This is the same story for other countries.
Here in the UK we're supposed to have
a boom, greater growth, lower inflation.
But the number of unemployed is still
three times greater than when the tories got in in 1979.
(Even by the official statistics and those are bare lies.)
They already putting up interest rate to stop
the "overheating". I am a technician at a uni,
our salaries did not keep up even with that low inflation, the
standard of living is falling for the bottom 2/3 or more of earners, and ˙
as
usual, worst for the poor, as New Labour is doing more aggressive
cuts than the tories ever dared to.
Globalisation is blamed in the article as the cause of all the
problems, and it is mentioned, that isolationism is not the
solution. Why, oh why cannot these authors see, that the problem is
with the capitalist structure, that now really run out of steam?
Why can't they look at the problem from a different reference-system?
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:13:34 -0400 (AST)
From: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Canadian futures <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: **Star: Few reap benefits of global trade push ˙
By Carol
Goar (fwd)
Status: O
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:42:22 -0500
From: Eric Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: C4LDEMOC-L: **Star: Few reap benefits of global trade push By ˙
Carol Goar
<Picture>November 22, 1997 By Carol Goar]>
Few reap benefits of global trade push
THERE HAS TO BE an explanation for the puzzling gap between the strong
economic recovery that Canada's politicians and business leaders are
celebrating and the profound sense of insecurity that millions of Canadian˙
s
feel.
Statistics don't help. There are numbers to back up either reality.
On the positive side, Canada is enjoying the strongest economic growth of
any major industrial nation. We have a healthy trade surplus; low interest
rates; minimal inflation; and a smaller government deficit, in proportion
to our size, than the U.S., Britain or Japan.
But in many homes, it's hard to tell these are boom times. In the first si˙
x
months of this year, workers' incomes failed to keep pace with the cost of
living. Job creation has stagnated, after a brief summer upturn, leaving
the unemployment rate at a painfully high 9.1 per cent.
And every week brings new reports of layoffs. The Ontario government has
cut more than 14,000 civil service jobs since it took power. Bell Canada
has laid off 12,000 em- ployees in the past two years. Inco just announced
that it plans to chop 500 employees. No workplace seems immune. Jobs are
being slashed in factories, mines, schools and hospitals.
ployees in the past two years. Inco just announced that it plans to chop
500 employees. No workplace seems immune. Jobs are being slashed in
factories, mines, schools and hospitals.
It is almost as if there are two economies - one for global high-flyers an˙
d
one for ordinary citizens.
That is exactly the conclusion of a study just published by the New
York-based Council on Foreign Relations. The culprit, it says, is
globalization.
While trade enriches nations, the council acknowledges, ``global
integration may not benefit middle-class citizens as a group.''
To move further toward a barrier-free world economy, the study warns, ``ma˙
y
not be democratically supportable.''
Until recently, these kinds of sentiments were confined to left-wing
groups. But the 76-year-old Council on Foreign Relations is as mainstream
as they come. It is a highly respected, non-partisan, non-ideological
think-tank.
Nor is it just academics who are questioning the wisdom of globalization.
President Bill Clinton suffered a humiliating setback earlier this month
when his own party, reacting to public pressure, sabotaged his bid for
authority to negotiate new free trade deals. In Ottawa, Trade Minister
Sergio Marchi is having a tough time selling Canadians on a new
multilateral agreement to open the international marketplace to more
foreign investment. And last month's plunge on the Hong Kong stock exchang˙
e
has left investors around the world questioning the durability of the
``Asian miracle.''
All this couldn't be happening at a worse time for Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien.
Two days from now, he plays host to 18 Pacific heads of government, meetin˙
g
in Vancouver for their annual forum on Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation.˙
The objective of the group, founded in 1989, is to create a massive new
free trade zone by 2020. Until this year, the challenge always was to
convince Asian leaders that they had more to gain than lose by entering
into an economic alliance with Canada and the U.S. But now it's North
Americans who appear wary.
Corporate leaders in the U.S., who were once the most enthusiastic
advocates of free trade, are now complaining that the global economy is
producing more cars, computers, clothes and other consumer goods than
people are willing to buy.
``There is excess global capacity in almost every industry,'' says Jack
Welch, chairman of General Electric.. That leaves manufacturers with two
unpalatable options: Cut prices or cut production.
Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that the turmoil in Asian financial market˙
s
won't end soon. The currencies of Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea,
Singapore and the Philippines are faltering because of excessive
speculation, bad loans and failing banks. The appeal of closer trade and
investment links with the region has suddenly dimmed.
Even if fears of a global slump are exaggerated, countries that open their
borders to foreign investment and trade expose themselves to risks: a
weakening of their national identity, job losses in vulnerable industries,
a curtailment of cultural and economic sovereignty.
But the most worrisome aspect of globalization is that no one seems to hav˙
e
figured out how to translate trade gains into a better life for the
majority of citizens.
The old tools governments used to narrow the gap between rich and poor -
universal social programs, regional development grants, a highly
progressive tax system, low tuition fees for post-secondary education -
are, for the most part, gone. And new ones aren't being developed.
Retreating into isolationism isn't an option. Canada has to export to
create growth and jobs. And our economy is already highly integrated into
the global trade and investment network.
But it might be wise to slacken our pace.
The path we're on may lead to prosperity. But for many Canadians, the
benefits remain out of reach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Goar is a member of The Star's editorial board. Her column appears o˙
n
Saturday.
|
|To unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], no subject, with the
|following message (and no other text): unsubscribe c4ldemoc-l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
