Posted
on 28-11-2002
Desperately
Defending Logos
by Naomi Klein (shown in photo)
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
www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1429429
so nuts,
its 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.
Its 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.
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. Im going to read you a couple of
recent uotes ut
I should warn you that they come from an unlikely source.
Heres a quote: enerated corporate bosses have been exposed as
fraudulent
hucksters. Worse, many of the bedrock institutions of American
capitalism
ccounting rules, oversight bodies, boards of public companies
ave been
found wanting. [The unlikeliest scourge, July 13-19, 2002]
Heres 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
Ahmads 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
wont buy their
products. We vote with our dollars -- call it trickle-down ethics.
So forget the old tactics: Unions, people in the streets theyre
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. Heres
what I learned reading back issues of Ms Ahmads own magazine.
Last year, The Economist reported on Shells attempt to prove
that it cared
for the people who lived in its production areas. The reporter
quoted a
leaked internal report about Shells 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.
Heres 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 arent 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 didnt 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. Lets 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 Ive 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 Ill quote tonight come
directly from the pages of your magazine. Lets stick to the
facts. Of
course I would love to stick to my own facts. But Ill 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 Economists 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, Ecuadors 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. [Ecuadors 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 Economists 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
Economists 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
Ecuadors 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 Ecuadors 17 state-owned
electricity
distributors. [Ecuadors 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. Ahmads
demeanor as
enraged and her closing statement as a nasty tirade.
Since The Economist doesnt publish bylines on its articles,
I thought this
background might be useful, that it might even help explain
why Sameena
Ahmad and her editors are in such a foul mood these days. Personally
I
think we should thank them: The Economists research does a better
job of
refuting neo-liberal logic than it does of supporting it. And
from their
point of view, thats got to sting.
|