NationStates Jolt Archive

In another Futile attempt to Provoke discussion on this now lame ass board. I ask you where is Globalisation Taking us? Who is pushing it and who will benefit?

I reckon that Everything will be rigidly organised in he name of efficency. And we will all be slaves to our job. I think the benefit of cheaper products is kinda a copout. For reduced freedom doesnt sound like much compensation does it?

I think the big corporate CEO types are organising it because they want to continue to squeeze the wealth out of the poor and middle class and hoard it for themselves. Because we need to widen the rich-poor gap some more and every CEO need a 192% raise every year! Especially when they lay people off!

Not really. The jobspan of the average CEO is one financial year.
Its the People who Own the corporations that stand to gain the most.

A new aristocracy that has global reach! :shock: :lol:

The average CEO may be only one year but he makes an obscene amount of money while doing it.

The Chairman of Chrysler made 20 million.

The HP CEO made 150 million for the purchase of Compaq.

CEO's exit packages when they are fired oops I mean retire or seek new adventures tend to be obscene.

An example: One medium sized company. A work pulled a screwup that costed the company 1 million dollars. He got 2 weeks severence.

The CEO lost them 15 million and he decided to pursue new interests with a an excit package of 10 million.....

Globalization does benefit the upper class and or higher managment.

It definitely is a painful process. While family farms will be crushed by the more cost-effective farming industries, thereby changing farmers to beggars, industries will move to the same countries and use these beggars as cheap labour, thereby increasing the unemployment in the countries they moved away from. This way, everybody looses initially, except the few guys who happen to be politicians or managers of said corporations. In the end, however, the system would reach an equilibrium in which the most efficient locations for any industry will house exactly this industry. It will, IMO, distribute wealth more equally in the long run. But it will not be easy in the short or even middle intermediate times. It also creates new issues that we didn't think of before - like organised crime moving freely as well. Therefore, we also need organised justice - the sharing of all information of / with all law enforcement agencies of all countries is necessary prerequisite for this. If we don't get to this fast, we will be overwhelmed by organised crime. And that is only one issue of many that will still arise. I don't believe any of us will live to see the benefit to all that I believe to be the outcome in the end, however.
This is something like "plant an oak tree": not even the generation that follows ours will be able to harvest, it'll take longer, but in the end, there will be a harvest. Like environmental care, really.
However, this is driven by economy (the moving corporations) so this is going to actually happen, all by itself, but we still need to take care and prepare for the side-effects it comes with.

The obscene "earnings" of these CEO guys don't really depend on globalisation. They depend on morale that currently is, IMNSHO, fading into nothingness. This would be the case without globalism as well. Maybe it'd take two more years, but it would be there in the end.

Where's it taking us? Onwards and upwards!

Corporations have invested more in the third world in the last 10 yrs than all govt aid in the last 50 yrs. They pay average 50% higher than local employers.

Lack of freedom? A truly free market will allow you to move anywhere in the world and communicate and trade with more people than ever. It is through increased wealth and strong economy that workers aquire more, not less, power over employers. It is govt regulations and taxation that restricts your freedom.

Free markets also encourage other types of freedom, as well as giving people time to struggle for freedom.

The only danger is if governments and inter-governmental organisations step in to regulate, oversee, control and ultimately screw up.

A truly free market is an abomination. It enslaves the economically weak to the economically powerful as is happening in the third world. But even the powerful, in turn, become enslaved to the omnipotent free market.

A truly free market is an abomination. It enslaves the economically weak to the economically powerful as is happening in the third world. But even the powerful, in turn, become enslaved to the omnipotent free market.
I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm not even sure you're making sense.

*sigh* Right, here we go. The free market allows those who have accumulated a large amount of bargaining power to enforce their will upon those who have very little. The owners of multinational corporations, being the economically powerful, have the power to force the inhabitants of these third world countries to work in horrible conditions for scant pay, because if they don't, they will starve.
It is the free market that allows those rich to accumulate their wealth and bargaining power which they lord over the economically weak in the sweatshops.

The economically powerful, in turn, have little freedom either, because they are at the mercy of the markets. They must always keep an eye on stocks and shareholders, and respond to their slightest whim, if they don't they could end up ruined. True this domination is not as obvious or drastic as the domination of the poor in the third world but it exists still.

Hence, the freer the market, the less free the people. It gives the powerful means to dominate the weak, and the market itself dominates the powerful.

It might be a good idea to read principles #5 and #6 (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145146) to answer the globalization question.

I get this feeling that this board has many, many haters of the captialist system. And I thought that the anti-capitalists were really big into human rights.

Countries, as thier markets become more and more open, generally enjoy better standards of living and more civil liberties. Things that the anti-globalization crowd say they are in favor of, but whose words and deeds tend to conflict in many instances.

*sigh* Right, here we go. The free market allows those who have accumulated a large amount of bargaining power to enforce their will upon those who have very little. The owners of multinational corporations, being the economically powerful, have the power to force the inhabitants of these third world countries to work in horrible conditions for scant pay, because if they don't, they will starve.
It is the free market that allows those rich to accumulate their wealth and bargaining power which they lord over the economically weak in the sweatshops.

The economically powerful, in turn, have little freedom either, because they are at the mercy of the markets. They must always keep an eye on stocks and shareholders, and respond to their slightest whim, if they don't they could end up ruined. True this domination is not as obvious or drastic as the domination of the poor in the third world but it exists still.

Hence, the freer the market, the less free the people. It gives the powerful means to dominate the weak, and the market itself dominates the powerful.
Let me get this straight. There is some sort of dragon beast called "the market". No. Okay. Um..... Let's see...

So, the poor are slaves to the rich because they have the money. And the rich are slaves to someone, "the market", because they have to produce what "the market" wants. But isn't the market the same poor people they enslaved? So the poor are slaves to the rich and the rich are slaves to the poor. What in the blue hell are you babbling about?

I already explained that corporations have invested in the 3rd world and that they pay MORE than anybody else will. But this is "exploitation" because it offends you're pampered sensibilities. Screw you. Globalisation is popular in the 3rd world, they just want a fair playing field, something western govts have denied them (CAP anyone?).

Wealth comes from productivity. By investing in the 3rd world the corporations increase their stock of capital which is the only way, THE ONLY WAY, to bring them out the dearths of poverty.

Some points to note a) all interactions on the free market are voluntary and thus can only take place if it benefits both parties b) there is no such metaphysical thing as "the market", only voluntarily interacting people c) the only alternative is society run by a predatory, coercive and corrupt state.

Stableness: principle #7 is full of garbage.

...Stableness: principle #7 is full of garbage.

In the long-term you are correct. In the short-run you are correct too...but the existing realities involved when a collection of asshat politicians reacting to a smaller collection of knuckhead constituents who claim some sort of exploitation or victimization, apparently requires some kind of attention - lest the asshats be accused of being "the uncaring rich", second coming of Adolph Hitler, or something worse!

...Stableness: principle #7 is full of garbage.

In the long-term you are correct. In the short-run you are correct too...but the existing realities involved when a collection of asshat politicians reacting to a smaller collection of knuckhead constituents who claim some sort of exploitation or victimization, apparently requires some kind of attention - lest the asshats be accused of being "the uncaring rich", second coming of Adolph Hitler, or something worse!
Right. So why have a government?

...Stableness: principle #7 is full of garbage.

In the long-term you are correct. In the short-run you are correct too...but the existing realities involved when a collection of asshat politicians reacting to a smaller collection of knuckhead constituents who claim some sort of exploitation or victimization, apparently requires some kind of attention - lest the asshats be accused of being "the uncaring rich", second coming of Adolph Hitler, or something worse!
Right. So why have a government?

A society should have laws - laws that the people want. If that be the case, the laws have to be enforced and judgements be made as to enforcement, culpability, and consequences.

Does a society need a representative form of government with three brances as long as it had a justice system where the people could remove a justice? I haven't thought about that one long enough.

Would a military be necessary as long as the society's citizens were tough enough and had the stomach enough to be well familiar with weapons/not afraid to use them? I'm not sure how long the society would last without major weapons systems to deter other societies from taking over and plundering. Could a few members of society develop these major weapons systems on their own? Would they then contract with the other members of the society and offer protection for compensation? What if some members did not want the protection?

The whole "what if..." scenario starts getting dicey when you start discussing a society without any government at all. I myself think that our system of government is pretty darn close to as good as it can get. Recent American history (last 75 years) aside, where the size & scope of government has gotten, IMO, out of hand, I do believe America is in the throws of a mass shakeup and reversal of that trend.

One of the very first things that will lead to the reversal is happening right now - as foreign direct investment (trade deficit) goes through a boomerrang effect and our standard of living decrases while other developing countries go through their "Catch-up" phase. This will make borrowing for frivilous spending much costlier. America will be forced to go through "leaner" times, rethink its spending habits, its role of government, and ultimately a "hardening up" of it members. Many will call it - after it's all said and done and as we climb back out of it - "a return of the American way".

So, the poor are slaves to the rich because they have the money. And the rich are slaves to someone, "the market", because they have to produce what "the market" wants. But isn't the market the same poor people they enslaved? So the poor are slaves to the rich and the rich are slaves to the poor. What in the blue hell are you babbling about?
You seem to be mistaking your own babbling for mine. When did I say the market was the poor? Do those who work for Nike in southeast asia wear Nike trainers? I bet they do.

I already explained that corporations have invested in the 3rd world and that they pay MORE than anybody else will.
The corporations indeed can afford to pay a little more. Which may seem beneficial, but in the long run it can totally ruin local economies. The reason is twofold. By dominating the local labour market, the corporation slowly but surely drives local businesses into extinction. So the resources, labour and otherwise, are drained out of the area to one overseas source. Secondly, as a single employer continues to dominate the area, the need to keep wages competatively high disappears. As the area becomes more and more specialised and honed to one industry, if the corporation runs into trouble and pulls out (as they are wont to do) the area is left with a more or less totally unskilled populace. Good one, globalisation.

Some points to note a) all interactions on the free market are voluntary and thus can only take place if it benefits both parties
Theoretically yes, but faced with the massive buying power of multinational corporations it can be a Hobson's choice.


b) there is no such metaphysical thing as "the market", only voluntarily interacting people
Yes. The actions of the 'voluntarily' interacting people make up the concept that I refer to as "the market". Amazingly, you use "market" as a noun, too. Am I to assume you are talking about a dragon?

c) the only alternative is society run by a predatory, coercive and corrupt state.

So debatable it would need a whole new thread. Suffice to say anarchocapitalism would fall apart as there is no objective source to garuntee property rights or keep class antagonisms from boiling over.

...Stableness: principle #7 is full of garbage.

In the long-term you are correct. In the short-run you are correct too...but the existing realities involved when a collection of asshat politicians reacting to a smaller collection of knuckhead constituents who claim some sort of exploitation or victimization, apparently requires some kind of attention - lest the asshats be accused of being "the uncaring rich", second coming of Adolph Hitler, or something worse!
Right. So why have a government?

A society should have laws - laws that the people want. If that be the case, the laws have to be enforced and judgements be made as to enforcement, culpability, and consequences.

Does a society need a representative form of government with three brances as long as it had a justice system where the people could remove a justice? I haven't thought about that one long enough.

Would a military be necessary as long as the society's citizens were tough enough and had the stomach enough to be well familiar with weapons/not afraid to use them? I'm not sure how long the society would last without major weapons systems to deter other societies from taking over and plundering. Could a few members of society develop these major weapons systems on their own? Would they then contract with the other members of the society and offer protection for compensation? What if some members did not want the protection?

The whole "what if..." scenario starts getting dicey when you start discussing a society without any government at all. I myself think that our system of government is pretty darn close to as good as it can get. Recent American history (last 75 years) aside, where the size & scope of government has gotten, IMO, out of hand, I do believe America is in the throws of a mass shakeup and reversal of that trend.

One of the very first things that will lead to the reversal is happening right now - as foreign direct investment (trade deficit) goes through a boomerrang effect and our standard of living decrases while other developing countries go through their "Catch-up" phase. This will make borrowing for frivilous spending much costlier. America will be forced to go through "leaner" times, rethink its spending habits, its role of government, and ultimately a "hardening up" of it members. Many will call it - after it's all said and done and as we climb back out of it - "a return of the American way".
Statelessness is not lawlessness. Govt definition and enforcement of laws is not the only way to have laws. Govt police are a recent "innovation". For law without the state see. Rothbard and Friedman's articles are probably best.

http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Why do you assume there'd be no military without a govt? Check this article from the above website.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l3.html

All the "what if"s you can imagine were probably asked when people first suggested democracy. Small govt is impossible. It is in the nature of the state to grow and oppress just as it is in the nature of the market to be lean and efficient and to increase prosperity for all.

Trade deficits don't mean getting poorer. Britain had a trade deficit every year throughout the industrial revolution.

In another Futile attempt to Provoke discussion on this now lame ass board. I ask you where is Globalisation Taking us? Who is pushing it and who will benefit?

I reckon that Everything will be rigidly organised in he name of efficency. And we will all be slaves to our job. I think the benefit of cheaper products is kinda a copout. For reduced freedom doesnt sound like much compensation does it?

HIHI! I REMEMBER YOU FROM A VERY GOOD DEBATE SESSION I ENJOYED! :lol:
Globalisation will benefit the CEOs of the First World Multi-National Corporations. The Third World and First World workers will be exploited to such an extent global revolution will occur to kick out the bourgeios and establish proletariat, communist utopias.

The corporations indeed can afford to pay a little more. Which may seem beneficial, but in the long run it can totally ruin local economies. The reason is twofold. By dominating the local labour market, the corporation slowly but surely drives local businesses into extinction. So the resources, labour and otherwise, are drained out of the area to one overseas source. Secondly, as a single employer continues to dominate the area, the need to keep wages competatively high disappears. As the area becomes more and more specialised and honed to one industry, if the corporation runs into trouble and pulls out (as they are wont to do) the area is left with a more or less totally unskilled populace. Good one, globalisation.

Is that what happened in, say, South Korea? :roll:

You seem to think of foreigners as unthinking yahoos who are incapable of any sort of entrepeneurial activity of their own. How could a factory drive local businesses into extinction? Surely the injection of foreign wealth will stimulate local businesses as the employees spend their higher wages on extra goods.

Your conception of trade is theoretically and empirically bogus.

Suffice to say anarchocapitalism would fall apart as there is no objective source to garuntee property rights or keep class antagonisms from boiling over.

In what sense are the dictates of the state more objective than private defence agencies? "Suffice to say the free market will break down because there is no objective source to guarantee the production of essentials like food" Does this strike you as a sensible statement?

Yes. The actions of the 'voluntarily' interacting people make up the concept that I refer to as "the market". Amazingly, you use "market" as a noun, too. Am I to assume you are talking about a dragon?

I'm using it as a shorthand in the same way as the words "society" or "country". You're talking about it as though it was something malicious controlling you with strings.

Trade deficits don't mean getting poorer. Britain had a trade deficit every year throughout the industrial revolution.

You're right and if you examine what I wrote I insinuated just the opposite. Our standard of living was significantly raise because of our trade deficit. Foreign investors (be them private or governments) contributed to much of our growth. We used that capital and got quite a return on the investment while the foriegners didn't do nearly as well with their returns. They got a couple of hundred basis points of "real return" (inflation adjusted) for holding our debt (plus more American hegemony :D ) and we had unbelievable growth with it. My contention is that this will not continue for ever - in fact I think that the trend is already starting to ebb.

Now, I think I'll check out the links that you provided.

Trade deficits don't mean getting poorer. Britain had a trade deficit every year throughout the industrial revolution.

You're right and if you examine what I wrote I insinuated just the opposite. Our standard of living was significantly raise because of our trade deficit. Foreign investors (be them private or governments) contributed to much of our growth. We used that capital and got quite a return on the investment while the foriegners didn't do nearly as well with their returns. They got a couple of hundred basis points of "real return" (inflation adjusted) for holding our debt (plus more American hegemony :D ) and we had unbelievable growth with it. My contention is that this will not continue for ever - in fact I think that the trend is already starting to ebb.

Now, I think I'll check out the links that you provided.
Ahhhhh. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

I hate globalization. The reasons should be obvious.

-----------------------------------------
"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://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I don't care where it takes you.

I'm not going along with it.

I don't care where it takes you.

I'm not going along with it.
Fine don't. Nobody's forcing you to. Make sure you only buy products which were manufactured in your country and pay 3 times the odds. Nobody'll stop you voluntarily impoverishing yourself.

I don't care where it takes you.

I'm not going along with it.
Fine don't. Nobody's forcing you to. Make sure you only buy products which were manufactured in your country and pay 3 times the odds. Nobody'll stop you voluntarily impoverishing yourself.

Great point...it's too bad that it will be lost on the idealist mind that knows nothing of comparitive advantage but certainly is sensitive to percieved victims.

I don't care where it takes you.

I'm not going along with it.

Welcome to the real world - you will HAVE to go with it. It's not a matter of choice.