Response to Discussion Starter 1 - Globalisation and Market Forces

A group of 10 people met at Clontarf, Sydney on April 1, and invited Prof Frank Stilwell to open up the discussion. Globalisation has largely economic connotations - in the last two decades, corporations have gone global. This concentration of economic power has accentuated the power of non-democratic states.

How can we best respond?
  1. There is potential to use new technology to also do good. We could use it for purposes of economic planning and as a tool for progressive policy. Unions and workers could use the technology to be better informed. Also to organise international meetings re investment etc, for example the WTO protests in Seattle and WEF in Melbourne. Messages can be sent to other nations' progressive forces. Bob Brown contacts Green parties (and others) in other countries on many occasions. In other words, technology can be just as available to progressives as with capitalists.
  2. Small but growing groups could target companies which exploit and / or pollute - (such as Nike) and publicise their names. Target those which don't comply with fair trading.
  3. Ask all political parties to support the Tobin Tax. The speculative economy adds nothing to the country's wealth, but is growing more quickly than the productive economy. The proliferation in speculation has increased six-fold during the nineties.
  4. Find alternatives. What values do we have today? 'Fair Go' is passe for international capitalism, but do we only value sport? Perhaps we should go back to the community, work on social cohension. What are the strategies that we can use to overcome exploitation by global corporations? We must start at the grass roots, but not confine our efforts to our own country.
  5. Globalisaiton can also be positive. We could work towards the globalisation of human rights.
JOBS
Frank said when he was at university in the sixties he was taught Keynesian economics - that there need never be unemployment. Enlightened government policies could emphasise the resistribution of work. We need a more flexible relationship between work and social interests (hours of work, whole life issues). Instead, corporate managerial practices lead to alienation, accentuate insecurity. (At least in the Soviet Union there was economic security even if they made articles no one wanted). Now we have capitalism in the raw. If we reduce working hours however, (as the new technology should enable us to do) this can produce tensions. In France, the unions objected - without overtime there was less money which people had been counting on. Also employers are reluctant to employ more people to work less hours. They say 50% of their costs would be for workers' compensation, superannuation etc.

New technology SHOULD lead to shorter hours, better conditions, but it hasn't eventuated. The 40 hour week no longer applies in many cases. As Norma Hawkins pointed out, the new technology all happened so quickly there wasn't time to set up expectations or to educate the workers of their possibilities - instead they see it, rightly, as a threat to their jobs. There is often no consultation.

We must target MPs. At the July conference we could formulate questions addressed to all political parties and demand answers on itemised specific points - requiring Core Answers!


INDUSTRIES
Frank Stilwell emphasised that ecological sustainability must be taken into account. At Kyoto, Australia was granted a special exemption to increase our pollution because of our dependence on coal. This is a short-sighted approach. In the longer term, we have a wonderful opportunity for ecological sustainability - with solar energy we could be come a leader on the world stage.

We are a resource rich country and with our natural assets and clever scientists we clearly have an edge.

Industry, the unions and government should take note of our natural assets and draw up a plan - government could provide funds to universities and industry for research and development. Priorities and structures for our future economic development should be determined.

Coordination of an industry plan is a high priority. Even the Labor Party is too scared to get involved in interventionist policy lest it be seen as picking winners - but the alternative is to let banks and multinational corporations dictate Industry Policy.

The establishment of a National Superannuation Fund is highly desirable. This could provide funds to invest in industry development schemes as a relatively small percentage of the total investment. If any of the industry schemes failed, it would not prove a calamity to contributors.

At present, at least 20% of superannuation money is invested overseas. It would be better to have such money invested in Australian industries and development. Present private funds complain that if they were forced to invest here only, or in ethical or ecological types of investments, the returns may be reduced, thus affecting workers' retirement funds.

Frank Stilwell indicated that this is a debatable point for it would mean more money staying in the country, helping the Australian economy with benefits to Australian citizens. The trick is to find ethical and knowledgeable fund managers and / or Directors. Trade Union Officials on Superannuation Boards say that they rubber stamp what the executives tell them as they have no experience themselves.

Frank pointed out that even the State Government Super Scheme has no guidelines on where it must invest its money, so it would be necessary to for any government plan to incorporate these.

We should line up the skills that we are teaching with the industry opportunities available in Australia so that graduates are not forced to go abroad to use their qualifications (eg space - USA). Link together education policy and industry policy with super funds.

We would like a manifesto to state social expectations, showing both parties where we stand. Ask specific questions and indicate that we intend to publicise our concerns widely.
END