Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 03:00 AM

Please post further discussion on this thread...

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=33649&messages=1

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: simon-pierre
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 01:59 AM

Bartholomew, you said it. Thank to you folks to tell what I can't do in english. What was the most ignore by the medias is WHY we protested, and how much we were doing that. It wasn't about concrete economics at all. We were strugglin' against the merchandising of our world, against the depletion of the earth, for a new solidarity between us from north & south - and for a brief moment we knew it was possible. The public response was terrible. We've been insulted everywhere - but... can I say this? I just think they don`t understand. Worse, I think that the public opinion is secretly with us...

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Apr 01 - 01:49 AM

Today a major Canadian bank that I deal with announced on the news a proposal for Canada adopt the US dollar to stablize Canadian currency fluctuations; tommorrow I am closing my account and credit card there (piddly as it is) and moving it to the Credit Union.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 10:02 PM

FTAA agreement 34 members 33 suckers

one of my friends summed up the Nafta agreement 10 years ago. Our resources (canadian) Their labour (mexican) and in those days I was in favour of Free Trade but it doesnt really exist.

The latest round in the softwood lumber industry demonstrates this. Since the agreement has just expired the american lumber industry if fighting to impose high tarrifs under the presumption that Canadian lumber (specifically in the West coast is subsidized by artificially low stumpage fees) what they dont say is that those companies are required to build and maintain roads and to replant the trees they harvest. The main reason that they are competitive is that the Canadian lumber industry upgraded their mills whereas the US didnt. The low Canadian dollar is another reason. The canadians know they could win this in court but it might take years and it may be easier to give in.

to people like Mav and others who see the protesters as anarchists or fools I offer some examples of the new world order. One US company contracted to build a toxic waste dump in Mexico (got permission from the Government and everything) but when the citizens of the nearby town fought and stopped the wasted dump the company sued the local municipality. This is the new world order.

when Methanex a canadian company that makes products out of methane had a spill of its gasoline additive MMT in california. The state of california banned the use of MMT in gasoline. Did Methanex apologize for the spill? No it is suing the state of California for millions of dollars in lost profits under the Nafta agreement.

the courts that rule on these trade agreements are essentially secret tribunals, with no media coverage or public scrutiny. It is essentially power shift away from govts.

the FTAA did try to include a democracy clause - but why not include labour standards, environmental protection as well.

The most significant political developments in the last 1/4 of the 20th century has been, globalization, with IMF the WORLD BANK etc and other organizations that started around the end of wwII going taking on roles they were not intended for. all of which leads to power redistribution.

but individuals can do something, in North Vancouver a grade six class discovered a rare species of tree frog that was not known to exist this far south but they stopped a large property development from bulldozing a forest and creeks and forced them to protect large areas of land.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 08:26 PM

Bartholomew, I think you make some good points about how to change our lifestyles to make a difference. As far as my own lifestyle is concerned, however, I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir.

I don't even have a car. I never buy anything I don't need, because I don't have any money. I usually can't even buy things that I do need. If I simplified my life any more than it already is, I would starve to death.

I don't pour toxic chemicals down my drain, either. I don't even use toxic chemicals. I hardly ever buy clothes that are made in sweatshops because I almost never buy clothes.

I do communicate to my representitives, and whomever else needs to hear what I say.

And I attempt to engage people in meaningful dialogue in places where it might make a difference. Like right here in the Mudcat for instance.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:44 PM

Conversation with Margaret Mead:

Question: "But how can such a small group of people make a difference?"

Margaret Mead: "That is the only thing that has ever made a difference."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: GUEST,Paul S
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:39 PM

... but seriously folks. Mav does make a point. If you are going to risk all of your assets, credit rating, pension plan, and ability to collect unemployment insurance to start up a business, and then it grows to become a success, you deserve more compensation than the likes of me, who works nine-to-five and leaves his work at work.

Mav's point about unions asking for more than a job is worth, is HALF right. Maybe it isn't the guy stocking liquor store shelves for $30,000 who is overpaid; maybe the guy stocking Wal-Mart shelves for $16,000 is grossly underpaid. My biggest problem with unions is that there aren't enough of them. Retail and restaurant employees work horrible hours, under disgusting conditions, for starvation wages ... and almost none of them are unionized.

According to any economic principles I've learned, opening trade barriers always causes upheaval. Union jobs will leave Canada for smaller countries. But as more jobs are created in Mexico, unions will eventually be formed, the standard of living will increase, and less companies will find it worthwhile to uproot and move to Mexico. Unfortunately, this will all take time - just like it took time for our factory workers to organize and improve conditions. If all trade barriers were lifted tomorrow, this entire process would probably be complete in about 40 to 50 years, and there would be some very rough patches between now and then.

That's all.

Commie freaks.

Paul

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: GUEST,Paul S
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 01:04 PM

You're all a bunch of pinko fatheads.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 11:37 AM

Carol -
Big Mick's posts have been terrific. I, too, am a "spiritual descendant of those who fought for change". I am proud to say my sons are already showing signs of continuing the struggle. But you have asked for suggestions on how to correct the situation. And there is no "magic bullet"; there is only incremental change; and it begins with making people aware that there is a problem.

That is the importance of the protests in Seattle and Quebec; the people putting it all on the line there are trying to expose the problem. Unfortunately, it's a protest against a deeply entrenched power elite. It's a protest against the DOMINANT CULTURE and it's being spun to suit those who benefit most by the status quo. Like the protests in the 60's, they cannot be ignored and they will have an effect.

On a practical level, what can we who are not protesting do? I can only suggest two things:

1.Get political.
Talk about the problems. Write your representatives. Support candidates who are committed to initiatives that will help to make things better. Go to town meetings. Work on your local school board. We missed a huge chance in the last election, but there is another election right around the corner.

Stop playing their game; and their game is commerce.First and foremost refuse to buy in to consumerism. Boycott, by all means, companies that don't have enough sense to understand that they, too, live in this world. Keep "making it more expensive for them to ignore you than it is for them to deal with you".

Quit buying stuff you don't need. Stop going places in your car when you can walk or ride a bike. Refuse to buy a big old SUV. Recycle, even when it is inconvenient. Conserve energy.

Christians talk about being a living witness to the truth. This is the same thing. Be a zealot for a better world. Make yourself, and your children, and your sister's and brothers, and your neighbors and your co-workers into a pain in their ass.

I know. This is a "David and Goliath" approach. How can such small tactics succeed against such "Big Business"? Well, you start where you're at with what you got. And you have to believe it will work.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: simon-pierre
Date: 25 Apr 01 - 12:10 AM

"PS. Simon-Pierre doesn't seem to like you so-called anarchists mucking up his country. I apologize to you sir on behalf of the "American" troublemakers."

In fact, it was the massive gas and the pepper I didn't like. I was very happy to talk with all these Anglo-Canadians and Americans. The only true anarchist troublemaker I saw was a guy named "W" - and you bet you need to apoligize!

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:59 PM

I sure am glad you are here, MAV. You make it so I don't have to prove my point. You do it for me. Sure would like to see you come up with something other than trite, overused, rhetoric planted in your brain by those who profit from it. I would do battle with you here, but it would be too easy. But I will leave you with a parting thought. Those of your ilk fancy themselves as rugged individualists, with knowledge given them by God. How does it feel to know you are really a pawn of people who love having you around? They love it when you spout this so they can continue to pick your assets, and your soul clean. Here............have a fresh Pepsi........don't forget to smile...........must impress the big boys.........maybe they will drop you a stock tip..........and with all your excess income from having to work two jobs and still no health insurance.......you can invest.

Mick

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: MAV
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:43 PM

Dear Big Mac,

In 1980 the average CEO in corporate US made about $22.00 US to every dollar his employees made. Today it is in excess of $440.00 US.

So what, here's the problem with your statement. A job is worth what it's worth. The CEO usually works long hours (in many cases they founded or helped found the company) and deals with big operational problems and can likely do most labor functions in the company.

Conversely, the worker cannot change places with or do the job of the CEO.

You know anyone who has had those kind of increases in compensation?

Yes, stockholders in NASDAQ companies who cashed out near the top. You could too if you had a portfolio, that's the whole point.

Folks like yourself like to spout the rhetoric that suits your own view of the world. Fair enough. Just understand that folks here don't have too hard a time seeing through it.

Folks like me are well connected with the blue collar world and live in the highest taxed, most liberal rural state in the union.

We have seen the ravaging effect of companies leaving by the droves due to unreasonable union demands and unreasonable tax policies. They have relocated......practically anywhere else.

My main beef is not just with labor unions (who's membership is about 20% in the private sector) but with the overpaid, do-nothing, non-essential GOVERNMENT UNION BUREAUCRATS.

One example is the state liquor stores who have unionized shelf stockers who make $30,000 a year(far above the state median income and way above the comparable private sector and appropriate wage). They sell nothing but booze and have very little business, just the local drunks.

The largest employer in the state is THE STATE, with about 10,000 such examples of artificially high paying jobs, all confiscated from the paychecks of the 800,000 or so lower paid (on the average) private sector wage earners.

Labor unions artificially set the price of labor and promote mediocrity in performance. They hold workers back by opposing cross training and forcing a company to pay them more than they are worth. There is no incentive for self improvement and they also have no ablilty to rise to the top since they are also held back.

They are basically practicing Marxist principles.

I've worked in a shipyard and have seen my tax dollars at work. All you had to do was show up on time and keep your mouth shut. Actual work was optional and working hard could cause you to have a problem.

You fools can work for a labor union if you want, but I will continue to work for a business.....Oh wait.

mav out

PS. Simon-Pierre doesn't seem to like you so-called anarchists mucking up his country. I apologize to you sir on behalf of the "American" troublemakers.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:39 PM

By the way, Big Mick, I understood your pennywhistle analogy. I gave up even trying to play the damned things after I took lessons and saw and heard them being played properly.

I guess I'll just stick with accordions. ;-)

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:26 PM

Struggle continues and for Carol, I can find no answer. Complete revolution won't happen and in politics and business, once methodology is established the players rarely make a difference. In the ways they can though, each must voice to the best of their ability what they believe to make the method work. For every unscrupulous CEO we need ten workers to organize those who make his profits so easy and at the expense of common folk. We need to stop giving over our rights to corporations and we need to make all accountable. Undoable? Perhaps....but it takes time and commitment from all in any way they can.

There may be no real difference in pols, and in this last election we heard much about the lack of choices. Looking at the summit meeting and the record profits now being claimed by the Oil companies, I am not alone in feeling that our government is no longer here to keep an eye on things, but to enable those who would rape the environment and screw the working man. Things will take longer and the fight will be harder, but even now we are seeing more people energized. Maybe in the long run it works out.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Troll
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:16 PM

During the Viet Nam protests, boycotts were suggested. To the best of my knowledge, none were ever mounted.
Why?
In the case of one where I was personally involved, the answer from the university students to whom it was suggested was " It'll take too long. We want the war stopped NOW!" In other words, they didn't want to do anything that required a commtiment for any length of time.
So what's the answer? I don't know but I do know that you'll have a helluva hard time getting a boycott off the ground.

troll

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: simon-pierre
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:12 PM

Yeah, thanks Mick for your thoughts on radicals - and your support. I guess I am one, but I was at the point where I didn't anything, because I was tired to see demonstrations where we were at max two hundred, and often for limitate goals - students who wants more money in education; syndicate who protect their rights, etc. It is noble, but what we saw this weekend is a huge raising of people - mostly youth, as I thought it was impossible only two years ago - with very globals views. It is a struggle for democracy, for the earth, for a global solidarity, against the FTAA, but also and most of all against the merchandizing of the world. This is a little idealist, but we need thoughts that transcends our concretes purposes.

This weekend galvanised me. Now I know I can't stay home - I must return "on the front", to continue the struggle, even if events like this may not reappears. I know we're right.

Yours
Simon-Pierre

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 11:02 PM

Yeah, Carol, in my overly verbose way, that is what I am saying. But it is not as simple as it sounds. To do this requires that we create a perception of the problem that is overwhelming in its urgency. This is the basis of civil action in a our society. Because of the cocoonish nature of our society, we have to shock people out of their state of ambivalence. This causes the reaction that is reflected in the bottom line. Simple statement, but like the pennywhistle, it is not hard to play, but very difficult to play well..............where the hell did I come up with that analogy???????............LOL.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:53 PM

So, Big Mick, it sounds like your answer to this question of mine...

So it seems to me that, if we are going to continue to operate within a capitalist system and at the same time create the equitable scenario that you have described, it will be necessary for big business to come to the conclusion that it is in their self interest to cooperate. Maybe there is a way for us to help them come to this conclusion. How might we do that?

Is this...

This can only be done, as history testifies to, by making it more expensive for them to ignore you than it is for them to deal with you.

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: flattop
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:40 PM

I might say that you are a hopeless idealist, Little Hawk, but you might send those killer bunnies after me.

Why don't you gather a group of spiritual stone throwers for the next trade summit. Insist that no one can trade in frivolous, unsatisfying and unnecessary goods, that degrade the environment, at prices that undermine our health care, education, and welfare systems, before they make strenuous spiritual improvements.

The transcript that I posted doesn't capture the tone of Ian Brown interviewing Dr. Ian Angell. The tone was tragi-comic. They both knew that they were dealing with a grim subject. Angell was not recommending his vision as much as he was pointing out patterns in our modern technological world. I posted the interview because it suggested specific problems of implementing 'free trade' that might be glossed over in a more abstract discussion.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:01 PM

Yeah, Doug, I probably agree that they don't make much difference in the Board Room, but where they do make a difference is in the court of public opinion. When Nelson Mandela was just another black man in a jail, corporate interests and the South African government cared less. When folks around the world started protesting and calling public attention to him, opinion started to change. In the USA, activists caused disinvestment and withdrawal of funds from portfolios that were found to have South African holdings. Soon this reached the boardroom. Now I don't want to overemphasize or underemphathize the importance but it is the radical that provides the seeds of true change. Look at the Vietnam protestors. Real public questioning of that war started as the campus radicals, street radicals, clergy radicals started to protest............they were called traitorous and worse, but coupled with the pictures coming home, public sentiment started to change. I am proud of this generation that seems to have just the right amount of cynicism mixed with their desire to do right. I applaud their actions. As to the rioters, that happens in all struggle. You always have those who are in it less for ideological reason than for their own desire to raise hell.

CarolC, I will tell you what I advocate in halls and rallies when I am the speaker. I speak of our legacy of struggle, of the old fights and how proud I am to be the "spiritual" descendant of those who fought for change. I speak to how hard it is to see the enemy today as compared to them. This is an age of competing realities. And I advocate that we embrace old values to see through the fog. I don't believe that you can bring corporate America to do the right thing on the strength of or the morality of our arguments. They are creatures of the bottom line. That is OK, it is their place in the food chain. But what we can do is to go back to tactics that worked. We can embrace diverse groups with common interests. Those that want rampant capitalism, unfettered by moral oversight have made many enemies. Environmentalists have had differences with Labor for years, but they certainly have much to gain by joining together to defeat this. Small manufacturing, while certainly not a big fan of Labor, must be concerned about the loss of contracts to countries that compete unfairly. The point is that we must, as activists, continue to use every venue to point out what is wrong. As individuals, we must do what many of our parents didfor us. We must advocate on behalf of what is right. We must teach our kids, talk to our neighbors (now there is a novel concept, he said with tongue planted firmly in cheek), and demand of our relatives and friends. The point is that I don't believe that you can engage in dialogue with corporate interests until you have forced them to the table. This can only be done, as history testifies to, by making it more expensive for them to ignore you than it is for them to deal with you.

Mick

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: DougR
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 07:21 PM

Mick, thanks. You ably, as you so often do, verbalized your position very clearly and very well. I found little to disagree with.

Big business is driven by profits. Investors in those companies demand it of boards of directors,and operating officers. Are most CEOs overpaid? Yes, I think so. But as long as the stockholders are happy with the job they do, they will continue to draw huge salaries. The stockholders are less concerned about employees filling lower level jobs, and as long as there is an ample labor pool, I doubt there will be any changes.

I don't know how much is accomplished by protestors such as those we saw in Canada over the weekend. They get a lot of press, but I doubt they make much impact in board rooms of corporate America. An effective, well organized boycott of the purchasing of products I believe would. Depending upon how you view it, unfortunately, or fortunately, the protestors are not well enough organized, I believe, to mount an effective boycott.

If people were aware of the awful working conditions, low wages, etc. of workers in foreign countries that produce so much of what we buy in this and other countries, I think they would think that it was pretty terrible. I doubt very much that those same folks would stop buying those goods because of it though.

And Carol, I don't believe there will be any major changes in the economic system in the U. S. As others have pointed out, it would require that "big business" do a 180 where profits are concerned, and that's just not going to happen.

My thoughts anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 06:45 PM

So Bartholomew, do you have any ideas about what can be done to correct this situation?

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 06:38 PM

Voting with your pocketbook is good in principle, but having that vote count becomes more difficult when corporations are as big and diverse as they are today. You may think you're doing something good by ignoring a certain brand of paper towel that you heard was made from trees harvested in a rain forest, to buy one in a package labeled "made from re-cycled paper". The reality is often that the same corporation owns both brands and sells them (and a whole lot of other stuff you wouldn't even guess) under a different product name. Either way, they have your money (and your "vote")

Here is a snippet of an article by Bill Moyers. It was taken from the Nation online (believe me, the Nation is not my only source of information, it just seems to be on the money about this).

From "Journalism & Democracy":
My worldview was really shaped by Theodore Roosevelt, who got it right about power in America. Roosevelt thought the central fact of his era was that economic power had become so centralized and dominant it could chew up democracy and spit it out. The power of corporations, he said, had to be balanced in the interest of the general public. Otherwise, America would undergo a class war, the rich would win it, and we wouldn't recognize our country anymore. Shades of déjà vu. Big money and big business, corporations and commerce, are again the undisputed overlords of politics and government. The White House, the Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary reflect their interests. We appear to have a government run by remote control from the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute. To hell with everyone else.

This is not a statement against "business" or "capitalism", per se. It is about the excesses that result when too few have too much. Mr. Moyers admits that his view may be prejudiced. Take it for what it's worth. I happen to share this prejudice. I would rather attend to human need than to corporate greed.

Have a wonderful evening.
Bart

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 02:33 PM

Thank you, Alex. You have restated my question for me, and you have provided part of the answer.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 02:15 PM

In what way, Carol, is it in their interest to cooperate? Isn't it rather in their interest to just ignore us "little people" and do whatever they damn well please? Until the "little people" actually start voting with their pocketbooks -- refusing to buy goods made in sweat shops, for example -- THEN it will be in Big Business's interest to take us seriously. They will always do what brings the biggest buck. It's u to the the consumers, through their buying habits/patterns, to change where the bucks lie. Are we up to the challenge?

What we can do, then, is try to educate and "move" our fellow consumers (emotionally) to do what is right.

It's a big job.

Alex

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 02:06 PM

Ok, Big Mick. I don't have any argument with your criticism/analysis. Your solutions sound good to me. The problem I see is this... we're operating within a capitalist system. As you've said yourself, big business has most of the capital. And with this capital, big business can, and has undermined any attempts to make things more economically equitable.

It's their football and they've made it clear that they are perfectly willing to take their football and go elsewhere. Passing laws to make big business to play fair hasn't worked. Big business will always find a way to get around the laws. Or prevent them from being made in the first place.

Bartholomew backs up what I'm saying with the following paragraph...

We as individuals and citizens have two possible means to influence corporate decision making - market forces and government intervention. But when businesses reach a certain size market forces are marginalized; multi-national corporations can control the markets. And as for government, they have played along, Republicans more and Democrats slightly less, since FDR was forced to clean up the last great corporate meltdown. Can you see where NAFTA and the FTAA fit into this picture?

So it seems to me that, if we are going to continue to operate within a capitalist system and at the same time create the equitable scenario that you have described, it will be necessary for big business to come to the conclusion that it is in their self interest to cooperate. Maybe there is a way for us to help them come to this conclusion. How might we do that?

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 10:53 AM

I don't think a new model is needed, just an adjusting of the current model. What we are seeing is capitalism unbridled, which is what the "reagan revolution" was all about. And it's a bill of goods. It's built on a very well told lie: that corporations create wealth and improve the quality of life. The carrot is a BMW and stock portfolio for every worker; the stick is the plant shutdown.

The first tenet is that corporations crate wealth. What corporations do is take resources and turn them into product. They convince you that you need the product and then lend you the money to buy it. Now you have no choice but to work for them, at their terms, to continue to feed your habit. How long before we once again "owe our soul to the company store"?

The second part of the lie is that corporations improve the quality of life. How has bad air, water that must be filtered to be drunk, and nearly constant noise translate into an improved life? Corporate boards have only one directive: maximize profits. In order to fulfill that directive, they will seek out the cheapest labor (there goes your job), sneak by with the cheapest acceptable level of quality and craftsmanship, and pass as many costs of doing business (routine environmental degradation, waste cleanup, catastrophic accident reparation) on to the state (that's us) as possible.

We as individuals and citizens have two possible means to influence corporate decision making - market forces and government intervention. But when businesses reach a certain size market forces are marginalized; multi-national corporations can control the markets. And as for government, they have played along, Republicans more and Democrats slightly less, since FDR was forced to clean up the last great corporate meltdown. Can you see where NAFTA and the FTAA fit into this picture?

Big Mick's post above has a lot of meat in it. Our dominant culture is running as fast as it can toward the very thing we as individuals fear the most - complete subservience to and dependence on some anonymous Big Brother. Except this time he looks just like Dilbert's pointed-haired boss.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 09:27 AM

Carol, I love your heart and desire to see things from both perspectives. Same with Alex's "levelling of the field" comments. But this doesn't take a massive rethink, nor does it require a rebuild. The solutions are fairly easy to see.

First off, I reject completely and finally this notion that somehow we have to provide more rewards for the "job creators". The Entrepreneurial advocates have foisted a perception that somehow if we don't continue to enhance the rewards for risk taking that they will go elsewhere because they have this God given right to make ever increasing amounts of money. And if we just continue to let them do so, with fewer people making ever larger amounts that it will somehow benefit the rest of us. We have seen this before in the turnings of the great wheel. It has been called by a number of names. We have seen it in the paternalistic aristocracies, and in the era of the Rockefellers. And it is pure, unmitigated bullshit. The greatest economic engine the world has ever seen was created by passing laws that protected the average persons health, the environment, and giving these workers the ability to organize for their betterment. In doing so, the marketplace was created that the world tried to emulate. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on perspective, the political structure caused monied interests to be able to hijack it and weaken these selfsame organizations and start the gap in earnings to widen in ways that would make John D. Rockefeller to gush with envy. That gap has widen by a multiplier of 200 in 21 years.

So that's my criticism/analysis. What are my solutions. It goes like this. First off, a perceptual piece. Passing common laws between countries is not the same as taking over the countries. We call them treaties. This philosophy requires people between countries to desire a common economy, with the benefit of bringing the partners up to, or above the level of the economy you are trying to emulate and improve. This means that if we just take Canada, Mexico, and the USA, we must analyze what makes it work, who has the most beneficial laws to make that work, and then incorporate them into a treaty. I am saying that labor laws should be roughly the same with the same rights. I am saying that environmental laws and targets should be the same. I am saying that Equal Employment Opportunity Laws should be roughly the same. In this manner, workers are not penalized for having safe workplaces, free of environmental hazards, and with a democratic voice in the negotiations on their working conditions, rates of pay and hours of employment.

Mick

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: kendall
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 09:13 AM

You cant remodel a rotten building.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Troll
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 08:51 AM

Carol, thats the mature thing to do and it requires some thought and study. It's much more fun to tear down than it is to remodel.

troll

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 01:09 AM

Sorry, Carol, but I don't see that Big Business gives a rat's ass about either the protesters in Seattle/Quebec, or the damage they are doing to the environment.

--mousethief

I agree with you about that. I think you might be making my point with the following statement...

Which is what "reckless" means, right? Without reckoning. It's long past time for the day of reckoning. May it come swiftly.

I'm wondering if maybe the outcome is no more in the hands of Big Business than it is in the hands of the protesters. Many revolutions have occured in spite of the best efforts of the power elites. But... I'm wondering if changes are going to happen with our conscious participation, or just whether we like it or not.

And, I have to admit, I don't know how to think about the idea of protesting things we think are problems unless we have some kind of workable solution in mind. It seems like we need to have a workable alternative to offer if we're going to tell people to do things differently.

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: mousethief
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 12:39 AM

Sorry, Carol, but I don't see that Big Business gives a rat's ass about either the protesters in Seattle/Quebec, or the damage they are doing to the environment.

The whole POINT of the protesters is that if they are stymied by environmental or labor laws in one country, they will just declare a "free trade" zone to include some other country without such laws, and move their production there. Until labor and environmental laws are universal within a "free trade zone," then the whole idea of "free trade" must be seen for what it is: a clever mantra covering up corporate greed and irresponsibility.

Until we can "level the playing field" not just between firms but between the environments and workforces of the various nations within a so-called "free trade zone," it will continue to be a mockery of the word "free" and a mockery of the nations and peoples being duped into such arrangements.

I'm all for true free trade, in which every firm must pay the WHOLE cost of their business -- granted, it will be passed along to the consumers. So be it. Until it is reckoned and paid in full, the consumers will not be held responsible for their reckless spending habits.

Which is what "reckless" means, right? Without reckoning. It's long past time for the day of reckoning. May it come swiftly.

Alex

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 24 Apr 01 - 12:24 AM

The host of the radio show after mine came in tonight with quite a bit to tell of his experiences of being tear-gassed in Quebec on the weekend. The Police mixed pepper-spray into the water they were shooting from the water cannons. That's a new one to me. What was new to him was that the tear gass cannisters were being aimed at the people themselves.

Rick

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 10:07 PM

I know. And thanks.

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 09:49 PM

Been a long time since I took any economic theory, Carol, so I'll bow out to the more fully informed, but if I recall correctly you've stumbled onto the inherent contradiction of the capitalist system: that there can be infinite expansion when natural resources, labor and consumers are finite entities. Good luck!

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 09:33 PM

I'm saying that, although it may look like things are working for big business at the present time (as reflected by the statistics to which you pointed), I don't think that state of affairs is sustainable. The growing number and intensity of demonstrations such as the ones in Seattle and Quebec being an indicator of this. As well as the damage that is being done to the environment.

So my question is... granted that the economic model, or state of affairs, that exists at the present time is unworkable in the long run, with what do we replace it?

What system, or economic model, can we put in it's place that will be sustainable?

I sincerely believe this is a choice that we will have to face eventually, if not right away. So what do we do about it?

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 09:10 PM

Sorry, but you lost me there, Carol, I'm afraid. Say What? :-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 08:14 PM

Greg, it's not working for big business because the people are demonstrating that they don't want it any more. Business can't operate in a vacuume.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 08:11 PM

Bartholomew: Well and succinctly put! Hear, hear!

Carol, it works just fine for big business, they continue to report record profits. You don't see Dick Cheney applying for public assistance, do you? What is out of joint is they are no longer willing to accept a reasonable profit, they now feel entitled to make a usurious profit. See the notes above on exec. salaries, for example. And the consumer & employees continue to get screwed.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 07:20 PM

I would ask anyone who wants to respond to this post to please read it in it's entirety before responding.

Bartholomew, you hit on some stuff that I've been thinking about since before Reagan took office. I understand the disconnect between what is being said, and what is actually happening. And I think we can draw a further parallel between the 1984 scenario and what's going on now if we think of consumerism as the 'drug' that serves the purpose of pacifying the masses.

But my understanding of the economic model under which we operate now is that it is based upon, indeed dependant upon, growth. That in order for any business entity to survive, it must grow. This is a finite world. Each of our countries has a finite population. According to this economic model, if businesses are to survive and be able to provide jobs, new markets must be established.

I understand that the treaties in question do not necessarily serve that purpose. But what I hope to learn is what kinds of alternatives are available to us.

SeanM said...

There is such a thing as 'sustainable development', and yes, I fully believe that "corporate profits and success" and "environmental and humanistic concerns" are not mutually exclusive... for this, I applaud some of the protest movements who are trying to find a middle ground - between the monolithic policy wrangling of the "WTO" crowd and the luddites who demand a return to bearskins and flint spears (to cut the broccoli with, I guess).

Clearly, what may have worked in the past no longer works for anyone now. Not for the workers, and not for big business, either. It seems that we have to develop a new economic model that can be sustainable in the long run. The one under which we operate now is clearly not sustainable in the long run.

So where do we go from here? How do we balance both sides of the equation? How do we insure the economic survival of the entities that provide the jobs we need, while at the same time protecting the interests of the workers, the environment, and the ones who don't hold the reins of power?

I would sincerely love to be able to read some thoughtful responses to these questions.

Carol

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 06:39 PM

Reading along here .... Carol, I did not direct anything at you and it has never been my province or anyone else's to make up your mind for you. You're a big girl and you can do it yourself.

As to name calling....to one and all...Mav has been playing that game since he arrived here. No, he isn't as grphic as I am, but I (and others) find the "Union Thug" and "Commie Pinko" stuff to be equally vulgar as he (or others) may find "pissant little shithead" which I haven't used yet........Oh what the hell, I'll use it now......That's a decent description of Mav.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 06:29 PM

For more information about the issues behind the protests I suggest going to the Nation on-line. You will find quite a few articles covering different aspects of the "Free Trade" issue.

My 16 year old son has been reading and reporting on Orwell's "1984" lately, and I have been reintroduced to that amazing book. The one problem with Orwell's vision, was that it foresaw totalitarian states dictating the lives of the citizen-workers. What we are moving rapidly toward is corporate dictatorship; a world in which corporations are so large and pervasive that they are no longer responsible to any national authority. Where is the freedom for individuals when their laws and governments become irrelevant?

People like Mav have shouted "communism" for so long when they want to scare the children that they don't realize that the totalitarianism represented by Russia, Cuba and China is no longer the boogie man. That vision of hell is in retreat. But, change Orwell's language just a little, change Big Brother to Bill Gates, and you have a hell for the new millenium. And NAFTA and the FTAA just lay the groundwork. One hemisphere, united in our consumerism, spurred on by the profit motive, with eyes fixed securely on the bottom line.

Remember that one of the control mechanism's in Orwell's vision was the manipulation of language by the power elite to frame every discussion and control of every situation, regardless of the underlying reality. We're seeing it in our political discussions all the time. It's at the heart of the "Free Trade" question. There is nothing free being offered here, folks. There is just the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of those at the top of the pyramid and the degradation of the quality of life for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 05:39 PM

Babe. I got you babe.

Oops wrong thread.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 05:33 PM

Thanks Jande.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 04:14 PM

oops--wrong thread......sorry.

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 04:12 PM

OK, Alex. You got me on that one......

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 03:56 PM

You are most welcome. Life is not easy, but it can be made beautiful.

- LH

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Jande
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 03:12 PM

flattop - your article is certainly thought-provoking, and quite disturbing. The thing that saddens me about it is that Ian Angell seemingly has no conception of humanity as having a spiritual nature, or any form of spiritual purpose or any spiritual destiny whatsoever. If that were indeed the case, then all hope of humans achieving a decent and humane social order on this planet would indeed be in vain, and it would just be natural selection that drove events.

That is...survival of the most ruthless, the most greedy, the most vicious, the most well armed, the most wealthy, and the most empty.

Life in such a reality would not be worth living in any case, and I would say to those who envision themselves at the top of such a social order:

Sorry for the longish quote, but it was a ways back in the thread and deserves repeating IMHO.

In response to it... at last! LH, you've put your finger on something that frightens me about all this: The lack of voices from individual people on both sides of this issue regarding the fact that living as humans is not about being ruthless, but about being *moved* in one's guts by the joys and sufferings of our "neighbours" (in the Gospel sense of the word).

In discussions like this, and when I see things like riots and secret wool-over-the-eyes decision-making by our gov't leaders.

Someone else above quoted, "love of money is the root of all evil", but that is not the whole truth. Fear is the root of all evil, IMO. For example fear of deprivation leads to greed. (love of money is a form of greed) But this can be countered through love. If you love someone you will not be greedy with them no matter how much you fear. If you can be "moved in your guts" as Ivan Illich says, by another human being, your fears will be pushed aside.

What I find difficult about that is that fear can't just be turned on and off like a tap, through will power. But "being moved in one's guts" can do it.

I personally thank those who protested, though not the ones who used violence. I'm sorry for the way it turned out. I'm personally too battle-scarred to go through any more of those "peaceful" protests myself. But I am thankful that there are people who are willing to protest the secrecy and unerhanded tactics, and the things that affect thenm as individuals, for those are the things that affect me, too.

Thankyou, Rick for this thread.

Thankyou Flattop for the CBC article.

Thankyou CarolC for your insistence on being able to make up your mind without the namecalling, etc...

And thankyou LH, for helping me find my own voice on this subject. Sometimes the only effective response is an emotional one.

~ Jande

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 12:55 PM

George Washington was a terrorist...from a British point of view. And he wasn't...from a revolutionary point of view. It has ever been so. All things considered, given the factors at the time, my sympathies are more with George Washinton than with King George III, but both of them did exactly what they thought was the "right" thing to do, of course, given their understanding of the situation.

Carol- I think the "seemingly pleasant suggestions" Spaw was referring to were perhaps not so much those that emanate from MAV, but from the political and corporate leaders who concoct the social policies that MAV supports. Suggestions like: "Social services will work much better if handled by private companies." "Wealth will trickle down to everyone else if the rich are given a tax break." And so on....

That type of comfortable lie. It sounds lovely. It leads to disaster. We've had a term and a half of it in Ontario, and it just keeps getting worse out there on the streets and in the towns. And worse. And worse. The Canada of my youth is being destroyed piece by piece in the name of "Free Trade", but there is nothing free about it, except the ride given to the multinational corporations and the drug companies.

And I repeat: Those who will not share are not fit to rule.

- LH

Subject: RE: Quebec City Protest of Free Trade.
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 10:29 AM

Sorcha, King George 3rd also hated violence. He thought of George Washington as a terrorist. If MAV is who I think he is, in person, he is not a bad sort at all. I disagree with everything he says, but, he sure knows how to stir the pot!