Fw: Comments and proposals for actions

Paul,  

Thank you for your comments here and I note that you have included  
fair-trade@riseup.net, along with a couple of other groups in your
response.  If the above is a list, it will not receive this reply from me
and I suggest that you may want to fwd it.  But I do feel it is good that
you have included recipients other than the ones who have been receiving
these msgs as the more people we have actively involved here in seeking
solutions the better.  

I would also like to note that the comment you note below was not made by
Anup Shah, but by me, 'marguerite'.   So that others may join in on this
discussion, I have identified your remarks as PR: and will comment below
as MH: 

From: Paul Riesz <priesz@netline.cl>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:50:35 -0400
Subject: Comments and proposals for actions
Message-ID: <3B6422BA.135065D0@netline.cl>


To John Bunzl
Dear John:

I should like to comment on several viewpoints that have been discussed
lately:
1. The following opinions posted by Anup Shah:
“What I see here is that Simpolicies is trying to act as a 'policy'
formulator and I don't feel that we can accomplish that no matter how
many people become involved with SP.  I hope I can make myself clear
here, but I feel that policy has to emanate from the small community
groups and flow up to SP, if SP is setting itself up to address world
governance, and which can then act as an information gathering center”.

MH:  This was perhaps worded badly.  What I was trying to say was not so
much that SP should not be acting as a policy formulator per se, but that
policy formulation should originate at the community or grassroots level
as only the people at this level really understand what it is they need. 
The top down policy approach, which I feel is also elitist, does not
recognize that needs are 'location specific' -- that is, they just don't
fit under any general category but that is the way  policies are
developed today.  And I feel this is largely what is the problem.   Top
down policy formulation is just too general to be effective.  I feel we
tend to take this 'elitist' university -educated attitude of 'one size
fits all' and say 'well this is what I feel should be done' from my
experience.  So policies get enacted that are simply don't address the
problems.  

John Bunzl just posted a msg that said in part: 

JB: I agree. We're only trying to get something set up which can act as a
'starter' for more appropriate methods in the future. Obviously, those
not
connected to the net will need to have a means of feeding their views
into
the discussion. (That could be another good reason for the kind of
central
and national Policy Committees I put forward recently.)

So I feel that here, SP may be taking a turn that will allow those at the
community level to join in and participate in policy decision making.    

PR: In my opinion SP and many other groups concerned about the current
dorm
of globalization should and must try to formulate policies that could
address such grave problems. The time seems to be right to pass from
violent street protests to constructive programs for reforming the
different bodies governing World Trade.
The fact that John has been invited by the WTO for consultation might
not have brought immediate tangible results, but it is a sign, that “the
powers that be” are starting to understand, that their reckless course
for World domination by TNCs must be altered, if they want to avoid a
violent end to their aspirations.

MH:  I feel that the street protests have their place and are largely
what have brought us to the place where we are today receiving some
attention -- but the attention is miniscule.  From the reports we are
getting from those who were actually in Genoa, it seems that the Black
Bloc was infiltrated by violent protestors which may have been
*Carbonari* themselves involved in an effort to discredit the protest
movement.  So I don't feel we should buy into this 'violence' as being
inherent with the demonstrations -- the demonstrations are mostly
peaceful and it is the police, and hired dissidents' who are causing the
problem.       

PR: We should try to discuss what kind of programs might have a chance to
succeed (I beg to include some proposals of mine, which I posted some
months ago, without getting any positive reaction).
Now I suggest to concentrate on convincing the representatives of 3rd
world countries to the WTO, that they can and must get together in order
to first formulate a reform program and then act decisively to make
their majority prevail and to end decision making behind closed doors by
a minority of members.

MH:  My question here, Paul, is:  are there enough representatives of the
Third World countries left who have not become corrupted by either the
elites or organized crime to formulate a reform program? In fact, my
question might be reworded to say 'are there any governments today who
have not been so corrupted as to be able to represnt the people?  I feel
we keep assuming that there are 'governments' that can still, and will,
act on behalf of the people yet there is ever-increasing evidence that
speaks to the opposite of this.

PR:  2. Why work?
The idea of a world with little or no work might appear to be within our 
grasp, but is that a real fact? I have the following objections:
First of all a completely new system of government would have to be
invented, which would have the will and the power to distribute the
means of a (more or less comfortable) living to the masses of people who
are neither investors nor needed for work.
Furthermore a life of permanent play might seem to be paradise on earth,
but in fact many if not most people would not know what to do and would
almost certainly get into drugs, suicidal sports or other extreme
activities in order how avoid boredom.

MH:  Paul, you are right --  a new system of government does have to
invented to address this.  But, so what?  Is the system of government we
currently have addressing critical issues?  I think not.   

According to all the information available, particularly from both J.W.
Smith  in 'The World's Wasted Wealth'  and in Jeremy Rifkin's,  'End of
Work' the statistics are valid that only 30% of the world's workforce is
necessary to produce the 'necessities' for 6+billion people on the
planet.  That is, if all the waste was removed.  Today we employ
approximately 75% of the laborforce, many of them in 'make work' jobs
which supply luxury items for consumption.  This has resulted in what
Bill McKibben refers to as 'strip-mining of the world's resources.'

So it appears that the realistic situation we have is one in which we
must turn to technological advances, e.g., nanotechnology, which reduces
dramatically the need for human labor in the workforce while at the same
time being both highly energy efficient and waste reductive requiring
little in the way of natural resources as it practices a form of
biomimicry. Or we keep on employing people with all of the attendant
waste.  In which case we are going to run out of resources very soon
while having tremendous amounts of people left out of the workforce
anyway.  There are currently 1 billion unemployed worldwide.  If you
subtract 2 billion children from the 6 billion on the planet then we are
looking at fully 25% of the available workforce being unemployed. 
Millions others are simply underemployed and not receiving a living wage.
 It is this incredible poverty that is killing all of us.   

I would like to point out that there is a move in industry to reduce
waste first by four-fold and then by ten-fold as is explained by Hawken
et al in 'Natural Capitalism' but as waste is reduced and efficiency
achieved it also tends to reduce human need in the workforce.  But I
think one also has to realize that waste is also inherent in employment
in that you have the use of energy in transporting people to and from
work; transporting materials both raw and manufactured, constructing and
maintaining large manufacturing facilities; etc.  Whereas advances in
technology such as nanotechnology will return us to a producer user
economy in which work can be performed within the individual community
and much of it from the 'electronic cottages' as defined by Tofler in
'The Third Wave' and eliminate much of the waste and pollution generated
today.    

It is also appropriate to point out that capital and management are
largely withholding the benefits of technological advances from the
laborforce at the present time, refusing to share and instead
disenfranchising millions while paying out huge CEO salaries.  Reduction
of the workweek to 20 hours accompanied by a 'living wage' would address
this issue.  

It is not, Paul, a fact that there would be a lot of time on people's
hands.  There is always 'community work' that can be done.  Just
inventorying the world's resources and putting this information into a
databank so resources can be fairly and justly allocated where most need
ed is one task that has to begin in each and every community. As well
there is now a drastic need for 'lifelong' learning and time would be
allotted for all to become involved in education programs.  If we are to
move from the 'information age' into the 'age of knowledge' this is an
imperative.  We possibly have all of the information necessary today to
solve all of our problems -- the next step is to learn how to apply the
knowledge we now have which will allow human kind to live a fully and
rewarding life with abundance for everyone and as well provide for
biodiversity.  But all must participate in this endeavor.  Today people
are to busy working and thusly destroying the planet to attend to
learning how to achieve sustainable living. 

Enclosure:
My past proposals for reforming the WTO:
Unfortunately my original posting has disappeared; I shall therefore try

to summarize the points I remember.
The main idea was to introduce 2 tiers of membership in the WTO:
1. The group of countries who are willing to accept all current rules
and procedures and
2. A probably much more numerous group, who want to have access to world

markets for some of their products, but wish to protect other sectors of

their economy at least temporaril, in order to help them to become
competitive.
Similar policies have been carried out very successfuloly in the past by

many of the now fully developed countries, especially Japan, South Korea

and other East Asian Tigers.
Such countries would have to negotiate conditions for their trade
relations, with the first group. They would have to offer suitable
compensation for their access to world markets, normally granting almost

complete freedom from custom duties for imports from the first group,
such as cars, computers and similar high tech products. Such
negotiations might often establish roughly BALANCED TRADE RELATIONS,
meaning that the value of the imports should be roughly equal to the
value of exports.

Similar guidelines could be established for investments: the countries
of the 2nd tier would have the right to ban SPECULARTIVE INVESTMENTS
alltogether.
As to PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENTS, they would be able to establish convenient

rules, such as guaranteeing the right to withdraw annual profits and the

gradual repatriation of the capital itself. To make such investments
attractive, such countries would again have to offer suitable
compensations, such as granting mineral rights or special tax
incentives.

Many details would have to be worked out, but even extreme defenders of
globalization might be able to see,  that such a system is preferable to

the permanent disorder that can be expected, if NO reform is being
implemented.

I should appreciate comments on these ideas.
PR

MH: I also do not believe we have time to try to reform the WTO.  What I
feel must be done is to begin an 'alternative economy' in which renewable
energy takes front and center as do building sustainable living
communities.  Let me put it this way -- the WTO and other such
organizations including governments seem to be 'brick walls' and I feel
that a great deal of wasted effort can be used up in trying to encounter
brick walls in some manner.  Whereas, the more expedient method may be to
go around the wall or over or under it.  

Bill Ellis has a message on each of his posts which says something to the
affect that 'when the people lead the leaders will follow.'  And, I feel
it is to this end that we must address our efforts.  If the people, thru
voting their dollars in the marketplace, lead toward achievement of
sustainable living, then our leaders will have no choice but to follow. 
Without our dollars they are out of business.  Which is effectively being
demonstrated in the U.S. today as news report after news report keeps
saying that consumer spending is the only thing keeping the economy
alive.
The question is, with the amount of layoffs in the last couple months,
how long is it going to take before too few consumers have the money to
carry the economy.  When consumption ends and the U.S. enters recession
or depression, how long before the rest of the world is affected by this?
  

marguerite 


Marguerite Hampton
Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute
EcoPilgrim@juno.com
http://tii-kokopellispirit.org