Hi Christoph,
At 00:06 25/11/01 +0100, you wrote:
(Amartya Sen wrote in the NYT)
>> the so-called "antiglobalization" protesters -- whose movement is,
>> incidentally, one of the most globalized in the world --
(CR)
>This is the usual strawman paradox, constructed based on misrepresenting
>the "antiglobalization" position. As I pointed out in the past on this
>list, the appropriate term would be "anti-FG" (Friedman's Globalization,
>not to give Friedman too much credit, but to name a typical proponent).
Yes, I agree that this is a rather silly remark of Amartya Sen (though it
contains a grain of truth in that the most violent protesters at Quebec and
Prague, etc. would have undoubtedly have gone home to watch themselves on
the evening news programme of their TV sets that were made thousands of
miles away).
But why Christoph, why do you then trot out the currently-fashionable
anti-globalisation argument? It isn't an argument, actually, but just a
slogan. And, what's worse, you've personalised with the use of Friedman's
name, thereby making globalisation easier to hate?
Don't you understand that globalisation is one of the first things that
homo sapiens practised from the beginning? Here's a little story.
There was once a tribe of hunter-gatherers that lived in a habitat that
supplied them with all the food they needed. Their habitat also provided
them with necessary salt, water, suitable flints for spearheads and axes,
and other things.
In due course, the tribe grew larger and organisation started to become
difficult because there were too many young males who were trying to take
over the leadership too frequently. So, as all hunter-gatherer tribes do,
the mature males kicked out some of the young males who moved out into new
territory, taking a few young females with them.
Unfortunately the territory of the new tribe had no salt and no flint. It
happened to have rather more furry animals than the previous territory so
they were able to have better clothing. But, because the new tribe didn't
have enough salt and couldn't make new sharp spears for hunting, it didn't
fare as well nutritionally as the original tribe, and finally, after some
years of struggle and falling population, died away.
Is this a likely story?
Yes, if it applies to neanderthal man (and, porbably, several other hominid
species). No, if it applies to homo sapiens.
In the case of a homo sapiens tribe, the elders of the parent tribe decided
that, in order to have better clothing for themselves, they might as well
exchange some of their surplus salt and flint for the furs that the new
tribe had plenty of. True, the new tribe might be a danger if they
survived and the parent tribe would have to keep careful watch at their
boundary to prevent incursions to raid their stock of salt and flint, but
it was a risk worth taking because, after all, they had more than enough
flint to make sufficient weapons to defend themselves. Meanwhile, they
could have better clothing.
Thus trade started. Thus, man was able to hive off new tribes repeatedly.
Thus, man was eventually able to migrate all over the world, even into
habitats with very few resources (so long as those resources were useful to
other tribes). Thus, man was into globalisation something like 50-70,000
years ago. Man was trading right from the beginning.
And that's all I really need to say.
------
But, at the risk of being tedious, let me proceed further to show that,
after the first immense innovation of trade that man discovered, there were
three further important innovations in trade.
1. Instead of trading taking place only at tribal boundaries, so that goods
were shunted onwards to distant places in step-wise fashion, some traders
grouped together and moved in (heavily protected) caravans taking goods
more directly from one place to another, sometimes thousands of miles
distant. This takes us up to about 5-10,000 years ago;
2. Instead of trading overland, some traders found it easier (requiring
less soldiers for protection) to travel by boat from one place to another.
This takes us up to roughly 150 years ago;
3. Some traders who were also manufacturers decided that they needn't
actually need to carry their goods to customers in distant places but to
make their goods there. And that's where we are now.
Essentially, this additional fourth stage in trading is no different from
the very earliest days of man. Consumers in distant countries are as keen
on the last stage as they were to the earlier stages. This is evidenced by
the fact that most developing countries today are keen to welcome
multinational corporations into their countries, and are also keen to join
the WTO.
Unfortunately there are still many people stuck in overpopulated countries
with insufficient resources or skills who are, at present, unable to trade
sufficiently with the others. How to bring these people into the fold?
That's the problem.
That's the problem that the anti-globalisation protesters ought to be
thinking about -- just as (believe it or not) a significiant number of
worthy people within the WTO, IMF and World Bank are also trying to do.
Unfortunately, there are many groups (including multinationals, trade
unions, professional associations, and even groups within the WTO, IMF and
World Bank, etc) who want to "protect" what they already have, and so the
arguments (and tariffs and corruption, and so on) continue emotionally
rather than rationally.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________________________
