NationStates Jolt Archive

After all these political threads, I thought it might be interesting (and slightly less inflammatory) to see how everone felt about globalization. So I pose this question, do you think globalization is good or bad, and why?

After all these political threads, I thought it might be interesting (and slightly less inflammatory) to see how everone felt about globalization. So I pose this question, do you think globalization is good or bad, and why?

capitalist globalization bad. its is a naked grab for even more power by the capitalists - though it is just a continuation of capitalism as usual. but on the plus side, organizing to oppose it has helped bring about a resurgence in libertarian socialism worldwide.

Do you have any fucking clue what capitalism is?

No?

I didn't think so.

Good night.

capitalist globalization bad. its is a naked grab for even more power by the capitalists - though it is just a continuation of capitalism as usual. but on the plus side, organizing to oppose it has helped bring about a resurgence in libertarian socialism worldwide.

However (the evils or good of Capitalists aside) it does help to bolster world and local economy.

However (the evils or good of Capitalists aside) it does help to bolster world and local economy.

at least until an unstable situation in one area sends an entire continent into a tailspin. capitalism is inherently unstable. capitalist globalization spreads and attempts to delay this instability, but from all indications it also amplifies it.

Corporate Globalization Is VERY bad. We would do good to fight this and keep the rich from exploiting the resources (human and other) of the poorer countries.

Although the globalization of a people, through the use of the information super highway is a good thing. We in America finally get to see what is goign on in teh rest of teh world, and people in other countries get to see that U.S. citizens aren't all idiots that think America should rule the world.

So in other words, you think people should NOT be free to interact in whatever non-violent, non-fraudulent manner they choose?

How very authoritarian and fascist of you.

Do you have any f--- clue what capitalism is?

a political and economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and distribution and wage labor with significant class divisions in terms of power, prestige, and access to and control over resources.

It's both. By opening trade, all parties have a chance to increase in wealth, which should allow the areas that are poor to gain things they need. However, if fair trade is not an inherent part of globalisation, then the slight increase in income is tied to an increase in labor that doesn't produce the expected result.

Fair trade is paying a rational, livable price for goods. I can buy your 100 zogle (which I am going to resell for fifty cents) for five cents each, and you can have a big increase in income from 13 cents a month to $5.13 a month. Or I can pay you 25cents each, which will allow you the money necessary to hire others to produce more zogles and in the long run be able to make better zogles, create jobs in your town, and diversify into producing other items. I can still sell them at 50 cents, and as the quality increases, I can sell more of them. This way we all gain - I make enough to pay my zogle sellers, you make enough to hire more zogle makers, and people who want or need zogles can find them at a reasonable price.

There isn't anything wrong with profiting from your labors. The harm comes when you profit at the expense of others. It is intersting to see that products labeled as fair trade items, which often cost more than similar products not so labeled, do sell inspite of being prices somewhat higher. A good example is the coffee industry, where fair trade buyers guarantee to pay at least $1.26 per pound of unprocessed beans. Since the price of beans fluctuates and has dropped as low as 50 cents a pound, this guarantees that the growers will be able to produce and still make a profit.

So, my opinion here is that globalisation is good if handled properly. There are many willing to make it an opportunity to partner with small groups and help them in return for the benefit of product. The problems tend to arise (again, in my opinion) when buyers partner with large conglomerates of producers controlled by a few. Working more closely with the small producers is what will make globalisation and fair trade successful.

I have a mixed view on the matter. I think it's good in terms of world economy, however companies take this to an extreme and exploit resources in a lesser developed country. At the same time, they create job loss in their home country by moving factories overseas, but create job opportunities elsewhere.

The really negative point I have with it is cultural globalization. I hate the McWorld syndrome, and the homogenization that comes with that. Companies branch out and bring American or European culture with them, often times destroying what was there to begin with. Just look at the Zapatistas. They've resorted to guerilla warfare to preserve their way of life, since international corporations have taken jobs away.

Define globalization.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

A McDonald's on every corner is not exactly my idea of a good world.

Just as a side note, globalization is a joke unless we allow greater border mobility. It's stupid to say we should free capital markets but continuing to chain, limit and interfere with labour markets.

It's not as simple as just 'good' or 'bad'. It's good if it is used to everyone's benefit, but bad if we don't have universal regulation that prevent third world workers getting shafted.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

Well, it's a bad thing if it crushes other cultures and/or economies in the process.

Globalization means the capitalists trampling other cultures and replacing them with millions of new wage slaves.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Globalization means the capitalists trampling other cultures and replacing them with millions of new wage slaves.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

ooh, my favourite topic

One of the harshest criticics of how globalization is being perpetuated are Milton Friedman, the head of the Chicago School of Economics where neoliberal trade policies were thought up and Joseph Stiglitz, an ex head (or vice, my memory fails me now) of the IMF who got fired for criticizing neoliberalism (what economic globalisation actually is).

The truth is free trade does not exist. Borders are being open primarily one way, with Multinational Corporations (MNC's) gaining access to 3rd world markets while the 3rd world is for the most part shut out. A perfect example of this is agricultural subsidies. THis is the one of the few industries 3rd world markets could compete in but due to European, American and Japanese favouring local industry over global (which goes against hte IMF and WTO trade rules which state that the state cannot favour products period), the 3rd world continues to be mired in poverty. Joseph Stigleitz wrote an article where he calculated that European cows, calculated through subsidies, make twice as much ($2) a day than African farmers.

In order to qualify for IMF restructering programs, states must be willing to follow a blanket solution that does not change from state to state, irrespective of difference. THis includes liberalizing trade (ends subsidies which forces small businesses to compete with MNC's), cut social spending, and liberalize the work force (meaning weaken unions). Russia is a perfect example of what happens when a state liberalizes too quickly, wealth enters the hands of a rich few while the majority of the population mires in further poverty while the state is weakened in administering help.

It also hurts the welfare state found in most European countries and Canada. Due to free borders (for corporations, this does not apply to workers and people, one thing Milton FRiedman insisted was neccessary), MNC can play states against eachother, each forcing the other into what is commonly referred to as a race to the bottom. States are encouraged to lower taxes, decrease enviromental standards and weaken worker rights to make themselves more attractive to business. This is the argument behind Bush's tax cuts, but it hurts the ability of the state to adminster to its most needy.

Due to a lack of labour and enviromental standards, trade agreements such as NAFTA are actually dangerous for citizens. A famous example is when Canada banned MMT, a gasoline additive that is awful for the environment and increases the risk of cancer, they were threatend with a $256 million lawsuit for placing a barrier to trade. Eventually, after months of saying this ban protects our citizens, Canada agreed to settle out of court for $19 million (to i think Ethyl Corp, i could be wrong on which corporation it is) and go on record as saying MMT is not harmful.

Considering how long this post has been, i'm gonna stop here but Export Process zones are really shitty as well.

It doesn't matter whether you think globalisation is good or bad--it is inevitable. A global population slowly but steadily becoming wealthier, and mass comunications have heightened the inevitability of this.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

A McDonald's on every corner is not exactly my idea of a good world.

In your opinion. However, that's not your call to make. Whether or not a McDonald's will appear on every corner is based on whether people in general believe that to be a good idea. YOu don't have to eat at McDonald's. But other people have the right to do so.

Just as a side note, globalization is a joke unless we allow greater border mobility. It's stupid to say we should free capital markets but continuing to chain, limit and interfere with labour markets.

I actually agree with that. Immigration laws will have to be relaxed sooner or later, preferably sooner.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

Well, it's a bad thing if it crushes other cultures and/or economies in the process.

"Cultural imperialism" doesn't exist. If Nigerians want Western culture over Nigerian culture, they should be allowed to have it. We aren't sending troops down the streets of third-world countries and forcing them to eat at McDonald's. They just like the food there better than their own local food... that's not imperialism at all, that's free choice.

Define globalization.

"To make global or worldwide in scope or application."
So basically the international expansion of culture and/or economic influence.
And which of these can possibly be a bad thing?

Well, it's a bad thing if it crushes other cultures and/or economies in the process.

"Cultural imperialism" doesn't exist. If Nigerians want Western culture over Nigerian culture, they should be allowed to have it. We aren't sending troops down the streets of third-world countries and forcing them to eat at McDonald's. They just like the food there better than their own local food... that's not imperialism at all, that's free choice.

However there is a much more subtle force at work. When companies move in and open sweatshops, or even bring in international chains, they kill local businesses through competition. Sometimes they are forced to adopt the new culture.

dammit, can't somebody criticize my post!

However there is a much more subtle force at work. When companies move in and open sweatshops, or even bring in international chains, they kill local businesses through competition. Sometimes they are forced to adopt the new culture.

How are the local businessmen defeated in competition? Becuase no one wants to buy their product any more. The people choose the MNC.

However there is a much more subtle force at work. When companies move in and open sweatshops, or even bring in international chains, they kill local businesses through competition. Sometimes they are forced to adopt the new culture.

How are the local businessmen defeated in competition? Becuase no one wants to buy their product any more. The people choose the MNC.

In the case of walmart, they are awful for local business. They come in with low prices (due to sweatshop labour forces) and convenience which completely kill local business.

AND SOMEONE CRITICIZE MY EARLIER POST, IT WAS TOO LONG TO NOT BE CRITICIZED!!!!

I love globalization. Freer trade, cheaper prices, mixing of cultures... more jobs for everyone, better living conditions for everyone. :D

However there is a much more subtle force at work. When companies move in and open sweatshops, or even bring in international chains, they kill local businesses through competition. Sometimes they are forced to adopt the new culture.

How are the local businessmen defeated in competition? Becuase no one wants to buy their product any more. The people choose the MNC.

In the case of walmart, they are awful for local business. They come in with low prices (due to sweatshop labour forces) and convenience which completely kill local business.

AND SOMEONE CRITICIZE MY EARLIER POST, IT WAS TOO LONG TO NOT BE CRITICIZED!!!!

Well most Americans would rather shop at Wal-Mart than local business.

Certainly you aren't suggesting making life MORE inconvenient on purpose?

I love globalization. Freer trade, cheaper prices, mixing of cultures... more jobs for everyone, better living conditions for everyone. :D

Not for everyone. Not even close.

I love globalization. Freer trade, cheaper prices, mixing of cultures... more jobs for everyone, better living conditions for everyone. :D

Not for everyone. Not even close.

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

But look at the living conditions in parts of China, India and Africa. How can you say it's alright for them to suffer as long as the rest of us increase our standard of living?

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

But look at the living conditions in parts of China, India and Africa. How can you say it's alright for them to suffer as long as the rest of us increase our standard of living?

China has over 8% GDP growth right now. You would be crazy to say that their quality of life is going down. I'm Chinese, almost everyone in China is pro-globalization.

I read a good article several years ago titled McDonaldization vs. Jihad".
It predicted some of the current troubles we're in.
Much of the world does not want to become predicatble consumer blocs.
They do not want to eat burgers, drink Pepsi, and see Britney and Janet and Justin all the time.
They feel that soon they will have no choice; the powers that be have declared this "inevitable".

So we are in a violent culture war.

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

But look at the living conditions in parts of China, India and Africa. How can you say it's alright for them to suffer as long as the rest of us increase our standard of living?

China has over 8% GDP growth right now. You would be crazy to say that their quality of life is going down. I'm Chinese, almost everyone in China is pro-globalization.

Granted it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. My mistake. I was referring to some of the factory towns, and didn't intend for that to reflect even the majority of the country.

Well, if you look at these three places, most of them are only beggining to become part of the global community. And, China, the one that started the earliest, has seen huge jumps in disposable income since they moved away from their closed, anti-global system. It regularly tops 6% growth rates. Business is booming. Compare this to 50 years ago where tens of millions died in one bad harvest season and I'd say its a big improvement.
India is slowly turning out the same way - they started later and moved slower than China. Africa is a big example of why nations should endorse globalization. All of the populist quasi-socialist leaders like Mugabe take away all the land from those who are the most productive on it (mainly White and rich Black people) and give it to poor people. Sounds like a great plan until places like Zimbabwe get 1000% inflation a year and can't support themselves. South Africa is one of the only examples in Africa that hasn't been torn apart by civil war, coups, ect. and has allowed its economy to integrate, consequently, it is the most sucessful.

What we have to see here is whats the problem. Its easy to say "These countries are becoming globalized" and then "look at how bad their conditions are". First, things take time, economic development and advancement as a whole dosen't happen over night - it took over a hundred years for most Western countries (For Japan much less). Second, there are other factors unrelated to globalization - disease, civil war, population (un)control, that are the real things that make these places bad, not globalization.

Granted it's not nearly as bad as it used to be. My mistake. I was referring to some of the factory towns, and didn't intend for that to reflect even the majority of the country.

The factory towns are doing the best of all... Except the urban finance centers

I just want to reiterate that I am not taking a stance on this issue, just playing devil's advocate. :wink:

Yeah the old factory centers are doing better than most. Employment in the USA, for example, has increased as a percentage of the population from the 1950's to today. People get more education, get better jobs in service industries, and then they make more money and don't have to sweat all day for it.

I love globalization. Freer trade, cheaper prices, mixing of cultures... more jobs for everyone, better living conditions for everyone. :D

Not for everyone. Not even close.

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

When you say everyone, you mean Europe and America. Tell that to the kids (yes, i mean kids) making substandard wages in unsafe working conditions through Asia and latin America in export processing zones where corporations aren't paying taxes, and workers aren't protected under labour standards.

I love globalization. Freer trade, cheaper prices, mixing of cultures... more jobs for everyone, better living conditions for everyone. :D

Not for everyone. Not even close.

Not for everyone but I'd hold for the vast majority.

When you say everyone, you mean Europe and America. Tell that to the kids (yes, i mean kids) making substandard wages in unsafe working conditions through Asia and latin America in export processing zones where corporations aren't paying taxes, and workers aren't protected under labour standards.

I thought I already adressed that myth. :roll: Every country goes through that stage of industrialization, you know? Where it gets transformed from a mostly rural society, which every time a drought comes ten million die, into a slowly but surely more stable society where people get regular pay and a regular job. A job, no matter how bad, is better than no job at all. Thats why people take them. It costs money to buy food, you have to do it somehow.

When you say everyone, you mean Europe and America. Tell that to the kids (yes, i mean kids) making substandard wages in unsafe working conditions through Asia and latin America in export processing zones where corporations aren't paying taxes, and workers aren't protected under labour standards.

They are living a lot better than they used to...

YOu have to realize that for third-world countries prosperity isn't going around driving a volvo, sometimes they are just trying to meet their basic needs and save a little for investment in capital goods, something which globalization is allowing for.

When you say everyone, you mean Europe and America. Tell that to the kids (yes, i mean kids) making substandard wages in unsafe working conditions through Asia and latin America in export processing zones where corporations aren't paying taxes, and workers aren't protected under labour standards.

They are living a lot better than they used to...

YOu have to realize that for third-world countries prosperity isn't going around driving a volvo, sometimes they are just trying to meet their basic needs and save a little for investment in capital goods, something which globalization is allowing for.

K, you're misunderstanding me. Jobs for the 3rd world=good
Not letting them unionize or even grant them basic rights does not help their standard of living, especially when the division between rich and poor are decreasing.

I rather like the idea. Not that it'll ever happen, but I like it.

K, you're misunderstanding me. Jobs for the 3rd world=good
Not letting them unionize or even grant them basic rights does not help their standard of living, especially when the division between rich and poor are decreasing.

Blame their governments that are in bed with the corporations. That's not the problem of globalization, that's the problem of political corruption, and as Mallberta already brought up, immigration laws.

Despite all of that, it is undeniable that worker's lots are improving. Even if they don't have these rights now, eventually, after achieving a base level of economic development, they iwll get these rights.

Sorry, but capitalism is the best. People should be rewarded for their work and skills. Why should a hard working person have only the same as a worthless lazy person? People aren't perfect. Nobody will work for any reason except to further themselves and their loved ones. Why work if you can't get ahead anyway?

Work ethic cannot exist without capitalism or oppression.

And as for globalization.... So what if they put the local companies out of business? The best product will always be bought. Obviously nobody cares if Walmart's products are made in a sweatshop, or else they wouldn't be so popular.

<end rant>

K, you're misunderstanding me. Jobs for the 3rd world=good
Not letting them unionize or even grant them basic rights does not help their standard of living, especially when the division between rich and poor are decreasing.

Blame their governments that are in bed with the corporations. That's not the problem of globalization, that's the problem of political corruption, and as Mallberta already brought up, immigration laws.

Despite all of that, it is undeniable that worker's lots are improving. Even if they don't have these rights now, eventually, after achieving a base level of economic development, they iwll get these rights.

I do blame the governments, but consider what is required to qualify for an IMF loan (weaken unions, eliminate social spending)? Or the sanctioned monopoly that is TRIPS? Globalization with a fair trade mandate where all workers get paid sustenance wages is incredible, i think we're in agreement there. But the current system is highly exploitave and making corporations richer and the lower class (both in terms of countries nad citizens) poorer. The way AIDS drugs have been refused to Africa is reason enough to be anti-globalization. (interestingly, i've been learning about what qualifies as genocide, one way is the refusal to administer things that are required to live to an ethnic group).

I don't want to see capitalists stomp on other cultures. They do seem to tend toward sexism and hierarchialism, but capitalist greed outstrips pretty much all of them.

To Sakonuchi: That isn't remotely true. If work was made enjoyable through worker self-management, it would be done without oppression. Money isn't the only way to measure contribution. Even if that is all incorrect, I'll take freedom over efficiency.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I do blame the governments, but consider what is required to qualify for an IMF loan (weaken unions, eliminate social spending)? Or the sanctioned monopoly that is TRIPS?

The US should withdraw from the IMF, I agree. Let private businesses loan at their own risk.

Globalization with a fair trade mandate where all workers get paid sustenance wages is incredible, i think we're in agreement there.

No we're not. I support globalization with NO mandate whatsoever. Right now globalization tends to be somewhat pro-capital (IMF, etc.). I don't want it to be pro-labor OR pro-capital. I want it to be pro-liberty, namely I want a globalziation system where people are free to make whatever contracts they please so long as all parties consent.

This doesn't guarantee anyone sustenance wages, it only guarantees the wages that others are willing to pay him. Just like a clothing store isn't guaranteed to make a 'fair' price--it's only guaranteed to make the money that I'm willing to pay for their product.

But the current system is highly exploitave and making corporations richer and the lower class (both in terms of countries nad citizens) poorer.

Everyone's getting richer. I think you mean making the lower class poorer relative to the upper class which is different from saying that they are getting poorer in an absolute sense.

Let's say there are three people, we'll call them America, China, and Africa. To say that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer would imply zero-sum wealth, like this:

BEFORE GLOBALIZATION
America has $8
China and Africa have $1 each
AFTER GLOBALIZTION
America has $9
China and Africa have 50 cents each.

In reality, it works more like this:
BEFORE
America has $8
China and Africa have $1 each
AFTER
America has $12
China has $2
Africa has $1.50

Everyone's still gaining, albeit the gap itself is larger in an absolute sense.

The way AIDS drugs have been refused to Africa is reason enough to be anti-globalization.

If I create somethign, I am under no obligation to give it away.

(interestingly, i've been learning about what qualifies as genocide, one way is the refusal to administer things that are required to live to an ethnic goup).

That definition is flawed. By that definition, we are ALL guilty of genoicde... since we are refusing to donate OUR money to starving kids, instead using it selfishly on ourselves.

As I said before, you have the right to and only to:
- What you produce with your own capital goods (including your mind and body)
- What others voluntarily give you. The key word there being voluntarily.