G8 Protests

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html

ANNEMASSE, France — The thousands of protesters converging on this year's Group of Eight summit (search) are an eclectic bunch with a grab-bag of divergent interests -- so much so that some of them clashed on Saturday with Socialists sympathetic to their cause.

Why are these people protesting globalization?

 

[Genghis Pwn]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html

Why are these people protesting globalization?

Because they are mainly a bunch of clueless idiots who don't have jobs or an understanding of history or human nature....plus many of them are longtime drug users... for starters.

 

[Jon_in_london]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html
Why are these people protesting globalization?

Because globalisation should mean free and fair trade but what it actually means is that rich counties get access to poor countries markets while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets. The little man gets shafted, the poor get poorer and the rich get greedier.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: G8 Protests

.....rich counties get access to poor countries markets while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets.

Why cant poor countries get access to first world markets? And what exactly does that mean? Do you have an example?


And why do the protesters think waving a sign and destroying property are going to do anything about it?

 

[Genghis Pwn]

Re: Re: G8 Protests

...while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Here is a link that looks at the pros and cons of globalisation. But the case for con is:

He acknowledged the well-known negative impact of globalisation: structural adjustment which undermines the role of the state in Africa; the logic of the market economy which tends towards homogenisation and structures classes into a consumption mode rather than production. Globalisation also encourages large-scale investments which destroy the environment and sustainable systems of production. It masks the depth of crisis in Africa by giving an impression of growth and free enterprise. Finally, globalisation has permitted the proliferation of illegal weapons and provoked the spread of infectious diseases.

Many of the G8 protestors are tired of economies and environmental systems being held to ransom by companies who often don't even see the damage they are doing. There was an infamous example- I believe it was an oil pipeline in Somalia or Nigeria, I cannot remember which. Anyway the effect of the oil pipeline was to at once cause major environmental havoc and leave the local population in poverty. Some were killed trying to steal oil from the actual pipeline.

I believe too that the same company (possibly Exxon) favoured one group of war-mongers over the other in the name of profits. You will probably find the full story here.

In short the companies care nothing about who they hurt as long as they have their money. They don't have to worry about what effect they are having on the countries they are bleeding dry because they do not have to live there. The G8 protestors are sick of it.

You ask why do they think sign-waving will change anything. Maybe they think that standing up and being heard is more productive than posting on a bulletin board.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

The only reason I can think of is they are latter borns that wish to rebel against something. Seriously internationalism has been on the liberal/secular humanist agenda for decades. Now that it's furthered via globalization, many new age liberals and "humanists" are now protesting. It's as if they are protesting just to protest.

Oh well, all I know is the world cannot afford another world war and is more interdependent then ever. Globalization makes sense. It helps pave the way for internationalism.

 

[Mike B.]

What is the alternative to globalization?

Saying that it hurts the environment is almost saying we don't want third world countries to develop because they will use too many resources and hurt the environment. What is the alternative there? Constant and universal poverty?

I mean is there a real and useful alternative?

 

[Genghis Pwn]

It's as if they are protesting just to protest.

Yep.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Oh well, all I know is the world cannot afford another world war and is more interdependent then ever. Globalization makes sense. It helps pave the way for internationalism.

Does it? Now we see companies getting rich while the rest of the world blames the G8 nations for its poverty. It seems to be creating greater rifts between countries. Now the multinationals are in the perfect position (for them)- they can say if you don't stand by us we will take our business to some other country.

Consequently the multinationals can do what they want without fear while the G8 nations have to worry about terrorist attacks and the effect of world-wide resentment.

Not what I had in mind when it came to internationalism.

 

[Tony]

Thanks for the info Mr Manifesto. I have always heard about these globalization protests and wondered what the beef was.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

There have BEEN great rifts between countries. It's just now, with globalization, we have a chance to stop it at least partially. There will always be power rifts though. Even in the US, California for example holds much more power then Rhode Island.

Sorry but the world wasn't all kind and equal before globalization. You wish to talk of power rifts? What of the old british empire? Imperial Japan?


And yes this form of globalization isn't perfect, but you are supposed to get there in steps.

Just because things aren't perfect does not mean this isn't a forward move towards internationalism.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Does it? Now we see companies getting rich while the rest of the world blames the G8 nations for its poverty.

Oh yes, nothing like sensational accusations to make the headlines.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I have come up with one example where globalisation has failed a country. There are many more. Would you present an example where globalisation has proven to be the saviour of a country? Or even just a success for a country? Try to pick a country that wasn't already in an economically superior position to begin with.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'll give you three: South Korea, Maylasia and Thailand: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2000/nye_globalization_iht.htm


and more on globalization:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/03/picture.htm

Related: 10 misunderstandings of the WTO: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10mis_e/10m00_e.htm


And for countries that have gotten worse off, that could simply be due to internal or regional factors.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Re: Re: Re: G8 Protests

Why cant poor countries get access to first world markets? And what exactly does that mean? Do you have an example?


And why do the protesters think waving a sign and destroying property are going to do anything about it?

I dont support violence or the destruction of property- the people who do that are a disgrace to the human race.

Ah'll be duggin oop sum referrences reet no.

 

[Ladewig]

National, state/provincial, and local governments can lose a certain amount of legal autonomy through globalization treaties. This page sites some examples of state governments losing regulatory power due to NAFTA.

What makes this issue much more complex is that for every state government that is attacked for having, say, pollution controls that are too strict, there are probably 2-4 developing nations that are attacked for having pollution standards that are too lax.

Globalization is not the panacea that supporters claim it is. Neither is it the death of local culture, resources, and the environment that its detractors claim it is. The protestors might indeed be idiots, but not so much for their dislike of globalization, but rather for their belief that these types of protests will have a favorable impact.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Alright fine, Im too fing lazy to look up references.

Basically how it (doesnt) work is like this:

Poor country invokes some illegal tarriff to protect its local economy. Rich country says that isnt fair/breaks the rules and threatens a trade war that the poor country will obviously loose very severly.

Rich country invokes some illegal tarriff (eg. tarriff on imported steel) to protect its local economy. Poor country says that isnt fair/breaks the rules and cant do diddly-squat because a trade war will obviously be lost by the poor country very severly.

basically its might is right and devil take the hindmost.

Which is why people dont like it.

 

[mstricky]

Jon-in-London

By gum! For the first time, I agree with you

 

[Shane Costello]

But then when Nike or Adidas start exporting stuff out of poor countires the same people scream "sweatshop" and "exploitation" (and before anyone asks I@m dead set against steel and agriculture tariffs).

Whatever about the merits of their case the way they go about making it is disgraceful, acting like a crowd of drunken football hooligans. There's "standing up and being heard", and then there's "Ceiminal damage".