on 12/7/99 6:46 PM, Wat Tyler at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 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.

Ha! don't forget that he started out as a Goldwaterite Young American for
Freedom.

> 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?

Maybe I'm mistaken but I think the term is pretty well understood. As for
protectionism, it can be a perfectly valid response if made with a
recognition of its well-documented consequences. The French want to protect
a certain way of life. That's their right, even if it's economically
inefficient.
> 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.

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. Many Third World delegates fumed about it all week. To the extent,
then, that the protesters communicated their political will to the WTO
through Clinton, there is an arguable case for having an effect. But I have
also long thought the Left minimizes the degree of inherent conflict within
the WTO. I wasn't surprised that they foundered over these kinds of
differences.

> 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?
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.