Hey, do the Democrats care about fair trade? Did you notice the collapse of the Doha Round of the WTO?
http://www.axisoflogic.com/...
...what made the negotiations flounder was the realisation by the poor countries that there was `something wrong' in the way the WTO operated, and that, possibly, WTO's very foundation stone, the almost axiomatic belief that open markets benefit everyone, the rich as well as the poor countries, turned out to be spurious, or false. Indeed, it is no longer possible not to see, after twenty years or so of neo-liberal globalisation, that open markets have -- through the colossal - and let us say it, indecent and shocking -- profits of the big multinational corporations (MNCs) -- disproportionately benefited the rich countries.
...
...In the long run, however, the WTO may still fail because the structural imbalances of the `system' will not be corrected. These include:
* MNCs, which use capital-intensive technologies, are creating few jobs
* smallholders are losing their land and livelihood - 100,000 have killed themselves in India, in the last ten years
* the MNCs' `grabbing' of natural resources, such as water and land, is causing severe shortages in the rural areas
* the persistence of extreme poverty
* the very rapidly growing inequality -- the rich countries will continue appropriating the lion's share of the benefits
* the exporting of pollution and deterioration of the environment
The way the World economic Forum (WEF) operates is instructive in that respect. When the rich and the powerful will meet, once more, in Davos, in January 2007 (as they have done for more than 30 years), they will, as usual, strike deals and try to find `creative' ways to perpetuate their dominance. They will also make efforts to look compassionate. Notions such as human rights, better world, justice, equality and solidarity will be on every lips. And some crumbs will be thrown to the poor countries -- in the form of aid (Overseas Development Assistance, or ODA) and charity (led, these days, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which recently received a US$ 31 billion gift from Warren Buffet, and the Global Clinton Initiative). If I say `crumbs', it is comparatively speaking, of course: total of MNC profits is in the world are measured in the trillions of dollars, while total aid and charity may reach one hundred-plus billion dollars. So the ratio is probably around 100 to 1.
...
...
In Latin America -- not unlike in Western Europe in the 19th century -- `The socialism of the 21st century' started as a reaction to the negative consequences of neo-liberal globalisation. Latin America is the most unequal region of the planet. The richest 10 per cent of the population controls 48 per cent of the total income; while the poorest 10 percent has only 1.6 per cent. The gap between the two groups (as calculated by the Gini coefficient) is 50 to 1 - in Brazil, it is 54 to 1; in Colombia, 57 to 1; in Guatemala, 63 to 1 (as a comparison, in Italy it is 14 to 1; in Spain, 8 to 1; and in the Scandinavian countries, 3 to 1). The contrast between the luxury condos of Barrade Tijuca in Rio de Janeiro and the favelas in the hillsides, or, between the poor barrios of Caracas and the wealthy estates of Alta Mira is indecent. This shocking inequality is not only in income, of course, but also in land distribution, education and health, and in the possibility in getting loans. 60 million small and medium businesses in Latin America get only 5 per cent of the loans, while 95 per cent go to the big corporations. In Latin America, 94 mothers in 100,000 die giving birth; in Bolivia, 230; in Canada, only 8. And it is not true that inequality - as some orthodox economists would like us to believe - is a necessary evil of development. The Scandinavian countries are leaders in human development, technology and competition; but they have always been very egalitarian. [4]
One of the most striking aspects of neo-liberal globalisation is that, not only the rich are getting richer, but that the very rich, the billionaires and the multi-millionaires, are the fastest-growing sub-group. Shockingly, this `development' is accepted as `normal'. A recent article in Le Temps, the high-brow daily newspaper of Geneva, entitled `The Swiss hotel industry is enjoying a bumper year ...', describes approvingly how the owners of five-star Swiss hotels have spent, in the last few years, several hundred million Swiss Francs (1 US$ = about 1,25 SF) to make their `palaces' even more luxurious. Nothing is `too good' to lure the very rich, the author of the article says. Ordinary rooms may cost between SF 400 and 800 per day, and `the suites, much more', but that is not a problem for the very rich customers. [5] This shameless worshipping of the Golden Calf - which until recently was typically American - is increasingly being perfectly acceptable, and even worthy of admiration, in Europe as well. This sort of mentality is rapidly transforming Geneva (and Switzerland as a whole) into a watering hole for the very rich. Every new other store opening in the exclusive center of the city these days seems to be selling expensive clothes, designer watches and matching jewellery. That in a world where perhaps half of the people must live with less than US$ 2 a day. It is obvious that such a world is not viable, or even sustainable. How much worse will things get to be before a violent reaction, worldwide, sets in? The constant humiliation inflicted on the poor and the very poor by the rich and the very rich is not the only source of actual and potential violence in the world, but it certainly makes things worse, much worse.
So: Building a better world is not a win-win proposition. The rising tide is not lifting all the boats. Because: firstly, many people do not even have boats; secondly, the boats are not comparable: a few, owned by the billionaires, are floating palaces worth several million dollars; some which belong to multi-millionaires may be worth several hundred thousand dollars; middle-class people own boats worth a few thousand dollars; the poor, dug-out canoes that they made themselves; and the very poor, own nothing. So the real issue (to continue our metaphor) is how to replace the dug-out canoes with small motorized boats. That requires a significant transfer of resources from the rich to the poor. The big MNCs and the international banks can not go on making billions while the poor and the very poor have a dollar or two per day. Power relations between the rich and the poor must change. The power of the poor must be increased, and that of the rich, decreased.
some more good reading:
http://www.brookings.edu/...
http://www.jubileeresearch.org/...