The Abusive Talk Show Host & Screener Problem

with Darrell Udelhoven - 05/03/02

Many talk show hosts' will allow guests to avoid responding to the main issues or arguments presented by the audience telephone callers. The caller gets 10 to 20 seconds to present their points, and in my case I'm seldom ever given an opportunity to respond to the guest in order to counter his points and request that they respond directly to the critical points I raised initially.

    It is the responsibility of any good talk show host to require the guest to respond directly to the points that caller's raise. The guests' all get their hour, the talk show audience callers get a very few seconds and usually not even a single response to refute or set straight some important points.

    The guest summarily labeled my points as myth and a bunch of hooey, though the guest was allowed not to address my main points at all. As usual, I was cut off the line and before the guests' response the program went to news. That is why the host should jot down brief notes to restate what the guest is to respond to when the program resumes.

    The Screeners' represent another major problem to many of the audience callers' by asking for far too much detail. This causes some of the callers', some of whom are in very poor health, to become frustrated to the point of giving up and hanging up. Callers' ought to be given some latitude concerning the points they want to make without being third degree queried as to what they are going to say. Those procedures are tantamount to pre censorship of a citizen's right to express their viewpoints on political issues of importance to them.

    I will give you space on a page if you have some good comments on this important issue to you as an Ideas Network caller. Also, mention my Web site address by name [ udarrell.com ] as being relevant to the topic under discussion. If guest's can reference to relevant Web sites then callers' ought to have the same privileges. After all this is supposed to be the ideas network of all the people and not just the guests.

Economic globalization is something to look forward to...but it is being held back by the dead weight of bad government policies. That is according to Tom Clark’s guest, today after seven.

Guest: Brink Lindsey, Director for the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and author of “Against the Dead Hand: The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism”

Brink Lindsey's Theme on Wisconsin Public Radio program: Sets up the equation of as globalization vs anti globalization Get rid of all central government regulation of, markets and trade. Brink Lindsey, as most totally free trader's do, always phases it as, you are either for trade or against trade,

Jack from LaCrosse called stating that it is always presented as globalization vs anti globalization, however, it should be the democratization of globalization vs corporate globalization

My argument was that the focus of large Transnational corporations is on, either maximizing profits or growth, or both, to increase the price of their stock, without regard to the per capita demand side earning powers of the masses. The masses includes: employees, family farmers, and all small business operators within all countries worldwide. It is critical to develop economic policies that builds the demand-side of each countries economy to appropriate levels to build an adequate economic infrastructure. 

JAPAN'S GIANT TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS HAVE CAUSED THE COUNTRY'S DOMESTIC ECONOMIC CRISIS

Since the early 1980s, Japan's transnational corporations have become dominant players in the global economy. Corporate Japan's foreign direct investment (FDI) is now second only to that of corporate America. And Japanese Transnational have a higher rate of physical investment in new, overseas greenfield sites than any of their international competitors.

But according to a new research report by Professor Keith Cowling and Philip Tomlinson published in the latest issue of the Economic Journal, this pursuit of global, corporate interests has severely damaged Japan's domestic industrial economy. In particular, it has led to a dramatic decline in the profitability of Japanese small businesses and decreasing numbers of small firms. This has led to concerns about the 'hollowing out' of Japan's domestic industry, raising the possibility of long-term industrial decline and the spectre of 'strategic failure'.

Standard interpretations of Japan's current economic problems fail to take account of the changing nature and activities of the country's giant transnational corporations, the economy's central actors. Since the early 1980s, the growth in Japanese FDI has been dramatic. In 1980, corporate Japan was still a marginal player in terms of global FDI flows with a 3% share. By 1997, corporate Japan was a world leader with a 12% share, second only to that of corporate America. More significantly, given that most FDI relates to mergers and acquisitions of existing assets, Japan's Transnational have the highest rate of overseas greenfield physical investment.

Cowling and Tomlinson argue that the pursuit of global, corporate interests by Japan's giant transnationals has had detrimental consequences for the country's domestic economy, particularly for small firms operating in the keiretsu networks. The increase in outward FDI flows not only diverts new investment from Japan, but also enhances the ability of Japan's transnationals to act globally when sourcing from outside suppliers. This reduces demand for intermediate goods supplied by Japan's small businesses.

During the 1990s, there has been a dramatic decline in the profitability of Japanese small businesses and decreasing numbers of small firms. This contrasts with other countries, such as the United States and the UK, where there has been a noted resurgence in small firm activity. Concerns have been raised in Japan about the 'hollowing out' of Japanese industry. These researchers see this as 'strategic failure'.

An economic development policy that relies centrally on cultivating the interests of giant transnational corporations will eventually raise issues of 'strategic failure'. To the extent that the state acts in the public interest by playing a part in shaping corporate strategies, this mode of development may create economic success. But it is an economic success that is unlikely to be sustainable.

In the case of Japan, Cowling and Tomlinson argue that the present economic stagnation primarily reflects a structural change that has occurred because of the activities of the giant Transnationals';. Other factors have undoubtedly played a significant role - for example, monetary and financial factors, and related exchange rate movements - but these are underpinned by the fundamentals of industrial production. 'Strategic failure' lies in the concentration of strategic decisions within the controlling groups of corporate Japan. There is no reason to suppose that their decisions will serve the wider public interest.

The researchers conclude that Japan should now shape a development path that will, over time, lead the economy progressively away from the outright dominance of the Japanese giants. They advocate the creation of a stronger small firm base with built-in network linkages, augmented with substantial public infrastructure and the development of research and development facilities serving the whole network.

Note for Editors: 'The Japanese Crisis - A Case of Strategic Failure?' by Keith Cowling and Philip Tomlinson is published in the June 2000 issue of the Economic Journal. The authors are at the University of Warwick, and their research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

For Further Information: contact Keith Cowling or Philip Tomlinson on 024-7652-3028 (fax: 024-7652-3032; email: K.G.Cowling@warwick.ac.uk, Philip.Tomlinson@warwick.ac.uk); RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com); or RES Media Assistant Niall Flynn on 020-7878-2919 (email: nflynn@cepr.org).

---

Over 5 billion human beings are wholly reliant on a just global, national investment, finance, and economic policy regulatory system.  What we must have is: "a mutually beneficial and prospering public purpose in our national and global investment, finance, and economic policy making." We don't need policies that further empower Transnational Corporations in their exploitation of the homeland economies of countries and their peoples -- who are thereby rendered powerless to respond!

How long can this imbalanced economic policy paradigm continue to escalate before the homeland economies of the major First and Third World countries crumble?

The flood of over exuberant over investment by thousands of global corporations has resulted in the overbuilding of  production and other capacities, far in excess of need; which in turn results in massive creditor losses; but of course they insist the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should bail them out.

Remember, there are some 37,000 multinational corporations, and between them they represent four fifths of all world trade and most of the foreign investments.

It is obvious we should work with the universal laws of balance and equity in all relationships that lead to mutual economic prosperity. A clean environment is a key part of this sustainable balance!  Existing global agreements violate all the laws of equity of economic opportunity and mutual broad based worldwide "human economic unit" prosperity. Thus, leaving no economic opportunity to earn a livelihood for billions of our World's Citizens.

In the new world order economy there are 37,000 global operating corporations and between them they represent four fifths of all world trade, and most of the foreign investments. These global operating corporations represent two thirds of the world's economy! They are also the initiators and promulgators of nearly all of the global investment, finance, and trade policy agreements. Many of which are conducted in secrecy. The only real global competition is between those 37,000 multinational operating corporations. The homeland operating economies of countries have no way to compete against the huge regulatory and production costs differentials between First and Third World countries. This has resulted in global economic crises' in many communities worldwide. The actual costs of these horrific injustices, were it accurately computed, would be staggering. Transferring or exporting a countries core wealth producing manufacturing industries and their wealth producing jobs to the least regulated and cheapest production cost countries in the world will eventually devastate the local homeland economies. These agreements allow these corporations to be big time winners by exploiting, in every conceivable way, the homeland economies of both the developing and developed countries.

How should the IMF be funded and why. Tax payers were forced to pay for the S & L losses. The line should have been drawn in the sand. The investment banks and the corporate exploitive speculators are responsible for these irresponsible investments not the citizen tax payers of America and the rest of the world. Therefore, the responsible institutions should be held responsible for their exploitive ventures and not the victims of such outrageously greedy strategies. These exploitive speculators have made billions over the years; even perhaps over a trillion. Leading economist say, that if we were to tax all financial transactions of these types at the rate of one fifth of one percent it would raise 20 to 30 billion a year in the United States alone, and perhaps over 100 billion worldwide. It is time the victimizers of the homeland economies at least fund and pay for their own investment and lending blunders! Come on folks, wake up and start marching and petitioning across America and the World! Let us act before it is too late!

We are beginning to hear short news clips about the real economic consequences of this genuinely flawed global and Asian economic policy system. You won't hear the press questioning the validity of these investment, finance, and trade policies; we dare not question the gross lack of  just moral standards and the total inequities of nearly all existing global economic policies.

The total lack of, on-going exposé journalism, is a facilitating element toward the furtherance of these massive debacles; because, the press should have been outlining, defining, and comprehensively reporting  on the economic damages that are being perpetuated by existing, horribly exploitive, global economic policy making.

The extreme exploitive nature of the multiple thousands of Transnational Corporations has resulted in massive global economic imbalances and instabilities in the countries they invest in, to exploit. Now, they want the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to bail them out with more of your tax money. Remember the Savings and Loan debacle that we tax payers bailed out! We could use intelligent regulatory controls to stop exploitive foreign investments, unfair finance, and unjustly manipulated, non-competitive, trade advantages. However, the new corporate initiated trade and investment agreements multiply these non-competitive advantages that will continue to result in the failure of financial institutions and the economies of countless countries!

I have always stated that we should develop economic policies that result in the strengthening of local economies toward optimal self sustain ability and independence from the economies of other countries. I am for investment, finance, trade, and economic policies that protect and promote sustainable, and stable economic development and growth within and between all countries, to the mutual benefit of all peoples in every country worldwide. We should also reduce, to every extent possible, our dependence on transnational corporations for our economic viability because their policies and practices are predicated on advancing their own selfish interests and will eventually destroy the general homeland economies of countries. This will in time  threatening their national security, and destroy the ability of their people to earn decent livelihoods! This exploitive policy is truly a formula for a multiplicity of internal revolutions and wars of a major magnitude worldwide.

Watch & listen to the crisis in progress on CNN, C-Span and other news sources. Corporations and their investors won, but countries and their homeland peoples lost; eventually, corporations and their investors will lose as well! As soon as I have time I will outline global and national economic policies that will result in sustainable, secure, and mutually prosperous economies of countries worldwide. These policies result in balance and equity within countries and between countries. Stay  tuned!