Naomi Responds to the Economist

national | miscellaneous | news report Tuesday November 19, 2002 20:44 by As do many other Ghosts

Good piece from the 'crack-whore' TM Ya Basta Italy

posted by naomi on Monday November 11, @04:20AM Pasted from Geurilla (sic) News Network

A bunch of people have written to the site and asked me if I planned to
respond to the attack on me in the current issue of The Economist. Frankly,
I think the article is so nuts, it's not even worth responding. But I would
like to add some context that might help explain why an article so personal
and childish was allowed to go to press in a publication that prides itself
on being a cool voice of reason and authority on all matters economic.

It's an editorial policy of The Economist not publish bylines on most of its
articles. The article about me, though unsigned, was written by a reporter
named Sameena Ahmad. I have had several previous encounters with this
reporter, most recently, on September 25 2002, when I debated Ms. Ahmad in
New York at the Centre for Ethical Culture. The debate was moderated by
Brian Lehrer and an edited version was broadcast on WNYC. The debate was
called "Pro Logo vs. No Logo" because one year earlier, Ms. Ahmad has
written a cover story for The Economist attacking the ideas in my book, No
Logo. Her story was called "Pro Logo: Why Brands Are Good For You."

An edited version of the WNYC debate is posted here:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/09262002

Because I knew that Ms. Ahmad was likely to challenge the credibility of my
research and statistics - a common debating tactic and a convenient way to
obscure the real issues - I decided to try to pre-empt this tactic by
drawing ALL of my facts and figures for the debate from the pages of The
Economist magazine. I thought it would be funny. Here is a transcript of my
opening statement. Sources are indicated in brackets:

Thank you, Brian.

In the year since The Economist published its passionate defense of brands
as a vehicle for social justice, the whole idea of trusting corporations has
been taking a beating. I'm going to read you a couple of recent quotes-but I
should warn you that they come from an unlikely source.

Here's a quote:
"Venerated corporate bosses have been exposed as fraudulent hucksters.
Worse, many of the bedrock institutions of American capitalism-accounting
rules, oversight bodies, boards of public companies-have been found
wanting." ["The unlikeliest scourge," July 13-19, 2002]

Here's another quote:
"The sudden collapse of Enron.has shaken faith . in the integrity of
corporate America, and in the Wall Street-centered model of capitalism that
has been hawking its wares to investors the world over." ["Capitalism and
its troubles," May 18-24, 2002]

This shameless corporate-bashing doesn't come from the pages of No Logo.
These quotes are from recent issues of The Economist magazine.

Sameena Ahmad's task tonight is to defend the effects branding. We are going
to hear that brands protect us. That having a powerful brand name that can
be tarnished - like Nike, Martha Stewart or WorldCom -- makes companies more
responsive, more anxious to live up to our ethical standards.

Defenders of brands like to point to Nike - they say that in response to
consumer outrage over sweatshop labour, Nike had to change its ways. Or they
say look at Shell: it has spent millions buying ads just to let us know
about its new social conscience. We are told that brand-name multinationals
are cleaning up their acts because we want them to -- and they want us to be
happy. After all, if we aren't happy, we won't buy their products. We vote
with our dollars -- call it trickle-down ethics.

So forget the old tactics: Unions, people in the streets - they're both
passé. Even government regulation is not longer necessary, or so we are
told. We can trust brand name companies to regulate themselves -- with the
help of their auditors.

But I started wondering, as I thought about this debate: does The Economist
really believe this stuff? I decided to find out. Here's what I learned
reading back issues of Ms Ahmad's own magazine.

Last year, The Economist reported on Shell's attempt to "prove that it cared
for the people who lived in its production areas." The reporter quoted a
leaked internal report about Shell's philanthropic projects that found, and
I quote, that "less than a third [of these projects] have been successful."
["Helping, but not developing," May 12-18, 2001]

The reporter noted that this "makes for depressing reading" -- I couldn't
agree more.

Here's another revelation: The Economist is well aware that brand-name
pharmaceutical companies are doing a miserable job of meeting the desperate
need for AIDS drugs in the developing world. In fact, the only AIDS-related
success story I could find in two years of weekly issues was Brazil. There,
the government has ignored brand names, broken drug patents, and delivered
generic anti-retrovirals for free. And it has cut the number of AIDS deaths
in half. ["Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst," July 13-19, 2002]

And then there is the argument that corporations can be trusted to police
themselves - The Economist sees through that one too, when it wants to. The
magazine published a study this summer that found that when auditors
challenged questionable business practices, the companies that paid those
auditors bullied them into changing their minds in 57 per cent of the cases.
["I swear." August 17-23, 2002]

And how are we to believe that brands are accountable to average consumers,
when we read in The Economist that they aren't even accountable to their
shareholders. In the current issue, there is a very good article on Jack
Welsh - I recommend it --- which points out we didn't get the goods on Jack
from the SEC or any other watchdog. We got them from divorce papers filed by
his wife. ["A helluva problem," September 21-27, 2002]

A lot has happened since The Economist argued that brands are good for you.

And perhaps, Sameena, you feel that your passionate defense of brand-name
corporations was a little bit overly enthusiastic -- post Enron, post
Anderson, post Martha Stewart and post Jack Welsh. If so, you are not alone.
Let's take comfort, one more time, in the current issue of The Economist. A
final quote: there is a "pervasive sense of foolishness" among those who
"worshipped [corporate CEOs] as gods, laying offerings of unimaginable
wealth.at their feet. Now impoverished shareholders are choking on their own
disgust." ["A helluva problem," September 21-27, 2002]

Of course some of us have been choking for years.

In closing, I am thrilled to have this opportunity to debate such an
important topic with The Economist. But I've done these kinds of debates
before, and often, they degenerate into tedious arguments about whose facts
and statistics can be trusted.

So, to save some time, ALL of the facts and figures I'll quote tonight come
directly from the pages of your magazine.

Let's stick to the facts. Of course I would love to stick to my own facts.
But I'll settle for sticking to yours.

Thank you

Over the course of the debate, I drew on other statistics from The Economist
that, I felt, supported my position, not the arguments being made by Ms.
Ahmad. Some examples:

The Economist likes to paint critics of this economic model as spoiled
college kids in the U.S. and Europe but its reporters often tell another
story: the true backlash is coming from the developing world. Why? Because
as The Economist's own reporters find time and time again, the record of
these policies is abysmal:

According to The Economist:

The number of people living in dire poverty has remained roughly the same
since 1987 -- 1.2 billion people. ["Old battle; new strategy," January 8-14,
2000]

According the The Economist, the only country where hunger has fallen
sharply is China. ["Hunger: always with us," June 15-21, 2002]. The
Economist somehow fails to see the irony of holding up an extremely
protectionist, interventionist communist country to prove that the free
market still works.

On the other hand, in countries that have flung their borders open to
deregulated trade and followed the recipes of the IMF, poverty has deepened.
The Economist sometimes admits that this is indeed a problem. For instance,
The Economist recently reported that "Flows of private capital to poor
countries have grown (to over $100 billion in 1998), but much of this is
short-term spending and little goes to the neediest countries or people."
["The poor who are always with us," July 1-7, 2000]

Here are some specific examples of this failure in trickle down economics,
all drawn, once again, from the pages of The Economist:

Ecuador: last year, Ecuador's economy was growing by 5.4 per cent - the
fastest growth rate in Latin America, yet 56 per cent of the population is
still poor. ["Ecuador's economy: mixed blessings," January 26-February 1,
2002]

India: through the mid-nineties, the economy grew by 7.5 per cent, but
poverty decreased by only 1 per cent. ["Indian poverty and the numbers
game," April 29-May 5, 2000] According to the same article, before
free-trade, the economy grew slower but poverty decreased faster.

Bolivia: it had a growth rate of 5 per cent, but average income dropped and
more people fell into poverty. ["Patience runs out in Bolivia," April 21-27,
2001]

Poland: Even with impressive growth rates of 5.5 per cent a year, according
to The Economist "Poland is fast becoming two nations: one of
comfortably-off city dwellers and one of dirt-poor villagers." ["Poland:
limping towards normality," October 27-November 2, 2001]

Argentina: In a country which was once the richest in Latin America, 57 per
cent of the population is now living in poverty - 1 in 5 are hungry.
["Argentina: return to the dark ages," April 27-May 3, 2002]

Mongolia: Since Mongolia adopted free trade policies, the number of street
children exploded from 300 in 1992 to 4000 two years ago. ["Mongolia: Living
in a manhole," January 22-28, 2000]

This are not just any statistics: they are The Economist's own statistics -
in stark contradiction of its editorial line, which continues to maintain
that increased "free trade" is the route out of poverty. And yet according
to The Economist's own reporters, investment and free trade are NOT leading
to the promised prosperity in many countries around the world - they are
making more people poor and some people very rich.

In its June 2-8 issue, The Economist even acknowledges that there is a
relationship between these free market policies and increasing inequality,
stating that "After China joins the WTO, officials expect inequalities to
increase further." ["To each according to his abilities," June 2-8, 2001]

The Economist has also reported extensively on the backlash to these
policies coming not only from so-called anti-globalization activists in
Seattle or Genoa, but from the developing world itself.

For instance, the main conclusion of a recent pan-Latin American poll,
published exclusively in English by The Economist, were that "Latin
Americans . have lost faith in privatization; and want the state to take a
more active role in regulating the economy." ["Democracy clings on in cold
economic climate," August 17-23 2002]

Further privatizations are being rejected around the world, and The
Economist has reported on several of these cases. For instance, it reported
that "in 1992, Uruguayans voted in a referendum against privatizing
telecoms." ["Batlling in Uruguay," February 3-9 2001] And that although
Ecuador's "President Gustavo Noboa wants to privatize the state energy
firms.71% of Ecuadorians.oppose electricity privatization. Last month the
government halted the sale of ten of Ecuador's 17 state-owned electricity
distributors." ["Ecuador's economy: in hock," April 13-19 2002]

As I quoted these statistics during the debate, Ms. Ahmad grew increasingly
angry, a fact that was remarked upon by many people present and was reported
on in The Village Voice, which described Ms. Ahmad's demeanor as "enraged"
and her closing statement as "a nasty tirade."

Since The Economist doesn't publish bylines on its articles, I thought this
background might be useful, that it might even help explain why Sameena Ahma
d and her editors are in such a foul mood these days. Personally I think we
should thank them: The Economist's research does a better job of refuting
neo-liberal logic than it does of supporting it. And from their point of
view, that's got to sting.