Log in

View Full Version : i did some crappy research - what do globalization and neo-l



Fabi
20th May 2002, 17:00
... feel free to diss me after reading the articles i collected so far. and if any of you feel like dismissing them as leftist propaganda, be my guest...


"1. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).

2. The Top 200 corporations' sales are growing at a faster rate than overall global economic activity. Between 1983 and 1999, their combined sales grew from the equivalent of 25.0 percent to 27.5 percent of World GDP.

3. The Top 200 corporations' combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10.

4. The Top 200s' combined sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) living in ''severe'' poverty.

5. While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world's workforce.

6. Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.

7. A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is employed by Wal-Mart, a company notorious for union-busting and widespread use of part-time workers to avoid paying benefits. The discount retail giant is the top private employer in the world, with 1,140,000 workers, more than twice as many as No. 2, DaimlerChrysler, which employs 466,938.

( i found this one especially interesting because someone told me not too long ago on this forum, that i was taking walmart way too serious....)

8. U.S. corporations dominate the Top 200, with 82 slots (41 percent of the total). Japanese firms are second, with only 41 slots.

9. Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corpo-rate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporationGeneral Motors. 10. Between 1983 and 1999, the share of total sales of the Top 200 made up by service sector corporations increased from 33.8 percent to 46.7 percent. Gains were particularly evident in financial services and telecommunications sectors, in which most countries have pursued deregulation."


source:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=377



now a little something on the worl bank and global trade...



"WTO and Global Trade: Who Benefits?
Since it was created in 1995, the WTO has ruled that every environmental policy it has reviewed is an illegal trade barrier that must be eliminated or changed. With one exception, the WTO also has ruled against every health or food safety law it has reviewed.

Nations whose laws were declared trade barriers by the WTO-or that were merely threatened with WTO action-have eliminated or watered down their policies to meet WTO requirements.

Supposedly each of the WTO's 134 member countries have an equal say in governance. In practice, decision-making is dominated by the "Quad": USA; European Union; Japan and Canada.

Each member of the Quad represents its corporations' interests at the WTO. These corporations are often directly involved in writing and shaping WTO rules. In the U.S. this is achieved through official "Trade Advisory Committees" which are dominated by the private sector.

For instance, the US International Trade Administration's Energy Advisory Committee is made up exclusively of representatives of giant oil, mining, gas and utility corporations, including Texaco, Enron, Halliburton and Freeport-McMoran.

The top fifth of the world's people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign investment-the bottom fifth, receive roughly 1%.

Women comprise 70 percent of the world's 1.3 billion absolute poor. Worldwide, they bear the brunt of economic and financial transition and crisis caused by market forces and globalization.



NAFTA & FTAA: Who Benefits?
Seventy-five percent of Mexico's population lives in poverty today, compared with 49 percent in 1981, before Mexico underwent reforms that paved the way for NAFTA-the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The number of Mexicans living in severe poverty (living on less than $2 a day) has grown by four million since NAFTA began in 1994.

NAFTA has generated booming industrial development but little investment in the environment. As a result, environmental pollution and related public health problems have increased on both sides of the US-Mexico border.

In the first four years of NAFTA, 15 wood product companies, including International Paper and Boisie Cascade, set up shop in Mexico, cutting some of North America's largest intact forests.

Hundreds of thousands of US jobs have shifted to Mexico under NAFTA. 260,000 U.S. workers have qualified for a special NAFTA retraining program. Especially hard hit are the apparel and electronics industries, major employers of women and people of color.

The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), currently being negotiated by 34 countries, is intended by its architects to be the most far-reaching trade agreement in history.

Although it is based on the model of NAFTA, the FTAA goes far beyond it in scope and power, potentially granting unequalled new rights to corporations to compete for and even challenge publicly funded government services, including health care, education, social security, culture and environmental protection.



The World Bank and IMF: Who Benefits?
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the International Monetary Fund imposed structural adjustment programs on more than 70 countries.

Structural adjustment policies have required 36 countries in sub-Saharan Africa-where more than half of the population lives in absolute poverty-to decrease domestic consumption and shift scarce resources into production of cash crops for export; state-owned companies and many state services have been privatized, and health and education expenditures have been cut and restructured.

The absolute number of people living in poverty rose in the 1990s in Eastern Europe, South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa-all areas that came under the sway of adjustment programs.

Structural adjustment policies have elicited massive protests in countries as far flung as Ecuador, Zambia, the Philippines and Jamaica.

In 2000 a bipartisan Congressional panel-the Meltzer Commission-found that World Bank Group and IMF failures can be traced to "overlapping missions, ineffectiveness, corruption, and waste of resources, and failure to develop successful regional programs in agriculture, forestry, environment and health care," among other problems.

Each year, the World Bank awards some 40,000 contracts to private firms.

US Treasury Department calculates that for every US$1 the U.S. contributes to international development banks, US corporations receive more than double that amount in bank-financed procurement contracts.

The World Bank has an astounding 65-70 per cent failure rate of its projects in the poorest countries."


source:
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=378


also here is a report on alternatives to globalization... it is in pdf (acrobat reader ) format....
http://www.ifg.org/alt_eng.pdf



that for now is it, cause my computer keeps crashing when trying to go to the other websites that looked interesting... i tried to go to some bbc-head to head thing, where some smart person *****ed about protesters, claiming they were against the world's poor, hindering them of overcoming their poverty....

maybe it'll work later...

Nateddi
20th May 2002, 17:06
good good, very nice Fabi

Fabi
20th May 2002, 17:12
picking on walmart again... ;)Wal-Mart Workers

"A full 5 percent of the Top 200s' combined workforce is comprised of Wal-Mart employees. The discount retail giant's workforce has skyrocketed from 62,000 in 1983 to 1,140,000 in 1999, making it the largest private employer in the world. The next largest, DaimlerChrysler, has a workforce of 466,938less than half the size of Wal-Mart's. Although Wal-Mart is indeed providing many new jobs, the company is notorious for its strategy of employing armies of workers on a part-time basis to avoid paying benefits. The firm is also adamantly anti-union. In March, Wal-Mart announced it was closing the meat department in 180 stores two weeks after the meat cutters at one Texas store voted to form a union the first successful organizing drive at an American Wal-Mart."


one of the same sources as mentioned above... just picking interesting parts that arent tooooo long to read, cause else you wont... ;)

Fabi
20th May 2002, 22:23
not that any of you care in the first place, but here some info about media inaccuracy.......


interesting how media can simply leave out facts and report totally biased... wait, who's there to check on them? basically just some 'Fabi' nerd in some crappie che-forum who tries to be a revolutuionary so bad, cause he cant get a girlfriend/boyfriend... ;) oh yea... and the people at indymedia.org or fair.org ..... ;)

"
Extra!, November/December 1996
Sweatshops Are the Workers' Friend
And Labor Activists Their Enemy—According to the New York Times
By Roger Bybee

If the Robin Hood story were set in today's new global economy, would Robin be portrayed as an enemy of the poor because his activities discouraged investment in Sherwood Forest? And would the Sheriff of Nottingham be praised by the media for a tough-love approach to economic development that is gradually winning the appreciation of the low-paid serfs grateful for the work he provides?

If one believes recent New York Times news articles about global economic controversies, Robin and the sheriff have indeed reversed their traditional roles. In several recent Times news stories, transnational corporations are depicted as doing their utmost to promote progress for the poor in underdeveloped countries, providing a much-needed boost to otherwise stagnant local economies. Meanwhile, the Times has suggested, U.S. unionists and others critical of corporate treatment of workers are attempting to block economic gains for Third World workers, with their pious concern for "sweatshop" workers merely serving as camouflage for the dark purpose of keeping jobs in the U.S.

In the Times' news stories, the fundamental struggle in the global economy is not between exploitative transnational corporations and workers held down at the lowest possible wages under the harshest possible conditions, but between U.S. unionists selfishly trying to hang on to their over-paid jobs and Third World workers eagerly grasping the opportunities extended by multinational corporations.

Who's the Real Exploiter?
This theme emerged in the controversy over TV talkshow host Kathie Lee Gifford, who had been charged by Charlie Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee with profiting from the use of 13- and 14-year-old Hondurans to make her Wal-Mart clothing line. (See EXTRA!, 9-10/96.) In a June 27 New York Times story (6/27/96), reporter Stephanie Strom suggested that Gifford had been unfairly singled out and held to an unrealistic standard—"Monitoring work and pay conditions in the thousands of factories that make clothing for American stores would be an all-but-impossible task"—by critics who weren't really all that interested in the situation of Honduran workers: "In fact, some experts say Western campaigns against low-wage factories overseas mostly benefit the American labor movement and do more harm than good in poor countries by draining off scarce jobs and choking off investment."

To advance its own hidden agenda, Strom wrote, U.S. labor has chosen to pillory the unfortunate Gifford, who "now figures that much of the time she had hoped to spend with her children Cody and Cassidy will be eaten up by meetings with labor activists and politicians."

No doubt the Honduran workers toiling on the Kathie Lee clothing line for up to 20 hours a day will be able to identify with her plight of being unable to spend time with her family. However, the similarity stops there: The Hondurans producing her clothes would be unlikely to spend time in meetings with labor activists unless they were willing to take the risk of being fired. For years in the "free trade" zone in Honduras where Gifford's clothing was made, any sign of union activity had swiftly induced firings by management, the National Labor Committee says.

The absence of real rights and choices for Honduran workers is equally absent from Larry Rohter's July 18 New York Times piece, sub-headlined, "U.S. Critics See 'Monstrous Sweatshops,' But Hondurans See Better Life." The context of systematic crushing of union rights is totally absent from the Strom and Rohter depictions of generally benevolent employers. Only very recently have unions been allowed to form (and their independence and democratic character are open to question.) While some union activity is now tolerated by corporations and the government in Honduras, workers remember vividly that union organizers were often abducted and "disappeared" by government security forces in the early 1980s.

Other important elements of context are also "disappeared" in the Times articles on the Honduran sweatshops. Life in Honduran factories is "far more complicated than portrayed in the American debate over 'sweatshops,'" Rohter insists. "What residents of a rich country like the United States see as exploitation can seem a rare opportunity to residents of a poor country like Honduras, where the per capita income is $600 a year and unemployment is 40 percent." And such misperceptions about "exploitation" may merely serve to conceal the self-interested aims of the sweatshops' critics: "Many here [in Honduras] say critics from the north are more interested in protecting jobs in the United States than in improving the lot of Honduran workers."

But sweatshop critics like the National Labor Committee have emphatically repeated that they are not trying to hold up Honduran conditions against U.S. standards, but against the capacity of transnational employers to provide more decent wages and working conditions and respect internationally recognized standards of labor rights. By conveniently restricting comparisons to a choice between the admittedly miserable circumstances of agrarian life in Honduras and working in a "maquila" factory, the Times stacks the deck in favor of corporations that offer steady employment not at the mercy of floods, drought or pestilence. But why not contrast the financial capabilities of companies like Wal-Mart with what they actually offer in pay and conditions for their workers? Such comparisons never seem to occur to the Times.

"Global Hopscotch"
Even when not deriding corporations' critics, a blind faith in the good will of U.S.-based transnationals and the merits of unregulated U.S. investment overseas seems to shape the Times' news coverage. Covering a dispute at the University of Wisconsin over the school's $7.9 million endorsement deal with Reebok—a company facing criticism for labor practices in its Indonesia plants—the Times reported June 28 that Reebok officials say "the company pays the highest possible local wages at its foreign factories."

This claim of the "highest possible" wages—accepted at face value by the Times—stands in sharp contradiction to evidence from numerous human-rights groups, like Britain's Christian Aid, that Reebok's workers are virtual shoe slaves whose wages of about $2 a day provide only the barest subsistence. One recent study (by the Internaional Labor Organization) found that 88 percent of Indonesian workers employed in the sport-shoe industry suffered from malnutrition because their wages were so low.

Far from paying the "highest possible" local wage, Reebok seeks out localities with the lowest possible wages. As a headline in U.S. News & World Report (6/5/95) admiringly explained, Reebok plays a game of "Global hopscotch: Reebok jumps from one Asian site to another in search of low-cost labor." When the lives of its workers begin to improve in any meaningful way, Reebok quickly abandons them and moves on to a new site. After wages in Korea and Taiwan finally began to climb as new unions broke down repressive walls and demanded higher pay, Reebok closed its operations there and set up shop in China and Indonesia, where independent unions are effectively banned.

But such denials of basic rights in Indonesia were downplayed in an Aug. 9 piece by the New York Times' Seth Mydans, whose message is echoed in this photo caption: "Workers at the Nike plant say that even at low pay, sewing sneakers represents one rung on their climb up Indonesia's economic and social ladder." Mydans states, "The Government and economists like Mr. de Tray [of the World Bank] argue that cheap labor is essential to the country's economic growth and they say that it is unreasonable to apply Western standards to the labor market in developing countries."

As for Nike's willingness to pay millions for Michael Jordan's endorsement while imposing low wages and harsh conditions in Indonesia, Mydans quotes one worker who declares, "I don't care about any of that." Mydans neglects to quote a single Nike employee critical of the company's policies, under which workers are paid somewhere between 90 cents and $1.66 for each pair of sneakers sold for $70. Nor does he note that Indonesian workers who were critical of Nike could face severe consequences.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times op-ed page, whose columns on sweatshops have contrasted sharply with the Times' news coverage, interviewed Cicieh Sukaesih, a young Nike worker fired for union activity who toured the U.S. this summer exposing the company's labor policies (DATE). Her accounts of young Nike workers living in tin or bamboo huts with no running water were a far cry from the fast life in discos mentioned in Mydans' news story.

The New York Times has had a difficult time reconciling its faith that "free trade" inevitably improves the lives of the poor with the inconvenient fact that Third World employees of U.S.-based transnationals have remained mired in misery. The Times has filled the yawning canyon between free-market faith and the wretched reality of sweatshop workers' lives with a blend of unfounded boosterism about low-wage "bright spots" and snide attacks on the motives of those who dare to focus public scrutiny on the actual situation.

Roger Bybee is communications coordinator of Wisconsin Citizen Action and active in the Wisconsin Fair Trade Campaign. "






i bet you didnt even read half of it... scroll back up and READ... ;)

Borincano
21st May 2002, 00:07
What neoliberalism did to Chile! (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=389)

(Edited by Borincano at 6:09 pm on May 20, 2002)

ZaPaTiStA SoCiAlIsTa
22nd May 2002, 02:52
Hey Fabi, check out the relationship between the EZLN/indigenouse people of Mexico with neoliberalism/globalization. Its very interesting, if you are interested.
Surgeon general warning: GLOBALIZATION KILLS