(oops, did this appear on the list ?)
On Thu, 17 May 2001, Tom Abeles wrote:
> Let us assume that we have "globalization", the type which advocates
> describe as non-Friedman type Globaliziation, type FG in Chris' lexicon.
> This is some form that would be amenable to those protesting the WTO, for
> example. Can we have a description of what this would be? What are the
> key charcteristics, salient elements and universals?
Of course this is a topic that fills books. In a few keywords,
the non-FG is about: (as opposed to FG:)
- civil society instead of corporate dictatorship
- diversity instead of "one size fits all"
- quality (of life) instead of quantity (of consumption)
- convergence to optimum instead of rat race to the bottom
- fair trade instead of "free" trade
- cooperation instead of dog-eat-dog competition
- federalism instead of centralism
- exchange of information instead of transport of physical goods
- organic farming instead of GMOs /factory farming
- Open Source instead of M$ ;-)
- World Social Forum instead of World Economic Forum
(in Porto Alegre) (in Davos)
> Is there a consensus on these?
Although there are pretty diverse groups on the non-FG side, I think
the above characteristics can be considered a consensus.
> what are the up sides and the down sides to this model?
The upsides are better conditions for the vast majority of "fauna and flora",
the downsides are less Rolls-Royces etc. for a handful of b/millionaires...
Cheers,
Chris
> thoughts?
