http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/globalization_03-23.html... VANDANA SHIVA: If globalization had not been forced on us, I can imagine I would have gone back to doing my puzzles with quantum theory.
But now that we have, A, the WTO and its massive destruction -- and I can't watch our farmers die as if they were flies that are being swatted in a global economy. And then you have climate change. And I do feel we need a massive shift in thinking, massive shift in the way we live. We could crash in the next 20 years, not just as a civilization, but as a species...
Ivan Seeking said:http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/globalization_03-23.html
I don't know what I can add except to say that I think she is absolutely correct in almost everything said. Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.
Vandana Shiva said:And I started to plant (neem) trees. I started to distribute neem to farmers, train them. And then, in 1994, I find a patent held by W.R. Grace. Well, Grace claims to have invented the neem, invented the use of neem for biopesticide.
So, we challenged a patent held jointly by them and the United States Department of Agriculture. We fought that case 11 years. We won it. But this was a case of biopiracy.
...
A company in Texas called RiceTec claims to have invented the basmati that grows in our valley.
So, when I find RiceTec in Texas claims to have invented the height of the plant, the length of the grain, the aroma, and the methods of cooking, I said that, my grandmother taught me when I was a 6-year-old, took on that challenge. We fought that one four years.
And, then, much later, Monsanto, who claims to always invent new seeds, had the cheek to steal an old Indian wheat variety and patent it as an invention. That was struck down in a four-month legal battle in the European patent office.
There are indicators for all those things. Should we simply change the definition of the term "economic growth" - will that change our competitive nature?VANDANA SHIVA: That, to me, is the heart of the issue, that the so-called growth, as defined in the indicators that have been evolved to suit those who control the wealth of the world and the political decision-making in the world, that that growth hides behind it huge amounts of destruction in the lives of people, in the lives of the Third World, and in the planet's life.
PAUL SOLMAN: Well, how would you measure economic growth?
VANDANA SHIVA: I would measure economic growth by seeing, how much food are people eating, how much clean water do they have in their rivers and their wells, how much clothing do they have access to, how much education and health services can -- are they provided as public systems?
Ivan Seeking said:I don't know what I can add except to say that I think she is absolutely correct in almost everything said.
The contrary view, which I develop and defend in my just-published book, In
Defense of Globalization (Oxford), is that economic globalization has a human face. It
advances, instead of inhibiting, the achievement of social agendas as wide-ranging as the
promotion of gender equality worldwide, increased prosperity in the poor countries and
not just the rich countries, reduction of poverty in and shifting of children from work to
schools in the poor countries. Besides, the fears of economic globalization in the rich
countries, especially that globalization reduces real wages of workers and reduces labour
standards because of a “race to the bottom” are seriously exaggerated, if they are valid at all.
Ivan Seeking said:Globalization unchecked is capitalism run amok and serves only the global corporate entities.
VANDANA SHIVA: That, to me, is the heart of the issue, that the so-called growth, as defined in the indicators that have been evolved to suit those who control the wealth of the world and the political decision-making in the world, that that growth hides behind it huge amounts of destruction in the lives of people, in the lives of the Third World, and in the planet's life.
PAUL SOLMAN: Well, how would you measure economic growth?
VANDANA SHIVA: I would measure economic growth by seeing, how much food are people eating, how much clean water do they have in their rivers and their wells, how much clothing do they have access to, how much education and health services can -- are they provided as public systems?
Capitalism and the Common Man
by Walter Williams (October 26, 2003)
There are some arguments so illogical that only an intellectual or politician can believe them. One of those arguments is: capitalism benefits the rich more than it benefits the 'common man.'
Let's look at it.
The rich have always had access to entertainment, and some times in the comfort of their palaces and mansions. The rich have never had to experience the drudgery of having to beat out carpets, iron their clothing or slave over a hot stove all day in order to have a decent dinner; they could afford to hire people. Today, the common man has the power to enjoy much of what only the rich could yesteryear. Capitalism's mass production have made radios and televisions, vacuum cleaners, wash-and-wear clothing and microwave ovens available and well within the reach of the common man; thus, sparing him of the drudgery of the past.
What about those who became wealthy making comforts available to the common man? Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. Individual discovers and companies who produced penicillin, polio and typhoid vaccines may have become wealthy but again it was the common man who was the major beneficiary. In more recent times, computers and software products have impacted our health, safety and life quality in a way that dwarfs the wealth received by their creators.
Here's a little test. Stand on the corner and watch people walk or drive by. Then, based on their appearances, identify which persons are wealthy. Years ago, it wouldn't have been that hard.
The ordinary person wouldn't be dressed as well, surely not wearing designer clothing, nor would they have nice looking jewellery plus, they wouldn't be driving by. Compare the income status of today's airline passengers with those of yesterday; you'll find a greater percentage of ordinary people.
That's one of the great benefits of capitalism; it has made it possible for common people to enjoy at least some of what wealthy people enjoy. You say, "Williams, common people don't have access to Rolls Royces and yachts!" You're wrong. Microsoft's Bill Gates is super-rich and can afford to ride in a Rolls Royce and go yachting sailing; so can Williams - just not as long. I can rent a Rolls or a yacht for a day, half-day or an hour.
Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.
Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires.
Ivan Seeking said:It sounds to me like her statements are based on observations, and your statements are based on theory and abstraction.
Ivan Seeking said:Where is clean water included as a parameter in those studies?
Economist said:This is untrue. Economic research has pointed out time and time again that things like real per capita GDP, and real PPP per capita are actually pretty solid measurements of how the average people of a country are doing. She fails to point out how highly correlated "her measures" are with the "economic measures" she is bashing. It's such a myth to think that globalization and capitalism help the rich and hurt the poor. As Milton Friedman pointed out, capitalism and globalization help the "common man." The elites do extremely well, no matter what system you have. Capitalism is what allows everday people like you and me to have a good standard of living. Or check out the article below:
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/shiva219.htm
Sadly, more than a hundred women have committed suicide as a result of water scarcity in the Tehri region over the last few years. Women who came from 250 villages to meet us say that their sacred mother, the river Ganga, has been reduced to receiving them in death and no longer gives them life. Women are still sitting in protest in the ruins of the ancient city of Tehri, refusing to give up their struggle. They say they will commit collective suicide if forced to move.
I liked what his wife said:Economist said:I don't understand why people rarely look at what experts on globalization are saying? If you really want to here an expert on globalization then turn to Jagdish Bhagwati.
Jagdish Bhagwati said:http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/activities/files/Bhagwati5-13-04.pdf
Second, we need to ensure that we do not repeat the mistake made by the
reformers in Russia, where shock therapy was tried and failed. Maximal speed is not the
optimal speed; both economic s and politics require cautious adjustment. When the
economist Jeffrey Sachs, now my distinguished colleague at Columbia University,
insisted on shock therapy in Russia, he used the analogy: “You cannot cross a chasm in
two leaps”. The Soviet expert Padma Desai --- who happens to be my wife, as I must
admit in the interest of transparency --- replied: “You cannot cross it in one leap either
unless you are Indiana Jones; it is better to drop a bridge.” Events proved her right.
Incorrect on all counts.I seriously hope that you will read Jadgish, although I doubt anyone will, considering most people want to hold on to their incorrect views of economics, capitalism, globalization, etc. I guess it's true that ignorance must be bliss, or maybe it's that people are to afraid to read these things because they're terrified that their ideals will be proved incorrect, and they can no longer sit around with their friends and complain about these things and talk about how the sky is falling.
I don't know a single Indian whose main ambition is to "eat certain foods". How many do you know?DrClapeyron said:There has been a lifestyle in India for thousands of years which says if you eat certain foods then you have reached the highest point of human character and their is no need to go further.
OmCheeto said:Why would anyone want to hold onto an incorrect view? That's like saying people like to be wrong. I know of no such people. Ignorance is not bliss
OmCheeto said:And the only falling that would take place would be me falling asleep listening to an economist for an hour and a half. I didn't sleep through two semesters of college economics classes for nothing. I learned that they are better than sominex.
OmCheeto said:Anyways, Jadgish and Shiva, although on apparently opposite sides of the table, seem to want the same thing. Perhaps the term 'globalization' means something different to physicists and economists, and we are arguing about nothing.
daveb said:There's a book I'm reading right now about this very subject called The Great Turning by David Korten. I'll update folks as I read it.
They also have a web page here.http://www.thegreatturning.net/"
daveb said:There's a book I'm reading right now about this very subject called The Great Turning by David Korten. I'll update folks as I read it.
They also have a web page here.http://www.thegreatturning.net/"
Vandana Shiva said:http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/14/from_empire_to_earth_community_author
Well, the triple crisis is really seriously converging on India, India being one of the preferred spots for outsourcing of all the pollution and energy-intensive production of the world. We hear of outsourcing of jobs in the information technology sector. We don’t often enough hear about the outsourcing of pollution to the third world, the resource-intensive, resource-hungry industry like steel and iron and aluminum and automobile manufacture.
David Korten said:you know, I spent thirty years of my life working on third world development, on the effort to end poverty in low-income countries. And it took me a long time, but I finally came to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to make money, which increases the power of people who—for people who already have more than they need.
but I finally came to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to make money, which increases the power of people who—for people who already have more than they need.
Economist said:This is such bs, and I don't know how anyone who states this can at all be taken seriously in terms of economic understanding. Economic studies have shown over and over again that economic growth benefits even the poorest members of a society greatly, and that economic freedom improves the lot of poor people in particular, as the rich, the elites, etc, do well regardless of the system.
http://www.libertyindia.org/events/bull****_award_28august2002.htm"BULL**** AWARD FOR SUSTAINING POVERTY" AWARDED TODAY TO VANDANA SHIVA
28 August, Johannesburg - At a mass rally today in Johannesburg, the winner of the Bull**** Award for Sustaining Poverty was announced. In a closely run race, the winner was chosen for her important contribution to sustaining poverty around the world, in her role as a mouthpiece of western eco-imperialism.
...
Vandana Shiva is an individual whose immense presence at the World Summit on Sustainable Development and other global meetings, and her passionate defense of poverty, has resonated as far as newspapers and TV cameras can be found.
turbo-1 said:If we define poverty by the standards of the US and call somebody poor because they don't have a car
turbo-1 said:You missed my point entirely. People are not poor just because they don't have a Western life-style. This is a major part of Shiva's message, and it gets glossed over or ignored by her critics, who insist on interpreting economies of the poorer countries not in terms of the well-being of the inhabitants, but by how much money changes hands. A farmer in India may grow enough food on a couple of acres to provide for his family, with excess seed for the next crop, and perhaps enough excess to barter for other goods or to sell. By local standards, he is a successful farmer, and is prosperous, though he is hardly a blip in the cash economy.
