Globalization: who wins, who whines?

I regularly check in with Swedish economist Johan Norberg, who writes on globalization issues (I quoted him liberally in reference to sweatshops because he actually visits places like Viet Nam). Recently, he has been covering the WTO negotiations. He also found this interesting survey result from 2003:

Globalisation is "very good":

US/EU 28%
Asia 37%
Africa 56%

Globalisation is "bad":

US/EU 27%
Asia 9%
Africa 10%

He points out that while protestors claim to represent the voice of the poor, the actual poor stand in direct opposition to the protestors, and in overwhelming support of free trade. In fact, it looks like the wealthy westerners are the greatest opponents of globalization (or globalisation, depending on from which part of the English-speaking world you come).

To me, this is simply another case in which powerful interests are happy to let zealots go forth and provide moral cover for them. History is replete with these relationships, which Clemson economist Bruce Yandle called the "Baptist-bootlegger alliance". Bootleggers would be happy to be free of competition for their products, and when Baptists propose restricting legal sales, the bootleggers are only too happy to support it. When Progressives wanted to introduce anti-trust legislation in the late 19th and early 20th century, railroads were happy to have provisions which forbade rebates and which eventually gave the feds the power to set minimum rates on interstate traffic. When Progressives wanted to regulate a "natural monopoly" like telephone service, AT&T was thrilled to have the protection from the hundreds of competitors that were springing up as their original patents expired.

Today, Western manufacturers and corporate farmers want to be protected from cheaper imports, some of which are of equal or better quality. But they don't want to stand up and say that they are against laissez faire capitalism, even though they are. So they let the hard left-wing groups, whose thought processes have become derailed by Marxist dogma that says multinational corporations are a modern form of imperialism, make the case for them.

The result is nonsense like this post about the 14 most evil corporations in the world.

• Caterpillar is evil because it sells heavy equipment to Israel, which then uses it to kill protestors who lack the sense to get out of the way of a D-9. Maybe they can't see or hear them? Maybe the D-9s are too fast? Apparently, Israel should use their military grants (from the US) to buy bombs and missiles.
• Dow Chemical is evil because it once made dioxin and because it bought Union Carbide. Haven't they heard that Dow is one of the greenest chemical companies in the world? They formed a partnership with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and were cited in Amory Lovins' and Paul Hawken's Natural Capitalism as exemplary of a green corporation.
• Chevron and Coca Cola engage in murder in foreign countries as a matter of policy? If true, I agree. If incidental, the problem lies in those countries. Third world countries operated by gangsters? Who woulda thunk it!
  
• DynCorp engaged in coca plant eradication in Latin America. How is that profitable? Could they have been contracted to do so by the US government? If so, wouldn't that make the US government evil?
• "Among automakers, Ford is the worst". Hello? Have they seen the interviews with left-leaning, green activist Bill Ford? Besides, selling large automobiles makes the occupants safe. Shouldn't companies who sell small, unsafe automobiles be included in the list? What about GM, who makes the military Hummer?
  
• Other defense contractors are cited. Again, if they are evil, why isn't the government itself considered to be evil, since these companies only do what they do at government behest? Perhaps it would be okay if the government brought weapon manufacture in-house.
  
• "Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world; it is also one of the worst abusers of the human right of universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine." Once again, hello!? (A) There can be no "right of access to medicine" without violating someone's right to keep what they make, and (B) there can be no such right unless someone makes it in the first place!! Apparently, creating life-saving drugs is a neutral accomplishment in this value system, but selling it at a profit is so negative that it gets you placed in the "most evil" category.
  
• Then there's this: "The privatization of water has had a disastrous impact on the human right to clean water". Again, no "right to clean water" unless someone provides it, and privatization is the surest way to make sure that it exists in the first place, especially in third-world countries where corrupt and cash-strapped national governments lack the resources, inclination, or know-how to provide clean water.
  
• Finally, they add Wal-Mart, as if we had to guess that.
  

Professor RJ Rummel (his blog here) tries to keep a running total of the number of people killed by direct government action, excluding war. For the 20th century, he estimates 262,000,000 people were killed by governments through "genocide, politicide, massacres, mass murder, extrajudicial executions, assassinations, atrocities, and intentional famines." I'll take the anti-corporate types seriously when they begin to seriously address the problem of death by government, and usually by the type of government they prefer. It would also help if they learn some Econ 101, especially about incentives and the production of useful things like AIDS drugs and useless things like coca eradication.

WTO trade Baptist-bootlegger Natural Capitalism