After the CIA installed General Suharto in power in Indonesia 1965, the New York Times celebrated the "staggering mass slaughter" and the new economic climate as an "investors paradise." "Almost everyone is pleased by the changes being wrought," New York Times columnist C.L. Sulzberger commented (4/8/66). Investors flocked in to exploit the timber, mineral and oil resources, as well as the cheap, repressed labor, often in joint ventures with Suharto family members and cronies. Investor enthusiasm for this favorable climate of investment was expressed in political support and even in public advertisements; e.g., the full page ad in the New York Times (9/24/92) by Chevron and Texaco entitled "Indonesia: A Model for Economic Development." Investors flocked in to exploit the timber, mineral and oil resources, as well as the cheap, repressed labor, often in joint ventures with Suharto family members and cronies. Investor enthusiasm for this favorable climate of investment was expressed in political support and even in public advertisements; e.g., the full page ad in the New York Times (9/24/92) by Chevron and Texaco entitled "Indonesia: A Model for Economic Development." http://www.fair.org/extra/9809/suharto.html [video=youtube_share;M5uYCWVfuPQ]http://youtu.be/M5uYCWVfuPQ[/video] Scared to look up: Workers, many too scared to speak up or give their names, finish their shift at one of the Indonesian factories making Converse shoes
Trade (and capital mobility) will lead to wage gains and therefore provides a significant means to reduce absolute poverty. However, there's nothing wrong with 'name and shame' as that can speed up the process (and also improve on non-pecuniary work characteristics)
But the gap between the the indistrialized nations and the developing world has been increasing significantly since the 1950's. The numbers dont support your thesis. The CIA says globalization is going to lead to more civil unrest and chaos, guerrilla movements and so on.
There are certainly issues with economic development. A blanket policy of trade liberalisation, as coerced on countries through the Washington Consensus, can certainly be damaging. We can understand that by realising comparative advantage is a dynamic concept and that market failure can hinder the trade specialisation process (e.g. there is an over-reliance on resource exploitation which can actually lead to well-being reductions). However, the evidence shows that trade (and capital mobility) does lead to wage gains. Those making morality complaints over multinational behaviour ignore that reality One doesn't learn economics from the CIA. Much of the scaremongering has been shown to be garbage. For example, we're still waiting for the massive rise in predicted 'water' conflicts
Is anybody forcing these folks to work at such low wages? Apparently not. So I don't understand what the issue is.
Folks are so quick to forget that working conditions here weren't all that different within the last century, and while I'm not condoning it, denying them the opportunity to work in even these conditions would, in the long run especially, be even more damaging.
But that's how the system works. There is no such thing as the "free market", that's a joke. It's a mercantilist system. The Jesuit scholars in El Salvador put it this way: The World Bank acknowledged that: The US military and Space Command says the same thing. Washington's militarization of space is designed specifically to deal with the increasing civil unrest and nationalism which may try to overturn the established economic order and use "our resources" for their own purposes: Militarizing Space "to protect U.S. interests and investments" from the "have nots" Why do you comment on something you know nothing about? You just assume the best and that's it. No research.
The only thing that I assumed is that no one was forcing them to work. Again, I don't see a problem with that.
You mean a false dichotomy. What are the other options? And "slave labor" is a dishonest, hyperbolic term. I suggest you refrain from using it.
No it isn't. Its multilateralism, with a quietly effective dispute settlement system. The problem is that the system was corrupted by a right wing agenda that harmed economic development. However, that cannot be used to moan about multinational behaviour. They haven't destroyed, for example, 'infant industries'. That has been the US and EU as corrupting influences on that multilateralism
What the (*)(*)(*)(*) do you think you can do about me using that term? If you got payed $1-$2 a day I seriously doubt you wouldnt consider yourself a slave. Your sensitivities on these issues are misplaced.
Ethereal bases his approach on a right wing ideology. Its easy to dismiss. Nevertheless, the evidence does generally show that there wage gains and therefore a reduction in absolute poverty (or, at least, a reduction in the severity of absolute poverty)
A 20 minute opinion piece that likely is void of any genuine research? I'll pass. Even if $1-2 doesn't buy much, what are the workers alternatives? Self sustenance? Another, equally undesirable job?
Willingly working for a low wage is not slavery, simple as that. Try to see the perspective of these workers. The median wage of an Indonesian worker is $317 per month. If they were paid $2 a day, they would be better off than over half of all other workers in the country. Wealth doesn't come out of thin air, it has to be produced. You don't go from dirt poor to rich overnight. America didn't do that, and neither will these other developing countries. Preventing them from working will not bring wealth to anyone. It will only delay growth, and keep people poorer longer.
There is a lack of choice and it can be associated with a deterioration in living standards. A historical structuralist approach to multinational companies provides an appreciation of that. However, overall the effects are positive.
Economic & Social Insecurities Multiplying with Globalization The International Labour Organisation (ILO) reported that: The Global Report of the UN Industrial Development Organization observes: UNICEF concluded that the "basic indicators" were:
We know that better working conditions exist in the developed world. We know that, unless we see a rise in domestic industries through economic development, there will never be the job security associated with an abundance of highly skilled labour. We know that multilateralism, given the Washington Consensus, has harmed such economic development. However, none of that can be used to dismiss the importance of trade for economic well-being. Trade continues to be the primary mechanism to eliminate absolute poverty. Capital mobility, via multinationals, will be one mechanism to support that. We merely need economic development at the core of multilateralism to ensure that infant industries can flourish and that trade reflects comparative advantage long term advantages
And that is fair enough. A lot of the policies used by the tiger economies to develop, for example, have since been hindered by a skewed multilateral system corrupted by the 'rich north'. Its not all doom and gloom though. The developing countries are much more effective nowadays in promoting rational change
Now that the US empire is in significant decline many countries have been able to free themselves from the system of mysery. ALBA is a prime example of Washington losing it's grip on "our little region over here" (Secretary of War Henry Stimson)- the Western Hemisphere. Unfortunatley, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Haiti, Central America and so on are still "locked in" to the US economy. It doesnt matter who they elect. They have to follow the harsh neoliberal rules imposed on them by the international financial powers. Lula of Brazil can mouth revolutionary populist slogans and promise all these wonderful things to win elections but his hands are tied. That's why the US doesnt even need terror anymore in these countries. No more threat of democracy. Although death squad activities and military repression in Honduras is getting worse. Colombia, same. The drug war is another issue worth examining closely. Most of the victims murdered or forcefully evicted from their land on behalf of multinationals by US-backed security forces are peasants, farmers, protestors, journalists, trade unionists, and human rights advocates. In the Middle East, the most crucial region in the world, the US might as well just let it go. I dont see how they get it all back in the short term. Maybe over 10+ years of covert action.
The biggest economic issue is perhaps decoupling. The world economy is becoming less reliant on what happens in the US. That is a dangerous thing in itself. We've seen, for example, a lot of poor political decisions in Europe become of 'Old Europe' distraught at their loss of influence. You can expect something similar with the US. Whilst most Americans aren't clued up when it comes to a world map, its easy to lead a nationalist herd
