Mostly BS.

January 26, 2001 10:32 AM

Mostly BS. In it, we learn the World Economic Forum wants to revamp its public relations, and that the next WTO Ministerial (previously in Seattle) will be held in Qatar. I read elsewhere the tiny nation doesn't have enough hotel rooms, so attendees will stay on luxury cruiseliners anchored in the harbor.
posted by capt.crackpipe (6 comments total)

It's time for the anti-capitalist protestors to start recruiting for the French secret service.
posted by holgate at 10:41 AM on January 26, 2001

revamp PR huh? perhaps they could develop tear gas with a nice fresh lemon scent?
posted by th3ph17 at 12:36 PM on January 26, 2001

“We have something of a communication problem,” Schwab told the crowd while, outside the conference center and on the roads leading into town, phalanxes of heavily armed police kept the un-badged at bay. “It’s very difficult to explain to the general public who we are.”

well, no. We Know, thats the problem. [Sorry for the dual-posting, prematurely hit Post.]
posted by th3ph17 at 12:41 PM on January 26, 2001

Right Phil. Which is why they want to revamp. They'd prefer to be as invisible as possible, rather than have articles printed in WSJ about them.

Holding the meetings in Qatar is perfect to stamp out dissent. Apparently, it's illegal for more than five people to congregrate in the streets, and the police are especially repressive since a coup attempt a few years ago.

Great book on PR twisted corporate globalization called The Selling of Free Trade. Somehow, they got the public to believe NAFTA would create American jobs, when in fact it's mostly moved them to Mexico.

On another anti-corporate globalization note: Concordia students can miss finals to attend FTAA. By attend, they mean "protest."
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:05 PM on January 26, 2001

Somehow, they got the public to believe NAFTA would create American jobs, when in fact it's mostly moved them to Mexico.

Yeah, but those jobs sucked anyway. Besides, Mexicans need jobs too. Obviously we didn't need them, or else we would have more unemployment than we do now.
posted by Jart at 8:41 PM on January 26, 2001

Uh, America's grown by about 15 million people the last ten years, and manufacturing is the same percentage of our economy as in 1970 (18%).

I fail to understand opposition to "globalization" in the aggregate. What, are we to build a moat? Or are there specific aspects of globalization that we are objecting to that can be delineated? Is it in fact not the globalization itself, but the semi-un-democratic nature of the process that is rather the problem?
posted by dhartung at 8:48 PM on January 26, 2001