In 2011, as a condition for joining, the World Trade Organization ordered Samoa to eliminate the ban within a year.
Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! So that's one of the aims of the WTO, to promote corporate interests, even when it's bad for the general population.
This is the whole purpose of the WTO. Last year India tried to invest on the development of solar energy and was hit by the WTO, as India cannot provide subsidies to their own companies due to the globalization rules they had to accept. Now India is trying to sue back the USA due to their own national subsidies for solar power. The expected defense of the USA: "our companies are global, yours aren't".
Why not have a subsidy that applies to companies from any country willing to do X in your country, rather than only companies headquartered in your country?
I am kind of interested how the current liberals become pro-globalization all of the sudden. They went from organizing large anti-globalization riots, and getting tear gased fighting it, to "What do you mean? We love globalization!".
I want to see a more specific analysis in how the shift happened, and maybe a more detailed timeline. Certainly an interesting topic.
Here is of course Zuckerberg with his letter worrying that people are not buying the globalization shtick very well anymore:
> liberals become pro-globalization all of the sudden. They went from organizing large anti-globalization riots
If you take everyone to the left of Reagan and put them all under one label of "liberal", then confusion understandably results. In particular, conflating Millian "liberals" with Marxist "socialists" with whoever happens to be running a street demo is a bad idea. The riots were specifically the work of the "black bloc", a small group of left-anarchists.
The general complaints of the (non-violent) protestors were to do with exactly this kind of thing - the use of a transnational process to override local environmental / labour law improvements for the profit of multinational companies.
The liberal (not socialist!) argument for free movement of people is partly the libertarian "why are you using force against a natural freedom" argument, and partly a pragmatic one that if capital now has free movement labour should as well.
A situation where capital can freely move to the most favourable jurisdiction but labour cannot is politically unsustainable.
(Yes, I left all this out of the original one-sentence snark.)
> The riots were specifically the work of the "black bloc", a small group of left-anarchists.
The riots was hyperbole, there were not the only ones advocating for anti-globalization. So was Bernie Sanders, Chomsky and many others. There were not tear gassed for it regularly but the ideology was there.
> A situation where capital can freely move to the most favourable jurisdiction but labour cannot is politically unsustainable.
The point was it was traditionally the Koch brothers and the like who advocated "globalization" not anyone calling themselves "the left". So it seems there was a reversal on the topic which I think is interesting.
You mention libertarianism, but that was usually closer aligned to conservatism than "leftism" so to speak.
> In particular, conflating Millian "liberals" with Marxist "socialists" with whoever happens to be running a street demo is a bad idea.
Yes that is the issue. I think both are referred to as "the left". And at some point it is worth pointing out the difference and seeing that from a traditional point there isn't much left left in "the left" (pun intended), which I think is interesting and was trying to find a more detailed analysis of it.
It seems to me there was split around the late 90s where the divisions are more like between "faux-liberalism + corporatism" (this includes Democrats like the Clintons and Obama), "faux-conservatism + corporatism" (Bushes), "conservatist populism" (Trump and company), "traditional left" (Sanders, Chomsky).
The "faux" bit is because the liberalism vs conservatism is a veneer used to attract whatever is deemed popular at the time. Latest Clinton campaign and Obama used identity politics and immigration to sell corporatism. Bush (junior mostly) used religion to sell "conservatism".
Also it is rather interesting that Trump capitalized on a traditional leftist position of anti-globalization (anti-NAFTA, pulling out of TPP, talk about workers etc). He probably saw a void there with Democrats abandoning that ideology and moved in opportunistically to capitalize on it.
> I am kind of interested how the current liberals become pro-globalization all of the sudden. They went from organizing large anti-globalization riots, and getting tear gased fighting it, to "What do you mean? We love globalization!".
There are a lot of groups under the "liberal" tent, like there are a lot of groups under the "conservative" tent.
I suggest you read 'The Technological Society' by Jacques Ellul. It's not an easy read, the sort of book where you take lots of notes and then learn from the notes:
Recent generations have been conditioned by society to accept globalisation - amongst other things. The book, which I only recently read myself, describes what has been happening for hundreds of years and it's to do with progress - technical progress, of which technology is just the pinnacle.
Those people who were against globalisation on the left were the old guard, the people who were strong supporters of trade unions and were proud of their local communities. Sanders is an example in the US, Corbyn or Skinner are examples in the UK.
Another source that you might find interesting is Mark Blyth - a lecturer from Brown Uni.
He looks at these topics from a long term economic viewpoint. He has a left wing academic perspective, which clouds his conclusions though. There are lots of lectures from him on YouTube.
Last time I've tried to argue for the French ban of unlimited soda refills, I was called a "Stalinist" so I probably won't say much on this one. I hope it will help to reduce their obesity rates.
The free refills policy strikes me as very American as well. The other day I paid $3.50 for a 250ml coke at a restaurant when the main course cost $4 :(
He wasn't exaggerating he was being sarcastic. He was in fact poking fun at the notion that defending a soda ban was compared to stalinism. Your outrage is misplaced.
The "Stalinism" isn't so much about the actual soda, but more about the attitude that the government should have the power to just step in and ban whatever the hell someone has decided is a bad idea this week. Once you move from the presumption of freedom to the presumption that anything that might have negative consequences should be banned, it's hard to get back.
Personally I believe that whatever consenting adults get up to is none of the government's business, whether it's weird butt stuff or selling each other unlimited quantities of sugary water. If you're going to ban one, why not ban the other? They're both enjoyable to certain people and both have negative public health consequences.
"This is what I gathered. That in that country if a man falls into ill health, or catches any disorder, or fails bodily in any way before he is seventy years old, he is tried before a jury of his countrymen, and if convicted is held up to public scorn and sentenced more or less severely as the case may be. There are subdivisions of illnesses into crimes and misdemeanours as with offences amongst ourselves—a man being punished very heavily for serious illness, while failure of eyes or hearing in one over sixty-five, who has had good health hitherto, is dealt with by fine only, or imprisonment in default of payment. But if a man forges a cheque, or sets his house on fire, or robs with violence from the person, or does any other such things as are criminal in our own country, he is either taken to a hospital and most carefully tended at the public expense, or if he is in good circumstances, he lets it be known to all his friends that he is suffering from a severe fit of immorality, just as we do when we are ill, and they come and visit him with great solicitude, and inquire with interest how it all came about, what symptoms first showed themselves, and so forth,—questions which he will answer with perfect unreserve; for bad conduct, though considered no less deplorable than illness with ourselves, and as unquestionably indicating something seriously wrong with the individual who misbehaves, is nevertheless held to be the result of either pre-natal or post-natal misfortune."
The [WTO] said in a statement that it would allow a 300 percent import duty on turkey tail imports and a domestic prohibition on sales during the transition period to allow the country to “develop and implement a nationwide program promoting healthier diet and lifestyle choices.”
Reminds me of the planet Norstrilia in Cordwainer Smith's fiction, which exports an astronomically precious immortality drug, yet maintains its archaic culture (resembling Australian ranchers with a British cultural inheritance) with import taxes of over 20000000%.
> Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population!
Depends who you ask. Some people understand the risks of junk food but still want it (same as with alcohol and tobacco). Junk food also tends to be cheaper per calorie.
As an individualist, I believe competent adults should be allowed to draw their own line. But if I had to compromise, hard drugs does seem like a more reasonable line.
I've always thought there is no need for drugs to be illegal, because if they are really bad then nature provides it own penalty and if they arent bad then they shouldnt be banned anyway
And the same can't be said of drugs? Many people take psychoactive substances responsibly, and only a small percent develop problems with dependency and abuse.
Hell, I'd be willing to bet that more people who eat junk food become effective "junk food addicts" and develop resultant health problesm as a percentage than do people who use LSD, MDMA, or even cocaine.
Bananas have ~100 calories each and act as a Diuretic makeing eating large numbers of them on a regular basis unpleasant. So, I am going to call BS.
You can gain weight on a high fruit diet, but bananas are an unusual choice. Fruit juice on the other hand is much easier way to gain weight, but like most processed foods less heathy.
Dried fruit is very high in calories, for example.
And it's not like you're only eating fruit. These people would eat a normal meal and then snack on fruits constantly. So if they didn't eat fruit they'd only be getting 2000 calories a day, but it's quite easy to eat 500 calories of dried dates or dried figs.
At that point you can just as easily blame the excessive meals vs snaking as the problem. Two glasses of milk per day * 40 years can be the difference between normal weight an obisity, but it's rare for people to blame milk.
did Samoa apply bans to unhealthy locally produced food too or just to unhealthy imported food?
In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion. We have a patent on junk food.
> In general, countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food. And the article agrees with that assertion.
Patently false assertion. I'm ethnically a pacific islander who grew up on a small island in Micronesia and I can assure you that local island dishes are quite unhealthy.
Samoan traditional food isn't unhealthy. Fish and taro isn't going to make anyone fat in a hurry. About 15 years ago we would joke that Samoans only got fat when they came to New Zealand and discovered KFC.
> Fish and taro isn't going to make anyone fat in a hurry.
It's easy to attribute dishes as healthy when just considering fish and taro, but this fails to acknowledge its traditional preparation with high amounts of coconut milk, salt, and sugar. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a nutritional facts label for any traditional dish? I can only speak anecdotally in that traditional Samoan dishes are not unlike Micronesia to the degree that Georgia Southern foods are clearly distinct from Alabama's flavor (that is to say they're not).
I think one of the biggest problems is the dependence of poorer remote islands in the Pacific on less perishable foods: think canned goods like Spanish sausage, Spam, sardines, Palm corned beef (from NZ), etc. or cheap frozen meats by the box, e.g. ribs, chicken, turkey legs, etc.
When I was growing up, my father would make the ocassional business trip to the FSM (specifically Palau). He'd bring boxes of frozen ribs and chicken with him and exchange for coolers of fresh lobster with his local contacts. Throw in a few cases of canned Budweiser and those business negotiations always turned out great. This might sound crazy to people who grew up in 1st-world countries, but it's a thing, and if you grew up on the islands as I did, then you know precisely what's up.
Just a couple of quotes from the article that my assertion is based on fact.
Experts say the region’s health crisis is primarily driven by a decades-long shift from traditional diets based on root crops toward ones that are high in sugar, refined starch and processed foods.
It is so wrong what is being done to exploit these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health,...
To be sure, I specifically refute your claim that countries like that don't have unhealthy, locally-produced food.
As I've pointed out in a previous comment, when was the last time you saw a label of nutritional facts on any local dish anywhere in the Pacfic that allowed vetting of such a claim? When traditional preparation methods of natural foods are simply dismissed without consideration, it's easy to attribute these foods as anything but unhealthy. That's the misjudgement I see having personally grown up on a wee little-known island in the Pacific.
The quotes in the article point out the seriousness of the issue primarily driven by foreign food products high in sugar, refined starch and processed foods. I'm definitely in agreement with this claim, but it does not--indeed cannot--assert as fact that locally-produced foods are intrinsically healthy, and by that I specifically mean how they're traditional prepared.
Which begs the question: Was rigorous Western medicine on the scene prior to foreign influence that it was able to ascertain the health baseline of an indigenous population prior to its exploitation? If foreign dietary choices disappeared overnight, that doesn't necessarily mean that overall population health will realize some normalcy comparable to the rest of the 1st world. I believe there are deeply rooted cultural norms distinct to each island that have yet to be addressed.
WTO gets a lot of flack for that, but they exist to provide international trade and that requires removing local obstacles, and each obstacle will have some good reason behind it.
Countries are free to join the WTO, if they don't feel the package is worth it, they are free to opt out. What they can't do is get it piece-meal.
> WTO gets a lot of flack for that, but they exist to provide international trade and that requires removing local obstacles, and each obstacle will have some good reason behind it.
In this case a good reason, but I can just as equally imagine that (eg) some subsidy or tariff is there primarily to protect a powerful voting bloc, or friends of whichever government put the rule in place.
It's funny because the people most likely to trust the government with the power to ban junk food are the ones least likely to trust the government to can mind-altering drugs.
Fire exists, wheelchair ramps, smoke alarms, fire rated building materials.
Emission targets, waste control.
Air traffic, RF spectrum, earth orbit satellites.
Minimum wages, social security, health care, school.
Defence, police, emergence services.
We are not savages. In fact, it could be argued that the system we have is a result of having anarchy in our distant past. We rather like being governed and having institutions and civil society.
Eliminate a policy designed for the betterment of the population! So that's one of the aims of the WTO, to promote corporate interests, even when it's bad for the general population.