Sunday, September 21, 2003
OK, my thoughts on the program, I was writing as it was on, so some quotes may not be exactly what was said...
Starts off with violent anarchists as though this is the only kind. Johan Norberg presents like Chris Morris in Brass Eye but looks rather like Orlando Bloom with Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen's hair. He says that global capitalism makes countries that embrace it rich. Where does this money come from then? Space?
Taiwan. Everyone in Taiwan is rich, apparently. Forty years ago there were sweatshops. 'Transitory' says Johan. So not here any more? And he seems to think that taking advantage of people is okay if it makes the country (but not it's people?) rich. From how Johan presents it, Taiwan is populated purely by company owners and 'well-paid software engineers'. But from talking to the people, it's the people that make their successes, capitalism less so. Aah, he's said Africa is a failure because they try to make everything themselves. So it's not that they can't afford those foreign anti-AIDS drugs then? 'Democracy is a side-effect of globalisation'. 'Globalisation brings wealth and freedom to everyone'.
Vietnam. 'Nike equals freedom' he says. And he's in Vietnam to see if it's true. Before he starts I'm not hopeful he's going to make much effort to find out the other view. Aah, the sweatshops are helping Vietnam to drag itself from poverty apparently. 'Globalisation is not a smooth ride, [but which] brings long-term benefits'. He talks to the sweatshop owner and gets a tour, looks like a factory floor anywhere in the Western world. Child labour has gone down by millions over the last ten years. The average pay is $54 a month, wheras stateowned businesses pay $18 a month. All the Vietnamese look well fed and smart. If Nike were to move on because wages in Vietnam have gone up then that's good because Nike have helped raise the wages. But where will these fired workers work?
What about the independent sweatshops who operate outside the rules for anyone that wants them?
Kenya. Johan is obsessing over property rights as the reason why Kenya is not successful, but PR cannot be considered part of globalisation surely. It's can lead to it certainly, but it's something that is not an integral part of globalisation. 'No two democracies have ever made war on one another'. Erm..? But there are changes being made in the prosperous towns that may lead to the kind of capitalism that will eventually let them become globalised. There are tarrifs on goods which is Kenya were in a position to export they couldn't afford to. So, why does this happen? Johan does not come out and admit that it is the needs of capitalism in the US and Europe that make them impose these tarrifs. So in some cases national capitalist needs themselves fights against true globalisation.
Brussels. More pictures of scary anarchists. They're the ones making the governments make rules to protect their own and not share the wealth with the poor nations.
I accept that capitalism can raise people up, I just don't believe it's the 100% of the population that Johan presents here. I also think he falsly simplifies the arguments of the anti-globalists in order to try and argue they are bad.
The fact that Johan doesn't seem to think there is ANYTHING bad about global capitalism makes me suspicious that he's not being balanced. If globalism was truly as good as he makes it then there wouldn't be this opposition to it. I know that Conservatives think the left-wing is anti-progress and anti-business but that simply doesn't make sense, that's the pat answer that people use when they don't want to actually think about it.
Starts off with violent anarchists as though this is the only kind. Johan Norberg presents like Chris Morris in Brass Eye but looks rather like Orlando Bloom with Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen's hair. He says that global capitalism makes countries that embrace it rich. Where does this money come from then? Space?
Taiwan. Everyone in Taiwan is rich, apparently. Forty years ago there were sweatshops. 'Transitory' says Johan. So not here any more? And he seems to think that taking advantage of people is okay if it makes the country (but not it's people?) rich. From how Johan presents it, Taiwan is populated purely by company owners and 'well-paid software engineers'. But from talking to the people, it's the people that make their successes, capitalism less so. Aah, he's said Africa is a failure because they try to make everything themselves. So it's not that they can't afford those foreign anti-AIDS drugs then? 'Democracy is a side-effect of globalisation'. 'Globalisation brings wealth and freedom to everyone'.
Vietnam. 'Nike equals freedom' he says. And he's in Vietnam to see if it's true. Before he starts I'm not hopeful he's going to make much effort to find out the other view. Aah, the sweatshops are helping Vietnam to drag itself from poverty apparently. 'Globalisation is not a smooth ride, [but which] brings long-term benefits'. He talks to the sweatshop owner and gets a tour, looks like a factory floor anywhere in the Western world. Child labour has gone down by millions over the last ten years. The average pay is $54 a month, wheras stateowned businesses pay $18 a month. All the Vietnamese look well fed and smart. If Nike were to move on because wages in Vietnam have gone up then that's good because Nike have helped raise the wages. But where will these fired workers work?
What about the independent sweatshops who operate outside the rules for anyone that wants them?
Kenya. Johan is obsessing over property rights as the reason why Kenya is not successful, but PR cannot be considered part of globalisation surely. It's can lead to it certainly, but it's something that is not an integral part of globalisation. 'No two democracies have ever made war on one another'. Erm..? But there are changes being made in the prosperous towns that may lead to the kind of capitalism that will eventually let them become globalised. There are tarrifs on goods which is Kenya were in a position to export they couldn't afford to. So, why does this happen? Johan does not come out and admit that it is the needs of capitalism in the US and Europe that make them impose these tarrifs. So in some cases national capitalist needs themselves fights against true globalisation.
Brussels. More pictures of scary anarchists. They're the ones making the governments make rules to protect their own and not share the wealth with the poor nations.
I accept that capitalism can raise people up, I just don't believe it's the 100% of the population that Johan presents here. I also think he falsly simplifies the arguments of the anti-globalists in order to try and argue they are bad.
The fact that Johan doesn't seem to think there is ANYTHING bad about global capitalism makes me suspicious that he's not being balanced. If globalism was truly as good as he makes it then there wouldn't be this opposition to it. I know that Conservatives think the left-wing is anti-progress and anti-business but that simply doesn't make sense, that's the pat answer that people use when they don't want to actually think about it.
