经管专业外文翻译----全球化的威胁(编辑修改稿)

经管专业外文翻译----全球化的威胁(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

presses an extreme individualism and the value of personal responsibility, which is highly advantageous to corporate power, leaving bargaining between large firms and isolated individuals. Collective and munity values, the threat of externalities and ecological damage from unconstrained business growth, free market instabilityall are shunted aside in this ideological system. This ideological campaign has been highly successful, because vast sums of business money fed to intellectuals and thinktanks, and business domination of the mass media, has allowed their views to prevail. Heritage Foundation leader Edwin Feulner has described the strategy of his corporate funded and globally linked thinktank as analogous to Procter amp。 Gamble39。 s in selling soapsaturate the market with messages that overwhelm any that are less well funded. But this is a corruption of democracy。 it is a bought market of ideas, not a free market of ideas. Capturing or immobilizing governments. The business munity has also mounted a powerful effort to dominate governmentseither by capture or by limiting their ability to serve ordinary citizens. Globalization has contributed to this effort, partly by the arbitraging process mentioned earlier, which favors authoritarian rule. Apart from this, by enlarging business profits and weakening labor it has shifted the balance of power further toward business, so that political parties have been even more decisively influenced by business money in elections. In the United States, it is 5 notorious that Mr. Clinton has sought and received enormous sums from business and serves their interests almost exclusively, with only token efforts on behalf of the major nonbusiness constituencies of the Democratic Party. The globalizing corporate media have added their growing strength to the advance of neoliberal ideology and opposition to any vestiges of social democracy, making social democratic policies difficult to implement. The Murdoch effect on British elections, and the current MurdochBlair connection illustrates the point. Another wellknown and important antidemocratic force is the power of global financial markets to limit political options. Social democratic policies make for an unfavorable investment climate. Businesses will therefore respond to politicians and acts serving ordinary citizens with threatened or actual exit. Financial market effects on exchange and interest rates can be extremely rapid and damaging to the economy. Spokespersons for the new global economy actually brag about the ability of capital to penalize unsound policies, and the fact that money capital now rules. These business efforts, aided and validated by the IMF and by media support, regularly cause social democrats to retreat to policies acceptable to the rulers. Thus, in country after country social democratic parties have accepted neoliberalism, despite the contrary preferences of great majorities of their voting constituencies. But this means that nominal democracy is no longer able to serve ordinary citizens, making elections meaningless and democracy empty of substance. This helps explain why half or more of eligible . voters no longer participate in national elections. Supranational limits on democracythe New (TNC) Protectionism. Not satisfied with this level of political control, the business munity has pushed for international agreements, and policy actions by the IMF and World Bank, that further encroach on the ability of democratic polities to act on behalf of their constituencies. These agreements and the demands of the international financial institutions invariably call for precisely the policies desired by the TNC munity. The EMU conditions give primacy to budget constraints and inflation control, in accord with the neoliberal and corporate agenda. GATT, the WTO, and the NAFTA agreement also give top priority to corporate investor and intellectual property rights, to which all other considerations must give way. In the early 1980s, the IMF and World Bank took advantage of the Third World debt crisis and used their leverage with numerous distressed Third World borrowers to force their acceptance of Structural Adjustment Programs. These forced the borrowing countries to agree to give first priority to external debt repayment, private as well as government。 it pelled them to adapt austerity programs of tight money and budget cutbacks focusing heavily on social expenditures affecting the poor and ordinary citizens。 it forced a stress on exports, which help generate foreign exchange to allow debt repayment and that more closely integrate the borrower39。 s economy into the global system。 and it stressed privatization, allegedly in the interest of efficiency, but serving both to help balance the budget without tax increases and to provide openings for TNC investment in the troubled economy. The IMF is doing the same in Asia today. 6 A second characteristic of the new agreements and IMFWorld Bank actions is their denial of democratic rights to noncorporate citizens and elected governments. These are subordinated to the rights of corporate investors, the superior class of global citizens with priority over all。