GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: The Impact of Globalization

Transcription

1 Uncommon Knowledge #536: The Impact of Globalization GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: The Impact of Globalization Who benefits from the increasing integration of the world economy? Are Americans better or worse off as a result of globalization? Are transnational corporations exploiting workers in developing countries or providing them with valuable jobs? Is globalization inevitable or can a rising tide of protest, such as we've seen against the WTO and the World Bank, actually reverse it? Guests: Kevin Danaher, Co-founder, Global Exchange. Adrian Wooldridge, Co-author, A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization. Funding for this program is provided by John M. Olin Foundation and Starr Foundation. Peter Robinson: Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, Globalization. Every morning millions of Americans begin their day by going out for a job. Whether they know it or not, many of them are wearing emblems of globalization on their feet. Nikes, manufactured in China. For that matter, sweatpants made in Mexico. Sweatshirt assembled in Pakistan. Who benefits from globalization? Certainly consumers in this country benefit, paying less for certain goods than they otherwise might. But what about the workers abroad who manufacture those products? At some athletic shoe factories in China, for example, the starting wage is $.20 an hour. Are companies such as Nike providing those workers with valuable employment or exploiting them? What about the workers here at home who are out factory jobs that they might have? In short, is globalization doing more good or more harm and is globalization inevitable or can a rising tide of protests, think of the protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, bring globalization to a halt? With us today, two guests. Kevin Danaher is cofounder of Global Exchange. Adrian Wooldridge is a journalist with the Economist Magazine and coauthor of the book, A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization. Title: Globalization and Its Discontents Peter Robinson: John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the most influential economist of the first half of the twentieth century, Keynes as a young man, quote, "We must hold to free trade as an inflexible dogma to which no exception is to be admitted." Keynes as a middle-aged man, about four decades later, quote, "We do not wish to be at the mercy of

2 forces working according to the principles of laissez faire capitalism." Closed quote. Kevin, which Keynes was right? Keynes young or Keynes middle-aged? Kevin Danaher: Keynes middle-aged came to power was making policy at the government level so he got a lot more realistic. Peter Robinson: Is that it? That was realism breaking in. Adrian, Keynes young or Keynes middle-aged? Adrian Wooldridge: I think the young Keynes was--was right but also the--the elderly, the--the mature Keynes was right. Peter Robinson: He swung back around in his final years? Adrian Wooldridge: He swung back around to--to--to--towards a version of free trade which says we need free trade but we need institutions like the IMF and the World Bank to act as sort of policemen or--or guardians of the--of the system. He wasn't a pure free trader by the end but he went through a phase of being, I think, a sort of an English nationalist almost, a protectionist in the 1930's and I don't think that was a good phase. Peter Robinson: Not a good phase. Adrian Wooldridge: No. Peter Robinson: Adrian, give us a working definition of globalization. Adrian Wooldridge: It's the hardest question of all I think. I think globalization means essentially the integration of the world economy. It's about building bridges. It's about knocking down walls. And when I say the world economy, I really do mean the world economy. You have to distinguish globalization from regionalization. It's ju--not just about creating free trade areas in the EU or NAFTA. It's about the whole world becoming more interdependent. Peter Robinson: But it's fundamentally a matter of economics and trade? Adrian Wooldridge: It's fundamentally an economic process that's driven by business but I would say two other things. I think that the attitudes, values, common assumptions, social habits, the fact that I can pick up my mobile phone and call London on it from-- from this campus, that's an--that's an important part of globalization, the fact that teenagers in--in--in a village in--in--in Thailand can probably recognize such great cultural icons as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pamela Anderson. That's got to be a part of it. And the final thing I'd say is I think we need to think of globalization as a process, not as a structure or a thing. It's not something that's there. It's not something that's been

3 achieved. It's something that's--that--that--that's ongoing and it's a process that's, in--in some ways, self contradictory. It's--it's--it's not just a given. Peter Robinson: You'll go with all that definition? Kevin Danaher: I'll go with Peter Robinson: You dis--you dis--you disagree whether it ought to be taking place but you--you'll go with it? Kevin Danaher: I want to nuance it a little bit. Yes, it's not a thing. It's a verb, not a noun but the mistake that's made by the media is to portray it as if it's this unified thing. Globalization and that's it and you read the for and against it. There's two globalizations. There's the globalization of the elites, of the corporations, represented by the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization. That's the global state. It's a secret global government information. There's another globalization that's grass roots globalization. The Fair Trade Networks, the Sister Cities, Sister Schools, Citizen Diplomacy, the work we do at Global Exchange, linking people up at the grass roots. That represents majority forces. The elite globalization represents minority forces. The elite globalization is about make money. It's money values. The people's globalization, the democratic mass globalization is about life values. So you got two paradigms, the money cycle and the life cycle and they're in contestation. Peter Robinson: You going to let these two paradigms stand? Adrian Wooldridge: No, I think partly because both of these things are driven by very similar forces. They're driven by the--the fact that travel is easier, the fact that communication is easier, the fact that barriers in various ways are falling. But I just don't accept the idea that there is this sort of--this--this global elite of quote, "capitalist illuminati" who are pro--who--who are planning this process. I think one of the most interesting things about modern technology, about modern capital markets and all--also about modern free trade agreements is that they actually lower barriers to entry that makes it easier Peter Robinson: Is globalization inevitable? Title: Simply Irresistible Peter Robinson: In a single decade, '87 to '97, international trade as a proportion of GDP rose in developed nations from twenty-seven to thirty-nine percent and in undeveloped nations from ten to seventeen percent. Whether you like it or not, it's happening and can't be stopped. Isn't that so? Kevin Danaher: Well

4 Peter Robinson: You're engaged in a noble protest against a gigantic force that's going to roll over you. Kevin Danaher: No, we're on the cutting edge. We're up on the crest of a wave that's going to change the planet. We're about democratizing the global economy. That's the issue that's on the table. The issue that's on the table by this grass roots movement that's growing leaps and bounds, look at the crisis within these ruling institutions. There's a morale crisis Peter Robinson: the World Bank and the World Kevin Danaher: the World Bank. They're beleaguered. Where's the WTO going to meet in November in Qatar. It's a monarchy. The guy--the king overthrew his father in 1995 to come to power, why? Cause you can't have protests there. They have to run away and hide because they're afraid of us. They won't debate us in public. They wouldn't come on a show like this. Peter Robinson: Nevertheless, you take it for granted that this economic integration is going to continue. You want Kevin Danaher: Sure. Peter Robinson: to shape it but--but it's going to happen one way or the other. You Kevin Danaher: But the question is Kevin Danaher: who's sitting at the table when the rules get made Peter Robinson: Right. Kevin Danaher: and what are the values? Peter Robinson: Okay. Kevin Danaher: Has it made profits for big corporations or Peter Robinson: That's actually the next question. The question now is, you take it for granted that it'll--it'll unfold. Adrian Wooldridge: I don't think it is inevitable. I think that we--we're not living through the first age of globalization. We're actually living through the second age of globalization. If you look at the world before , all sorts of things were happening

5 that were creating a more integrated global economy. You had transport revolutions, you had the railway, you had the telephone, many, many innovations. You had a ca--a--a--sort of currency in the sense of the pound sterling worked all around the world. You could travel around the world without a passport or a green card and immigration levels were higher than they were today. That all fell apart in It all ans--after that, it went backwards. People erected trade barriers. Count--countries went to war with each other. Countries tried to create trading zones which gave preferential treatment to their own products. In other words, you--you went from a globalized, integrated economy towards a divided economy, that couldn't--that was driven by national interests rather--rather than global integration. It can go backwards as well as forwards, this process. It's not something that's simply determined by technological progress. So I--I--I--I Peter Robinson: Is it a question of political will or is it only a calamity that seems to come out of nowhere like the first World War that could stop the present globalization? Adrian Wooldridge: I think that--that the present--the present process of globalization could be stopped not by a calamity but by a division of the world into trading zones, into the EU, into NAFTA, which could come out of a series of conflicts over things like genetically modified food, over things like Kevin Danaher: Hoof and mouth disease. Adrian Wooldridge: Foot and mouth disease, over Hollywood values, that--that you could see a trade war between NAFTA and the EU which would give us regionalization. So you'd have trading zones competing with each other. Peter Robinson: Okay now. Let's turn to the important question of whether globalization increases poverty. Title: You Load Sixteen Tons and What Do You Get? Peter Robinson: Pope John Paul, II, if global--i'm quoting him, "If globalization is ruled merely by the rules of the market applied to suit the powerful, the consequences cannot but be negative. These are, for example, the growing distance between rich and poor, unfair competition which puts poor nations in a situation of ever-increasing inferiority." Closed quote. Has globalization made the poor poorer so far? Kevin Danaher: For--the--the planet works, the global economy works for about twenty percent of the world's percent, for about eighty percent it doesn't. Most people don't have telephones, let alone computers. Peter Robinson: Is it that it's only working for twenty percent while leaving the other eighty percent out of the picture of globalization or is it actually impoverishing and exploiting the other eighty percent?

6 Kevin Danaher: Wage levels in the United States have been held stagnant for about twenty-five years. And the only way they got away with that--well one was by just dummying down the population, the other was by bringing back products from sweatshops in China where I can go into a Wal-Mart and get twenty dollar sneakers. Well that helps dampen any discontent that's going to come from twenty-five years of no wage increase, crushing the trade unions, pushing down the general standard of living among the U.S. Peter Robinson: In this country Kevin Danaher: Yes. Peter Robinson: American workers have been harmed by globalization? Kevin Danaher: Most definitely so. If you expand a market--if you expand a market, that gives an advantage to bigger capital. What's happening to the mom and pop sector, family farms, corner stores, independent bookstores, they're all getting slammed against the wall by the big guys. Peter Robinson: While Wall Street is flourishing. Adrian Wooldridge: The great question here is--is--is--is--is--is--is Kevin's constantly looking at producers, what's happening to producer interests. I think the most important thing to--to--to look at is what's happening to you as a consumer? Are you benefiting from the fact that your television comes from Japan and from--and from parts that are made all over the world? Are you benefiting from the fact that your mobile phone comes from--from Finland or--or--or--or Peter Robinson: The answer to the--both of those questions is yes because it's cheaper and better. Adrian Wooldridge: The answer is--is that you're getting cheaper and better goods which exploit the Adrian Wooldridge: exploit which use the talents of people from all around the world. If you're just restricted to using the talents and skills of people from an isolated geographical area, you will not get a product that's as good or as cheap or as Peter Robinson: Stagnation of American workers Adrian Wooldridge: you will get a Peter Robinson: for twenty-five years.

7 Adrian Wooldridge: Well I think that's Peter Robinson: of incomes rather for American workers. Adrian Wooldridge: Incomes are beginning, after a long period of stagnation, to go up again. I don't actually think much of that has to do with trade. I think most of it has to do with productivity. Productivity is beginning, once again, to--to--to rise after a long period of stagnation but I don't think trade is the crucial--crucial Peter Robinson: You would not accept that he says that as wage earners, let's just talk about Americans, American workers are worse off. And you say that, as consumers, they're better off. Well you could easily set--sit--sit down with a checkbook and see that although your income is declining, the prices of products are a little cheaper and a little better. But on balance, you're no better off than you were before. Kevin Danaher: Working hours are up. Peter Robinson: That is hardly a clarion call to the--to--to man the ramparts of globalization. Adrian Wooldridge: Well I think--i--i think first of all that--that--that the final test is not just what's happening to the American economy the--or to the American worker. The final test is what's happening to the--to the global economy. It's not--and I--I think that even if jobs in lots of production co--companies are moving to China, I think that may be a very good thing for--for--for Chinese workers. That they're beginning to get access to technologies, access to management skills, opportunities to--to--to work for companies which they hadn't got before. Peter Robinson: Yeah. You want to know why those--hold on a minute--you want to know why there's so many factories on the border of Mexico and the United States, why Mexicans move from Chiapas North to work in those factories? Kevin Danaher: Desperation. Peter Robinson: Because as poor as they--as--as poor as those wages may seem by our standards, they're better for the people in Mexico. Kevin Danaher: Well the push factor, NAFTA, lowered the Mexican tariffs, taxes on U.S. corn, cheap U.S. corn's flooding the Mexican market. What do most Mexican peasants grow? Corn. They're being driven off the land just like it's happening in China right now. Their first stop is Mexican cities, the ghettos. And the second stop is U.S. cities because they're so desperate, they're willing to chi--take the chances of getting

8 thrown in jail or dying crossing the border, whatever, to make that little bit of extra money to send it back to their family. We have a global economy that is not structured around democratizing and including people in the decision-making. It's operated in secret. All of these agencies, the U.S. Trade Representatives Peter Robinson: Okay. Kevin Danaher: we've can't get access to the documents as citizens. Members of congress can't get access to the documents in these secret trade negotiations. Peter Robinson: Big, bad un Peter Robinson: So is Kevin right to be concerned with the way these global institutions function? Title: Who Watches the Watchmen? Peter Robinson: Kevin's point is the WTO, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, these are undemocratic operations run by an elite of bankers and technocrats. Now he has a point, does he not? Adrian Wooldridge: I think that we need them. We need an IMF as a--as--as a safety net. I think that if you have the sort of volumes of capitalism moving around the world at the moment, you need to have some sort of safety net just--just--just as a--as a precautionary measure. I would like these institutions to interfere as little as possible and to be objective as possible in the sense that I want them just to set down a few basic rules because I think the key to globalization and what is exciting about globalization is that it creates a--a framework in which challenges to the system can actually get in, produce their products, produce good ideas, export their products all over the world. I don't see it as something that's--that's created by a few illuminati. And that Peter Robinson: What's wrong? Kevin Danaher: but it doesn't take to have three crises on the planet right now, social crisis. There's about thirty thousand children a day starving to death in a global economy that produces more food per capita than ever in world history and that's because most food is moved by a market mechanism commercial. If you don't have money, you starve. Second, there's an environmental crisis. Every major biological system is in a state of collapse. The ozone layer, the topsoil, the groundwater, ocean levels are rising, when key Peter Robinson: Third crisis, third crisis.

9 Kevin Danaher: when Key West and Miami go underwater--the third one is the moral crisis of people in affluent areas of the world who are doing this and saying, I don't see those two crises. I'm working on my career and my stock portfolio. We will be judged historically by whether or not we pay attention to the suffering going on in the world. Peter Robinson: Okay, first crisis people starving. When I was a little kid, my mother would say, clean your plate, there are people starving in India. Kevin Danaher: There's more now. Peter Robinson: And indeed there were people starving in India. Kevin Danaher: There's more now. Peter Robinson: Now India is a net exporter. How come? In large part, because of American technology in agriculture and fertilizers. Kevin Danaher: You should go to India and check it out. Peter Robinson: because of the world--i'm not saying they're poor--they're not poor but what I--what I am saying is that India now produces more food than it needs because of an early instance of globalization. Am I not right on that one counsel? Adrian Wooldridge: Well I--I agree with you obviously. I agree with you but I think that--that--that the question, you said that--that people are starving and then you said because of these market mechanisms Peter Robinson: It's political nonsense. Adrian Wooldridge: the worst--the worst evidence of starvation, the worst examples of starvation have come from the opposite of the use of market mechanisms, they've come from the use of central planning. Peter Robinson: North Korea's closed, backward, it has shut itself off from the rest of the world. That's where people are starving. Ethiopia, backward looking regime, shuts down Ethiopia Kevin Danaher: Brazil--Brazil, under structural adjustment. Over seven million abandoned children out on the street. It's poverty. Poverty--yes, government makes mistakes. Let's not create a false distinction between politics and economics. They go together. They're two sides of the same coin. But if people are poor, they can't stimulate a market to move goods in their direction. Let's talk about cell phones and all--that's nice for us, but for the overwhelming majority, the world's people, they're excluded. They're

10 out--they're pushed off, they're marginalized, they're on the sidelines, they're not even participating unless it's oh yeah, you can come work in a sweatshop. Peter Robinson: On the one hand, you're worried about people starving. On the other hand, you would deny them jobs. Kevin Danaher: No I wouldn't deny them jobs. Peter Robinson: And wages as low as they may be, nevertheless, they're jobs Kevin Danaher: At Global Exchange, we have active campaigns Peter Robinson: Please jump in here. This man's wearing me out. Kevin Danaher: we have active campaigns against companies like Ga--Gap and Nike for their sweatshops in Asia. We don't say, take your factories out and bring them back here. We say, raise the standards. Treat people like human beings. Allow them to have bathroom breaks. Pay them a wage. Nike's wage in Vietnam, you can't buy three meals on that wage for that one person. Peter Robinson: I don't deny that Nike perhaps ought to pay higher wages. I also don't endorse the idea. I just don't know but it does seem to me manifest that people in Vietnam wouldn't take those jobs unless it was an improvement in their present condition. Kevin Danaher: You know how they recruit Peter Robinson: Things got better for those folks Kevin Danaher: The assumption of that state Peter Robinson: because there are hills in Vietnam. You can turn around after your shift ends at the Nike factory and disappear. Kevin Danaher: Yeah, your assumption is based on freedom of choice. The recruiters in China go to the farmer fathers, patriarchal family structure, and they buy those girls. That's how those girls get in the factory. The same way they got into factories in the Northeast United States, the early textile mills. The recruiters would go around with a wagon out to the farmers and say, hey you know, we'll rent your daughter. Don't worry we'll take good care of her. It's a--that--that's not free labor. There's no freedom of association in China. There's no freedom of speech. There's no freedom for trade unions to organize. Adrian Wooldridge: The developing world would be better if these multi-national companies hadn't set up their factories.

11 Kevin Danaher: That's not the Peter Robinson: Without the Nike factory, those--that--those girls are in the hands of fathers willing to sell them. What kind of treatment do you suppose they get at home? Kevin Danaher: You can't go back in history Peter Robinson: It's open Kevin Danaher: and say, okay, we're going to take away the multi-national corpora-- we're confronted with a situation right now where multi-national corporations are in these countries. We th--can either ignore it and define freedom Peter Robinson: Oh Kevin Danaher: as consumers, I am free because I can go buy forty kinds of toothpaste or think about it, you're a consumer for about one fifth or one--two--two percent of your day. You're a citizen 24/7, 365. Now we're defining Peter Robinson: Hold on. Kevin Danaher: a global citizen. What does it Peter Robinson: Next topic. Is globalization creating a pasteurized planet? Title: More Unum than Plurubus Peter Robinson: John Gray, Oxford Political Scientist, quote, "A global free market presupposes that economic modernization means the same thing everywhere, namely the American free market." Closed quote. McDonald's hamburgers in Tokyo and Paris, Hollywood movies in African villages. If you people have your way and don't get stopped by those people, the entire planet will turn into one big, vulgar shopping mall. Adrian Wooldridge: I think that that's not true. It is certainly the case that McDonald's exists in Paris and that McDonald's exists in Tokyo and people in Paris and Tokyo are grateful for that. But what--what McDonald's being there is simply just one more choice. What--what's globalization does is to increase the number of choices that people have. What globalization does is to remove barriers to entry. And I just disagree with the idea that there's this tiny, small number of McDonald's, Coca Cola, whatever, who profit at the expense of other companies. The average size of companies in the world is going down. If you make it easy to get capital, if you make it easy to get technology, if you make it easier to get hold of--to--to--to incorporate innovative management techniques, you actually will increase the number of companies. There are more and more and more market entrants

12 Kevin Danaher: Who influence--who influences government policy more big companies or little mom and pop stores? Peter Robinson: What is your agenda? Kevin Danaher: Democracy, real democracy, participatory Peter Robinson: Enacted how? What laws in this country do you want to change? You have an organization Kevin Danaher: Campaign finance reform. Make elections on a holiday, not on a workday, instant runoff voting where you take your first, second, third choice. Proportional representation. So if my party gets forty-five percent of the vote, we get forty-five percent of the seats. European countries have this. It works quite well. Peter Robinson: Hold on, you want to--you want to address the problem of globalization with half a dozen electoral reforms in this country? Kevin Danaher: No, no, no, no. There's a whole bunch of political and economic changes that are, not just coming out of my head ideas, but they're out there being struggled for at the grass roots. The people in power, particularly people like the Bush Administration are doing this. The WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, they're doing this. There's a massive grass roots movement building around Peter Robinson: Let me put a couple of Peter Robinson: Last question. How should proponents of globalization such as Adrian respond to the backlash against it led by opponents such as Kevin? Title: Taking It to the Streets Peter Robinson: I have to say, Kevin, you've got a lot of--i mean, it's not a focused message here. It's not like the Civil Rights Movement where you knew quite--you knew exactly what people Kevin Danaher: Read my books. It's Peter Robinson: You want everything from electoral reform to Nike paying higher wages in Vietnam Kevin Danaher: Comprehensive Peter Robinson: nevertheless, there are a lot of people like Kevin and they've been demonstrating--how do you answer them? How do you address that? At a minimum, he's a political problem.

13 Adrian Wooldridge: Firstly, let me say, that I actually agree with him on Peter Robinson: High praise Adrian Wooldridge: on--on an important point. I do not want the laws of global trade to be written by five hundred companies, three hundred companies, two hundred companies. I don't want it to be a corporate thing which--which--which consists of the bosses getting together with certain politicians that they've helped to fund and defining those rules. I want those rules to be as objective as possible, to be as liberal as possible, not to reflect special interests but to--just to create a--a--a level playing field in which everybody Kevin Danaher: Transparent, open Adrian Wooldridge: a transparent, open system because a transparent, open system is one, as I repeatedly said, in which new companies can challenge and knock down old companies. Peter Robinson: So the WTO meeting in Qatar is not a good idea? That would not--you would not have recommended that? Adrian Wooldridge: I think that that's a bad idea. I think that they've made many, many political mistakes Peter Robinson: Okay. Adrian Wooldridge: that--people like Kevin represent a political problem for--for-- for the--for the world system absolutely, a huge political problem. There are many, many people who think that globalization is Kevin Danaher: I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. Adrian Wooldridge: is--is an inevitable process, that it's inscribed in--in modern technology and that it will just go ahead whatever people say. I don't believe that. I believe that this backlash is important and I believe that it could--could plunge the Peter Robinson: How do you get Kevin off your back? Adrian Wooldridge: I Peter Robinson: How do you address him Kevin Danaher: Through debate Adrian Wooldridge: Firstly, I--I be--i believe that it could plunge the world into a series of trade conflicts when--which will--which will ultimately aff--affect the poor in a very,

14 very bad way, the world's poor. I think we need better, better political leadership. I would go back to the situation actually in the first global tra--global free trade was introduced by the repeal of the Corn laws in the 1840's. And that was a period in which hundreds of thousands of people were protesting in the streets of London but they were protesting in favor of free tade--trade against protectionism which was used not to help the family farmer but to help aristocrats fight off the forces of competition. Why were these people in favor of free trade? They were in favor of free trade because you had a political elite then which wasn't just--consist of people who talk to each other. These were people who went out--these--this was a pre-democratic age but you had political leaders going around the country, around Britain, arguing in favor of free trade in the language of ordinary common people, arguing that free trade was good because it meant that your bread was cheaper. They had this phrase about the--the--the free breakfast tra--table. Kevin Danaher: So mass protest when it supports your ideology is good. When it supports mine, it's wrong. Adrian Wooldridge: No, I'm saying that the mass protest is--is--is--is in a--is--is--is in many ways an escape where I want the political elite to go out there, explain in the language of ordinary people why this is good for them as consumers, why it's good for them Kevin Danaher: we can't get them to base. Peter Robinson: We have to draw it to a close. Adrian Wooldridge: Well that--that--they're the fools. Peter Robinson: I want a prediction from each of you. Ten years ago--ten years ago, McDonald's operated thirty-five hundred restaurants outside the United States. Today, it operates about sixteen thousand restaurants outside the United States. Ten years from now, how many restaurants will McDonald's operate outside the United States? That is to say, will globalization go forward or not and will the people who make and eat all those hamburgers and French fries be better off? Kevin? Kevin Danaher: People's globalization is going to get stronger and elite globalization is going to get weaker. And, if in the process, people decide to transfer those McDonald's into local restaurants with local cuisine, that's up to them at the local level. I wouldn't try and predict that. Adrian Wooldridge: I'd sell my shares in McDonald's. I think that the foot and mouth disease with the current--with the problem--with--with--with--with--with--with--with the poor quality of beef in much of Europe, I think globalization is going to work very much

15 against McDonald's because I think local panics will become global panics. And I think-- I think people are going to be very, very worried about junk food Peter Robinson: So one corporation Adrian Wooldridge: if I may call it that. Peter Robinson: so for one corporation it won't work but do you--but does that suggest that lots of corporations are going to get stung and we'll see the pace of globalization slow? Adrian Wooldridge: I think it's a matter of--of--of politics. I think that--that most important thing over the next few years is the way that this political game plays out. I don't see this as an inevitable thing. I think, at the moment, it's harder than it has been for a very long time to push trade liberalizing measures through--through congress or through the EU. I think we've probably--the last twenty years were easy years for people who were in favor of globalization. The next ten will not be that easy. Peter Robinson: Will not be that easy. Adrian Wooldridge: Kevin and Adrian, thank you very much. Kevin Danaher: Pleasure. Peter Robinson: And there we have the two sides of globalization. Kevin Danaher sees workers around the world being put in a position in which they have to run faster and faster just to keep up. Adrian Wooldridge sees a Nike shoe like this as a beautiful thing. Manufactured in China where living standards rise, sold around the world where consumers get the chance to buy a better, less expensive product, leaving everyone at least a little bit better off. I'm Peter Robinson. Thanks for joining us.