Aditya Chakrabortty: Expensive, off-limits and owned by foreign investors - the Shard extends the ways in which London is becoming more unequal
If you work in the universe of international affairs and also happen to live under a rock, you might have missed the hundreds of headlines this past wee...
The manufacture of technology, along with its essential raw materials, is now concentrated in a single region. This lack of resilience leaves the industry dangerously vulnerable to disruption.
What do medieval monks, Cuban socialists and Wikipedia have in common?
1997/03/20: an op-ed piece I had written for the New York Times, in which I had pointed out that while wages and working conditions in the new export industries of the Third World are appalling, they are a big improvement over the "previous, less visible rural poverty." I guess I should have expected that this comment would generate letters along the lines of, "Well, if you lose your comfortable position as an American professor you can always find another job--as long as you are 12 years old and willing to work for 40 cents an hour."
Such moral outrage is common among the opponents of globalization--of the transfer of technology and capital from high-wage to low-wage countries and the resulting growth of labor-intensive Third World exports. These critics take it as a given that anyone with a good word for this process is naive or corrupt and, in either case, a de facto agent of global capital in its oppression of workers here and abroad.
But matters are not that simple, and the moral lines are not that clear. In fact, let me make a counter-accusation: The lofty moral tone of the opponents of globalization is possible only because they have chosen not to think their position through. While fat-cat capitalists might benefit from globalization, the biggest beneficiaries are, yes, Third World workers.