Comments on: Fighting the Flat-Earthers

By: Cari

Cari — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:58:12 +0000

I agree that labor organizations must rally for policy changes in the global economy. globalization does not only effect the jobs for unskilled workers. In the global society today all workers are at risk of their jobs being shipped to less developed countries where labor is cheaper. In the US the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I am not trying to say that globalization is the only reason for this because there are some others.
The manufacturing jobs that were once abundant have left the United States leaving those 40,000 dollar a year workers with no jobs. Most had worked in these companies for years and had no additional training that is needed in today’s job market. So they were forced to take jobs making 8-9 dollars and hour. The global market is based on one thing, profits for corporations. Why pay 40,000 a year to a worker here when you can pay thousands less to a worker in a less developed counrty.
We know that the world is not flat and neither should we think that the global labor market is.

By: TOM PALLEY

TOM PALLEY — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:25:02 +0000

Dear C. Vanella,

Thank you for your nice comments. Four think-tanks that I can recommend are:
(1) The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
(2) The Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School University.
(3) The Levy Institute at Bard College.
(4) The Economic Policy Institute in Washington DC.

Hope this helps. Best,

Tom Palley

By: C Vanella

C Vanella — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 20:15:27 +0000

Mr Palley,
As an apparent stop along the globalization path what light can you shed on the recent disclosure of the furtherance or intention to establish a North American Union under the auspices of the North American Forum which met in Banf, Canada Sept 12-14 to continue the discussions of the Council of Foreign Relations task force that in May 2005 released a report entitled “Building a North American Community.”
ThankYou,
C Vanella

By: C Vanella

C Vanella — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:54:33 +0000

Mr. Palley,

You have made a compelling case here and in previous commentaries that the “free market framed shared conversations of the policymakers, politicians and journalists driving global understandings” to paraphase, does not bring the necessary and proper consideration to the short term consequences for the ‘common good’ this economic activity is purportedly intended to foster.
The consequence of globalization is a growing and I think anguished sense among many Americans of the rending of our social contract. While we complain and endure these economic shocks I suspect our fellow (insulated) northerners and the advantaged southerners are basking in shadenfreude just as they seem to be at our middle eastern predicament.
As dismaying as that is, it is even more so that you seem to be a lone albeit eloquent voice in the storm.
Where else might I find such rational and informative discussion of this issue?

Respectfully,
C Vanella

By: Raymond Lotta

Raymond Lotta — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:37:12 +0000

My recent article “A Jagged, Unjust, and Obsolete World: A Critique of Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat” is in the September 10 issue of Revolution at http://revcom.us/a/060/flatworld-en.html. Comments always appreciated…
Raymond Lotta

By: Andreas Botsch

Andreas Botsch — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:40:54 +0000

Dear Tom:
While I generally agree with this nice piece of work and in particular with your idea of the neo-liberal box as a tool for a common approach in post-autistic economics , I’m highly sceptical about your belief that “Germany runs massive trade surpluses on the back of a relatively under-valued exchange rate.” I’m saying belief for there is little support for your exchange rate argument with the rest of the world, i.e outside the Euro area. That’s why I think this should be qualified.
Firstly, there are eleven other countries in the Euro zone that do not run the same trade surpluses as Germany. Secondly, take a look at the trade-weighed exchange rate of the Euro since 1999 and the Deutschmark prior to 1999. Thirdly, it is widely accepted that the German economy entered the Euro zone at a slightly overvalued exchange rate for the Deutschmark, not taking into account the burden of German unification and at the same time foregiving the traditional advantage of low real interest rates. EMU has made nominal devaluations of national currencies impossible. Yet having a low inflation rate in Euroland means that you pay a high price in terms of high real interest rates, putting pressure on wages. In turn, infamous wage moderation in Germany has resulted in a real devaluation - though only ***within*** EMU.

A different explanation of German trade surpluses is that industry - though not the service sector - is internationally highly competitive for productivity gains have not been redistributed to workers over the last 15 years or so. This has by no means been a deliberate act of the unions, but here comes your story with the box: union bargaining power has weakened under conditions of post-unification high unemployment, a downsized government, and greater labor market flexibility.

Best wishes from Berlin,
Andreas

By: Mike Meeropol

Mike Meeropol — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:01:41 +0000

Dear Tom:

As always your commentaries are thought-provoking and right on target. I wonder if you have had an opportunity to comment on Dean Baker’s e-book, THE CONSERVATIVE NANNY STATE. He presents important evidence that can be used to debunk the pro-capital idea that the “flat” earth is “just the free market on a glabal scale…” whereas in fact it is rigged thoroughly in favor of capital.

In solidarity, Mike Meeropol