In Chapter Ten, Pietra Rivoli lets her readers know where t-shirts go after American’s have thrown them out. It turns out the cast-off t-shirt industry is a booming business. However, unlike the textile and apparel trade industries, the cast-off clothing industry must compete in a real market. The most successful companies are the ones that are experts in matching America’s old clothing with customers all over the globe. Used clothing is exported from American processors to Eastern Europe, the Philippines, Chile, Guatemala, and Africa (p. 183). Some thrown-out clothing is not re-wearable, and these products become wiping rags or shoddy.

I was fascinated by the hurdles and risks the cast-off clothing industry has to endure to be successful. After reading about the politics of textiles and apparels, I nearly forgot what a real market looks like. Trans-Americas must pay market value wages to its employees, and the employees are paid according to skill level. The owners work in the factory. The business requires particular skills, not only in sorting, but also in customer relations. Also, Trans-Americas has to change with the market and demands of the customers, or it risks the demise of the company. Textile and apparel industries do not have any of these risks. In this chapter, Rivolo also helped me see a different picture of Africa. People, including myself, are tempted to see Africa as a nation so poor its people do not have preferences. However, the African consumers are just as concerned with clothing quality, fashion, and price as Americans. What’s more, they have the leverage to be picky about what cast-offs they receive from America.

In Chapter Eleven, Rivoli introduces the reader to the poverty in East Africa, particularly Tanzania, and shows how cast-off clothing – called mitumba – is helping many people out of poverty. It is a wonder that the mitumba market is so successful in East Africa because so many formal attempts at creating a business market have failed. The mitumba market displays the closest thing to a free-market with little to no barriers between buyers and sellers. There are signs of improved quality of life in Africa as a result of the mitumba market: the consumers are getting pickier and the competition between sellers is heating up.

I would have never guessed that cast-off clothing could do so much for the poor. When I give my old clothes to Goodwill, I assume someone somewhere will enjoy them, but I do not think of African markets. I think the exchange of goods between the buyers and sellers in these markets is fascinating. The sellers know what their customers are looking for and they work hard to find the right products. I feel like the African people have more choice in what they where than I do because I can only wear what the clothing stores are selling at the time. The volume of cast-off clothing being poured into Africa assures that the consumers can be picky. It is a good sign that the buyers are being pickier because it shows that they can afford more expensive items. If Africans are buying more, their economy is on the rise. Another sign of a growing economy is the growing competition in the industry. More sellers are coming into the playing field, so everyone has to step up their game. Those who can’t compete have to sell out or diversify. I think it is great to hear about the entrepreneurial energy in Africa. The mitumba trade has given many people like Gulam Dewji the opportunity to be successful in the world market. The cast-off t-shirt business has its critics, but I don’t think I am one of them. After seeing all the good my t-shirt can accomplish, I’m all for it.

]]> http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/travels-of-a-t-shirt-10-11/feed/ 0 Ashley http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/travels-of-a-t-shirt-8-9/ http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/travels-of-a-t-shirt-8-9/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:05:29 +0000 Ashley http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/?p=112 ]]>

In Chapter Eight of Travels of a T-Shirt, Pietra Rivoli examines the effects of the t-shirt trade policy in the United States. She discovers that not only were the trade barriers not helpful to U.S. textile laborers, they actually aided competing countries in the apparel market. In fact, the trade barriers have made it more difficult for U.S. apparel producers to compete in the market. Acts like the MFA and its predecessors also carried an economic cost to the United States on the scale of “Very Big Numbers” (p. 143). Rivoli also discusses some of the more perverse effects of American trade laws: globe-trotting, label cheating, and making the wrong people wealthy. She also discovers one positive effect of the U.S. trade policies. In the end, the trade barriers did not fulfill their main purpose: saving American textile jobs.

The trade regime in Washington saved only the jobs of bureaucrats and lobbyists in Washington (pp. 140 & 148). The laws did nothing for the actual textile laborers. Jobs in the apparel market are victims of modern technology, rather than Chinese competition (p. 141). How can we get the public to understand this? Obviously, lobbyists and bureaucrats are still getting paid because production of goods is being kept in the U.S. by the regimes. I feel like the textile laborers are being swindled by Washington lobbyists because trade regimes are not in the workers’ best interests. Also, what happens to the workers who lose their jobs to machines? What can the government do for these people? I believe the “Very Big Numbers” can make a point for me here. “The apparel quotas granted to China during that year (2004) represented a gift of approximately $905 million to the Chinese government” (p. 147). It seems like we should open our borders to free trade in textiles and use the $905 million to re-educate and train our textile workforce for other jobs. The “gift” to China in the form of quotas is also an example of making the wrong people wealthy. The trade regime was built to maintain the wealth of U.S. textiles, but, clearly, the regime is benefiting other countries to a greater extent.

In Chapter Nine, the author carries the reader through the final years leading to the end of the MFA in 2005. She begins with an astonishing re-telling of the negotiations that took place in the textile market in the days following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Rivoli then shifts her attention to the last remaining “dinosaurs” in the textile lobbies, and their rapid disappearance from Washington (p. 161-164). Finally, she discusses the last hoorah for the U.S. textile trade regime which involved some rather surprising supporters.

First of all, I was completely unaware of the importance of textile trade in the 9/11 alliance deals. In fact, I was very put-off when I learned that our President was talking t-shirt sales with the Pakistanis while we were bombing Afghanistan. Obviously, the textile and apparel markets are much more valuable than I thought. I also found this quote regarding President George W. Bust interesting: “In staring down the U.S. textile industry, he blinked” (p. 161). I have a hard time understanding why a President would choose votes over an effective presidency. The textile industries have essentially made our past presidents lame ducks in regards to free textile trade, but they always secure the office of President. After Rivoli makes a brief mention of Senators Thurmond, Helms, and Hollings and the failing alphabet armies, she discusses the last major battle of the textile industry before 2005. With the MFA coming to a close, the developing countries that previously supported free-trade were having second thoughts. Soon, they were fighting on Auggie Tantillo’s side. This makes perfect sense when we consider the benefits small countries received from the MFA. Developing countries were able to get a foot on the economic ladder by trading their quotas and offering labor to big countries like China. Job loss as a result of the fall of the MFA would be far more severe in developing countries than it would be in the U.S. (p. 167). What would happen to all of those people? Not only would their ensuing poverty be even more unbearable, but the devil loves idle hands. What kind of threat could they pose to the developed world, especially to the countries that were responsible for their downfall (U.S. and China)? I think this is a very real problem.

Clearly, China has the advantage in the textile industry when it comes to labor supply and price. I think their population size and type (unskilled farm-type) are enough to secure a win in almost any labor market. However, the force behind hukou and Custody and Repatriation laws has given China an even greater advantage in textile trade. I was surprised to find out how difficult it is for the Chinese to secure a job. Hukou demands that workers bring their labor to the factories, but not themselves, and they have no security in housing, healthcare, or pensions. How can one not bring oneself to work (p. 88)? Custody and Repatriation laws also make it nearly impossible to keep from breaking the law. Work documents are difficult to obtain because it takes a lot of time and the documents are costly. It is also upsetting to realize that people without documents can be detained in prison and tortured (p. 89). For me, the most influential passage in this chapter connects the Chinese laborers of today with the Bracero workers of the U.S. past. The fact that the U.S. once implemented a policy that took advantage of laborers the way China is currently taking advantage of its citizens, makes me more aware of the injustice of our country’s actions.

Rivoli surprised me with her explanation of the relationship between activists and capitalists. I understand how these two groups have helped raise the bottom of the textile market, but I do not understand why Rivoli calls the cry to stop the race to the bottom “nonsensical” (p. 100). In defense of the textile race to the bottom, she says the bottom is not as low as it once was, and conscience, religion, and politics have made work in the mills much better (p. 101). It sounds like she is advocating dull, low-paying mill work. My argument against her advocacy is this: the bottom is not being raised in developing countries where textile mills would be the most profitable. Most developing countries have highly corrupt governments and no labor laws.

In Chapter Seven, Rivoli shows how difficult trade has become in the U.S. textile market. She explains the dominance of politics in the U.S. textile trade, and lists the seemingly countless number of textile trade agreements the U.S. has put forth since World War II. Finally, she examines the fall of the Multi-Fiber Agreement. She discovers how trade agreement and action is even slower and more complex when breaking down old regimes than when building them.

The dominance of politics in U.S. textile trade can be explained by the size of the U.S. manufacturing base; strength of industry alliances; shared cultural, historical, and geographic bonds; and the trade-cautious American public. However, the most interesting thing I discovered in the reading is how textile lobbies have been successful in creating a protectionist regime that is totally against free-trade and in making U.S. leaders look like fools. Protectionism was highly criticized in last week’s G20 summit meetings. In a global financial crisis, countries cannot afford to close trade barriers. I believe this includes the textile industry. Also, American leaders and policymakers have been the front-runners for free-trade, yet the most competitive industry has been closed to free-trade. Keeping the textile industry closed damages international relationships. Again, the financial crisis is a good reason not to make your neighbors and loaning countries upset.

I never really thought about where my clothes originate until I began reading Travels of a T-Shirt. I may have glanced at the “made in ___” label while looking for washing instructions, but I never thought about where China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Japan got their materials. Now that I know Texas farms supply China’s cotton and China sells it back to the U.S., I am discovering a lot of questions. First of all, why isn’t the U.S. making its own tourist t-shirts? If we used true-cost pricing, we would have to account for fuel and shipping costs as well as manual labor. Our country has plenty of cotton, and we have the technology to nearly bypass the need for manual labor. It seems like textiles would be cheaper to make within our own shores. My second question is: what will happen when China’s middle class rises and leaves little unskilled labor for textile mills? The price of apparel will rise, or another poor and desperate country will take up the textile industry.

The textile industry really is a never-ending race to the bottom. Britain, New England, the American South, Japan, and China have all competed in the race to find the cheapest way to produce apparel. At the same time, each country hit the bottom of humane working conditions. Every country involved in the textile industry has exploited children and women in their factories. The workers were sentenced to long days with few breaks, poor living conditions, hunger, and scanty wages. My third question: can the people of the world continue to watch while country after country takes advantage of poor people? I hope not.

After reading the first five chapters of Travels of a T-Shirt, I am beginning to form a new definition of globalization. I think globalization is a measure of the interdependence of the world’s people. Before the Industrial Revolution, the people of the world lived according to their environment. Their immediate resources dictated how they ate, dressed, worked, and traded. Now, we are not bound by geographic location, and we have forgotten how to live in our surroundings. Each country, state, or group remembers one piece of life from the past and sells it to everyone else. This is globalization.

Pietra Rivoli opens The Travels of a T-Shirt with a story about how she arrived at the idea for her book, and she presents an objective: to illuminate the world that formed her t-shirt and to shed light on globalization (pp. xii-xiii). She goes on to explain how the U.S. cotton industry has dominated by avoiding the market, forcing poor cotton-producing countries into a can’t-win trap (p. xv). Finally, she ends her prologue with a brief description of the places her t-shirt traveled before coming into her hands.

I am excited about Rivoli’s book because I feel like it is going to make globalization easier to understand. Globalization is such a broad intangible term, but because I have many cotton t-shirts from tourist destinations and because I live so close to Texas (cotton country), I think I’ll be able to grasp an opinion of globalization and see its effects on the world. I find it fascinating that the cotton industry in this country has dominated for so long without being a competitor in the world market. I am curious as to how this works.

The first three chapters of Rivoli’s book focuses on the cotton industry in the United States. She takes us through a brief history of cotton farming, explains how U.S. farmers have been so prosperous while ducking the markets, and shows how the government has played a big part in the success story of U.S. cotton.

I found the history of American cotton farming to be very informative, even if it was rather dull to read. I am really glad Rivoli clued me in to the difficulties of cotton farming. It is amazing that such a picky crop has received so much protection over the years. While research and capital have been key factors in improving crop yield and harvesting, the real success story comes from ducking the markets. First, farmers used slave labor and a system of control and incentives to care for the crop. Once slavery was outlawed, farmers came up with the idea of sharecropping. However, certain laws and lack of worker education kept the hired help from getting ahead financially. Then, farmers moved on to the company town. This was the most human set up, and it allowed the laborers to have a chance a normal life. Still, the people were tied to the land, and they owned very little. Finally, farmers have used technology to make the laborer obsolete. Tractors can do the work in nearly every stage of the growing process, chemicals and sprinkler systems keep the crop weeded and watered, and ginning has gotten easier as the years have passed. Cotton farmers have never been dependent on a labor market. What system helps farmers be so independent?

Rivoli urges us to take a look at the “whole picture” (pp. 53-54). Most free-trade activist will point to government subsidies as the source of U.S. cotton’s success. However, there are many institutions that are in place to help cotton farmers. Capital, market, literacy, a “virtuous circle,” and subsidies all play a role (p. 54). Most poor countries do not have these institutions to help them get on their feet. I think the most important and influential institution the U.S. farmers have is the virtuous circle of academia (research), government, and a market. Research has allowed the farmer to get more from a crop by using nearly every part of the cotton plant. Government money has funded the research and subsidized the crops. Finally, cotton has market because research has made it possible to turn cotton into many value-added wares. It is a never-ending circle of support. While knocking out the cotton subsidies would be a step in the right direction toward fair trade, I agree with Rivoli when she says it won’t be enough to help poor countries compete. She says, “They never had a chance against Nelson Reinsch, Texas Tech, and George W. Bush” (p. 57).” Taking away a subsidy now, will not change the fact that our institutions are long-standing and impossibly strong.

]]> http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/travels-with-a-t-shirt/feed/ 0 Ashley http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/hot-flat-and-crowded-ch-17/ http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/hot-flat-and-crowded-ch-17/#comments Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:30:38 +0000 Ashley http://ashleybear06.wordpress.com/?p=93 ]]>

Friedman opens his last chapter of Hot, Flat, and Crowded with an excerpt of a speech presented at the 1992 Earth Summit by a twelve-year-old girl. The young girl compares the actions of world leaders with those of kindergarteners. Friedman uses this speech to illustrate the point that we need to change our behavior in order to make a difference in the Energy-Climate Era. While individual efforts are important, Friedman says “it is much more important to change your leaders than your lightbulbs” (p. 397). He points to the Civil Rights movement saying “it was the laws that ultimately changed the behavior and consciousness of tens of millions of people” (p. 398).

I think the speech by the twelve-year-old was great, especially the part about kindergarten behavior. She was right in saying that our leaders are ignoring the basic courtesies they were taught in kindergarten. While I agree with Friedman when he says we need to change our behavior, I do not agree that changing leadership is more important than improving individual behavior. I believe he incorrectly uses the Civil Rights movement when he makes his point. The laws would have never made it to the Congressional floor if not for the social unrest at the time. The Civil Rights movement started with individuals. People began to see the inequality in America, and they decided to do something about it. Soon, individual people turned into a massive group that held a lot of political sway. The social unrest of the American citizens pushed lawmakers into action.

Friedman acknowledges my point with a quote from Senator Kerry on page 399: “Real change comes only when people form a movement so large that Washington has no choice but to listen…It’s the only way to change the nation.” It seems like Friedman is contradicting his first argument here. I think I can save Friedman’s argument by interpreting it this way: social unrest can push Washington, but we need a strong leader who can get the reluctant citizens on board. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to face a little dissent in order to make a difference.

So, we need social unrest about climate change and a fearless leader. Friedman gives an example of a time when American people pulled together to succeed: World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. He also recognizes the problem with getting a movement going on climate change. Pearl Harbor represented a tangible threat. There was no doubt it was real and would affect Americans living during that time. Global warming does not have that kind of arsenal. People are not feeling its effects now, and the real problems associated with it might not surface for decades. I think advertising would help us pull more people together in a climate change movement. After all, lobbyists heavily rely on advertising to sway the minds of citizens. Why can’t green advocacy groups do the same?

Friedman is absolutely right in his assessment of our slow government. We take way to long to make real changes. There are a lot of factors that are working against a green revolution, but I think if we were able to combat only a few of them we could make some progress. Dirty Fuel industries have a lot of money and clout, and I do not think there is anything we can do about it. However, I think Americans could make a conscious effort to combat those industries. For example, the utilities successfully halted Proposition 87 in California with a huge ad campaign. It seems like clean fuel advocates could work toward producing a similar campaign. The majority of citizens only know what others tell them. They are not willing to do a whole lot of basic research on their own time so as to understand the issues surrounding dirty and clean fuels. We are going to have to battle the utilities in advertising. I also think the government could be making a better effort to fund research and development. This factor alone could the U.S. the upper hand in the green race (as Friedman is so fond of calling it). I was astounded at the fact that our government spends the equivalent of nine days of fighting in Iraq on research and development (p. 385) Finally, I think the U.S. should model after the German feed-in tariff. It sounds like a great way to influence the American market for green technologies. Obviously, there is a global market. Japan and countries of the European Union have already become players in the field. It is time for the United States to step up to the plate, but, as Friedman points out, we have no sense of urgency. I can’t believe our government can ignore such success as First Solar, Inc. has demonstrated. I just can’t imagine what kind of push it will take for us to get going in the green revolution if Father Profit isn’t enough.

I think China should definitely use its citizens to get on track with green living. While it is clearly incompatible with the current government, empowering the people is China’s best chance at outgreening the world. China has a massive population, and they should be taking advantage of all of that civil power and mind power. I do not think China will switch to a democratic state any time soon, or even at all, but the Communists will have to grant a little more freedom if they want China to be a world leader.

Even under the Communist Party, the Chinese are doing a lot more than Americans when it comes to green living. They have started putting more pressure on local government officials, allowing citizens to expose environmental crimes, and pushing the private sector toward economic opportunities that come with clean power (p. 354). They have also adopted renewable energy mandates, mileage standards for cars, and policies encouraging power companies to use more efficient power sources. The United States is lagging behind China in most of these respects. How can the U.S. be a green leader if it hasn’t attempted as many shifts in policy as China?

China has also realized the economic value of clean tech industry. I feel like America is behind on this concept too. Friedman says we need to publicize a race toward green living to get the industry moving on a global scale and to save the planet, and he likens it to the space race. I don’t think that is a good idea. First of all, the space race had an agenda. We were in the Cold War and lot of people believed the first country in space would necessarily have the advantage in the war. That prompted a lot of people to work toward space innovation and give money to the cause. Global warming, while more dangerous, does not have that kind of agenda. The Chinese and many Americans think global warming is a conspiracy. That belief stifles creativity and monetary support. I think the green race might have a chance because it is an economic opportunity, but the Chinese do not really need green tech if they can produce everything the world needs on dirty power.

In Chapter Fourteen, Friedman discusses a new concept called “outgreening.” The old marketing strategy was to outproduce and outspend the competition. Friedman supports an outgreening strategy which, he says, can help people compete “in the market place, on the battlefield, in the design studio, and in the struggle against poverty” (p. 317). First, he focuses on the advances the U.S. military has made in the area of energy efficiency. He goes on to explain how cities, companies, and individuals can implement the outgreening strategy to their benefit.

First of all, I was aware that our military is spending a lot of money in Iraq, but I was astounded to find out how much we are pouring into air conditioning alone! This endangers out soldiers and causes the U.S. to fall deeper in debt. “The fully burdened cost of fuel” is much more than our $2-$4 per gallon (p. 321). I am glad to see the military implementing innovations in energy efficiency. This example makes me think we should be paying the fully burdened cost of fuel at home. The military reacted quickly to the danger and cost associated with using more fuel. I think the American people would react even faster if they knew how dangerous and costly it is to depend on foreign oil. With a fixed-rate gas tax, we would strive to become more efficient in a hurry.

I was impressed with Friedman’s argument in accordance with Dov Seidman’s book titled How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything. Friedman notes that with increasing transparency in corporate operations, how companies conduct operations becomes extremely important. He says, “Green as a value will increasingly be something everyone will want to associate with” (p. 326). I agree with this point. Lately, I have been more aware of my employer’s environmental practices, and I do not want to work for that company any longer. Also, I have garnered an interest in making my community more environmentally responsible and energy efficient. Finally, I have become more responsible with my purchasing power. I pay more attention to product packaging and origins than I have in the past. I definitely think young people are looking for green living. How can we get everyone on board?

Friedman says, “Code green has to prove that it can offer something to the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder…if you don’t bring America’s underclass into the green movement, this movement’s full potential will never be realized” (p.336). Van Jones proposes a way to get that bottom rung involved. It includes green collar jobs and training that will enable the poor class to get a foot on the ladder. Once regulations are in place that promotes green living, green jobs can definitely help the bottom of the economy. However, the catch is getting the regulations started. I think getting regulations out there will be much more difficult than “greening the ghetto.”

I really like Friedman’s list of things needed for conservation efforts to work. I agree with every element on the list, and I also believe that every element must be in place or conservation efforts will fall apart. As much as I enjoyed Friedman’s list, I enjoyed his back-up arguments even more. In the chapter, I found four points about conservation that made me physically nod in agreement. They weren’t profound points, and I definitely missed them the first time I read them. The first point is: conservation is local. It makes perfect sense that in order to conserve an ecosystem; we need to turn to the people whose lives depend upon it. Communities in close proximity to valued natural resources will do what they must to survive, even if it means cutting down a forest. This leads me to the second point: conservation is about dealing with people. People will not consent to conservation unless they see the personal benefits. Each government official, scientist, private business, and community member must discover some self-interest in the conservation of an ecosystem before conservation can take place. Third: conservation is about education. We need people to understand why conservation is necessary, not only for personal benefit, but for the well-being of flora, fauna, and other human beings as well. Friedman points out that we need to spend more money on educating our children and the communities near valuable resources if we want conservation efforts to succeed. I agree. Friedman also says education will move people away from dependence on their immediate environment and toward low-environmental-impact jobs. However, I am not so sure I agree with this point. Manufacturing jobs can still harm the environment if the facilities, processes used to obtain materials, or manufacturing processes are harmful. The final point I noticed in the reading was: conservation is about respect and reverence. People will not have any inclination to preserve an earth they do not respect or revere. I think the No Child Left Indoors program is a great way to teach the next generation how to connect with and appreciate the earth.