Libertarians and globalization

Sammy Jankis

Was it me?
Libertarians are globalists right?

Libertarians seem to be "free market" zealots like standard neocons. Against tariffs and protectionism or anything that allows americans to get jobs over foreign slave laborers.

Libertarians like to be free of the neocon fixation on social wedgery, but they need to be free of the neocon stink of globalization. Are they?

I was told globalization is not part of the platform, but what is the general feeling of libertarians towards open border globalist anti-americn worker zealotry?
 
But seriously, aren't libertarians globalist "free movement of goods, services, and people" types?

I would seriously like to be corrected with some libertarian arguing that protectionism has it's place. Will i ever see this?

Any libertarians out there?
 
"The moral philosophers of market liberalism perpetrate similar distortions by neglecting the distinction between the rights of property and the rights of people. Indeed, they equate the freedom and rights of individuals with market freedom and property rights. The freedom of the market is the freedom of those with money. When rights are a function of property rather than personhood, only those with property have rights.

It is a basic premise of democracy that each individual has equal rights before the law and an equal voice in political affairs--one person, one vote..."

"It seems the corporate libertarians are a good deal more concerned with making money for the rich than with meeting human needs. Even the oft-cited claim of neo-classical economics to "value-free objectivity " supports this bias as it rests on the questionable premise that a decision is objective and value free if it is based solely on financial return. Never mind that such calculations almost always work to the advantage of those who have the money..."

"In his capacity as chief economist of the World Bank. Summers argued that it is economically most efficient for the rich countries to dispose of their toxic wastes in poor countries, because poor people have both shorter life spans and less earning potential than wealthy people . 22 In a subsequent commentary on the Summers memo, The Economist argued that it is a moral duty of the rich countries to export their pollution to poor countries because this provides poor people with economic opportunities of which they would otherwise be deprived."

"In a further twist of moral logic, corporate libertarians also argue that it is the moral duty of the rich to help the poor by consuming more. In international affairs this translates into an appeal for rich countries to increase their consumption of exports from poor countries--a convenient rationalization for colonizing more of the world's resources to support more consumption by those least in need. The possibility that the productive resources of low income countries might better be used by their own people to produce the things they need to improve their own lives is never considered."

"Those who work within our major corporate, academic, political, governmental, and other institutions find the culture and reward systems so strongly aligned with the corporate libertarian ideology that they dare not speak out in opposition for fear of jeopardizing their jobs and their careers. We must break through the veil of illusion and misrepresentation that is holding us in a self-destructive cultural trance and get on with the work of
re-creating our economic systems in service to people
and the living earth."

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/time.htm#injust
 
either way, for? against? Libertarians? hello?

I guess ron paul talking about the fed is supposed to mean libertarians are for the the working people.
 
as far as globalization goes, yes, open economic borders for all. This would mean that you would be free to compete with any foreigner for jobs or market goods and be on equal footing for both, unlike the situation we have now.
 
as far as globalization goes, yes, open economic borders for all. This would mean that you would be free to compete with any foreigner for jobs or market goods and be on equal footing for both, unlike the situation we have now.

So no labor market protections, put all the local workers out of business?

This is a race to the bottom. A function of the state is to see to it that it's generally POSSIBLE for their citizens to prosper. Traditionally they have done this with protectionist policy and it's not a bad thing.

I guess you have redefined nation to mean just an authoritirian bloc that inflicts the policies on the people that are good strictly for corporations?

If we didn't allow victims of totalitarian slave nations to compete in the international labor pool, i might be inclined to agree, but using slave labor from fascist nations only incentivizes tyranny.



how could you defend such a bad idea?
 
Study how nations are broken and brought into the globalist system. This how the people are enslaved and the nations raped for that globalist system. They will destroy american by outsourcing all the jobs with these slaves. You should be against this.

http://www.gregpalast.com/the-globalizer-who-came-in-from-the-cold/

Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff 'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn't the Bank follow your advice?

"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

"It's a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, "well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him."

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.
 
So no labor market protections, put all the local workers out of business?

This is a race to the bottom. A function of the state is to see to it that it's generally POSSIBLE for their citizens to prosper. Traditionally they have done this with protectionist policy and it's not a bad thing.

I guess you have redefined nation to mean just an authoritirian bloc that inflicts the policies on the people that are good strictly for corporations?

If we didn't allow victims of totalitarian slave nations to compete in the international labor pool, i might be inclined to agree, but using slave labor from fascist nations only incentivizes tyranny.
you bring up good points about working with nations that use hyper protectionist measures. I would never agree to do international commerce with a nation that incorporates such measures. it's all fair and equal or its not. I agree that part of the states function is to ensure that the citizen has the OPPORTUNITY to succeed and prosper, whether thats as an employee or a business owner.
 
Back
Top