Globalisation - WTF Have We Done ?

Most of us have heard of ‘Globalisation’. Its usually sold to us as a positive; they say that its an international market for companies and that for consumers there is a wider range of products to choose from. They also sell it on creating a greater level of investment in developing countries which can be used for economic reconstruction, and of course, all of that is true - but to what extent?

Both UKIP and Donald Trump made a big play on curbing globalisation’s influence in the EU referendum and US election but I bet the average man on the street doesn’t realise why it isn’t good and just how much control and influence the big corporations actually have over our lives these days.

And you can’t say we weren’t warned about globalisation. In 1938 President Roosevelt warned that “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.”

The subject of globalisation has many strands and is really too big for one blog so I just thought I'd give a flavour of what I think some of the issues are.

Who Are They?
These days the large companies like Starbucks, Amazon, Shell, Microsoft, McDonalds etc, reach right across the world. They have offices and factories in many different countries. They also have the financial resources to develop an underdeveloped country by introducing Western automation in production and advanced technology. This does change the lives of people in these underdeveloped countries, but not always in a good way.

Corporate globalisation has been around for a while; it’s crept into our lives almost stealth like, in reality it’s already taken over the world. Over half of the world's top 100 economies are not countries but corporations. Here’s a few examples:

• The oil people, Shell's revenues are greater than Venezuela's Gross National Product
• Asda/Walmart's revenues are bigger than Indonesia's
• General Motors revenues exceed the revenues of Ireland, New Zealand and Hungary -  combined !!

These multi-national corporations essentially own the world. It's a scary thought isn’t it? The world is in effect owned by these greedy corporations. Many are convinced that corporate globalisation is not only responsible for the economic mess we find ourselves in today but that it’s also responsible for the environmental mess we now find ourselves in. I must admit, it’s hard to disagree.

And don’t forgot, corporate globalisation has no conscience. The only thing these massive corporations truly recognise is profit. They have no other motive; no other reason to exist. Human, national and local values are all virtually non-existent in their corporate culture, and for me, that's why corporate globalisation is such a bad idea.

So What is There to Actually Like?
Not a lot really. Globalisation operates mostly in the interests of the richest countries, which continue to dominate world trade at the expense of developing countries. Today the role of the Third World in the world market is mostly to provide America and Europe with cheap labour and raw materials. There are no guarantees that the wealth from inward investment will benefit their local community. Generally all the profits are sent back to the developed countries where these Multi-National Companies are usually based. 

Multi-national companies with their massive economies of scale, may drive local companies out of business, (we’ve all seen our local shops disappear when a new Tesco comes to town). If it then becomes cheaper to operate in a different country, the Multi-National Company just closes down its factory and makes local people redundant, we’ve all seen it!

An absence of strictly enforced international laws means that Multi-National Companies may operate in the Third World countries in a way that would not be allowed in developed countries. They may pollute the environment, run risks with safety or impose poor working conditions and low wages on local workers – all in the name of reduced costs and increased profits.

Globalisation is also a threat to the world's cultural diversity. Quite simply it drowns out local economies, traditions and languages and simply re-casts the whole world in the mould of America and Europe. An example of this is that a Hollywood film is far more likely to be successful worldwide than one made in India or China, even though they both have thriving film industries.

Corporate globalisation and the environment
Corporate globalisation has no respect for the beautiful world we were given! We started with such a precious environment, a world so rich in resources, rich in water, in trees, in land! Rich in fish and animals, fertile soil and awe-inspiring forms of life.

What has globalisation done with the beautiful world we were given as a home? What are we doing with it?

We have polluted our water, our land, our air. Over and over we’ve polluted the ocean with oil (Remember the big BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?). We've made deserts where there were once green meadows. We're reduced to bottom-trawling the ocean for fish, irrevocably destroying the ocean bed environment and irrevocably damaging the ocean eco-system. 

We've chopped down the rain forests, turning that awesome canopy of trees into charcoal to feed the factory furnaces in developing countries. We've irrevocably harmed the global environment in the process. As a result we've destroyed or seriously reduced whole populations of wild animals. All for the sake of corporate globalisation.

Who Benefits Really?
In reality, nobody benefits. The people are even poorer than before. The globalised corporations get a little richer - that's all !!

In 1950, the average income of the people living in the wealthiest countries was 20 times the income of people living in the poorest countries. Now, the average income of the wealthiest countries is 60 times that of the poorest countries. These people have not been aided in the least. They have been harmed, not helped, by Western industrialisation and corporate globalisation.

Indoctrination and The Politics Of Globalisation
Until now our politicians have been unwavering in their support for corporate globalisation, why? Well for a start you only have to look at how many of them benefit personally from it when they’re in office or after they’ve left. How many sit on the Board’s of these corporations? How many have non-exec positions with these companies? How many have a pension gravy train with these companies? How many actively ‘work with’ lobbyists from these companies? Simple answer is – most of them ! 

I found this interesting quote from the late Tony Benn, a politician who refused to side with the corporations:-

“What's happened is big corporations have seized governments and taken them over, making the state much stronger in the interest of corporate finance. That's what has happened. The people who control market forces have taken over the state. I met an old governor of Ohio a year ago, and he said to me, "You'll never have democracy while big business buys both parties and expects a payoff from whichever one wins." We're not represented anymore. We're managed on behalf of global capitalism, and that's why in Seattle and Prague and everywhere else in the world, people are beginning to stir, because they realize they're being managed now. Nobody represents them”

And he was right. The fact that globalisation has never worked for the majority of poorer people is ignored by policy makers and business leaders. This is what people like Trump and Farage picked up on and played on with success.

Even the media (who are mostly large corporations) spin Globalisation as a positive as it suits their masters to do so. The description of globalisation on the BBC website reads :

“What is globalisation?
Globalisation is the process by which the world is becoming increasingly interconnected as a result of massively increased trade and cultural exchange. Globalisation has increased the production of goods and services. The biggest companies are no longer national firms but multinational corporations with subsidiaries in many countries.” 
No negatives there then, big is beautiful !!


So How Do These Corporations Extort the Governments
Multi-national corporations use their global reach to extort governments. Want to force Google to pay their taxes? No thanks, they'll save money by moving operations to another country, and thus they're given tax breaks instead, and the rest of us have to pick up the tab.

A simple analysis says the global corporations want the gift of low taxation. To get that they say, to a government, "We'll build a factory in your country. That will employ people and will get you votes. Now, where are those low taxes and tariffs you promised us?". That, if you like is the Nissan model. It's importance to our Brexit-beleaguered government was only too evident last year, as was Google announcing a UK HQ.

And what of the "Google Model"?
Google is, without doubt, a huge global player. They clearly twist governments' arms all over the world to get what they want. But what is it that they offer in return?

They don't employ that many people. Their local workforce in the UK is a few thousand high-earners (average Google salary in the UK is £160,000 a year). They are hardly an important player as far as most of us are concerned. They don't create a supply-chain regional economy in the way that manufacturing does. So no trickle-down effect.

So why are Google and their like so important to the UK government? I can only think it's because, like Murdoch and his brethren, they are being relied on to drive the consumer dream which keeps the masses nicely sedated. I am probably being too simplistic - or maybe I'm just plain thick?

Western Health
Public health disasters contribute to the sense of rupture. After falling for decades, for instance, death rates among middle-aged white people are now rising. Among the likely causes are obesity and diabetes, pain killer addiction and liver failure, diseases whose carriers are corporations. This then leads to more corporations producing pharmaceutical products to help treat this poor health thus creating more wealth - you getting the picture? 

What’s The Answer?
The solution is simple. respect the earth and all living things. Don't exploit either for personal or financial benefit. Break the traditions that have put us in this mess and live according to the problem we all face, not according to where profit is to be found. But it isn’t that simple in a world dominated by the economy.

Corporate Globalisation is the bane of our world. Any world based around monetary governments is bound to breed corruption and tyranny. I must admit, I really don't know what the answer is. I don't think grassroots lobbies work anymore, I don't think the voice of the people is heard anymore, because the governments are pretty much run by large corporate interests. The biggest crime I feel is the death of the human innovative spirit - Do you honestly believe someone would be permitted to build a substitute for oil in this globalised corporate environment?

Where companies pay local taxes in the local markets they operate in it increases democracy, freedom and choice rather than reduces it.  Mega-corporations don't pay tax. At the very best they pay a 10th to a 20th of the tax that would have been paid if all businesses were SMEs.

The greed and the hidden agenda of the huge corporations are not very different from the exploitation of the underdeveloped nations by the more developed ones. Slavery and exploitation have different names in different times and settings. The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. The corrupt, corrupter!

One thing we could do about it, would be to move to a more regulated form of capitalism. The following are all ‘quick-wins;.

• The minimum wage should be increased by a third to make it more like a true living wage.
• All financial transactions to tax havens should be taxed
• There should be workers representatives on company boards
• We should have a national investment bank like the German KFW bank.
• The railways should be nationalised or run on a ‘not-for-profit’ basis 
• There should be a national energy company to compete with the current private companies.
• The Government should give money to Local Authorities and Housing Associations to build affordable houses.

These things might not be a revolution, but they would change life for the better. I know I sound like Jeremy Corbyn with some of this but hey, my views are broad, I do accept some left wing stuff makes sense.

The best many of us can do on a day-to-day basis is to divert our capital from the corporations to small, local, independent shops that keep communities alive, that employ more people in better jobs, and which are likely to give better deals to producers. Not perfect - but a step in the right direction. There again, a lot of small companies survive only because they have access to Amazon's marketplace so whichever way, it's not black & white.

Going off the last twelve months and looking forward, the main argument in politics will no longer be right versus left (which is mainly used as a means to demonise anti establishment politics) but ‘Globalisation versus Localisation’

Manchester Skyscrapers - Heritage v Modernisation

You may have seen on the news recently Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs's £200m plans to redevelop part of central Manchester. Their scheme, which includes two skyscrapers, a five-star hotel, flats and restaurants is in the Bootle Street area between Albert Square and Deansgate. 

This is development is a good thing you may think, regenerating an area of the city that badly needs it. Everybody doesn’t agree though. Opinion among Mancunians is split. Some have described the towers as “two massive turds pointing to the sky.” yet those in favour simply say the critics “just don’t like change”.

The Scheme

The scheme itself is known as the St Michael's development and is close to the historic Manchester Town Hall. Two tall buildings dominate the development, one being 31 Storey, the other 21. They contain a 200-bed five-star hotel, 153 apartments, 135,000 sq ft of Grade A offices, retail and leisure space oh, and a synagogue. 

To allow the development to happen Bootle Street's former 1930s police station goes as does the historic Sir Ralph Abercromby pub which dates back to the Peterloo Massacre. So you can see the argument already developing – heritage versus modern.

Historic England 

Historic England have said they’re "deeply concerned" about the project, and that "It would have an impact on people's appreciation and experience of the stunning town hall and library but it would also erase different layers of this area's history, irreparably damaging the special character of the surrounding conservation area," they reckon "A dynamic city like ours needs to fully embrace development but this scheme is not good enough to justify the damage it would cause to the streets around the site and to the setting of the city's most important buildings and spaces." They also added it "threatened Manchester" with the loss of buildings "that have soul and tell important stories about our city's past".

Hmmm, fairly damning comments there, but do they have a point? – Possibly!!

Pro’s 

Manchester is and always has been a progressive city with an increasing population and it needs to cater for all needs, I'm sure if it was on offer there would be plenty of other cities which would jump at this sort of investment. 

There is a view amongst many that all this heritage stuff is nonsense. The area has been largely forgotten and this development will breathe new life into it. The pub is very quiet and rarely visited these days. The police station was closed a number of years ago and the current synagogue is in serious disrepair, so the time is right to get rid and replace the whole area with a fit for purpose, modern facility akin to that in Spinningfields.  

Con’s

Just because it is big doesn’t mean it’s good. The buildings proposed are an appalling eyesore. Many think the location is not appropriate for towers of this size. The spoiled views across the city skyline are also cited as an issue.

The towers proposed have zero architectural merit, they're just the usual metal/glass box with no particular merit much like a lot of the crap that's been thrown up in the City of London. If they had the architectural merit of say the Shard there might be an argument to be made but they don't. 

There are also fears the design, height and awful colour of the 31 and 21-storey towers will dominate the Deansgate/Peter Street conservation area and dwarf the nationally important Grade II listed Central Library and Grade I-listed Town Hall. There is also the loss of the 18th century pub which is believed to be the only nearby building with a direct link to the 1819 Peterloo Massacre.

There’s also an argument, not strictly relevant, that neither Giggs or Neville need to make any more money, if they want to build, then why not build affordable homes? That way they’re giving something back to the city that enabled them to become millionaires.

So where do I stand?

I'm all in favour of regeneration but come on, this development looks awful. Albert Square is one is the very few places in Manchester with pretty clear views due to the relatively low level of buildings surrounding it. Those two towers would just dominate and overpower the area.

I don’t think anyone is against developing this area of the city, however, for me, the proposal is wrong for this location. The problem with developments in historic areas of most major cities is one of scale. Why does it have to dwarf the surrounding buildings? A development smaller in size and appropriate to the area wouldn't be a problem (if these towers were half or a third of the height it would be acceptable) but they totally overwhelm that part of the city centre.

Its surprising that there aren’t more development options to the site put forward for consideration. These could have explored what key heritage buildings could have been utilised. Could the stone-fronted front section of the former police station, the pub and the former synagogue be integrated somehow? Surely there must be ways of inserting a reasonably large development between these buildings. Incorporating and giving the heritage buildings new uses would still revitalise the area. 

Another thought. Can the pub be moved to another location as happened with Sinclairs and The Old Wellington when the area they sat in was redeveloped? There again Tommy Ducks was pulled down overnight by Greenalls the day before the council was to award it listed status, history could repeat itself here I fear.

What I’m saying can be done. On the other side of the Town Hall, in St Peter's Square there is not one but three buildings which reflect the Town Hall and Central library. One built in the 60's and two just built. All respect the historic context of the site they're in. This development doesn’t.

It certainly seems to me that this is an ‘all or nothing’ comprehensive redevelopment similar in nature to that of the 50s and 60s where it is all cleared and then started again. 

Spinningfields was a major success but even there incorporation of heritage buildings isn’t good, the density of glass and steel around Rylands Library (possibly the grandest building in the city) are hardly complimentary to it! Also, directly opposite the Town Hall in Albert square we've got some (albeit low rise) unappealing 70s buildings - but that shouldn’t mean to say there's crap there so let's build some more crap!

So for me, drop the towers to a more palatable height and incorporate the historic buildings (even if it’s just the pub and frontage of the Police Station) into the scheme and bingo, we have a scheme I’d wholeheartedly back. I’m not naive though, I know this won’t happen because Neville and Giggs (and their backers) won’t get the return they need from their investment on a reduced scheme so like I said above, it’s all or nothing!

Game-Changer

The project is a game-changer for Manchester, it’s exactly the sort of project that will force other areas of the city to up their game (such as Piccadilly), however it’s got to be done right! What Manchester needs is the right investment in the right project, not trashing a load of excellent older buildings in a vanity project.

I know from experience, Heritage England can be difficult at the best of times but if they describe an application which could "erase" the area's history then the Planning Officer has a serious problem. There is a section in the National Planning Policy Framework that can override the decision based on heritage impact alone and disregard the positive benefits such as economics from the application so getting it right is essential.

As a city, Manchester must grow and it must evolve. This is the price of progress, however the best cities value progress, and think properly about their growth. Building anything, anywhere isn't progress. Neither is building nothing!

Unlikely I know, but I just hope that the developers look at it again and do right by Manchester. I want the city to get a development which will truly benefit its city centre, its residents and it’s visitors.