COLUMN: Our global (dirt-poor) village

From Anthony Smith's, "Doric, Ironic, Corinthian," Fall '98 From Anthony Smith's, "Doric, Ironic, Corinthian," Fall '98Globalization is a term that is bandied about quite a bit these days. "The New Global Economy" is right up there with "Information Economy" in the list of Most Annoying Economic Buzzwords Ever. These two terms also share something else: They are two of the most misunderstood, over-hyped concepts ever created. Through technology, the TV commercials would have us believe, we can all be linked by one big happy network. According to MCI, in this new virtual community there is no age, no race, no disability. Of course, there aren't any poor people either. For all the blather about the new connectedness of the world, the vast majority of the earth's population does not participate in this "revolution" in any meaningful way. Most people don't have access to the Internet (which doesn't qualify you for global citizenship by a long shot). Farmers in Mozambique are about as isolated from small-town Mississippians or middle-class Philadelphians as they ever have been. But what about here at home? The United States has supposedly profited the most from globalization. Our economy has surged upward in recent years while the rest of the world has been in turmoil. Perhaps the best example of globalization's effect on this country is the massive changes in the role of government and corporations in our society. Welfare reform was one of the most important recent changes. No longer will America pay its citizens for doing nothing, crowed conservatives. However, as Michael Moore and others were quick to point out, the government continues to dole out corporate welfare. The U.S. government -- at the local, state and national levels -- directly subsidizes firms to the tune of billions of dollars a year, all in the interests of economic development and job creation. The purpose of government is no longer to protect and ensure the general welfare and well-being of citizens, but to attract and retain businesses. Corporate welfare is the focus of last week's issue of Time magazine. According to Time's research, the federal government pays out $125 million a year in corporate welfare; corporate welfare costs the average working American the equivalent of two weeks' wages; and corporate welfare rarely creates jobs but mostly encourages businesses to hunt for the sweetest incentive packages while closing plants in other areas. Why is corporate welfare such a widespread phenomenon? Corporations and capital are now more mobile than ever before. Companies are able to outsource, downsize and shift production at the drop of a hat, defying governmental attempts to regulate them. Mark Ritchie, president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, defines globalization as "the process of corporations moving their money, factories and products around the planet at ever more rapid rates of speed in search of cheaper labor and raw materials and governments willing to ignore or abandon consumer, labor and environmental protection laws." The implications of this new corporate and governmental paradigm are staggering. Few would argue that the trickle-down economic experiment of the Reagan years was successful in fighting poverty. Yet somehow our national policy has internalized this ridiculous doctrine. As the federal government cuts or eliminates the welfare benefits of thousands of Philadelphians, the state of Pennsylvania is funneling over $300 million to Kvaerner ASA, a Norwegian shipbuilding firm, to bring about 900 jobs to South Philly. If confronted with the bare facts, none of the parties involved in corporate welfare would consider the process justifiable in the long run. Yet each will point to the lack of alternatives and the need to "stay competitive." If one local city or state doesn't try to lure businesses with subsidies, others will steal its jobs. If a shoe corporation doesn't manufacture its product in Asia (where dirt-poor workers slave away for pennies, exposed to toluene-based glue and other dangerous work conditions), it will be out-priced by its competitors. If a labor union tries to protest downsizing by going on strike, the company merely relocates to somewhere it can get a cheaper, non-unionized work force. If there's one thing that the manufacturing age taught us, it's that desperately poor workers are good workers All of these problems are the product of one simple occurrence: We have allowed firms to transcend people, government and society. If a corporation dislikes the social, political or regulatory climate of one area, it can simply move elsewhere. There are few easy solutions to this problem, given the fragmented nature of world politics. One of the stories in Time's recent issue describes the corporate welfare that parent company Time-Warner has received and continues to ask for. No doubt this mega-conglomerate is counting on the typical American answer to such outrageous revelations: "Even if I wanted to, what could I do about it?" And that will undoubtedly be the response. However, there is some hope. As the cycles of business, capital and information continue to quicken, such disasters as the collapse of the Asian financial market may teach us the true lesson of global capitalism -- whatever happens, about three-fourths of the world gets royally screwed. I'm with Pat Buchanan on this one. We should not bail out the investors who have lost so much money in the Asian market collapse: "Let the investors who pocketed their Asian profits swallow their Asian losses!"