<<snip>>
>
>Weick:
>
>I don't see what ideology has to do with it. Labour has always been the
>highest component of business costs, and we have always had innovations
>aimed at cutting costs by displacing labour. During recent decades, the
>business world has become more competitive and the rate of labour
>displacement has probably accelerated. Inventions such as the microchip
>have played a large role in this, but they are by no means the first thing
>to have displaced labour. Consider the impact, in its time, of Henry
>Ford's
>assembly line.
Davis:
The world has become more competitive because of the removal of
barriers to trade and investment. In the days of the classical
economists there were strong arguments with respect to comparative
advantage related to climate and skills. But as I understand it, the
classical economists did NOT advocate unrestrained transnational
investment. Today, most international trade is intra-corporate, carried
on in pursuit of lowest prices regardless of social or environmental
considerations. It is not surprising that corporations like this, or
even that governments agree, given that almost all national leaders are
financed by corporate money. But that does not make it morally right,
or socio-economically or environmentally sustainable.
The fact that it is possible for capital to steal the value of labour
does not make that right; the fact that it robs labour of purchasing
power makes it ultimately self-defeating.
<<snip>>
>
>When I say that the rate of increase of the productivity of Canadian
>labour
>has declined, I mean on average. (Actually, the decline is not my
>discovery.
>The Economic Council of Canada pointed to it when it was still
>around.) The
>productivity of specialized labour has undoubtedly increased. Such labour
>is able to fetch a good salary, and is still very much in demand. It
>is less
>specialized or unspecialized labour that has taken a big hit. This is the
>kind of labour that comprised much of the union movement a few decades
>ago.
>With the decline of its importance in the economy, the political clout of
>unions has also declined.
Davis:
I believe that unions have declined for 3 synergistic reasons:
1. They engaged in many objectionable practices, which made them an
easy target for
2. A massive propaganda campaign (equalled only by the lengthy and
ongoing campaign against government) the keystone of which was the
busting of the US air traffic controllers strike by Reagan. The
propaganda has been so successful that many people in person-on
-the-street interviews say that it is unreasonable of BC movie
projectionists to strike over a 50% wage increase-- while the theaters
are highly profitable! The right wing control of the media is nearly
complete.
3. Removal of trade and investment barriers has made it easy for
corporations to threaten and to actually move facilities to areas of
lowest wages (i.e. most desperate people) and lowest environmental
regulation. The recent series in Time magazine (of all places!) details
the way that corporations have blackmailed governments for hundreds of
millions of dollars by the threat of moving, and often moved their
facilities anyway after pocketing the money!
Weick:
>
>I would be hard pressed to believe that people are really any more greedy
>now than they were a few decades ago. I would however agree that today's
>greed is a little more obvious and perhaps rapacious. The economic
>world has
>become a more competitive place. The pie is not growing very fast and
>there
>are more people fighting for it.
Davis:
There are fewer and fewer "winning", but their slices of the pie are
bigger than ever before. The middle class, which I was always taught
marked the difference between banana republics and "us" is withering
even as the neo-feudal princes and barons (CEOs and their hangers-on)
reap unprecedented wealth, and staggering salary raise, often even in
the face of falling profits, but most spectacularly when they fire
large numbers of workers.
<<snip>>
>Weick:
>
>Hmmm. I must admit I have limited experience of all this. I would
>point out
>again that there are many different kinds of investment. I know that
>it has
>become fashionable to kick the World Bank around and perhaps it
>deserves it.
>But when I studied economics many years ago, it was quite in order to
>think
>that a way of developing poor countries was by building big dams and other
>infrastructure which would then allow industrialization to take place. In
>hindsight, this may not have been the best way of going about it.
Davis:
In the early 70's, Schumacher pointed the way to a different path,
"Appropriate technology", small scale, often more labour intensive
technology which would have enabled communities worldwide to supply
many of their own needs even while providing work for their people. The
World Bank could and should have followed this model, but it was not
very profitable for the bank's corporate cronies, and did not offer the
glamour and macho gratification of geography-altering mega projects.
The reasons for these things go very deep. There is currently a lot of
discourse about how the world has been shaped by the western-
originally Old Testament- view of nature as an alien thing to be
conquered rather than the vitally connected web of life that
aboriginals everywhere perceived.
Weick:
>
>And, from our perspective, it seems terribly wrong to have the poor of
>India
>make Nike shoes for rich world yuppies. But I do wonder how the people who
>are making those shoes feel. Have we ever stopped to ask them why they why
>they are doing it, or what their alternatives are? I know that it may
>not be
>politically correct to think this, but they do vote with their feet by
>going
>to work every day.
>
>When I was in Sao Paulo, Brazil, last year, I met some of the people that
>had been driven off the land. Most of them had not been displaced by
>specialized export crops. They had in fact been brought to Brazil as
>slaves
>during the 19th Century to work on a specialized crop, namely coffee.
>However, during the past half century, the vast majority of them had been
>displaced by cost-reducing machinery, and so they flocked to the cities or
>to the Amazon Basin. Drought had also played a role in displacing them.
>Whether or not they were better off in the cities is something I do not
>know. I believe many felt they were, but others may not have.
Davis:
Yes. The forces of colonialization and nature-bashing have been at work
for a long time.
>
>Davis:
>
>>The global monopoly game has led to unprecedented inequality, with
>>the vast majority of the wealth concentrated in a few hands. This
>>leaves the rest of us with not much money with which to buy their
>>products. Consumer debt is very high. I would have thought that was
>>obvious. And those who believe that the rich countries can dodge the
>>depression embracing the world (even without the Y2K event) are as
>>ostrich-like as the venerated economists who declared in the summer of
>>1929 that stock market cycles were a thing of the past.
>
>Weick:
>
>I think one would have to do a country by country review before one could
>conclude that there is a depression embracing the world. The situation in
>Asia is still bad, but perhaps not as desperate as it was a year ago.
>Russia
>is in terrible shape, but for very different reasons. Western Europe
>is not,
>to the best of my knowledge, depressed. Nor are some of the countries of
>eastern Europe. Parts of Africa do not have what one would call an
>economy,
>while other parts are not doing too badly. The situation is very
>mixed; some
>ups, some downs, many uncertains.
Davis:
Time will tell I believe that we are in the early days of another great
depression. The last one also arose out of a no-longer-viable system,
and began in poorer countries several years before it struck the
affluent ones.
<<snip>>
>
>Davis:
>
>>We "dashed" pretty quickly towards environmental degradation,
>>species extinction, and inequity during the past 20 years, and I think
>>the wall is right now looming ahead of us. I will be very surprised if
>>the world does not look very different by this time next year, let
>>alone two years from now.
>
>Weick:
>
>I think that what you have said in the above paragraph is a major part of
>the problem. What I fear most right now is the vast tide of pessimism
>which
>has washed over the world. For some reason, people are expecting enormous,
>catastrophic change. My elderly aunt, a very religious person, expects
>Christ to return momentarily and cleanse the world of sin (there go
>Toronto
>and Vancouver!). Many postings on the Internet indicate an almost morbid
>fear of collapse and chaos. In my opinion, it is in this state of mind
>that
>the real danger lies. It could bring us to a standstill, mortally
>afraid to
>move out of fear of our own shadows. And, yes, I do recognize there
>are real
>problems. But to deal with them we need reason, not overwhelming angst.
Davis:
I think a recent statement by Robert Theobald is relevant here:
"It is increasingly clear to us that there is a global clash between those
who argue for a continuance of current directions and those who recognize
that they will be disastrous. The tension between these two perceptions is
rising rapidly and the mechanisms we have for managing them are totally
inadequate. We hope our work will be helpful in this regard."
Millennialism certainly plays a role. But ignoring real and pressing
problems, like global overproduction, unprecedented inequity, insane
attacks on the natural order like Monsanto's terminator gene, and that
most ironic backlash of technological hubris, the Y2K bug, is conduct
unbecoming the most orthodox (if mythological) ostrich.
Another friend of mine remarked, "at certain critical junctures the
seeds of better days can no longer germinate in the exhausted soil of
the past; then we must endure painful events, which act as history's
rototiller, bringing fresh soil to the surface so that the good seeds
may germinate again."
I think we are at one of those junctures. And I do not think that
either Pollyana-ism or ostrichism is particularly useful. What could
ameliorate the crisis is a candid look at what is wrong with the
economic, political, social and environmental systems, and the
beginning of a widespread COOPERATIVE effort at creating greater
equity, greater respect for the environment and for each other, and at
finding satisfaction in personal relationships and cooperative effort,
rather than in domination and accumulation.
I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I believe that the best we
can do is learn to be more flexible an resilient, boith as individuals
and as communities- see http://www.resilientcommunities.org
Caspar Davis
