The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa

darkbeaver said:
It has been difficult for me to afford you much credibility Toro, first and several times I have seen you discount the importance of oil, incorrectly,and now you discount Sauls statement about the depression that I have witnessed since the early seventys, I will repeat the fact, there has been a steady decline in the real income
of north americans since the very early seventies.While you may not see this as a depression millions do. You are not an economic genius yourself.

PS The world bank , see Stiglitz.

No credibility with darkbeaver! Oh no, my career is in the tank!

Haha, its always about oil to the Far Left. And not drinking the kool-aid is "discounting".

Oh, and on the world bank and Stiglitz, I love how you guys lump all these things into the one big evil mantra of "globalization" and exhibit this Pavolvian response. Its so hilariously simplistic. You see dude, I don't necessarily disagree with Stiglitz and his criticisms of the World Bank.

Saul argued that we didn't come out of the recession. That is a joke! We have NOT had a steady decline in real incomes since the early 1970s. Maybe you have, but everyone else hasn't.

Ya wanna see? Here are the wages, right from the Bureau of Economic Statistics.

Total US nominal wages paid

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/IndexW.htm#W - Wages and salary disbursements, Table 2.1

in billions

1929 $50.5
1940 $49.9
1950 $147.2
1960 $272.9
1970 $551.6
1980 $1,377.7
1990 $2.754.0
2000 $4,892.4
2004 $5,389.4

Annual growth in total nominal wages by decade

1930s -0.9%
1940s 11.4%
1950s 6.8%
1960s 7.2%
1970s 9.3%
1980s 7.5%
1990s 5.6%
2000s 3.8%
Total 6.3%

Annual growth in total national income by decade. This includes rent, dividends, interest payments, and other returns to capital.

1930s -1.5%
1940s 11.0%
1950s 6.6%
1960s 7.1%
1970s 10.2%
1980s 8.3%
1990s 5.5%
2000s 4.5%
Total 6.4%


Real wage growth

(You'll have to adjust for inflation yourself. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/IndexW.htm#W - Price indexes, Table 1.1.4)

1930s 1.2%
1940s 5.7%
1950s 4.3%
1960s 4.7%
1970s 2.5%
1980s 2.7%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 1.6%
Total 3.3%

Real total income growth

1930s 0.5%
1940s 5.3%
1950s 4.1%
1960s 4.6%
1970s 3.4%
1980s 3.4%
1990s 3.2%
2000s 2.2%
Total 3.4%


Real per capita wage growth.

(You'll have to adjust the per capita figures yourself http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/IndexW.htm#W - Population Growth, Table 7.1)

1930s 0.4%
1940s 4.3%
1950s 2.5%
1960s 3.3%
1970s 1.4%
1980s 1.7%
1990s 2.0%
2000s 0.6%
Total 2.1%

Real per capita total income growth.

1930s -0.2%
1940s 4.0%
1950s 2.3%
1960s 3.2%
1970s 2.3%
1980s 2.5%
1990s 1.9%
2000s 1.2%
Total 2.2%


Looked at another way, real per capita annualized wage growth

1935-1944 9.3%
1945-1954 -0.5%
1955-1964 1.9%
1965-1974 2.7%
1975-1984 1.1%
1985-1994 1.6%
1995-2004 2.1%

or

1945-1974 1.4%
1975-2004 1.6%

or

1980-2004 1.7%

Real per capita annualized income growth

1935-1944 8.1%
1945-1954 0.0%
1955-1964 2.1%
1965-1974 3.1%
1975-1984 2.3%
1985-1994 1.8%
1995-2004 2.1%

1945-1974 1.7%
1975-2004 2.1%

or

1980-2004 2.1%

Conclusion - this idea that wages have been falling the past few decades is false. In fact, they have accelerated since 1980.
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
as far as philosophy books go voltaires bastards is totally readable

try reading some of these...

being and nothingness- sartre
being and time- heideggar
critique of pure reason- kant
logical investigations- wittgetstein

yikes
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

cortez said:
as far as philosophy books go voltaires bastards is totally readable

try reading some of these...

being and nothingness- sartre
being and time- heideggar
critique of pure reason- kant
logical investigations- wittgetstein

yikes

As far as books with a lot of historical content related to philosphy, Voltaire's Bastards is ok.....so far. Last attempt was chapter 8.

"what can be shown can not be said" wtf does that mean Ludwig??I'm not much for indepenent reading of philosophy. I'm all tense just thinking about Wittegenstein's statement. Ick.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Real wage growth

(You'll have to adjust for inflation yourself. Link - Price indexes, Table 1.1.4)

1930s 1.2%
1940s 5.7%
1950s 4.3%
1960s 4.7%
1970s 2.5%
1980s 2.7%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 1.6%
Total 3.3%

Yeah when you figure in inflation we've lost income. lol.


I know I must be below the average as my income goes up ever so slightly every year but the price of living sky rockets!
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

Said1 said:
cortez said:
as far as philosophy books go voltaires bastards is totally readable

try reading some of these...

being and nothingness- sartre
being and time- heideggar
critique of pure reason- kant
logical investigations- wittgetstein

yikes

As far as books with a lot of historical content related to philosphy, Voltaire's Bastards is ok.....so far. Last attempt was chapter 8.

"what can be shown can not be said" wtf does that mean Ludwig??I'm not much for indepenent reading of philosophy. I'm all tense just thinking about Wittegenstein's statement. Ick.



said1, philosophy isn't for everyone. Half the time when I read any
philosophy, of any kind it pisses me off with the abstract mumbo jumbo they spu in it. I personally like the precise writings of people like Noam Chomsky, Marx, Englas, Smith, Locke, Stewert and Burke then those of pure philosophy like Descartes
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

Finder said:
[



said1, philosophy isn't for everyone. Half the time when I read any
philosophy, of any kind it pisses me off with the abstract mumbo jumbo they spu in it. I personally like the precise writings of people like Noam Chomsky, Marx, Englas, Smith, Locke, Stewert and Burke then those of pure philosophy like Descartes

You forgot the frenchmen, Rousseau. I like Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. None of that "free from government, but not free to control government" for me though!
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Finder said:
Real wage growth

(You'll have to adjust for inflation yourself. Link - Price indexes, Table 1.1.4)

1930s 1.2%
1940s 5.7%
1950s 4.3%
1960s 4.7%
1970s 2.5%
1980s 2.7%
1990s 3.3%
2000s 1.6%
Total 3.3%

Yeah when you figure in inflation we've lost income. lol.


I know I must be below the average as my income goes up ever so slightly every year but the price of living sky rockets!

"Real" income is nominal income after inflation.
 

cortez

Council Member
Feb 22, 2006
1,260
0
36
heres a quote from being and time

Awareness in the broader sense lets what is ready-to hand and what is present-at-hand be encountered bodily in themselves with regard to the way they look.

imagine 585 pages of crap like that
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

cortez said:
Awareness in the broader sense lets what is ready-to hand and what is present-at-hand be encountered bodily in themselves with regard to the way they look.
I wasn't aware of that.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
PI)
The Genuine Progress Indicator

from Redefining Progress

What is wrong with the GDP?
Since its introduction during World War II as a measure of wartime production capacity, the Gross National Product (since changed to Gross Domestic Product -- GDP) has become the nation's foremost indicator of economic progress. It is now widely used by policy makers, economists, international agencies and the media as the primary scorecard of a nation's economic health and well- being.

Yet the GDP was never intended for this role. It is merely a gross tally of products and services bought and sold, with no distinctions between transactions that add to well-being, and those that diminish it. Instead of separating costs from benefits, and productive activities from destructive ones, the GDP assumes that every monetary transaction adds to well-being, by definition. It is as if a business tried to assess its financial condition by simply adding up all "business activity," thereby lumping together income and expenses, assets and liabilities.

On top of this, the GDP ignores everything that happens outside the realm of monetized exchange, regardless of its importance to well-being. The crucial economic functions performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely ignored. The contributions of the natural habitat in providing the resources that sustain us go unreckoned as well. As a result, the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure and natural habitat; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as economic gain.

GDP treats crime, divorce and natural disasters as economic gain.
Since the GDP records every monetary transaction as positive, the costs of social decay and natural disasters are tallied as economic advance. Crime adds billions of dollars to the GDP due to the need for locks and other security measures, increased police protection, property damage, and medical costs. Divorce adds billions of dollars more through lawyer's fees, the need to establish second households and so forth. Hurricane Andrew was a disaster for Southern Florida. But the GDP recorded it as a boon to the economy of well over $15 billion.

GDP ignores the non-market economy of household and community.
The crucial functions of childcare, elder care, other home-based tasks, and volunteer work in the community go completely unreckoned in the GDP because no money changes hands. As the non-market economy declines, and its functions shift to the monetized service sector, the GDP portrays this process as economic advance. The GDP also adds the cost of prisons, social work, drug abuse and psychological counseling that arise from the neglect of the non-market realm.

GDP treats the depletion of natural capital as income.
The GDP violates basic accounting principles and common sense by treating the depletion of natural capital as income, rather than as the depreciation of an asset. The Bush Administration made this point in the 1992 report of the Council on Environmental Quality. "Accounting systems used to estimate GDP" the report said, "do not reflect depletion or degradation of the natural resources used to produce goods and services." As a result, the more the nation depletes its natural resources, the more the GDP goes up.

GDP increases with polluting activities and then again with clean-ups.
Superfund clean-up of toxic sites is slated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the next thirty years, which gets added to the GDP. Since the GDP first added the economic activity that generated that waste, it creates the illusion that pollution is a double benefit for the economy. This is how the Exxon Valdez oil spill led to an increase in the GDP.

GDP takes no account of income distribution.
By ignoring the distribution of income, the GDP hides the fact that a rising tide does not lift all boats. From 1973 to 1993, while GDP rose by over 50 percent, wages suffered a decline of almost 14 percent. Meanwhile, during the 1980s alone, the top 5 percent of households increased their real income by almost 20 percent. Yet the GDP presents this enormous gain at the top as a bounty to all. GDP ignores the drawbacks of living on foreign assets.

In recent years, consumers and government alike have increased their spending by borrowing from abroad. This raises the GDP temporarily, but the need to repay this debt becomes a growing burden on our national economy. To the extent that Americans borrow for consumption rather than for capital investment, they are living beyond their means and incurring a debt that eventually must be repaid. This downside of borrowing from abroad is completely ignored in the GDP.


What is the Genuine Progress Indicator - GPI?
The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is a new measure of the economic well-being of the nation from 1950 to present. It broadens the conventional accounting framework to include the economic contributions of the family and community realms, and of the natural habitat, along with conventionally measured economic production.

The GPI takes into account more than twenty aspects of our economic lives that the GDP ignores. It includes estimates of the economic contribution of numerous social and environmental factors which the GDP dismisses with an implicit and arbitrary value of zero. It also differentiates between economic transactions that add to well-being and those which diminish it. The GPI then integrates these factors into a composite measure so that the benefits of economic activity can be weighed against the costs.

The GPI is intended to provide citizens and policy-makers with a more accurate barometer of the overall health of the economy, and of how our national condition is changing over time.

While per capita GDP has more than doubled from 1950 to present, the GPI shows a very different picture. It increased during the 1950s and 1960s, but has declined by roughly 45% since 1970. Further, the rate of decline in per capita GPI has increased from an average of 1% in the 1970s to 2% in the 1980s to 6% so far in the 1990s. This wide and growing divergence between the GDP and GPI is a warning that the economy is stuck on a path that imposes large -- and as yet unreckoned -- costs onto the present and the future.

Specifically, the GPI reveals that much of what economists now consider economic growth, as measured by GDP, is really one of three things: 1) fixing blunders and social decay from the past; 2) borrowing resources from the future; or 3) shifting functions from the community and household realm to that of the monetized economy. The GPI strongly suggests that the costs of the nation's current economic trajectory have begun to outweigh the benefits, leading to growth that is actually uneconomic.

If the mood of the public is any barometer at all, then it would seem that the GPI comes much closer than the GDP to the economy that Americans actually experience in their daily lives. It begins to explain why people feel increasingly gloomy despite official claims of economic progress and growth.

The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data the GDP is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for certain factors (such as income distribution), adds certain others (such as the value of household work and volunteer work), and subtracts yet others (such as the costs of crime and pollution). Because the GDP and the GPI are both measured in monetary terms, they can be compared on the same scale.

I. Crime & family breakdown
Social breakdown imposes large economic costs on individuals and society, in the form of legal fees, medical expenses, damage to property, and the like. The GDP treats such expenses as additions to well-being. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs arising from crime and divorce.

II. Houehold & volunteer work.
Much of the most important work in society is done in household and community settings: childcare, home repairs, volunteer work, and the like. These contributions are ignored in the GDP because no money changes hands. To correct this omission, the GPI includes, among other things, the value of household work figured at the approximate cost of hiring someone to do it.

III. Income distribution.
A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats -- not if the gap between the very rich and everyone else increases. Both economic theory and common sense tell us that the poor benefit more from a given increase in their income than do the rich. Accordingly, the GPI rises when the poor receive a larger percentage of national income, and falls when their share decreases.

IV. Resource depletion.
If today's economic activity depletes the physical resource base available for tomorrow's, then it is not really creating well-being; rather, it is just borrowing it from future generations. The GDP counts such borrowing as current income. The GPI, by contrast, counts the depletion or degradation of wetlands, farmland, and non-renewable minerals (including, oil) as a current cost.

V. Pollution.
The GDP often counts pollution as a double gain; once when it's created, and then again when it is cleaned up. By contrast, the GPI subtracts the costs of air and water pollution as measured by actual damage to human health and the environment.

VI. Long-term environmental damage.
Climate change and the management of nuclear wastes are two long-term costs arising from the use of fossil fuels and atomic energy. These costs do not show up in ordinary economic accounts. The same is true of the depletion of stratospheric ozone arising from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. For this reason, the GPI treats as costs the consumption of certain forms of energy and of ozone-depleting chemicals.

VII. Changes in leisure time.
As a nation increases in wealth, people should have increasing latitude to choose between more work and more free time for family or other activities. In recent years, however, the opposite has occurred. The GDP ignores this loss of free time, but the GPI treats leisure as most Americans do -- as something of value. When leisure time increases, the GPI goes up; when Americans have less of it, the GPI goes down.

VIII. Defensive expenditures.
The GDP counts as additions to well-being the money people spend just to prevent erosion in their quality of life or to compensate for misfortunes of various kinds. Examples are the medical and repair bills from automobile accidents, commuting costs, and household expenditures on pollution control devices such as water filters. The GPI counts such "defensive" expenditures as most Americans do: as costs rather than as benefits.

IX. Life span of consumer durables & public infrastructure.
The GDP confuses the value provided by major consumer purchases (e.g., home appliances) with the amounts Americans spend to buy them. This hides the loss in well- being that results when products are made to wear out quickly. To overcome this, the GPI treats the money spent on capital items as a cost, and the value of the service they provide year after year as a benefit. This applies both to private capital items and to public infrastructure, such as highways.

X. Dependence on foreign assets.
If a nation allows its capital stock to decline, or if it finances its consumption out of borrowed capital, it is living beyond its means. The GPI counts net additions to the capital stock as contributions to well-being, and treats money borrowed from abroad as reductions. If the borrowed money is used for investment, the negative effects are canceled out. But if the borrowed money is used to finance consumption, the GPI declines.


Related materials

[1] Herman Daly, John Cobb, Jr., _For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future_, 1989, Boston, Beacon Press.

[2] Clifford Cobb, Ted Halstead, Jonathan Rowe, "If the Economy Is Up, Why Is America Down?", _The Atlantic Monthly_, vol.276, no.4, October 1995. (This article is not on their web site, http://www2.theAtlantic.com)

[3] Sean Kelly, "Grossly Inaccurate: Why we need a new way to measure our economy", _The Sustainable Times_, no.5, winter 1995/96.

[4] _The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology, Redefining Progress_, 1995. Copies of the full reports are available for $10.00 from the address below:
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globalism, JR Saul, Book Review

cortez said:
heres a quote from being and time

Awareness in the broader sense lets what is ready-to hand and what is present-at-hand be encountered bodily in themselves with regard to the way they look.

imagine 585 pages of crap like that

And you like that.


In all seriousness, the world needs thinkers, but thank heavens I'm not one of them.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: The Collapse of Globa

Toro said
"No credibility with darkbeaver! Oh no, my career is in the tank!

Haha, its always about oil to the Far Left. And not drinking the kool-aid is "discounting".

Oh, and on the world bank and Stiglitz, I love how you guys lump all these things into the one big evil mantra of "globalization" and exhibit this Pavolvian response. Its so hilariously simplistic. You see dude, I don't necessarily disagree with Stiglitz and his criticisms of the World Bank.

Saul argued that we didn't come out of the recession. That is a joke! We have NOT had a steady decline in real incomes since the early 1970s. Maybe you have, but everyone else hasn't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toro you should take your tinfoil hat off and let the reality rays in, some koolaid wouldn't hurt either, dude.
We have had a steady heavy decline in real income since the 70s.
The entire economy floats on oil even the magnificent capital markets, tomorrow I'll try and explain that with some crayons. Sorry about your career, you must get a lot of laughs at the office with your oil talk. For the vast majority of the worlds people globalization in the economic sense sucks, big time.
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Re: RE: The Collapse of Globa

darkbeaver said:
We have had a steady heavy decline in real income since the 70s.

Does the sun rise in the west and set in the east in your world DB? Just a few posts above you is the data from the BEA that says the complete opposite. Do you have a problem reading?

darkbeaver said:
The entire economy floats on oil even the magnificent capital markets,

Its so easy to reference everything back to oil. That way, there's always an evil boogeyman to blame everything on and no thinking is required.

darkbeaver said:
tomorrow I'll try and explain that with some crayons.

Why do I suspect you own no other writing instruments?

darkbeaver said:
Sorry about your career, you must get a lot of laughs at the office with your oil talk.

I wouldn't dare discuss foiler-nomics with my fellow professionals. Then my career would truly be in the tank.

darkbeaver said:
For the vast majority of the worlds left-wing ideologues globalization in the economic sense sucks, big time.

Fixed it for you.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Social indicators like the GPI are selective in measurement. What dollar value is placed on todays kids not having to grow up 40% of the time in smoke-filled homes, like they did years ago? What about those less likely to grow up in asbestos environments, urea-formaldehyde apartments, lead-painted bedrooms or any array of hazards that don't exist today? Something right must be happening for everyone to be living longer.

The nice part about making statistics is you can make them say anything. The GDP doesn't become skewed by any particular political armtwisting of the formula. It is what it is.
 

Prairie_Ally

New Member
Mar 29, 2006
32
0
6
Saskatchewan
RE: The Collapse of Globa

I am familiar with the book but I disagree. Globalization didn't really kick in to a large extent until the mid-1990s but I do think it is going to lose it's stranglehold eventually when the Americans figure out it's not working for them anymore.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Joy says I sound like a Liberal supporter because of you unwashed swinish hordes. Now I'm thinking of voting NDP so the TNCs start paying their fair share of taxes. TNCs have used econ glob as a great tax dodge and gov'ts have felt too emasculated to challenge them for the past few decades. Saul writes gov'ts now can tax them because all markets are electronically linked, and they weren't thirty years ago. There is an electronic paper trail out there to allow this. But the benighted masses lack the political will to support this because they still adhere to econ glob.

Econ glob means one thing, glob another. Econ and glob are two separate words that mean two or three separate things. This is not something Saul really investigates, he says on page 1,

"Globalization emerged in the 1970s, as if from nowhere, fully formed, enrobed in an aura of exclusivity."

This is no further explanation about glob, five lines later he is in the 1990s. Whew!

A word does not enter the English language without a reason, but what is that reason for this new word globalization to enter the language? So Margaret Thatcher could call her men opponents wet? So mushy weak boys can be dominated by strong women? This when porno started becoming very big, like Deep Throat, where all you can eat was the point of the flick. Voracious uncontrolled appetites are unleashed.

India and China rightly think econ glob has some good ideas and lets some of these ideas in the door when they think proper, they don't let the lunatics run the asylum. Unfortunate places like Latin America and Africa couldn't stop the glob lunatics and suffered.

Capitalism and globalization do not mean the same thing. Capital means money, globe means ball. Glob could be a capital idea, and it might not only be about money.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,338
70
48
53
Das Kapital
dumpthemonarchy said:
Joy says I sound like a Liberal supporter because of you unwashed swinish hordes. Now I'm thinking of voting NDP so the TNCs start paying their fair share of taxes. TNCs have used econ glob as a great tax dodge and gov'ts have felt too emasculated to challenge them for the past few decades. Saul writes gov'ts now can tax them because all markets are electronically linked, and they weren't thirty years ago. There is an electronic paper trail out there to allow this. But the benighted masses lack the political will to support this because they still adhere to econ glob.

Almost all countries have EPZ or free trade zones.
I guess you're one of those who would like to keep the third world out of "global" markets. For those, who like you, blame the word's woes on TNC's, there is institutionalism. Instituions that will place holds on international anarchy and self-interest maximizers.


Econ glob means one thing, glob another. Econ and glob are two separate words that mean two or three separate things. This is not something Saul really investigates, he says on page 1,

"Globalization emerged in the 1970s, as if from nowhere, fully formed, enrobed in an aura of exclusivity."

"Globalization" is really about technology, if you think about it really hard, you can see why Saul pegs the '70s as it's emergence date and why it seemed like it was "exclusive".

India and China rightly think econ glob has some good ideas and lets some of these ideas in the door when they think proper, they don't let the lunatics run the asylum. Unfortunate places like Latin America and Africa couldn't stop the glob lunatics and suffered.

Capitalism and globalization do not mean the same thing. Capital means money, globe means ball. Glob could be a capital idea, and it might not only be about money.

Who argued that they did mean the same thing? Globalization refers to global access, which includes markets, hence economy. This is not going to go away. Anyway, citizens suffer when their leaders are self-interest maximizers, but do not allow their citizens to enjoy the same priviledges. This is what you tend to see in the developing world more often than not.

China on the other hands has some decisions to make, a growing, educated middle class due to a growing economy will probably demand more human rights, freedom and all that stuff that comes along with d-d-democracy. India is an interesting case study too, democratic, again, another growing middle class - although I would wadger that there are still mutliple sweatshops in Bombay.

What do you suppose sets India, China and (yes) Pakistan apart from Chile, where a Canadian mining company is removing glaciers to get at the gold in the Andes mountains? Who approved this project, between us and them?