the externalities imposed on the rest of
>> society (through job loss, envrironmental degradation, etc.) the costs as
>> well as benefits of globalization would be shared more equitably.
> THis crucial variable has been missing from the debate.
> I would be curious to hear what you think the effects of the demonstrations
> were and will be. I participated in a march on the Gap and Disney in NYC,
> but I doubt it had much effect other than a casual diversion for shoppers.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "this"?
--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA
|
|
|