Transcript: John Ralston Saul | Apr 21, 2007

[Theme music plays]

The opening sequence rolls. The logo of “Big Ideas” featuring a lit lamp bulb appears against an animated blue slate.
Then, Andrew Moodie appears in the studio. The walls are decorated with screens featuring lit lamp bulbs, and two signs read “Big Ideas.”
Andrew is in his early forties, clean-shaven, with short curly black hair. He's wearing a beige shirt over a gray cotton tee.

Andrew says HELLO I'M
ANDREW MOODIE.
THIS IS “BIG IDEAS.”
GLOBALIZATION FASCINATING WORD
ISN'T IT?
IT HAS POWER.
IT HAS REACH.
IT ALSO POLARIZES.
THE WORD CAME INTO CIRCULATION
COINED THE SAME YEAR THAT
MCDONALD'S INTRODUCED
MCNUGGETS.
IT WAS 1983 AND ACCORDING TO
TODAY'S SPEAKER GLOBALIZATION
IS ON ITS DEATHBED AND THE
MCNUGGET IS DOING JUST FINE.
JOHN RALSTON SAUL IS A
POLITICAL THEORIST, NOVELIST
AND ESSAYIST AND WAS VICE REGAL
CONSORT AS THE HUSBAND OF OUR
FORMER GOVERNOR GENERAL
ADRIENNE CLARKSON.
HE'S A FELLOW OTTAWAN AND HE
OFFERS INTERESTING ARGUMENTS ON
HOW AND WHY GLOBALIZATION IS
DEAD.
AND AT THE END OF THE LECTURE
HE TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACT THIS
WILL HAVE ON CANADA AND WHAT IT
MEANS FOR OUR FUTURE AS A
NATION.
WILL IT COME TO PASS?
HISTORY WILL TELL.
IN THE MEANTIME HERE IS JOHN
RALSTON SAUL.

A clip plays in which John Ralston Saul gives a lecture. He’s in his seventies, clean-shaven, with receding blond hair. He’s wearing a black suit, pink shirt and blue tie.

He says I'VE BEEN
ASKED TO GIVE THE STEINER
LECTURE.
IT'S A GREAT HONOUR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND TO GIVE
IT ON A TOPIC I'VE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT SERIOUSLY AND
CONSCIOUSLY SINCE 1999 WHICH IS
THE END OF GLOBALISM.
AND WHAT HAPPENS?
AND HOW DID IT COME ABOUT?
AND HOW DID IT COME ABOUT
WITHOUT ANYBODY EXCEPT ME
NOTICING?

A caption appears on screen. It reads "John Ralston Saul. Author, The Collapse of Globalism. The Kaneff Centre, University of Toronto, Mississauga. March 7, 2007."

John continues UM DOES
IT MEAN THAT I'M CRAZY?
OR SIMPLY THAT I DO WHAT I TRY
TO DO IN LIFE WHICH IS TO
NOTICE THINGS.
THAT'S
WHAT WRITERS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.
SO I RETHOUGHT HOW I COULD TALK
TO YOU ABOUT GLOBALIZATION.
THE FIRST TIME I EVER DID HAD
ANY KIND OF PUBLIC CONVERSATION
ABOUT IT WAS IN SYDNEY IN A
THEATRE IN FRONT OF ABOUT A
THOUSAND PEOPLE ON NATIONAL
TELEVISION LIVE.
AND ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE
LECTURE WHICH WAS ON ANOTHER
TOPIC I HEARD MYSELF
SEGUEWAYING INTO A LINE WHICH
WENT SOMETHING LIKE AND YOU
KNOW I THINK GLOBALIZATION IS
DEAD OR DYING.
AND THEN I THOUGHT MY GOD WHAT
DID I JUST SAY?
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT DO I
SAY NEXT REALLY?
BUT IN A SENSE I'D BEGUN TO
FEEL THAT SOMETHING WAS
HAPPENING THAT NOBODY WAS
WRITING ABOUT OR TALKING ABOUT.
THAT WAS 1999.
EIGHT YEARS LATER I THINK WE'VE
MOVED A LONG WAY DOWN THAT ROAD
OUT OF THE ERA OF
GLOBALIZATION.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT
ALTHOUGH A FEW MORE PEOPLE ARE
SAYING IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS
HERE AND THERE.
IT'S ACTUALLY BEING SAID NOW.
IT'S STILL A PRETTY SMALL GROUP
WHO HAVE NOTICED SOMETHING.
AND MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE WHAT
YOU MIGHT CALL IN THE
FUNCTIONING ELITE, POLITICIANS,
CIVIL SERVANTS, BUSINESS
LEADERS, JOURNALISTS,
CONSULTANTS, LOBBYISTS AND SO
ON, SPEECH WRITERS THEY'RE
STILL LOCKED UP IN THE
DISCOURSE OF THE LAST QUARTER
CENTURY, THE DISCOURSE OF
GLOBALIZATION.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT
THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE
DISCONNECT BETWEEN REALITY
WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND
ELITE DISCOURSE WHAT PEOPLE WHO
GET TIME LIKE THIS ARE ACTUALLY
SAYING.
THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HAS
LESS AND LESS TO DO WITH WHAT'S
ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A DEBATE
ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OR
AGAINST GLOBALIZATION.
IT'S YOU KNOW THAT'S ALMOST AN
IRRELEVANT DEBATE AT THIS
POINT.
IT'S ACTUALLY PEOPLE TALKING
ABOUT THE WORLD WORKING ONE WAY
WHEN IN FACT THE WORLD IS DOING
SOMETHING ELSE.
ONE OF THE SIGNS OF THAT IS
THAT THERE IS STILL A DISCOURSE
AROUND GLOBALIZATION EVEN AMONG
THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT.
THAT IT'S GONNA HAPPEN NO
MATTER WHAT YOU DO ANYWAY SO
IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER
ONE CAN IMPROVE IT A LITTLE
BIT.
SO EVEN SOMEBODY LIKE STIEGLITZ
IF YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN TO WHAT
HE'S SAYING HE'S, HE'S SORT OF
SAYING WELL I'M AGAINST THIS
AND THIS AND THIS.
BUT IT'S HAPPENING ANYWAY.
SO CAN WE REFORM IT A LITTLE
BIT?
HOW CAN WE MAKE IT WORK A
LITTLE BIT BETTER?
SO IT WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT
EVEN THE OPPONENTS ACTUALLY ARE
ACCEPTING THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL
ASSUMPTIONS OF GLOBALIZATION
ARE TRUE AND ARE HAPPENING.
AND I'M SAYING SOMETHING
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WHICH IS
THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL
ASSUMPTIONS NEVER WERE
INEVITABLE AND MOST OF THEM
AREN'T ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
BUT WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT,
THAT THE BROAD ASSUMPTIONS OF
THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS HAVE
HARDLY CHANGED IN 25 TO 35
YEARS, VERY OLD HAT.
BUT WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT
THE DETAILS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING
YOU FIND THAT IT'S VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THE BROAD
ASSUMPTIONS.
THE FIRST ASSUMPTION THAT I
WANT TO DEAL WITH IS ONE THAT
HAS TO DO WITH UNIVERSITIES
THAT'S ECONOMICS.
UM I WOULD SAY THAT ABOUT
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 80 AND 95 percent OF
PROFESSORS OF ECONOMICS IN THE
WESTERN WORLD TEACH THE SAME
THEORY.
THERE'S AN ASTONISHING
ASSUMPTION ABOUT HOW ECONOMICS
WORKS AND THE TRUTH HAS BEEN
FOUND AND WE'RE JUST ARGUING
ABOUT THE DETAILS AROUND THE
EDGES OF ECONOMICS.
THAT SOMEHOW A BREAKTHROUGH HAS
BEEN MADE TO A MONOLITHIC VIEW
OF HOW YOU DO ECONOMICS.
WELL THERE IS SOME PEOPLE WHO
DON'T AGREE.
THERE'S ABOUT 15 percent, 5, 10, 15 percent
WHO DON'T AGREE.
THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT
THIS IS THAT THIS IS THE FINAL
DELUSIONARY STAGE OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES.
WHERE YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT A
HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AREA OF
DEBATE THAT IN THE WHOLE OF
SOCIAL SCIENCES THE MOST
SPECULATIVE AREA IS ECONOMICS.
THAT THIS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE
AREA IS ACTUALLY A SCIENCE.
AND IT BEING A SCIENCE YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE FACTS WHICH HAVE
LED TO ANSWERS.
NOW I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW ANY
SCIENTISTS WHO TALK THAT WAY.
I DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICISTS OR
CHEMISTS WHO THINK THEY HAVE
THE TRUTH.
THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE
UNIVERSITIES I KNOW WHO ARE
PRETTY WELL CONVINCED THEY'VE
GOT THE TRUTH ARE THE
ECONOMISTS AND IF YOU LIKE
THEIR LAP DOGS THE BUSINESS
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT TEAM, RIGHT?

[Audience laughing]

John continues AND IT,
IT'S, IT'S A VERY ODD THING
THAT NOBODY SAYS WAIT A MINUTE.
YOU KNOW GO THROUGH ALL OF THE
SCHOOLS OF, OF THOUGHT WHICH
GET NOBEL PRIZES.
DO ANY OF THEM TALK ABOUT FACTS
AND TRUTH?
NO.
ONLY THE ECONOMISTS BELIEVE
THAT THEY'VE WORKED THE THING
OUT AND THAT THERE IS ONE
SCHOOL WHICH OUGHT TO DOMINATE.
SO IN FACT ECONOMICS IS THIS
VERY, VERY INTERESTING
SPECULATIVE AREA.
SECONDLY IT'S NOT AN AREA,
WHICH HAS PROGRESSED A GREAT
DEAL.
YEAH I MEAN OF COURSE WE'VE
MADE SOME REAL BREAKTHROUGHS.
SOME OF THEM RELATING TO TECH.
SOME OF THEM RELATING TO
INFORMATION.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
BREAKTHROUGHS.
BUT FUNDAMENTALLY THERE ARE I
DON'T KNOW FOUR TO SIX IDEAS IN
ECONOMICS FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORY OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF THOUSAND
YEARS WE BASICALLY JUST GO
AROUND AND AROUND AND AROUND.
AND IT'S NOT THAT THEY NEATLY
TAKE TURNS, ALTHOUGH THAT DOES
HAPPEN.
IT WHAT TENDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT
IS SOME COMBINATION OF THE FOUR
TO SIX IDEAS TAKES POWER AND
THEN AS IT DISSOLVES SOME NEW
COMBINATION TAKES POWER.
IT'S RARELY ONE.
BUT SOMETIMES IT'S ONE FORM IN
ITS PURITY OR ITS DECLARED TO
BE ONE OF THE FOUR LET'S SAY
FIVE BASIC IDEAS.
BUT ACTUALLY IT'S A SORT OF
REVOLVING DOOR AND THEY JUST
KEEP COMING BACK.
DESCRIBE EACH TIME AS BEING
BRAND NEW OF COURSE YOU KNOW.
WE'VE MADE A BRAND NEW
DISCOVERY.
WE HAVE A NEW WAY.
THIS IS THE TRUTH.
THIS IS THE WAY.
IT MUST AND WILL BE DONE.
WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS IS THAT
SOME SORT OF POLITICAL ECONOMIC
IDEA IN PLACE.
IT WINS POWER.
IT BECOMES THE TRUTH OF THE
DAY.
IF IT'S ECONOMICALLY DOMINATED
IT GRADUALLY REMOVES THE
COMPETING IDEAS.
IT LASTS FOR 30 TO 50 YEARS AND
THEN GRADUALLY AS THE FACT THAT
IT ISN'T THE TRUTH EMERGES
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK THE WAY
IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.
IT SORT OF WORKS.
BUT IT DOESN'T WORK THE WAY
IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK SO IT
GRADUALLY STARTS TO UNRAVEL.
AND AS IT UNRAVELS WE SLIP INTO
A PERIOD THAT IS IN REALITY A
PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY.
A SORT OF VACUUM BETWEEN ONE
PERIOD'S ENDED.
THE NEXT PERIOD HASN'T BEGUN.
WE'RE IN AN IN BETWEEN PERIOD,
A, A VACUUM.
EXCEPT IT'S A VERY CONFUSED
VACUUM FILLED WITH COMPETING
WITH OTHER FORCES TRYING TO
DECIDE WHAT THE NEXT PERIOD
WILL LOOK LIKE.
IF YOU DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT
YOU'RE IN THE VACUUM IF YOU GO
ON PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE IN
THE PREVIOUS PERIOD THEN OF
COURSE YOU'RE VERY BADLY
PREPARED TO DEAL WITH HOW TO
GET OUT OF THE VACUUM INTO SOME
REASONABLE NEW PERIOD.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT WILL BE IMPOSED ON
YOU INSTEAD OF YOU SHAPING THE
FUTURE.
THE NEXT POINT THE REASON YOU
GET THIS SLIPPAGE BETWEEN
PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND REALITY,
WHERE YOU HAVE AN ELITE THAT
GOES ON TALKING AS IF
GLOBALIZATION WERE STILL JUST
BUBBLING ALONG.
WHEN IN REALITY SOMETHING ELSE IS
HAPPENING.
SO COMPLETELY OUT OF SYNCH WITH
WHAT'S WITH THE WORLD.
THE REASON THAT HAPPENS IS OF
COURSE THAT ELITES IN
DEMOCRACIES OR DICTATORSHIPS
ELITES ARE PRODUCED BY THEIR TIME.
AND WHY BY THE TIME YOU'VE BEEN
ABOUT 20 ODD YEARS IN A PERIOD,
IN AN ERA EVERYBODY WHOSE IN
POWER HAS BASICALLY BEEN
PRODUCED BY THAT ERA, BY THE
ASSUMPTIONS OF THAT ERA.
THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE
UNIVERSITIES.
THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE, IN THE
BUREAUCRACIES IN THE BUSINESSES
AND SO ON.
AND BY THE TIME YOU GET TO
ABOUT 25 OR 30 YEARS NOW YOU'VE
GOT PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE TOP
SAY 15 percent OF THE POWER STRUCTURE,
PUBLIC, PRIVATE, UNIVERSITY,
WHATEVER WHO HAVE NEVER KNOWN
ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY OF HOW TO
DO THINGS.
IN FACT THEIR WHOLE CAREER IS
THE PRODUCT OF IN THIS CASE THE
GLOBALIST ERA.
YOU KNOW YOU BECAME A CEO OR A
DEPUTY MINISTER OR A TENURED
PROFESSOR, A BANK PRESIDENT BY
BUYING INTO THE TRUTH AND
WORKING WITH IT.
YOU ARE ITS REPRESENTATIVE IN A
SENSE.
AND SO YOU END UP BEING A
LITTLE BIT I DON'T KNOW YOU
KNOW AJANA COULE.
YOU KNOW THE BATTLE IN WHICH
THE, THE FLOWER, THE MOST
BRILLIANT PEOPLE WHO HAD THE
TRUTH OF THE DAY THE FRENCH
ARISTOCRACY GOT INTO THEIR
FANTASTIC ARMOUR, WITH THEIR
FANTASTIC LANCES AND THEIR
FANTASTIC SWORDS AND LOVELY
COLOURS.
AND YOU KNOW GOT ON THEIR
FANTASTIC HORSES AND RODE OUT
IN PERFECT FORMATION BASED ON A
SERIES OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HOW
BATTLE WAS DONE THEY WERE
UNBEATABLE.
THEY HAD THE TRUTH.
OF COURSE WHAT THEY HADN'T
NOTED WAS THAT ON THE OTHER
SIDE THERE WERE THESE REALLY,
REALLY UNCOUTH LITTLE
ENGLISHMEN YOU KNOW WHO HAD
DIDN'T WEREN'T REALLY
INTERESTED IN THE PROPER
TRUTHFUL WAY OF FIGHTING A
BATTLE AND THEREFORE THE PEOPLE
WITH GOOD ACCENTS WERE ON
HORSES.
BUT THE PEOPLE WITH BAD ACCENTS
WERE ON FOOT WITH LITTLE
DAGGERS AND THEY RAN AROUND AND
STUCK THEIR DAGGERS IN THE
BELLIES OF THE HORSES AND THE
HORSES FELL OVER AND DIED.
AND THEN THEY HACKED THE HEADS
OFF THE, THE, THE BRILLIANT
KNIGHTS RIGHT.
AND MEANWHILE A LOWER MIDDLE-
CLASS OF YEOMAN HAD LONGBOWS,
WHICH WAS ALSO BREAKING THE
RULES.
BUT BECAUSE THE FRENCH KNIGHTS
WHO WERE THE EXACT EQUIVALENT
OF A HARVARD MBA TODAY RIGHT.

[Audience laughs]

John continues THE
FRENCH KNIGHTS WERE OUT OF
TOUCH WITH REALITY.
THEY SIMPLY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ON THE GROUND
UNTIL THEY WERE LYING ON IT AND
BEING KILLED RIGHT.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE TODAY.
SO THAT KIND OF DISCONNECT IS
PERFECTLY LOGICAL.
AND OF COURSE THE MORE THE
ELITE SENSES THAT ALTHOUGH THEY
HAVE POWER IT ISN'T WORKING OUT
THE WAY THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD
THE MORE NERVOUS THEY BECOME.
THEY CAN'T ADMIT IT.
THAT THEY DON'T REALLY CONTROL
THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING.
SO THEY BECOME AS THEY BECOME
MORE DISCONNECTED SO THEY
BECOME MORE FEARFUL AND, AND
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CANADA.
THIS HAS BEEN I THINK THIS IS
PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS FOR THIS
COUNTRY BECAUSE IN, IN A SENSE
WE'RE A MEDIUM-SIZED COUNTRY
NOT SMALL.
A MEDIUM-SIZED NEXT TO A
GIGANTIC COUNTRY AND SO TO HAVE
AN ELITE THAT IS OUT OF TOUCH
WITH REALITY IS VERY DANGEROUS.
YOU KNOW ENOMROUS POWER CAN GO
QUITE A LONG TIME ON THE BASIS
OF ESTABLISHED WEALTH.
BUT A MEDIUM-SIZED POWER, A
SMALL POWER WE HAVE TO, YOU
CAN'T BE SMARTER THAN ANYONE
ELSE.
YOU HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO
PRETEND THAT YOU'RE SMARTER.
YOU HAVE TO BE MORE CONSCIOUS.
YOU HAVE TO BE MORE APPLIED.
YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT
REALITY IS THAT ALLOWS YOU TO
DO BETTER WHEN THE OTHERS WHO
ARE BIGGER THAN YOU ARE SLIDING
ABOUT IN A SENSE OF YOUR
REALITY.
AND WE IN EFFECT ARE DOING
WORSE BECAUSE OUR ELITE ARE
TRUER BELIEVERS IN
GLOBALIZATION THAN OUR
NEIGHBOURS TO THE SOUTH WHO
DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN IT VERY
MUCH AT ALL.
AND THEY KEEP SAYING WELL WE
HAVE TO HOLD ON TO
GLOBALIZATION OTHERWISE WE'RE
IN REAL TROUBLE VERSUS THE
UNITED STATES.
BUT IF THE UNITED STATES
DOESN'T BELIEVE AND YOU INSIST
ON BELIEVING YOU'RE ACTUALLY
EXPOSING YOURSELF TO YOU KNOW
THE MAN ON THE GROUND WITH THE
LITTLE NASTY KNIFE, WHICH IS
PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR
BEEF INDUSTRY.
AND IT'S PRECISELY WHAT
HAPPENED TO OUR, OUR TIMBER,
WOOD PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY OR
RATHER OUR TIMBER INDUSTRY.
THAT WE WERE INSISTING THAT
THERE WAS A CERTAIN WAY OF
DOING THINGS AND IT IN FACT
COST US AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
MONEY AND WEAKENED US AT THE
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
AND I THINK A VERY SPECIFIC
POINT IS THAT YOU KNOW THE LAST
50 YEARS HAS SEEN THE RISE OF
THE MANAGEMENT SCHOOLS AND I'VE
WRITTEN AT LENGTH ABOUT HOW YOU
KNOW THE SIMPLEST THING WOULD
BE JUST TO CLOSE THEM DOWN.

[Some laugh]

John continues BUT
BECAUSE OF COURSE YOU KNOW AN
ERA THAT DECLARED ITSELF TO BE
THE ERA OF CAPITALISM HAS SPENT
MORE MONEY ON PRODUCING
MANAGERS THEN ON PRODUCING
ANYTHING ELSE.
GUESS WHAT?
A MANAGER'S NOT A CAPITALIST.
A MANAGER IS A MANAGER.
A CAPITALIST IS A CAPITALIST.
A CAPITALIST OWNS SOMETHING AND
LOVES RISK AND INNOVATION AND
IMAGINATION AND LIVING BY THE
YOU KNOW ON THE EDGE.
A MANAGER IS SOMEBODY WHO IS
INTERESTED IN STRUCTURAL CALM
AND EXPANSION THROUGH
STRUCTURE.
NOW THIS YOU KNOW THE UNITED
STATES IS SO BIG THAT IT CAN
AFFORD TO EXPAND ITS MANAGERIAL
TEAM.
THIS COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD TO
HAVE ITS FUNCTIONING ELITE
DOMINATED BY MANAGERIAL THEORY
BECAUSE IT RENDERS US IT TAKES
AWAY OUR SENSE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF ACTION.
IT IMMOBILIZES US AND I THINK A
LOT OF WHAT IS INEXPLICABLE
ABOUT THE IN, INCAPACITY OF OUR
ELITE TO DO THINGS COMES FROM
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PUT FAR
TOO MUCH EFFORT INTO PRODUCING
COMMOTIVE MANAGERS.
WHEN IN FACT IT IS WE NEEDED
THAT KIND OF EDGINESS WHICH HAS
ALWAYS BEEN A CHARACTERISTIC OF
THIS COUNTRY.
THE NEXT POINT IS WHAT ARE YOU
KNOW I SAY THERE ARE FOUR OR
FIVE IDEAS OR SIX IDEAS IN
ECONOMICS.
SO WHAT ARE THE, WHAT IS THE
PHILOSOPHICAL, ECONOMIC,
ECONOMIC HISTORY BASIS OF
ECONOMIC GLOBALISM?
WELL IT BASICALLY HAS TWO
ROOTS, TWO HOMES.
INTERESTING FOR A NEW GLOBAL
IDEA BOTH OF THEM COME OUT OF
19TH CENTURY BRITAIN.
IT DOESN'T SOUND TERRIBLY
GLOBAL OR NEW.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE FREE TRADE
IDEA, WHICH OF COURSE COMES OUT
OF MID 19TH CENTURY MIDLANDS
BRITAIN.
SECOND-TIER INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION STUFF.
THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE
FREE TRADE THEORY IS THE FREE
TRADE THEORY WAS, WAS
ESSENTIALLY ATTACHED TO A PRO-
DEMOCRATIC, PRO-PUBLIC GOOD
IDEA.
AND THEN THE OTHER FUNDAMENTAL
IDEA THAT LIES AT THE ROOTS OF
GLOBALISM IS THE GREAT ENEMY OF
FREE TRADE, WHICH IS BUCCANEER
CAPITALISM.
19TH CENTURY BRITAIN AND THEN 19TH
CENTURY UNITED STATES, FRANCE,
GERMANY AND SO ON.
AND 19TH CENTURY BUCCANEER
CAPITALISM YOU FOUND IT AT ITS
HEIGHT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE
19TH CENTURY AND THE END OF THE
19TH CENTURY.
AND OF COURSE BUCCANEER CAPITALISM TO
YOU KNOW TO THERE WERE OTHER
WAYS OF DESCRIBING IT WAS
FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC
AND AGAINST THE SOCIAL, THE
PUBLIC GOOD.
SO THE BRILLIANCE OF THE
THEORISTS OF THE 50S, THE 1950S
AND 60S WHO PUT TOGETHER THE
THEORIES OF GLOBALIZATION WAS
THEY TOOK THE TWO GREAT ENEMIES
OF 19TH CENTURY ECONOMIC THEORY
AND GLUED THEM TOGETHER.
SO IT IS BRILLIANT.
UNFORTUNATELY THEY WERE
CONTRADICTORY, TOTALLY
CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE ONE'S
DEMOCRATIC, PRO-DEMOCRATIC.
THE OTHER ONE'S ANTI-
DEMOCRATIC.
ONE'S PRO SOMETHING PUBLIC
POLICY.
THE OTHER'S ANTI PUBLIC POLICY.
AND ONE HAS AN IDEA OF A FAIR
NATURAL BALANCE AND THE OTHER
HAS AN IDEA OF THE WINNER TAKES
ALL.
SO THAT WHEN GLOBALISM STARTED
TO FALL APART IT WAS ALMOST
CERTAIN IF YOU WANTED TO WATCH
IT FALLING APART WHAT, WHAT YOU
HAD TO DO WAS YOU HAD TO LOOK
FOR THAT FAULT LINE.
AND THE FAULT LINE WAS WHERE
THOSE TWO SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN
GLUED TOGETHER AND THAT IS
INDEED THE LINE UPON WHICH IT'S
COME APART.
THE NEXT POINT IS I THINK THAT
IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
GOING ON TODAY AND THIS IS WHAT
I'M TRYING TO DO THERE'S A
DESPERATE NEED FOR US TO DRAW
BACK FROM THE STATISTICS.
DRAW BACK FROM THE, YOU KNOW
THE TRUTHS OF ECONOMIC THEORY
AND, AND TRY TO GET A LOOK AT
WHAT'S GOING ON.
TAKE THAT DISTANCE TO SAY WHAT
IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THIS
STUDY?
EVERY TIME WE SAY BUT THAT'S
HAPPENING IN THEY, THEY SAY
WELL THAT'S JUST AN EXCEPTION
TO THE RULE.
BUT GLOBALISM'S INEVITABLE.
DRAW BACK AND SEE WHAT, WHAT IS
THE SHAPE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.
AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A, A
SINGLE INSTRUCTORY EXAMPLE OF
THAT.
THERE ARE VARIOUS TRADE ROUNDS
RIGHT.
THE NEXT TRADE ROUND IS THAT
HASN'T BEEN HAPPENING IS CALLED
THE DOHA ROUND.
AND THE, THE THEORY ON THE
RIGHT IS THAT IT'S FRIGHTENING
BECAUSE IT WILL DESTROY THE
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES OF THE
WEST BY TAKING AWAY THE
SUBSIDIES.
THE THEORY ON THE LEFT AND IN
THE DEVELOPING WORLD, THE
DEVELOPING ECONOMIES IS THAT
THE DOHA ROUND WOULD BE GREAT
BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW THE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIES OF SAY
AFRICA TO GET INTO THE WORLD
BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE WITHOUT
THE DISADVANTAGE OF FIGHTING
AND AGAINST SUBSIDIZED AMERICAN
AND EUROPEAN FARMERS RIGHT.
THAT'S SUMMARIZED PRETTY FAIRLY
THE ARGUMENTS I THINK.
SHOUT OUT IF I'M NOT BUT I
THINK THAT'S PRETTY FAIR.
WELL OF COURSE ALL OF THAT
ARGUMENT ABOUT DOHA IS BASED ON
ASSUMPTIONS WHICH ARE WRONG.
I BELIEVE THAT IF DOHA WERE TO
SUCCEED THE, THE FARMERS OF THE
DEVELOPING WORLD WOULD BE THE
VICTIMS OF IT.
WHY?
WELL FOR A VERY, VERY SIMPLE
REASON AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE,
THE ECONOMIC THEORIES OF THE
19TH CENTURY TIED TO GLOBALISM
WERE ALL CONSTRUCTED IN A TIME
OF SCARCITY.
THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH SHOES.
I'M JUST LOOKING OUT HERE.
YOU KNOW THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH
SHIRTS AND A LOT OF THIS STUFF
THERE WASN'T AT ALL.
BUT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOOD.
THE WHOLE FREE TRADE IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE 19TH CENTURY IN
BRITAIN WAS ABOUT GRAIN.
THERE WASN'T ENOUGH GRAIN AND
THE GRAIN WAS TOO EXPENSIVE.
AND HOW COULD YOU MAKE THE
GRAIN CHEAPER?
TODAY WE HAVE AN AGRICULTURAL
SURPLUS AROUND THE WORLD.
I MEAN THERE ARE PEOPLE
STARVING BUT THAT HAS TO DO
WITH OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSPORTATION AND
DISTRIBUTION.
WE'RE IN A MASSIVE SURPLUS
SITUATION.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IN A MASSIVE
SURPLUS SITUATION IS THAT THE
PRODUCERS LOSE.
AND THE MONEY GOES TO THE
PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE PRODUCTS
BECAUSE THEY GET TO CONTROL THE
MARKETS.
SO WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT
THE NUMBERS IN AGRICULTURE IT'S
VERY CLEAR, I MEAN THERE'S NO
DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THIS IS WHAT
YOU SEE IS THAT FARMERS INCOME
GO, HAS BEEN GOING DOWN.
PRICES ARE GOING DOWN AND SO
THE FARMERS IT'S VIRTUALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A LIVING AS
A FARMER ANYMORE, WHETHER
YOU'RE SUBSIDIZED OR NOT.
THE PRICES ARE GOING DOWN AND
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH THE
MIDDLEMEN'S INCOMES ARE GOING
UP.
AND WHAT IS A SIGN OF WHEN THE
MIDDLEMAN'S INCOME GOES UP AND,
AND, AND WHEN THE, AND WHEN THE
INCOMES OF THE PRODUCERS GO
DOWN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS
A SUPRLUS.
AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A
SURPLUS SITUATION ANY FORM OF
UNLEASHED COMPETITION WILL
DRIVE THE PRICES FURTHER DOWN.
SO THE DOHA ROUND IS ABSOLUTELY
THE WRONG THING TO DO.
NEXT INTRODUCTORY POINT IF
GLOBALISM IS GOING TO BE A
USEFUL TERM IT ACTUALLY HAS TO
MEAN SOMETHING.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMETHING'S
BEEN IN POWER FOR A QUARTER
CENTURY, 30 YEARS, 40 YEARS AND
IT STARTS NOT TO WORK AS WELL
IS PEOPLE BECOME VAGUER AND
VAGUER AND VAGUER ABOUT WHAT
THE THING MEANS.
SO ISN'T IT WONDERFUL YOU KNOW
THE KIDS, MIDDLE-CLASS KIDS ARE
HAVING A GAP YEAR BETWEEN
SCHOOL AND UNIVERSITY.
OR UNDERGRADUATES AND POST-
GRADUATES AND THEY'RE
TRAVELLING AROUND THE WORLD.
ISN'T GLOBALIZATION WONDERFUL?
WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH
GLOBALIZATION?
YOU KNOW RICHER PEOPLE HAVE
ALWAYS TRAVELLED AROUND.
THAT'S WHAT THE GRAND TOUR WAS
IN THE 18TH CENTURY IN EUROPE.
IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH
GLOBALIZATION.
I MEAN IT'S ALMOST AS IF FUSION
FOOD IS AN EXAMPLE OF
GLOBALIZATION.
THE OTHER DAY THE FINANCIAL
TIMES OF LONDON HAD A BIG
REVIEW SAYING HOW WONDERFUL
GLOBALIZATION WAS.
AND THEN THEY SAID THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING ABOUT
GLOBALIZATION HAS BEEN
IMMIGRATION.
WELL I'M IN FAVOUR OF
IMMIGRATION BUT IT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH GLOBALIZATION.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE END OF
EMPIRES AND THE DECLINE IN THE
SIZE OF THE WESTERN FAMILY AND
A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THEORIES OF TRADE POLICY RIGHT.
BUT WE'RE ENTERED INTO THIS
PERIOD WHERE THE WORD
GLOBALIZATION HAS ACTUALLY IS
NOW BEING USED TO REPLACE THE
WORD INTERNATIONAL.
WELL IF THAT'S THE CASE IT
DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL.
IF, IF ALL GLOBALIZATION MEANS
IS NOW WHEN WE SAY
INTERNATIONAL WE SAY
GLOBALIZATION.
WELL THEN I THINK IT'S WORKING
IN AN INTERESTING WAY AND
THERE'S NOTHING TO DISCUSS
BECAUSE IT'S SO VAGUE AND SO
UNDEFINED WHERE WOULD ONE
BEGIN?
WHICH PART OF INTERNATIONALISM
ARE YOU IN FAVOUR OF?
WHICH PART ARE YOU AGAINST?
EITHER IT MEANS SOMETHING OR IT
MEANS NOTHING.
AND OF COURSE IT DOES MEAN
SOMETHING.
AS THE PROFESSOR SAID IN HIS
INTRODUCTION IN THE 1960S AND
70S AND 80S IF YOU GO BACK AND
READ THOSE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
INCREDIBLY BORING ECONOMIC
PAPERS THAT WERE WRITTEN ON THE
SUBJECT AND THE BOOKS AND THE
SPEECHES IT WAS VERY CLEARLY
LAYED OUT THAT WHAT WAS
HAPPENING, WHICH WAS QUITE
REVOLUTIONARY AND THIS WAS THE
REVOLUTIONARY POINT.
WAS THAT ECONOMICS FOR
VIRTUALLY THE FIRST TIME IN
HISTORY WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN
FROM THE SECOND OR THIRD LEVEL
OF IMPORTANCE IN CIVILIZATION
AND PROMOTED TO THE NUMBER ONE
SPOT.
AND THAT FROM NOW ON FOREVER
INEVITABLY WE WOULD BE LOOKING
AT CIVILIZATION THROUGH THE
PRISM, NOT PRISON, PRISM, WELL
I GUESS IT COULD BE, BUT PRISM
OF ECONOMICS.
SO CULTURE WOULD BE JUDGED
THROUGH THE WTO.
EVERYTHING WOULD BE JUDGED.
WE'D START TALKING ABOUT
CITIZENS AS CLIENTS.
I MEAN THAT WAS WHEN YOU KNEW
YOU WERE HEADING INTO THE
LUNACY PHASE OF THIS THEORY YOU
KNOW.
THAT SICK PEOPLE WERE CLIENTS.
NO THEY'RE NOT.
THEY'RE SICK PEOPLE RIGHT.
THEY'RE CITIZENS WHO ARE SICK.
THEY'RE NOT CLIENTS.
THEY'RE NOT HERE TO MAKE A, A
PURCHASE NOR IS THE INTENT TO
HAVE A PROFIT COME OUT OF THIS
YOU KNOW.
NOW LET ME JUST GIVE YOU 20 ODD
RANDOM EXAMPLES, BUT I THINK
STRATEGIC EXAMPLES OF WHAT I
THINK IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
WHICH INDICATES WHERE WE'RE
ACTUALLY PERHAPS GOING.
AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT BLAMING
GLOBALIZATION.
SOME THINGS ARE WORKING.
SOME THINGS AREN'T.
BUT OTHER THINGS ARE HAPPENING
WHICH INDICATE THAT GLOBALISM
IS NO LONGER THE DOMINANT
THEORY.
AND NOR AM I SUGGESTING BY
MENTIONING CRISES THAT THERE
WERE NO CRISES BEFORE.
THERE ARE ALWAYS CRISES.
THE QUESTION DURING A CRISIS
IS, IS THERE AN ASSUMPTION THAT
THE SYSTEM IN PLACE CAN HANDLE
IT OR NOT?
15 YEARS AGO THE ASSUMPTION WAS
GLOBALISM COULD HANDLE IT.
TODAY THERE'S A SORT OF SENSE
OF DISQUIET THAT THINGS AREN'T
GOING PARTICULARLY WELL WHEN
THERE'S A CRISIS.
SO ONE WE'LL JUST TAKE A LITTLE
BIT BY COUNTRIES.
YOU KNOW THE UNITED KINGDOM,
ORIGIN OF THESE IDEAS.
LAST YEAR
THE U, THE FOREIGN OFFICE
ANNOUNCED THE NEW PRIORITIES OF
U.K. FOREIGN POLICY.
THERE ARE
EIGHT OF THEM.
COUNTER-TERRORISM, COMBATTING
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, DRUG
TRAFFICKING AND OTHER
INTERNATIONAL CRIMES, CONFLICT
RESOLUTION, SOMETHING THAT I
DON'T REMEMBER THAT ISN'T VERY
IMPORTANT.
U.K. ECONOMIC INTERESTS, NOW
THAT SOUNDS LIKE GLOBALISM.
EXCEPT YOU NOTICE IT'S U.K.
ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
IT'S NOT TRADE NEGOTIATIONS TO
LOWER BARRIERS.
IT'S AN OLD-FASHIONED U.K.
ECONOMIC INTEREST WHICH IS AN
OLD-FASHIONED PROTECTIONIST
DISCOURSE.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE OR THE
SIXTH, FIVE AND SEVEN I CAN'T
REMEMBER.
BUT THE LAST ONE IS U.K.
SECURITY.
SO OUT OF THE EIGHT, SIX OF
THEM ARE NATIONALIST DEFENSIVE
AND FEAR-LADEN.
THIS ISN'T MY OPINION.
THIS IS THEIR FOREIGN POLICY
AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE
OF THE TWO OR THREE LEADING
COUNTRIES IN GLOBALIZATION.
THIS IS A COUNTRY ALSO THAT
BELIEVED YOU KNOW ANTI-
CONSTITUTION, ANTI-CHARTER OF
RIGHTS OR BILL OF RIGHTS.
BELIEVES IN A KIND OF COMMON
SENSE APPROACH TOWARDS
INDIVIDUALISM WHERE YOU DON'T
REALLY KNOW WHO OTHER PEOPLE
ARE.
THAT'S WAY YOU DON'T TALK TO
THEM TOO MUCH.
THAT'S SORT OF A JOKE.
AND, AND THEY GO INTO
GLOBALIZATION WHICH IS SUPPOSED
TO BE ABOUT TAKING WALLS DOWN
AND THEY'RE COMING OUT OF IT
WITH THE MOST STRICTLY
REGULATED IDENTITY CARD OF ANY
OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE AN IDENTITY
CARD WHICH IS STRICTER THAN THE
FRENCH OR THE SPANISH RIGHT.
WITH MORE INFORMATION AVAILABLE
TO THE AUTHORITIES THEN UNDER
ANY OF THE OTHER EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES METHODS OF SECURITY
CARDS.
AND THE OTHER INTERESTING
LITTLE DETAIL WHICH IS LONDON
CAME OUT OF THE IRA IF YOU LIKE
AND TECHNOLOGY, LONDON IS NOW
THE MOST SPIED UPON CITY IN THE
WESTERN WORLD.
20 COUNTRIES THE MOST SPIED
UPON CITY IS LONDON.
CAMERAS EVERYWHERE WATCHING,
RECORDING.
THEY'RE NOW LEADING THE WORLD
IN DEVELOPING COMPUTER PROGRAMS
THAT WILL INTERPRET THE ACTIONS
OF CITIZENS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE OUTSIDE OF BANKS
THEY PUT IN PROGRAMS THAT WILL
INTERPRET WHETHER OR NOT
SOMEONE COMING INTO THE BANK IS
GONNA ROB IT OR NOT YOU KNOW.
WHICH IS INTERESTING BECAUSE OF
COURSE IT MIGHT BE SOMEBODY
WHO'S HAVING AN ILLICIT AFFAIR
WITH SOMEBODY WHO WORKS AT THE
BANK AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
THERE'S REALLY A BIG DIFFERENCE
IN THEM YOU KNOW.

[Some laugh]

John continues I, I
THINK BUT THERE'S THIS SORT OF
GEORGE ORWELLIAN IDEA ABOUT HOW
THROUGH TECHNOLOGY YOU'RE GOING
TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT AND THE
ACTIONS OF PEOPLE, FASCINATING.
THE UNITED STATES THE NEXT
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THERE
WILL BE NO PRO-GLOBALIST
CANDIDATE IN ANY PARTY.
ALL PARTIES WILL BE AGAINST
GLOBALIZATION, INTERESTING.
THE LAST ELECTION THE MID TERM
ELECTION DEMOCRATS TOOK THE
CONGRESS ON AN ANTI-GLOBALIST
ARGUMENT.
42 NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS, 39 OF
THEM IN OTHER WORDS THE PEOPLE
WHO CONTROL THE MAJORITY, 39 OF
THEM OF THE 42 ELECTED WERE
INTERVIEWED IN DEPTH AND SAID
THEY WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING
NEW TRADE LEGISLATIONS AND SO
ON BECAUSE THEY WERE ELECTED ON
A ANTI-GLOBALIST POLICY.
AND THIS IS, THIS IS REALITY.
THIS ISN'T ME MAKING THIS UP.
THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S, WHAT'S
HAPPENING OUT THERE IN THE
WORLD.
CHINA YOU KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
HEARING ENDLESSLY ABOUT HOW
ISN'T IT FABULOUS THAT CHINA
HAS COME INTO GLOBALIZATION AND
SO ON?
AH WELL FIRST OF ALL YOU OF
COURSE HEARD ABOUT THE, THE TWO
AND A HALF SECONDS THAT IT TOOK
FOR YAHOO AND GOOGLE AND SO ON
TO AGREE TO THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT THEY
CENSURE THEMSELVES.
YOU KNOW OR MAYBE IT WAS A
SECOND AND A HALF THAT IT TOOK
THEM.

[Some laugh]

John continues THEY
RESISTED SO HARDILY.
THEREBY REMINDING YOU OF THE
FACT THAT TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T
HAVE A GLOBAL PURPOSE.
THAT ACTUALLY TECHNOLOGY
INCREASINGLY IS BEING USED THE
LONDON EXAMPLE, THE CHINESE
EXAMPLE AND WILL BE
INCREASINGLY USED TO PUT UP
WALLS.
NOT TO TAKE DOWN WALLS BECAUSE
AUTHORITIES AND COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS ARE LEARNING MORE AND
MORE HOW TO USE TECHNOLOGY.
SOME OF ITS FANTASTIC, FOR
EXAMPLE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
IS LEARNING HOW TO CONTROL
MONEY MARKETS IN A WAY THEY'VE
NEVER BEEN CONTROLLED BEFORE BY
PUTTING SPEED BUMPS AND CORNERS
INTO THE WAY IN WHICH PEOPLE
BUY AND SELL BONDS.
CHINA AND EUROPE OF GREAT
NATIONALISM, ITS INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS INCREASINGLY ARE
ABOUT SIGNING BILATERAL FIXED
AGREEMENTS FOR, FOR
COMMODITIES.
BILATERAL FIXED AGREEMENTS WITH
LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES AND
AFRICAN COUNTRIES FOR COAL OR
UM OR COPPER OR WHATEVER IT IS.
A FIXED BILATERAL AGREEMENT IS
NOT A MODERN CAPITALIST TOOL.
IT'S AN OLD-FASHIONED 19TH
CENTURY APPROACH TOWARDS
ECONOMIC TRADE WHICH IS YOU FIX
IT SO THAT THE MARKET CAN'T
INTERVENE, VERY INTERESTING.
UM THEY'VE JUST ANNOUNCED A NEW
FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
IN CHINA FIVE-YEAR PLANS MATTER
YOU KNOW.
AND A FIVE-YEAR PLAN IS
BASICALLY AN ANTI-GLOBALIST
PLAN.
AND IT, IT BASICALLY IS SAYING
LOOK WE KNOW WE'VE DONE QUITE
WELL OUT OF SELLING ALL THIS
CHEAP STUFF TO THE WEST CAUSE
THEY SEEM TO WANT TO BUY IT.
WE KNOW HOWEVER THAT
UNFORTUNATELY WE CANNOT MAKE
THIS SYSTEM THIS BASICALLY 19TH
CENTURY INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM WORK
FOR THE WHOLE OF CHINA.
THEY'VE GOT A BIG CRISIS IN THE
COUNTRYSIDE.
THEY KNOW IT WON'T WORK BECAUSE
THEY HAVE AN ENORMOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS AND THEY
CAN'T EXPAND ANY FURTHER REALLY
ALLOWING THIS CLASSIC
INDUSTRIAL ROAD.
SO THEY'RE TRYING TO THINK UP
SOMETHING NEW.
AND THIS FIVE-YEAR PLAN IS
FILLED WITH THINKING ABOUT
ANOTHER DIRECTION THEY CAN TAKE
AND IT'S HEADED BY SOMETHING
CALLED MORE OR LESS THE FIVE
EQUILIBRIUMS.
THE POLICY OF FIVE EQUILIBRIUMS
AND THE FIVE EQUILIBRIUMS ARE
YOU WATCH THE COLUMNS AS WELL,
DOMESTIC VERSUS INTERNATIONAL.
INTERIOR VERSUS THE COAST, THE
COAST IS WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL
STUFF IS.
RURAL VERSUS URBAN, SOCIETY
VERSUS THE ECONOMY AND NATURE
VERSUS YOU KNOW UNBRIDLED HUMAN
SELF-INTEREST.
AND THE INSTRUCTION IS THAT ALL
AUTHORITIES ARE TO FAVOUR THE
INTERIOR HUMANIST RURAL SIDE
AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL
GLOBALIST FREE MARKET SIDE.
THOSE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS.
SO A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO THEY
FIRED THE STRONGMAN OF
SHANGHAI.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FOLLOWED
THAT OR NOT MR. CHEN.
WESTERN PAPERS SAID HE WAS
FIRED BECAUSE HE WAS CORRUPT
AND BECAUSE BEIJING WANTED MORE
POWER OVER SHANGHAI.
PROBABLY BOTH TRUE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE WESTERN
PAPERS SAID.
WHAT THE EASTERN PAPERS SAID,
EASTERN WORLD SAID HE WAS FIRED
BECAUSE HE WASN'T FOLLOWING THE
NEW FIVE-YEAR PLAN.
HE WAS INSISTING UPON THE OLD
GLOBALIST APPROACH SO THEY GOT
RID OF HIM.
INDIA YOU KNOW IF YOU READ ONLY OUR
PAPERS AND MAGAZINES YOU WOULD
HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE
GIGANTIC COUNTRY OF INDIA WITH
ITS ENORMOUS POPULATION ONLY
HAD ONE CITY IN IT CALLED
BANGALORE.
YOU KNOW
WHERE THEY DO HIGH TECH AND
THAT'S INDIA.
AND OF COURSE WHY NOT?
I MEAN I'M NOT CRITICIZING
BANGALORE.
BUT THE REALITY IS AND THESE
ARE THEIR NUMBERS IN THE LAST
TEN ODD YEARS THEY PRODUCED
ABOUT A MILLION JOBS WHICH ARE
WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL GLOBALIST
JOBS.
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT IN
SASKATCHEWAN.
YOU KNOW I MEAN REALLY FABULOUS
ACTUALLY OR EVEN IN ONTARIO.
UNFORTUNATELY 8,000,000,000
PEOPLE ARRIVE FRESH ON THE JOB
MARKET EVERY YEAR IN INDIA.
SO THAT'S 80,000,000 NEW PEOPLE
ON THE JOB MARKET AND ONLY
1,000,000 OF THEM IS GLOBALIST.
THE OTHER 79,000,000 ARE
SOMEHOW TO DO WITH THE
INTERIOR.
AND THE REALITY OF THAT IS OF
COURSE THE ASTONISHING
AGRICULTURAL CRISIS THAT'S
TAKING PLACE IN INDIA, WHICH IS
SO BAD THAT THEY HAVE SUICIDE
LEVELS COMING OUT OF DEATH
LEVELS WHICH ARE TERRIFYING.
TALKED ABOUT EVERY DAY IN
INDIA.
REPORTED ON ONCE EVERY THREE
MONTHS IN THE WEST.
AGAIN TIED TO THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A SURPLUS THAT INDIAN
PEASANTS 20 YEARS AGO OWNED
ABOUT ON AVERAGE ABOUT FIVE
ACRES.
IT'S DOWN TO 1.8.
AND THEY CAN'T LIVE OFF THAT
LITTLE LAND.
SO FOLLOWING THE GLOBALIST
INDUSTRIAL MODEL THEY WERE
ENCOURAGED TO BUY SMART SEEDS.
YOU KNOW SORT OF MON, MONSANTO
SEEDS AND WHICH ARE MORE
EXPENSIVE.
IN ORDER TO BUY THEM THEY HAD
TO BORROW MONEY AND IT ONLY
TOOK ONE BAD YEAR FOR THEM TO
FALL INTO DEBT AFTER WHICH
THERE'S A SPIRAL DOWNWARDS
WHICH HAS LED TO THIS KIND OF
CRISIS.
AND ALL OF IT TURNS AROUND TO
THE FACT THAT YOU'RE IN A
SURPLUS SITUATION AND THAT THEY
CANNOT POSSIBLY SUCCEED INSIDE
THIS MODEL.
THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER MODEL.
INTERESTING ENOUGH THE ASIAN
DEVELOPMENT BANK HAS JUST LENT
INDIA, THE INDIAN FARMING
COMMUNITY A BILLION DOLLARS TO
GET THEM OUT OF DEBT.
BUT YOU SEE AGAIN IT'S LIKE,
IT'S LIKE DOHA.
IT'S GET THEM OUT OF DEBT SO
THEY CAN BUY MORE MONSANTO
SEEDS TO GO BACK INTO DEBT.
AS OPPOSED TO GET THEM OUT OF
DEBT AND KILL THEM SELVES.
GET THEM OUT OF DEBT SO THAT
THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO AT IT
DIFFERENTLY, WHICH IS TO SAY
MOVE OUT OF THE IDEA OF GLOBAL
TRADE.
MOVE INTO A MUCH MORE LOCAL
APPROACH.
USE MANY MORE COOPERATIVES.
IN THE SOUTH OF, OF INDIA IN
THE DAIRY INDUSTRY THEY'RE
USING A COOPERATIVE APPROACH
AND THEY'RE NOW ACTUALLY MAKING
MONEY BECAUSE IT'S A KIND OF
SEMI-CONTROLLED SYSTEM WITH
LANDOWNERS.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY WORKING TO
SOME EXTENT FOR THEM.
LAST YEAR ABOUT A YEAR, A YEAR
AND A HALF AGO IN PARIS A
TREATY WAS SIGNED, OR THE, OR
THE AGREEMENT THAT LEADS UP TO
A TREATY WAS SIGNED CALLED THE
CULTURAL EXCEPTION TREATY.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT THINGS THAT'S
HAPPENED IN A QUARTER CENTURY.
THE WHOLE OF THE, THE CULTURAL
AREA WAS REMOVED FROM THE WTO
AND FROM NAFTA, FROM THE TRADE
AGREEMENTS AND PUT IN ITS OWN
AREA.
IT WAS BASICALLY AGREED AMONG
PRETTY WELL EVERY COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD EXCEPT THE UNITED
STATES AND MAYBE ONE OR TWO
OTHERS, THAT CULTURE EXISTED IN
ITS OWN RIGHT NOT SIMPLY
THROUGH, THROUGH COMMERCE.
NOW I MEAN THAT'S HARDLY ROCKET
SCIENCE.
BUT IT MEANS YOU'LL REMEMBER
THAT CANADA WAS DRAGGED BEFORE
I THINK IT WAS NAFTA
COMMISSIONS OVER OUR SUBSIDIES
OF MAGAZINES AND WE WERE FOUND
GUILTY.
THIS WILL NO LONGER BE POSSIBLE
ONCE THIS IS A TREATY.
IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WHICH
IS WHY YOU'VE NEVER HEARD IT.
I MEAN THE ANGLOPHONE PRESS HAS
NOT TALKED ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
WHICH IS VERY PROBLEMATIC
BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST
FORMAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE
FACT THAT THE ANSWER TO THE
DIFFICULTIES OF GLOBALIZATION
IS NOT TO PUT MORE AND MORE
POWER, HUMANIZING POWER INTO
THE WTO.
BUT RATHER TO TAKE THINGS OUT
OF THE WTO AND CREATE ALTERNATE
CENTERS OF POWER WHERE
ECONOMICS IS NOT THE LEADING
FORCE.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, YOU KNOW
IT SOUNDS SO BORING RIGHT?
BUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IT
WAS RIGHT AT THAT SORT OF POINT
OF WHERE THE TWO THEORIES WERE
GLUED TOGETHER.
WHEN THE WTO WAS CREATED EVEN
THE PRO-GLOBALIZATION PEOPLE AT
BHAGWATI SAID IF YOU PUT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN HERE
WITH THE LOBBYISTS AND THE
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND SO
ON WHO GOT IT IN THERE.
IF YOU PUT IT IN HERE IT WILL
BREAK THE WTO APART.
IT WILL UNDERMINE
GLOBALIZATION.
THEY PUT IT IN THERE AND THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING.
THE FIRST COUNTRY TO ACTUALLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY COULDN'T
ENFORCE IT THAT IT COULDN'T
WORK WAS BRAZIL USING, GIVING
OUT FREE AIDS DRUGS.
THEY WERE GONNA BE DRAGGED
BEFORE COURTS AND ALL THE REST
OF IT AND IN THE END NOBODY DID
ANYTHING TO THEM.
THE RESULT IS THEY ACTUALLY
HAVE THE AIDS CRISIS NOT UNDER
CONTROL BUT ALMOST UNDER
CONTROL.
NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR THAILAND,
A MEDIUM-SIZED COUNTRY, SMALL
TO MEDIUM-SIZED COUNTRY
INTRODUCED WHAT THEY CALL
COMPULSORY LICENSING FOR KEY
AIDS DRUGS.
IN OTHER WORDS THEY'RE GETTING
KEY AIDS DRUGS MADE CHEAP,
CHEAP, CHEAP IN INDIA AND
THEY'RE GONNA GIVE THEM OUT
FREE IN THAILAND.
EDITORIALS ALL OVER THE WESTERN
WORLD SAYING NOW THAILAND YOU
BE CAREFUL OR WE'LL YOU KNOW.
HOW CAN THAT, WELL THEY'RE NOT
GONNA HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL.
THEY'RE GONNA DO EXACTLY WHAT
THEY WANT AND I WOULD PREDICT
THAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WILL
SOMEHOW BE REMOVED FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FAIRLY
FAST.
ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO THE
EUROPEAN UNION, THE MOST
POWERFUL TRADE BODY IN THE
WORLD, 300,000 PEOPLE MUCH
RICHER THAN THE UNITED STATES
BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS A
BIG, POOR PART OF THE
POPULATION WHEREAS EUROPE IS
ESSENTIALLY MIDDLE-CLASS RIGHT.
SO ON A PER CAPITA BASIS A MUCH
RICHER PLACE.
EU FORMALLY ANNOUNCED THAT IT
WAS ABANDONING THE CLASSIC
GLOBALIST TRADE POLICIES, THE
BROAD FREE TRADE POLICY.
IT WOULD BE CONCENTRATING ON
MUCH MORE MODEST, NARROW,
BILATERAL AGREEMENTS.
NOVEMBER 2006 A WORLDWIDE
SURVEY OF LEADING CEOS,
CORPORATIONS.
THE MAJORITY BELIEVE THAT
PROTECTIONISM IS RISING IN BOTH
DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES.
LATIN AMERICA I MEAN DO A
CONTINENT IN ABOUT FIVE
SENTENCES.
I MEAN YOU KNOW LATIN AMERICA
IS BASICALLY THE PANAMA CANAL
MORE OR LESS YOU KNOW CUT FREE
AND GONE OFF IN ANOTHER
DIRECTION.
I MEAN THEY'RE, THEY'RE
POPULISTS.
THEY ARE SOCIALISTS.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THINKING ABOUT
NEW WAYS OF DOING ECONOMICS.
THERE'S ALL SORTS OF THINGS
HAPPENING.
NOBODY IN LATIN AMERICA
BELIEVES IN GLOBALISM ANYMORE.
THEY'RE GOING IN ANOTHER
DIRECTION.
DOES THAT MEAN THEY DON'T WANT
TO SELL OR BUY ANYTHING?
OF COURSE NOT.
WE'VE ALWAYS SOLD AND BOUGHT
THINGS.
IT MEANS THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN
GLOBALISM AND THEY'RE GONNA DO
SOMETHING ELSE.
AND THEY'RE TRYING, SOME OF
IT'S REGIONAL.
SOME OF IT'S NATIONAL.
SOME OF IT'S INTERNATIONAL.
SOME OF IT'S WITH CHINA.
BUT IT'S NOT GLOBALIZATION.
WILL IT WORK?
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA.
WHAT I KNOW IS THAT IT'S
LASTING A LOT LONGER THEN ONE
WOULD HAVE EXPECTED.
IN THE OLD DAYS AS A FRIEND OF
MINE AT AN AMERICAN MAGAZINE
SAID GOD BY NOW WE'D HAVE HAD
THREE OR FOUR COUP D'ETATS WE'D
HAVE ORGANIZED AND YOU KNOW
THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY.
THE REGIMES ARE NOT FALLING.
MAYBE THEY'LL FALL.
BUT THEY HAVEN'T FALLEN AND
ACTUALLY ARE CONTINUOUSLY TO DO
REALLY SURPRISINGLY WELL
CONSIDERING YOU KNOW PAST
HISTORY AND SO ON.
WE'RE SEEING RISING POPULISM, WHICH
IS NOT A GOOD THING THROUGHOUT
THE WORLD.
INSIDE THE EU ALL THROUGH
CENTRAL EUROPE POPULIST
GOVERNMENTS, POLAND, CZECH
REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA, HUNGARY.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SINCE THE
1930S.
PEOPLE SAY OH THERE'S SPIKES OF
POPULISM AND THEN IT GOES DOWN.
YES IT'S TRUE IT DOES GO LIKE
THIS.
BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
LINE IT'S GOING LIKE THAT.
IN OTHER WORDS POPULISM IS
GENERALLY RISING.
HOW FAR WILL IT GO?
I FRANKLY HAVE NO IDEA.
BUT AN INTERESTING EXAMPLE
OUTSIDE OF EUROPE, JAPAN, IF
YOU LOOK AT TRACE, TRACE JAPAN
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS THE
RETURN OF NATIONALISM IN JAPAN.
NOW YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW JAPAN
NEVER REALLY TOOK DOWN THE
WALLS.
BUT THERE WAS A DISCOURSE, THE
SUGGESTION.
IT KNEW THAT IT HAD TO TAKE
THEM DOWN.
BUT GRADUALLY PARTICULARLY OVER
THE LAST FIVE YEARS IT'S BEEN
MOVING IN A MORE AND MORE
NATIONAL STRETCH AND THE NEW
PRIME MINISTER IS OVERTLY
NATIONALISTIC, NOT ANTI-
DEMOCRATIC, NATIONALISTIC.
HE'S OPENLY SAYING AS OPPOSED
TO QUIETLY SAYING THAT STATE
POLICY WILL DOMINATE OVER
ECONOMICS.
HE SAID WELL WHY IS THAT?
HOW IS THIS HAPPENING?
WELL IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.
IN THE GLOBALIST ERA THE
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF JAPAN
CHANGED.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
GLOBALIST ERA ABOUT AN EIGHTH
OF JAPANESE HAD NO SAVINGS.
TODAY A QUARTER OF JAPANESE
HAVE NO SAVINGS.
BEFORE GLOBALIZATION THEY ASKED
THEM EVERY YEAR ABOUT 75 percent OF
JAPANESE CONSIDERED THEMSELVES
MIDDLE-CLASS.
TODAY THAT'S DOWN TO 54 percent.
AND IT'S AMAZING.
37 percent OF JAPANESE CONSIDER
THEMSELVES TO BELONG TO THE
POOR, THE LUMPING PROLETARIAT.
AND THIS IS YOU KNOW SO WHAT
DOES THAT LEAD TO?
IT LEADS TO NATIONALISM.
IT LEADS TO A DESIRE, A, A LACK
OF BELIEF IN A GLOBALIST
PROJECT.
MILITARY BUDGETS THIS YEAR
THEY'RE AT ABOUT 1.2 TRILLION,
WHICH MEANS WE'RE BACK UP OVER
COLD WAR LEVELS.
THIS MEANS ECONOMICS IS NOT
DOMINATING AND OVER HALF OF
THAT IS SPENT BY THE UNITED
STATES.
SIX TIMES RUSSIA, SIX TIMES
CHINA IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU'RE
HEARING ABOUT RUSSIA AND CHINA
RAMPING UP.
AND WHAT'S FASCINATING IS THAT
OF THIS 1.2 TRILLION AND THERE
I WOULD HAVE TO GUESS I WOULD
SAY THAT MAYBE 200,000,000 IS
BEING SPENT ON IRREGULAR
WARFARE OR MACHINERY, ANTI-
TERRORISM MACHINERY.
REALLY ALMOST A TRILLION OF IT
IS BEING SPENT ON OLD-FASHIONED
BIG STUFF.
SUDDENLY YOU REMEMBER ECONOMIC
NATIONALISM?
WE WON'T SELL OUR CORPORATIONS
TO FOREIGNERS.
SUDDENLY THE UNITED STATES
WON'T SELL ITS PORTS TO PEOPLE
FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
THE FRENCH WON'T SELL BIG
ENERGY COMPANIES TO I BELIEVE
IT WAS THE GERMANS.
THE SPANISH WON'T SELL
COMPANIES TO I BELIEVE IT WAS
THE ITALIANS AND SO ON AND SO
ON.
ONLY CANADA NAIVELY GOES ON
BELIEVING THAT IT'S ALL OPEN.
YOU JUST SELL EM AND BUY EM YOU
KNOW.
AND BESIDES WE'RE BUYING AS
MUCH AS WE'RE SELLING.
AND YOU HEAR THAT QUITE OFTEN
WHEN YOU'RE BEING REASSURED.
LET ME JUST GIVE YOU THE
NUMBERS.
30 percent OF CORPORATE REVENUE IN
CANADA IS CONTROLLED BY
FOREIGNERS AND 6 percent OF CORPORATE
REVENUE IN THE UNITED STATES IS
CONTROLLED BY FOREIGNERS.
WHICH IS YOU KNOW SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN 5 AND 15 percent.
IT'S A FAIRLY HEALTHY LEVEL.
SO WE'RE VERY, VERY NAIVE,
ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH.
WHETHER IT COMES TO
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE
EUROPEANS ARE SAYING OUR
COMPETITORS, WHAT THE
AUSTRALIANS AND NEW ZEALANDERS
ARE SAYING, WHAT THE CHINESE
ARE SAYING, WHAT THE INDIANS
ARE SAYING AND WHAT THE
AMERICANS ARE SAYING AND WE'RE
JUST ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH IN
UNDERSTANDING THIS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRADE
BALANCE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS I
MEAN WE'RE IN CIRCLES RIGHT?
BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
PARTS OF THE TRADE BALANCE WHAT
YOU FIND IS MACHINE, THIS IS
REALLY BORING BUT IT'S NOT.
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WAS IN,
IN DEFICIT IN THE 80S AND IT'S
JUST BEEN GOING FURTHER AND
FURTHER INTO DEFICIT.
AUTOMOBILES WENT UP A BIT BUT
IT'S BEEN IT'S ALMOST IN
DEFICIT NOW.
CONSUMER GOODS WAS IN DEFICIT.
IT'S NOW DEEPLY IN DEFICIT.
INDUSTRY IS SHRINKING AND
HOVERING AROUND DEFICIT.
THE ONLY AREA WHICH HAS GROWN
IN THE FULL PERIOD OF
GLOBALIZATION IS COMMODITIES,
HEWERS OF WOOD AND DRAWERS OF
WATER OR IN THIS CASE OIL AND
GAS.
THE TWO AREAS WHICH HAVE GROWN
ARE FORESTY AND ENERGY.
SO AFTER 25 YEARS OF
GLOBALIZATION CANADA IS MORE
DEPENDENT ON OLD-FASHIONED RAW
MATERIALS THEN WE'VE BEEN FOR A
HALF A CENTURY.
TWO LAST EXAMPLES AND IT'S
REALLY THE BIG QUESTION.
HAS GLOBALIZATION LED TO A
NEWER ERA OF CAPITALISM?
OR HAS IT AS, AS WAS PROMISED.
OR HAS IT LED TO SOMETHING
ELSE?
YOU MAY REMEMBER SOMETHING
CALLED MERCANTILISM.
MERCANTILISM IS WHAT?
PRECEDED CAPITALISM HUDSON'S
BAY COMPANY, BRITISH EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
WHAT WAS MERCANTILISM?
WHY WAS ADAM SMITH AGAINST
MERCANTILISM?
BECAUSE THEY FELT IN THE LATE
18TH CENTURY THAT IT DIDN'T
PRODUCE WEALTH.
THERE WAS A LOT OF TRADE.
REMEMBER ALL THAT TRADE?
THERE WAS A LOT OF TRADE.
BUT IT DOESN'T PRODUCE ENOUGH
WEALTH.
WHY DIDN'T IT PRODUCE WEALTH?
BECAUSE THE MERCANTILIST
STRUCTURE WORKS THIS WAY.
LARGE TRANSNATIONAL COMPANIES,
HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY AROUND
18TH, 17TH CENTURY, 19TH CENTURY
WHICH ARE HORIZONTALLY
INTEGRATED SO THAT RIGHT FROM
SAY TRAPPING THE BEAVER TO A
FASHIONABLE BEAVER HAT.
FROM THE SILKWORM ALL THE WAY
THROUGH ALL THOSE BORDERS ALL
THOSE PROCESSES TO THE WOMAN
WEARING THE SILK DRESS.
NOTHING IS BOUGHT OR SOLD.
IT'S ALL INTEGRATED.
OF COURSE IT MAY TECHNICALLY
CHANGE COMPANIES OR IT MAY
TECHNICALLY BE BOUGHT AND SOLD.
BUT THERE IS NO REAL MARKET
BUYING AND SELLING OF GOODS.
SO NO WEALTH IS CREATED BETWEEN
PRODUCTION AND SALE.
HORIZONTALLY INTEGRATED AROUND
THE WORLD, A TRANSNATIONAL
CORPORATION.
DOES THIS SOUND VAGUELY
FAMILIAR TO YOU?
OVER HALF THE TRADE IN THE
WORLD TODAY TAKES PLACE INSIDE
FUNNELS, HORIZONTAL FUNNELS,
INSIDE TRANSNATIONAL
CORPORATIONS OR BETWEEN LARGE
CORPORATIONS SO THAT NO REAL
WEALTH CREATION IS TAKING PLACE
AT BUYING AND SELLING POINTS
AROUND THE WORLD.
AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET AN
INCREASE OF 22 TIMES IN TRADE
AND A MEDIOCRE INCREASE IN THE
CREATION OF WEALTH.
IT'S NOT THAT THE CREATION OF
WEALTH IS SUPPOSED TO EQUAL THE
INCREASE IN TRADE.
BUT WHEN TRADE GOES LIKE THAT
WEALTH IS SUPPOSED TO GO YOU
KNOW A THIRD OF THE WAY UP OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND INSTEAD OF THAT IT'S JUST A
LITTLE TINY BUMP AND THAT'S ONE
OF THE BIG EXPLANATIONS.
IT COULD BE ARGUED.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD
ARGUE IT THAT GLOBALIZATION MAY
IN FACT HAVE BEEN THE LAST ERA
OF CAPITALISM.
THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY COME FULL
CIRCLE AND ENDED UP WHERE WE
STARTED IN ABOUT 1760 BACK IN
MERCANTILISM.
ALL DONE UNDER THE NAME OF
COMPETITION AND CAPITALISM BY
COMPANIES THAT RUN BY
TECHNOCRATS AND ARE FRIGHTENED
OF COMPETITION AND SPEND THEIR
TIME DOING MERGERS AND
ACQUISITIONS IN ORDER TO AVOID
THE REAL MARKETPLACE.
AND THAT'S THE LAST POINT WHICH
IS MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS,
THE DOMINANT THING IN THE
MARKETPLACE AROUND THE WORLD.
IS THIS ABOUT GLOBALIZATION?
NO.
IS IT ABOUT FREE MARKETS?
NO.
IT'S ABOUT REDUCING FREE
MARKETS.
IS IT ABOUT CAPITALISM?
NO.
IS IT SOMETHING TO MARKET
RULES?
ITS ABOUT REDUCING MARKET
COMPETITION.
KPMG RIGHT WELL-KNOWN COMMUNIST
ORGANIZATION RIGHT YOU KNOW.

[Some laugh]

John continues KPMG SAYS
65 percent OF INITIATORS OF MERGERS
AND ACQUISITIONS DON'T REALIZE
THEIR SYNERGY TARGETS.
MCKINSEY THAT OTHER PINKO
ORGANIZATION UM DID A STUDY OF
100 MERGERS IN THE 1990S OUT OF
THE U.K. AND USA.
75 percent DID NOT RECOVER THEIR COSTS
AND DID NOT ACHIEVE SYNERGY.
SO IF IT DOESN'T WORK, WHICH IT
DOESN'T.
THERE ARE LOTS OF NUMBERS LIKE
THAT WHY DID THEY DO IT?
IS IT SIMPLY THAT EGO OF
TECHNOCRATS OF THE MANAGERS?
IT'S CERTAINLY PART OF THIS.
THEY'RE TERRIFIED OF RISK.
TERRIFIED OF COMPETITION.
BUT PART OF IT IS I THINK
SIMPLY THE RETURN TO
MERCANTILISM.
THE REMOVAL OF COMPETITION.
THE REMOVAL OF THE FREE
MARKETPLACE, UNDER A DISCOURSE
WHERE THEY'RE SUPPORTED BY THE
UNIVERSITIES ECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTS.
A DISCOURSE OF COMPETITION AND
DEREGULATION.
ACTUALLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS
AN ASTONISHING REREGULATION AT
THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
BUT A REREGULATION NOT BY THE
PUBLIC GOOD, BUT A REREGULATION
BY AN ANTI-CAPITALIST GROUP,
MERCANTILIST GROUP WHICH IS THE
LARGE TRANSNATIONAL
CORPORATIONS.
SO I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A VERY
BROAD ECONOMIC DEBATE WHERE WE
RETHINK THE UNDERLYING
ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LAST 25 TO
30 YEARS BEFORE REALITY PUT
SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT WE MAY
NOT AGREE WITH EITHER.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE
GROWTH IN TRADE AND THE
MEDIOCRE GDP.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHETHER
WE'RE GETTING FALSE GROWTH
NUMBERS IN FACT BECAUSE OF THE
MERCANTILIST APPROACH.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE
QUESTIONS OF ECONOMIC SCARCITY
VERSUS SURPLUS AND WHETHER YOU
NEED DIFFERENT THEORIES WHEN
YOU'RE IN SURPLUS.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE
IDEAS OF GROWTH AND CONSUMPTION
AND WHICH WAS ALL THIS WAS THE
POINT OF WRITING THIS BOOK “THE
COLLAPSE OF GLOBALISM.”
WE KIND OF HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR AT THE
EVENTS AT THE REALITY.
THE GOOD STORY IS THAT YOU KNOW
IN 1996 THE OTTAWA LANDMINES
TREATY WAS SIGNED.
THAT WAS THE FIRST SERIOUS
INTERNATIONAL TREATY WITH
BINDING REGULATIONS, WHICH
ALMOST ALL THE COUNTRIES IN THE
WORLD SIGNED ONTO EXCEPT FOR
ABOUT THREE OR FOUR AND YOU CAN
GUESS.
WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
ECONOMICS.
AND IT WAS A SIGN PEOPLE WERE
GETTING THE COURAGE BACK TO DO
THINGS THAT WEREN'T THROUGH THE
EYE OF ECONOMICS.
1998, THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT SAME THING.
2005 THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY
CONVENTION THAT I TALKED ABOUT.
WE STILL HAVEN'T DONE BINDING
TREATIES ON OLIGOPOLIES AND
MONOPOLIES I.E. MERCANTILISM.
WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ON
COMPETITION.
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES ON
TAXATION WOULD BE DEAD EASY TO
DO.
I MEAN IF YOU CAN DO A FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT WHICH DESCRIBES
EVERY SINGLE THING IN THIS
ROOM, EVERYTHING YOU ARE
WEARING, EVERYTHING HERE,
EVERYTHING IS DESCRIBED IN A
TRADE TREATY.
IT TAKES HUNDREDS OF PAGES,
VERY COMPLICATED.
IT'S DEAD EASY TO DO IN AN
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT ON
TAXATION LEVELS, WHICH WOULD
DEAL WITH A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS
OF THE LACK OF COMPETITION AND
PRICE FIXING AND SO ON.
AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON
WORK CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE
TEETH WHICH WOULD WORK FOR THE
DEVELOPING WORLD NOT JUST FOR
THE WEST.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON
LOBBYISTS AND CONSULTANTS WHICH
IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
YOU KNOW THESE ARE THINGS THAT
NEED TO BE DONE WHICH COULD
SHAPE THE DIRECTION IN WHICH
WE'RE GOING.
IN AN INTERESTING WAY THEY
WOULD BRING BACK THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE IDEA OF
CHOICE.
NOW YOU'LL JUST NOTICE I GAVE
THREE EXAMPLES OF, OF
INTERNATIONAL NON-ECONOMIC
BINDING TREATIES, LANDMINES,
CRIMINAL COURT, CULTURAL
DIVERSITY.
IT'S INTERESTING THAT ALL THREE
OF THEM WERE CANADIAN
INITIATIVES.
I MEAN HAVE ANY OF, I MEAN HOW
MANY OF YOU IN THE ROOM HAVE
EVER THOUGHT THAT THIS, THIS IS
A COUNTRY WHICH SAYS ITS IN
FAVOUR OF GLOBALIZATION BUT IN
FACT THIS IS A COUNTRY WHICH
HAS, HAS LED THE STRUGGLE TO
PUT IN PLACE THE FIRST THREE
REAL NON-ECONOMIC CHOICE
AGREEMENTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL
LEVEL.
HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE EVER
THOUGHT ABOUT THAT?
I DON'T THINK OUR GOVERNMENT'S
THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND I DON'T
THNK THE LAST GOVERNMENT
THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
BUT IT'S ALMOST AS IF IT WERE
ACCIDENTAL THAT WE WERE DOING
THIS.
IT'S A VERY, VERY INTERESTING
THING TO THINK ABOUT THE, THE
KIND OF LEADERSHIP THAT A
COUNTRY LIKE CANADA CAN HAVE IF
IT WANTS TO DO IT.
IF IT COMES TO TERMS WITH THE
FACT THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY QUITE
BIG AND QUITE GOOD AT WHAT WE
DO WHEN WE SET OUR MIND TO IT.
AND I SAY THIS TO YOU THIS IS
OUR LAST COMMENT.
THIS WILL SOUND LIKE A, A NON-
WRAP-UP.
BUT IT IS ACTUALLY A WRAP-UP.
I THINK ONE OF THE INTERESTING
THINGS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY IS
THERE ARE THESE EXAMPLES OF
ENORMOUS SUCCESSES.
I THINK ONE COULD ARGUE THAT
OUR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
POLICIES FLAWED THOUGH THEY ARE
ALL RIGHT ARE AN ASTONISHING
SUCCESS STORY.
IT'S THE ONE THING THE REST OF
THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY
INTERESTED IN WHEN THEY TALK
ABOUT CANADA BECAUSE ON A PER
CAPITA BASIS WE'RE THREE TO
FOUR TIMES FURTHER OUT ON THE
EXPERIMENTAL EDGE OF WHAT YOU
CAN DO WITH REINVENTING SOCIETY
THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD.
AND IN BRUTE, BRUTE NUMBERS
WE'RE ACTUALLY NUMBER ONE
EXCEPT VISA VIE THE UNITED
STATES.
BUT THEY HAVE TEN TIMES THE
POPULATION AND WE'RE NOT FAR
BEHIND THEM, WHICH MEANS IT'S
AN ENORMOUSLY INVENTIVE THING
WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON THAT
FRONT.
AND YET YOU KNOW JUST THINK
ABOUT IT.
UM WE GO OUT AND WE SAY YOU GET
INTO CANADA ON A POINTS BASIS
SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE
CREDENTIALS.
SO WE BRING THEM IN WITH THEIR
CREDENTIALS AND THEN AS SOON AS
THEY GET IN THE COUNTRY WE SAY
NO WE WERE FOOLING ACTUALLY.
NOT THOSE CREDENTIALS, RIGHT.
TOTAL CONTRADICTION.
I MEAN SOMEBODY COULD ACTUALLY
TAKE CANADA TO COURT FOR FRAUD,
FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING ON THE
BASIS OF WHICH WE GET PEOPLE TO
COME AND THEN ONCE THEY GET
HERE WE ACTUALLY SAY NO, NO,
NO, NO, NOT THAT, NOT THAT, YOU
KNOW.
WE, WE BRING IN 250,000, WE
SWEAR IN 250,000 NEW CITIZENS A
YEAR.
I'M IN FAVOUR.
I THINK THIS IS FABULOUS RIGHT.
AND AT THE SAME TIME WHILE
WE'RE DOING THAT WE WORK HARD
AT CUTTING ALL THE PROGRAMS AND
EDUCATION WE CAN THAT WOULD
HELP THESE NEW CANADIANS GET
INVOLVED AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
WE CUTBACK ON SECOND LANGUAGE
TRAINING.
WE CUTBACK ON SOFT EDUCATION
WHICH OF COURSE IS YOU KNOW
THINGS LIKE HISTORY AND
CULTURE.
ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED IN
ORDER TO BECOME PART OF A
CULTURE, A SOCIETY.
I MEAN ITS, ITS IRRESPONSIBLE
THE WAY IN, WHICH THERE IS A
TOTAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND WHAT
WE'RE ACTIVELY DOING.
NOW IN SPITE OF THAT I THINK
CAUSE CANADIANS WANT THIS TO
WORK WE'RE DOING QUITE WELL.
BUT THE FACT IS WE'RE NOT DOING
NEARLY AS WELL AS WE COULD BE
DOING IF WE WERE HONEST WITH
OURSELVES.
AND JUST YOU KNOW THINK ABOUT
OTHER SMALL EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS
IT ABOUT OUR ELITE THAT IT
CAN'T SOLVE PROBLEMS?
I MEAN IT'S A STRATEGIC
QUESTION.
WHAT, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THIS VACUUM IS THE
PEOPLE WHO WILL COME WELL OUT
OF THIS VACUUM ARE PEOPLE WHO
ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY REALITY
AND SET DIRECTIONS, CHOICES.
AND WE HAVE AN ELITE.
AND WHEN I SAY ELITE I MEAN
GOVERNMENT, OPPOSITION, CIVIL
SERVICE, FEDERAL, PROVINCIAL,
NEWSPAPERS, BUSINESS,
CONSULTANTS THE WHOLE THING, WE
HAVE AN ELITE WHICH ACTUALLY
DOESN'T SEEM TO THINK OF ITSELF
AS BEING IN THE POLICY
BUSINESS, THE CHOICE BUSINESS.
THE PROBLEM SOLVING BUSINESS.
AND SO I'LL GIVE YOU THAT VERY
SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF WHY ARE WE
ACTUALLY SQUEEZING SECOND
LANGUAGE EDUCATION WHEN WE'RE
BRINGING IN THESE LEVELS OF
CITIZENS, OF IMMIGRANTS AND NEW
CITIZENS.
WHY?
IT WOULD TAKE TWO SECONDS TO
DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM.
THIS IS NOT A COMPLICATED, THIS
IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE AS THEY
SAY.
THIS IS REALLY EASY.
FOR NOW 30 YEARS WE'VE BEEN
MOVING, RAMPING UP SLOWLY,
SLOWLY A HOMELESS CRISIS, A
POVERTY CRISIS.
IT'S REALLY SIMPLE STUFF.
WE KNOW THAT OVER 50 percent OF THE
HOMELESS IN CANADA HAVE MENTAL
PROBLEMS.
THAT'S BECAUSE WE CLOSED THE
MENTAL BED, HOSPITAL BEDS IN
THE 90S BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T
NICE PLACES AND WE THOUGHT
UNREASONABLY THAT PEOPLE WOULD
SIMPLY GO AND GET PILLS OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW LINE UP AND GET PILLS.
YOU KNOW COMPLETE
MISUNDERSTANDING OF REALITY.
SO AT THE SAME TIME WE STOPPED
BUILDING SOCIAL HOUSING SO
THERE WAS NOWHERE FOR THESE
PEOPLE TO GO, ASSISTED SOCIAL
HOUSING.
SO OVER HALF THE HOMELESS
PEOPLE ON THE STREET REALLY
COULD BE OFF THE STREET WITHIN
A YEAR FOR A VERY SMALL AMOUNT
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
IT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH
BUILDING SMALL STRUCTURES OF
ASSISTED SOCIAL HOUSING WHERE
THERE'S ONE PERSON WHO HELPS
THEM DEAL WITH THEIR LIVES.
AND THEN THEY'LL EITHER BE ABLE
TO GET JOBS OR NOT GET JOBS.
I'M GO INTO HOMELESS SHELTERS
ALL THE TIME AND I SEE MAINLY
IN THIS CASE MEN, HEALTHY,
INTELLIGENT YOUNG MEN SLEEPING
THERE WHO HAVE JOBS.
WHY ARE THEY SLEEPING THERE?
BECAUSE THE MINIMUM WAGE IS SO
LOW THAT THEY CAN'T EARN ENOUGH
MONEY EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE
WORKING THEIR ASSES OFF.
THEY CAN'T EARN ENOUGH MONEY TO
PUT A DOWN PAYMENT ON AN
APARTMENT.
SO THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY CAN
ACTUALLY HAVE A LIFE WITH THAT
JOB IS IF THEY SLEEP IN A
HOMELESS SHELTER.
IS THIS ROCKET SCIENCE?
IS THIS COMPLICATED TO SOLVE
THIS PROBLEM?
I MEAN IT'S REALLY EASY TO DEAL
WITH A PROBLEM LIKE THAT.
I'LL GIVE YOU TWO OTHER
EXAMPLES.
OBESITY IN SCHOOLS.
THIS IS SO EASY RIGHT.
YOU KNOW THERE'S A JOURNALIST
SITTING HERE RIGHT.
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF WORDS
ARE WRITTEN ABOUT THE CRISIS OF
OBESITY IN SCHOOLS.
THE KIDS AREN'T DOING ENOUGH
EXERCISE.
THEY'RE EATING ALL THIS JUNK
FOOD AND ETCETERA, ETCETERA.
ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT WE
SAVED MONEY BY REDUCING SPORTS
IN SCHOOLS AND IN ORDER FOR THE
SCHOOLS TO MAKE UP FOR THE
MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM
THEM, IN ORDER TO GET THE
PROGRAMS THEY DID DEALS WITH
JUNK FOOD COMPANIES TO SERVE
JUNK FOOD TO THE KIDS FOR WHICH
THEY GET ABOUT 50 percent OF THE
PROFIT.
SO IN OTHER WORDS IT'S LIKE
PEOPLE WHO EAT FOIS GRAS.
FIRST WE FATTEN THE GOOSE AND
THEN WE SAY ISN'T IT TERRIBLE.
THE CABINET OF ONTARIO I MEAN
COULD MEET TONIGHT AND BAN JUNK
FOOD FROM SCHOOLS AND IT WOULD
BE DONE TOMORROW MORNING.
THAT'S TRUE OF EVERY PROVINCE
IN CANADA.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY.
AND THEY MAY SAY OH WELL THE
SCHOOLS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE
MONEY THEY'RE GETTING FROM
DEALS WITH COKE AND WHATEVER.
SO?
YOU BAN IT AND YOU REPLACE THE
MONEY.
IS THAT THE MORE EXPENSIVE WAY
OF GOING OR THE CHEAPER WAY?
IS IT CHEAPER TO HAVE A CRISIS
OF OBESITY AND THEN HAVE ALL OF
THAT PROBLEM FALL INTO OUR
HOSPITALS AND OUR LACK OF
PRODUCTIVITY?
YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT
COMPLICATED STUFF.
WHY CAN'T WE DO IT?
WHAT PREVENTS US FROM, FROM
ACTING?
AND HEALTHCARE, YOU SAY WELL
THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF A
SPEECH YOU KNOW.
IN THE 1990S TWO SOCIAL
SCIENTISTS DID A STUDY IN WHICH
THEY TOLD THE GOVERNMENTS OF
CANADA THAT WE WERE GONNA HAVE
A SURPLUS IN DOCTORS AND
NURSES.
THEY SAID FREEZE OR CUT DOWN ON
THE NUMBER OF DOCTORS YOU
PRODUCE.
THEY DID THAT.
WE HAVE BEEN FROZEN EVER SINCE.
WE HAVE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED A
SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES.
THIS IS THE EXPLANATION FOR
ABOUT 50 percent OF THE WAIT TIMES.
AND THE PROVINCE AND PUBLIC
HEALTHCARE HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH PUBLIC HEALTHCARE.
THE PROBLEMS WITH PUBLIC
HEALTHCARE LARGELY HAVE TO DO
WITH A LACK OF HOSPITAL BEDS.
YOU'VE GOT A LACK OF DOCTORS
AND NURSES ARTIFICIALLY IMPOSED
LIMITS WHICH SHOVE PEOPLE INTO
EMERGENCY WARDS WHICH CREATE
WAIT TIME AND SO ON.
SO ALL I'M SAYING HERE REALLY
IS THAT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING
IN THE WORLD.
WE'RE IN A CONFUSED PERIOD.
WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING
REMARKABLE THINGS, WITNESS
THOSE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES I
WAS TALKING ABOUT.
BUT SOMEHOW WE CAN'T IMAGINE
OURSELVES AS BEING CAPABLE OF
DOING AMAZING THINGS AND THAT
CAN BE SEEN IN THESE THINGS
LIKE MEDICARE AND OBESITY.
A SORT OF INCAPACITY TO ACT
WHEN ACTING IS SIMPLE.
AND IF YOU CAN'T ACT AT HOME
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO
ACT IN A STRATEGIC WAY AT AN
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN
ENORMOUS POSSIBILITY OF CHOICE
OUT HERE.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A COUNTRY
WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO DO
INTERESTING THINGS, WANT TO
ACT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC
GOOD IS SOMETHING, WHICH
BELONGS TO YOU AND THAT IT'S
THEREFORE IN YOUR HANDS TO SAY
NO WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT
OBESITY.
WE WANT YOU TO BAN JUNK FOOD IN
SCHOOLS.
NO WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT
WAIT LINES.
WE WANT YOU TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF DOCTORS AND HOSPITAL
BEDS PERIOD.
AND WE WILL VOTE AGAINST YOU IF
YOU DON'T DO THAT AND WE WILL
VOTE FOR YOU IF YOU DO, DO
THAT.
THAT'S A STRATEGIC APPROACH.
AND IF WE DO THAT KIND OF THING
WE'LL FIND THAT WITHIN A VERY
FEW NUMBER OF YEARS WE'LL BE
TAKING A VERY INTERESTING
CONSCIOUS POSITION AT THE
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL TO GET US
FROM THIS VACUUM PERIOD INTO
WHATEVER THE NEXT PERIOD WILL
BE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Audience applauding]

The clip ends and Andrew reappears in the studio with a caption that reads “Andrew Moodie.”

He says AS SAUL
POINTS OUT THE DOHA ROUND AT
THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION IS
IN BIG TROUBLE.
THE TRADE PACT OF 2002 EXPIRES THIS YEAR,
WHICH MEANS THAT ANY NEW TRADE
AGREEMENT WILL HAVE TO BE
APPROVED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS.
AND THAT'S NO SMALL FEAT AT A
TIME WHEN THE U.S. IS NOT QUITE
CONFIDENT OF ITS PLACE IN THE
WORLD.
SAUL'S TRUE INTENTION HOWEVER
SEEMS TO BE A WAKEUP CALL FOR
THE ELITES IN THIS COUNTRY.
ADAPT OR BECOME
INCONSEQUENTIAL.
AS ALWAYS TIME WILL TELL IF
HE'S RIGHT.
WHAT IS BEYOND A SHADOW OF A
DOUBT IS THAT IF YOU SEND US AN
EMAIL AT BIGIDEAS@TVO.ORG WE
WILL SEND YOU A WEEKLY UPDATE
TELLING YOU WHAT'S COMING ON
OUR PROGRAM.
FOR “BIG IDEAS” I'M ANDREW
MOODIE.

[Theme music plays]

The end credits roll.

bigideas@tvo.org

416-484-2746

Big Ideas. Producer, Wodek Szemberg.

Producers, Lara Hindle, Mike Miner, Gregg Thurlbeck.

Logos: Unifor, Canadian Media Guild.

A production of TVOntario. Copyright 2007, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority.

Watch: John Ralston Saul