Bachelet touts benefits of globalization

[arcos]

Bachelet touts benefits of globalization

SANTIAGO, Chile - President Michelle Bachelet opened an international gathering of socialist leaders in the Chilean capital on Monday by urging them to take advantage of the "reality" of globalization instead of fighting it.

<snip>

"Let's admit it, comrades, modernity and globalization are not an imperialist invention," Bachelet told the conference of the Socialist International, an umbrella organization for socialist parties from around the world. "They are realities and it is up to us to turn them into opportunities."

<snip>

"Our rival is not economic modernity," Bachelet told the gathering. "Our rivals are the forces that oppose social progress and seek an accumulation of wealth that excludes many."

Also addressing the nearly 300 delegates from 100 countries was Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who described what he called "my three quixotic ideas" — protection of the environment, debt forgiveness for poor countries and curbing arms traffic.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061107/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_socialists

[cliss]

1. I'm surprised she would say this.

I understand that she's trying to be practical.

But it's a little bit Surreal to look at her statement, addressing then as 'Comrades' and then, 'accept it'. .....weird.....

"Comrades, it's up to us to turn them into opportunities".

[torrentprime]

2. What's odd about it?

Globalization isn't evil. Abused, monopolized, one-party, amoral globalization (the way most corporations prefer to enter a new market) is evil, yes, but globalization as a concept is better for everyone. The opposite of globalization is protectionism and isolationism, and that doesn't help anyone either.

[barb162]

3. Globalization benefits corporations

Some protectionism benefits nations and their people. When almost all the jobs in the USA go offshore, let me know how it benefits the workers of the USA.

[torrentprime]

5. Sorry, this isn't true.

Study after study has shown that globalization benefits the people of both countries/markets. Of course there are adjustments for workers caught in the transition, but the proper course is to ease the transition, not huddle in isolation.

Protectionism = USA's subsidies, such ads ethanol, sugar, etc. They're artificially inflating the price and killing other markets and raising prices for those who can least afford to pay.

[barb162]

6. You're incorrect about all those supposed studies

and what you call "transition" translates into bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, etc.

Getting a DVD player or TV or a shirt cheaper doesn't compensate for losing your well-paying job, house, benefits, etc.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Globalization benefits the RICH of both countries.

Read The Myths of Free Trade by Ohio SENATOR Sherrod Brown (feels SO good to say that!) and get back to me. Read Take This Job and Ship It by Byron Dorgan and get back to me. Fair trade is the better and more benevolent model, which we are NOT practicing. We have nothing but a victim-blaming Darwinist model and it hurts millions.

[arcos]

4. Bachelet is much more of a centrist than a leftist...

Her general support toward "free market" policies sometimes is overseen by the fact that she is from Chile's Socialist Party and that she was tortured by Pinochet, but if hypothetically Chávez and her were candidates in the same election, she would be the right winger. The fact that Oscar Arias from Costa Rica was also there and said similar things speaks volumens, considering he was the right winger in the last election. Yeah... "Socialist" International.

I love Bachelet though. :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[1932]

7. That was the lesson of the New Deal. Int'l trade played a big part in the

recovery from the Depression.

The most important part about it, however, is that the fruits of globalization were shared fairly -- labor got a fair chunk of the profit made from trade.

This is an important thing to remember. Globalization, in and of itself, is not bad. Neoliberal globalization in which power imbalances are exploited so that more wealth and power is channeled to the wealthy and powerful is bad. And I don't even agree with Jeffrey Sachs that as long as the people on the bottom are doing a little better, it's OK that the people at the top are doing immenseley better. Polarization of wealth is destabilizing because it increases the power imblance and political, economic and cultural exploitation of people at the bottom.