BS: After Quebec, what's next?

Subject: RE: BS: After Quebec, what's next?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 07:42 PM

Hi Mark.

I posted this to the other Quebec thread, but I'd also like to post it here as well. These are some questions I would dearly love to have answered in a thoughtful and intelligent way. I'm hoping that some people who might miss them on the other thread will see them here. Thanks.

"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?"

Carol

Subject: After Quebec, what's next?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 23 Apr 01 - 06:47 PM

It may be worth mentioning that one of President Bush's announced agenda items in the aftermath of the Quebec conference is to resurrect the so-called "fast-track" negotiating provision, which will enable the President to negotiate trade agreements on his own. Congress will be forbidden to participate in the negotiations in any way or to amend the agreements once concluded; it will only be permitted to vote the agreement up or down. The President was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: "It's in our nation's best interests to have the president have that kind of authority." In other words, damn the Constitution, full speed ahead. Not surprising, but chilling when you see it laid out so clearly.

Now, I know all about how corrupt and inefficient Congress is, and how the new economy requires efficiency and streamlining, and all the other claptrap that is used to justify this strongarm tactic. But the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution, while glaringly imperfect, is still the best way to prevent the establishment of an oligarchy or dictatorship. "Efficiency" has been the byword of some very unappetizing regimes.

And, since this is a music forum, I'll refer you to Jack Warshaw's song If They Come in the Morning. And anybody who wants to call me a Communist is welcome to do so. As it happens, I own a small business, in a state where the Democrat-controlled government has been strangling small businesses for years. So characterize all you want.

Aloha,
Mark