Friedman World

 

The Global Outhouse

What's wrong with Tom Friedman's version of planetary truth? Basically, that it emphasizes the wrong things and does nothing to solve the problems. His OP-ED piece, "A Race to the Top," is an attempt to disguise his advocacy of the global reality, the Race to the Bottom.

Friedman's sort of thinking reminds me of the Unisex bathroom issue. It used to be that women got bathrooms equipped with a lounge, while men got plain and simple urinals and toilets. The men's room was often ill-kept, while the women's rooms were (by comparison) spotless. That was the long-ago world in which women were "put on a pedestal" while brutally deprived of their equality and rights in most other things. The concept behind the fancy women's rooms was that women were weak, helpless and fragile, and needed a refuge from tough public places. Moreover, men were considered to be naturally dirty while women were clean, so accordingly different levels of service were provided to the rest rooms. And, in those days, few women actually worked ("working women" were, by definition, whores) so it wasn't too expensive to provide special places for them.

Then, in the 1960s along came Women's Lib, and soon thereafter the issue of women's equality and privileges. In the 1970s, women started to enter the workforce in large numbers. One of the emergent issues of the time was the lack of women's rooms. While women's rooms were traditionally better places than what was provided men, there weren't many of them. Solution: turn existing men's rooms into UNISEX rooms. In other words, men and women would have to SHARE the bathroom. That was an outrageous idea, one that broke down the wall between the sexes, and led to lawsuits. The eventual decision of the Courts was very simple: women were entitled to equality with men. The Courts didn't say how to accomplish that worthy end.

The net effect of the struggle over the bathroom was the least common denominator. Many businesses built women's rooms equal to what men received, so that there would be enough equal-rights bathrooms for everyone. Gone were the lounges, make-up tables and other luxuries. Women's rooms had more stalls and toilets, but no urinals; otherwise, they were the same as men's rooms. Those public places that couldn't afford to maintain segregated facilities just made the men's rooms into unisex bathrooms. Today, many mini-marts and gas stations are unisex, policed by having to ask for the key. Because of the traditional belief that women required clean facilities, women's rooms are still the cleanest, unisex bathrooms are usually cleaner than the men's rooms, and men's rooms are often wretchedly filthy (especially at truck stops).

The end result of the struggle over the bathroom was Jane Crow: 'separate but equal.' The special needs of men were never given much consideration. Building and maintaining better rest rooms was not given a thought: it all came down to make everything equal at the lowest possible cost. We aren't fighting much over the bathroom lately, as we've come to accept that everyone gets the em-bare-ass-ed minimum. For many people, this is a reason to avoid public rest rooms as much as possible. Another result is the on-going closure of rest stops on our freeways. (They used to be 20-25 miles apart; now its 50-120 miles between stops. Traveling? You'll need a R_x for Detrol-LA.) If you want a decent bathroom, you'll have to get off the highway and find a motel, restaurant or store that provides one for the higher price of admission you'll have to pay. For those who cannot afford that solution, things are worse than ever.

No one gave much thought to improving bathrooms for everyone, which is what's wrong with Friedman, globalizers, conservatives and market fundamentalists. Friedman's advice to give up the Welfare State is discouraging: you can't fight it, so just accept the minimum for everyone. Friedman's The World is Flat is a truer description than he may think, for in a flat world there is no top or bottom, just everything the same. To be generous, it is only this flatness that saves Friedman from telling a lie in his OP-ED title, indicating he hasn't really thought through the consequences of the Flat World he advocates. Or, if he has, he is certainly not an advocate for the poorest - the majority - among us.

No Sale

I used to read Friedman with respect, but had to give that up when he began advocating installing "democracy" in the Middle East by force. Before the Conquest of Iraq, I took him to mean that Arab democracy would be a Good Thing and would go a long way toward solving the Middle East's multitude of antagonisms. The Middle East, Jews and Arabs and others, is afflicted with a socio-political auto-immune disease which might be overcome by an injection of new genes. But that is as far as I go (with Friedman) along that line of thought, as the next step - forcible injection - has never been proved to work. In fact, almost everywhere, democracy has come into being after intense, local struggles. I can't think of any successful examples of democracy imposed from without.

Those who say that democracy was installed by the Allies in Germany and Japan after World War II are wrong. In both cases, the post-war governments built on historical developments existing prior to the war. Today's Japanese state, for example, is not too different from the democracy of the 1920s. The same parties rule in about the same way, except that Japan dumped the Samurai class and offers no resistance to U.S. hegemony. Germany took up its political development after the war in the manner of Bismarck's 19^th century lead, without the oppression of the Prussian Junkers, having also accepted U.S. hegemony.

There may be some small States that successfully adapted to democracy brought by foreign intervention, but I am quite sure there are no major countries like that. For example, not India, China, Japan, Russia, the European States, the United States, or Latin American countries, all of which evolved under their own power. Former British colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also gone their own ways, after a relatively non-violent struggle to free themselves of the Empire. In any event, I don't believe democracy is an exportable product. It has to gestate and be born locally.

Democracy is like the American products Japanese people don't buy. This has been a source of endless frustration, even anger, among American corporations and their paid, political representatives. It is true the Japanese practice mercantilism, the economic system of importing raw materials and exporting finished goods. The European colonialists used to do the same thing, and still do. Americans, however, believe they are not like that. Americans believe in things called the "free market," "free trade" and "open markets." Those systems are supposedly not at all mercantilist in nature, as no one is designated as a "resource" while others are designated "manufacturers." The fact that some countries are almost exclusively resource providers, while others do all the manufacturing, is strictly coincidental, according to American ideology. Since Americans lack insight into their own behavior, it infuriates them when the Japanese, Chinese and others won't buy American. Ironically, the British attempt to impose "resource" status on its North American colonies was a major factor leading to the American Revolution. It is also ironic, if not hypocritical, that the most common reaction to recession or loss of business in the United States is yet another "Buy American" campaign. Many Americans, like most people everywhere else, are provincials who suspect "furiners" and their products, even though almost all Americans are immigrants or their descendants. Despite the supposed virtues of foreign trade touted every since Adam Smith, most people remain firmly committed to "local" products made by people who they believe are like themselves. Most foreign products are felt to be exotic luxuries, only to be enjoyed in good times when the piggy bank floweth over.

These feelings became evident in the French and Dutch referenda Sunday and Tuesday, respectively, which soundly rejected the proposed European Constitution. It doesn't look like people rejected being European; they did reject being "liberalized." Now, a European "liberal" is not at all the same as an American one. We might quarrel over who has proper claim to the term. I will concede the British seem to have first dibs, having defined the term in the early 19^th century. There may be European priority over the American use, because "liberal" has been largely preserved its original meaning on the Continent for almost two centuries. That usage of the word roughly corresponds to the American "Libertarian," which is scarcely an American liberal position. European liberals are generally market fundamentalists, capitalists and globalizers. They advocate what Tom Friedman wrote in his book, and that is what was rejected at the Dutch and French polls this week. The Left, Labor and even the Center in Europe don't want their Welfare States destroyed in the name of "liberalism," which, strangely enough, is also what the American Bandit represents. So, the huge European rejection of the Bandit on account of Iraq foreshadowed this vote; they are two related things.

There are other factors in the European rejection of the proposed Constitution, such as the racist and anti-Muslim feelings (as usual) of rightists. Those folks don't want any more immigrants, especially if they are not like themselves. Americans can hear essentially the same rant every day by tuning into CNN's Lou Dobbs; "Nativism" is not a uniquely European phenomenon. I mention these emotional outbursts only to reject them. Contrary to the Nativists, I believe we would all benefit from more immigration, travel and general mixing it up. Provincialism and Nativism should not be acceptable arguments in debates in democratic societies. We all laughed at Archie Bunker during the 1970s, because at last we were coming out of the dark ages of racism, sexism and backwardness. We needed to reassure ourselves we were not like him, but, secretly, we were not so happy about granting equal status to all those newcomers (who had been there all along). These feelings are unfortunately evident in the vote against the European Constitution as well as the (former Austrian) Governator's approval of Vigilantes guarding California's border with Mexico.

My belief is Europeans would do well to integrate and become one Europe. It is for that reason I endorsed a "yes" vote on the Constitution. But I have changed my mind somewhat, based on the widespread perception that the proposal would bring to Europe just what we are trying to rid ourselves of in America: Bandit government. Were I French, Dutch, Swedish or German, I would not be willing to trade in my Welfare State and all its benefits just to be called a European. What's in a name? In this case, very little benefit and a lot of sweat. That's made clear by Friedman's piece, in which he criticizes the French and Dutch for their vote. Friedman believes they should be willing to join the Race to the Bottom, because inevitably they will lose their benefits if they do not. Friedman would have us just lay down and die. What Friedman does not see is a different implication of his argument: even if inevitable, why give up anything any sooner than need be, and why give up without a fight? It's the same with Friedman's taunting the German government for considering an end to capitalism. Now there's an idea I would love to have considered in Washington! As I see it, it's capitalism, especially the unrestrained and unregulated variety, that's doing most of the damage. So, the German government's proposal to look at the conditions under which capitalism operates is not only rational, but reasonable.\

Friedman, then, is just a (European-style) Liberal apologist for the Bandit regime. I don't know what caused him to turn from American Liberalism, although I guess his deep desire for a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the crux of it. I found out in my street activist days that I could hope so much for something that wasn't going to happen, that all sorts of unreasonable scenarios came to mind. It is not good to desire too much. It's worse to wish disastrous things on one's fellows in the living of life, especially if you are not there to suffer with them. That is why, regardless of our religion, we all remember Pontius Pilate.

Better Lives

What's wrong with globalization and capitalism, Siamese Twins in their present incarnations, is that they don't make things better for most people. They don't even provide the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Instead, lately they created a gold rush in some parts of India and China, while impoverishing vast swatches of the Americas and Europe. Just as Mexicans were beginning to see their lot improve, the Chinese stole their lunch. Of course, the Mexicans got their comeuppance after stealing American dinners. But, that is what the great Race to the Bottom is all about: making of everyone thieving magpies. (Lately, the Indians and Chinese are getting worried, as some of their gains are disappearing into Eastern European and Islamic Asian rabbit holes.)

One of the phenomena of globalization is "outsourcing," which particularly attracts Friedman's attention. That is what The World is Flat is about; what is going on. I would have you look at it differently. The outsourcing movement takes away jobs from more highly paid workers in one place, and gives them to lesser paid workers in another place. It is an anti-union, anti-worker sort of business, as it makes strikes nearly impossible (unless globally organized), so wages are always firmly in the hands of capital. You get what you are offered. There's always the next 10,000 people down the street to take it, if you don't. The Smithian myth of "negotiation" betwen capital and labor is exposed as the gruesome Oliver Twist world it is. BUT, and there is always a BUT, isn't it true that the Hindus are getting paid a princely wage for their work? Yes, it is, as long as they spend it in India. It is also true that the aggregate of wages paid is less than what was, which is why consumer prices are the same or lower in many cases. Globally, this a win for capital and a loss for labor.

The outsourced jobs primarily benefit the upper classes of consumer countries. That's because it takes money to buy the products wholly or partially produced by outsourcing. Those put out of work by outsourcing don't have the money to buy most of those products. So, the net effect of outsourcing is to increase the difference between haves and have-nots in consumer countries. It is true that those doing the outsourcing are hugely benefitted by having a relatively good-paying job in their local economy. That benefit lasts only as long as the time it takes for capital to find an even lower wage outsourcer (again, the Race to the Bottom). Those taking outsourced jobs run a risk of being ruined and shunned, in the event things go wrong. Outsourcers work in an island created by foreign wealth, because the locals simply cannot afford the work being done and, anyway, usually don't need it. Why would a Chinese peasant seek advice on installing a DSL modem in the family's traditional, unelectrified, unwired home? If the local economy had needed customer service centers, they would have been created without outsourcing. (I discovered this fact while living in rural Oregon.)

Outsourcers have to be happy prisoners. They don't make enough money to move to the center, to where the wealth really is. As many of those who came to the United States found out, American capitalists aren't willing to pay them enough to live well in the United States, so they had to go back. As long as the outsourcing boom lasts, those at the periphery will do very well; after that, they're likely doomed. That fate might be avoided, if the inflow of money becomes a capital investment in the local community, creating permanent jobs not dependent on that inflow. But, usually that is not what happens, because that would reduce the benefits of outsourcing to its worker-recipients. Instead, as in Bangalore, a mini-Silcon Valley has been created; a piece of techie-whizzie America plumped down in India. Without First World, mostly American, support, none of that is sustainable. What is not being created is a uniquely Hindu industry that sells first of all to Hindus. The same is true all over Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe where outsourcing is raging. Put another way, what's being built is a house of cards held together by money from rich people elsewhere. Should that wealth be constricted or restrained, what then?

What is not happening as a result of globalization is the permanent improvement of lives everywhere, except, maybe, in China. China may be the exception because of its "Communist" government; meaning its Chinese nationalist government. Today's Chinese rulers are doing what strong Chinese rulers have always done: make sure China is the Central Kingdom. The last time the Chinese had such a strong power in the Heavenly Palace was more than 400 years ago, during the reign of the Ming Emperors. The Manchus let the country go downhill, because they were foreign rulers, not Han Chinese. So, if things are improving in China, it is not on account of outsourcing, but because of the policies of those who now have the Mandate of Heaven. The Chinese use outsourcing to their advantage, but aren't ruled by it. (This is why there is always incredible nervousness among Western politicians and capitalists when dealing with China. The Bandit's minions are exasperated by a Beijing that won't bow to their commands; for example, about revaluing the Yuan. They have a lot left to learn about China.) The Chinese are an example of what other developing countries might do. In this context, note that, following the onset of the Asian currency crisis 7 years ago, those Asian countries did best that steadfastly ignored the marching orders issued by Washington and its subsidiaries, the IMF and World Bank. Countries like Thailand were nearly ruined forever by the IMF; millions of people were sent into poverty, disease and even death. Those, like China, that maintained the peg and "currency controls" were able to bounce back relatively quickly. So, it pays to resist Washington, and to be very careful about inducements offered by Foreign Capitalist Devils.

The better way to create better lives for everyone is apply oneself to development locally, sustainably. Outsourcing can be a meaningful contributor to life in a community that is otherwise improving without it. For example, many European and Japanese companies have had American subsidiaries for over 50 years, some more than a century. TOYOTA manufactures many of its cars in the United States. While it would be a hurtful loss if TOYOTA shut down its American plants, as is happening to the Nummi plant in Fremont, Calif., most American communities will not be destroyed by closings. The fact is, the places that have car factories existed before, without them. Most of those places have a social and economic life without the factory, which enables them to rebuild after such a loss. The point here is that foreign investment in the United States usually doesn't create a unique foreign enclave; rather, it is an addition to pre-existing communities that already have a developed economic basis. The reason for locating in Fremont, Calif., for example, is the immediacy of the highly educated and versatile work force in the San Francisco Bay Area, and all of the highly developed resources of that region. Starting a business there is easy, because you can get anything you need quickly and efficiently. You don't have to build the supplier base from scratch, or import exotic stuff from thousands of miles away. It's all right there. That is what is different about investing in the United States or any other First World country: capital is building on capital. It is not a one-shot, take it or leave it gamble.

I think this exposes what is wrong with the globalization that's going on, and what's wrong with Friedman's advocacy. It is not that outsourcing is inherently evil. It is that, as practised, it creates foreign enclaves in local societies not otherwise prepared for them. In the process, it debilitates developed areas while usually not creating substantial, permanent development at its targets. It is as if ET dropped from Outer Space and started an interstellar travel service in Crawford, Texas. We might be prepared for that here in California, or at Cape Kennedy, but is Texas ready for interstellar trade?