NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick question on something that just occured to me. How come those who are most anti-globalisation are the ones who scream the loudest when sanctions are imposed on a country? Shouldn't this stop the "exploitation" by big businesses? Or is it just levis and fords they are to be denied instead of medicine and food?

No & no.

obviously you dont understand the argument against globalization

Just a quick question on something that just occured to me. How come those who are most anti-globalisation are the ones who scream the loudest when sanctions are imposed on a country? Shouldn't this stop the "exploitation" by big businesses? Or is it just levis and fords they are to be denied instead of medicine and food?

It depends on what is meant by "globalisation". If you mean (as I believe you personally do) a level playing field, where rich countries stop paying huge subsidies to their industries and farmers and the World Bank stops buggering up poor nations' industry and agriculture (for example, by insisting that they all start growing the same cash crop, resulting in a glut and a price crash), then few people, with the possible exception of rich western industrialists and farmers, would object.

If, however, we take the protestors' definition of "globalisation" -- the exploitation of developing nations for cheap labour and raw materials, with no economic development -- then the result is misery and hardship for the indigenous people. Generally speaking, it's the misery and hardship that protestors object to, not the political or economic theory in abstraction. If sanctions cause misery and suffering: fight them. If pseudo-globalisation causes misery and suffering: fight it. One way to fight it is to demand -- as several NGOs do -- that Western countries end their subsidies to their farmers and industries. In other words, to move towards genuine free trade.

It depends on what is meant by "globalisation". If you mean (as I believe you personally do) a level playing field, where rich countries stop paying huge subsidies to their industries and farmers and the World Bank stops buggering up poor nations' industry and agriculture (for example, by insisting that they all start growing the same cash crop, resulting in a glut and a price crash), then few people, with the possible exception of rich western industrialists and farmers, would object.

If, however, we take the protestors' definition of "globalisation" -- the exploitation of developing nations for cheap labour and raw materials, with no economic development -- then the result is misery and hardship for the indigenous people. Generally speaking, it's the misery and hardship that protestors object to, not the political or economic theory in abstraction. If sanctions cause misery and suffering: fight them. If pseudo-globalisation causes misery and suffering: fight it. One way to fight it is to demand -- as several NGOs do -- that Western countries end their subsidies to their farmers and industries. In other words, to move towards genuine free trade.

well put

Just a quick question on something that just occured to me. How come those who are most anti-globalisation are the ones who scream the loudest when sanctions are imposed on a country? Shouldn't this stop the "exploitation" by big businesses? Or is it just levis and fords they are to be denied instead of medicine and food?


Because those people just like to whine...no matter how hypocritical they may sound.

I can hear it now, "Western World cuts subsidies, forcing developing nations to become agrarian." They'll always find something.

Just a quick question on something that just occured to me. How come those who are most anti-globalisation are the ones who scream the loudest when sanctions are imposed on a country? Shouldn't this stop the "exploitation" by big businesses? Or is it just levis and fords they are to be denied instead of medicine and food?Because countries should be able to decide for themselves what they want to import, what they want to ban, and what they want to tariff without having to adhere to an ideology or have revenge sanctions imposed by another country.

Because countries should be able to decide for themselves what they want to import, what they want to ban, and what they want to tariff without having to adhere to an ideology or have revenge sanctions imposed by another country.

By that reasoning, don't countries have the right to sanction others?

By that reasoning, don't countries have the right to sanction others?
But they bully others to do the same.

But they bully others to do the same.


Ahh...I see what youre talking about now

By that reasoning, don't countries have the right to sanction others?They would have a right to not import anything from that country, but they wouldn't have the right to not sell anything to that country, or, as Psylos said, bully others to do the same.

They would have a right to not import anything from that country, but they wouldn't have the right to not sell anything to that country, or, as Psylos said, bully others to do the same.

A single country has every right to not sell its goods. Much like I have the right to not sell you mine.

A single country has every right to not sell its goods. Much like I have the right to not sell you mine.Well from a communist perspective, you don't have that right, because it conflicts with the right of others to use this good.

Well from a communist perspective, you don't have that right, because it conflicts with the right of others to use this good.

So I guess we are arguing apples and oranges here...but wouldn't it be refusing to share rather than refusing to sell (in the case of communism)? In this case, yes, your argument of refusing imports makes sense - not that I agree with it.

So I guess we are arguing apples and oranges here...but wouldn't it be refusing to share rather than refusing to sell (in the case of communism)? In this case, yes, your argument of refusing imports makes sense - not that I agree with it.
No the problem is that the first poster assumes all the "anti-globalists" are the same. Some communists are one instance of anti-globalists. I'm one of them.
And yes let's call that share.

I don't care where jobs end up as long as they can do the job!!!!!!!

Our vendors have leaped in to the job exporting.

Our trouble call time has increased 4 fold.

We make more calls as the quality of support has dropped significantly.

Cheap labor doesn't always mean good labor.

There are good people but not from what we have seen.

Job exporting might be a boon for the company but as a customer it is a bust for me.

A single country has every right to not sell its goods. Much like I have the right to not sell you mine.
And you have the right to sell them if you want, a right which is denied by govts when they impose sanctions.

As an aside, who's heard of Bobby Fischer? He's going to jail for 10 years for playing a game of chess in violation of UN sanctions. Barbarians.

If, however, we take the protestors' definition of "globalisation" -- the exploitation of developing nations for cheap labour and raw materials, with no economic development -- then the result is misery and hardship for the indigenous people. Generally speaking, it's the misery and hardship that protestors object to, not the political or economic theory in abstraction. If sanctions cause misery and suffering: fight them. If pseudo-globalisation causes misery and suffering: fight it. One way to fight it is to demand -- as several NGOs do -- that Western countries end their subsidies to their farmers and industries. In other words, to move towards genuine free trade.
My problem is with people who see the problem - mercantilism - and think the solution is isolation, which will condemn billions to even more misery.

Job exporting might be a boon for the company but as a customer it is a bust for me.
So take the effort to make sure the company has good tech support. Don't blame the market for your laziness.

And you have the right to sell them if you want, a right which is denied by govts when they impose sanctions. Would you say the same about restrictions by goverments on strike action?

My problem is with people who see the problem - mercantilism - and think the solution is isolation, which will condemn billions to even more misery.
Isolation? Who does support that?

Would you say the same about restrictions by goverments on strike action?
Of course, as well as any restrictions on firing strikers.

Isolation? Who does support that?
Are you saying the left want free trade?

Are you saying the left want free trade?No.
I'm saying the left want global cooperation.

Of course, as well as any restrictions on firing strikers.You'd also allow secondary strike action and picketing of course.

You'd also allow secondary strike action and picketing of course.
Picketing is a violation of property rights by denying the owners access. Secondary strikes are stoopid but shouldn't be illegal. Doing nothing shouldn't be a crime!

My problem is with people who see the problem - mercantilism - and think the solution is isolation, which will condemn billions to even more misery.

Absolutely. However, most "anti-globalisation" protestors are anti-mercantalist, and are actually heavily in favour of free, that is to say fair, trade. It's just unfortunate that the people who have grabbed control of the term "globalisation" are the mercantalists. It might be better to develop a new term unburdened by negative association with corporate looting. "Internationalism", maybe?

Picketing is a violation of property rights by denying the owners access. Secondary strikes are stoopid but shouldn't be illegal. Doing nothing shouldn't be a crime!What about if you picket on land not belonging to the owner? Or negogiate with whoever owns the road leading to the factory to deny access?

Just a quick question on something that just occured to me. How come those who are most anti-globalisation are the ones who scream the loudest when sanctions are imposed on a country? Shouldn't this stop the "exploitation" by big businesses? Or is it just levis and fords they are to be denied instead of medicine and food?

The problem is that the "globalization" advocates don't really want a truly globalized economy. For instance, they think corporations should be able to move wherever they want to take advantage of cheap labor... but they don't want labor to be able to move to take advantage of higher paying or otherwise better jobs!

But of course, it is (in part) the inability of labor to move over national borders that maintains the difference in wages. If all the Mexicans who wanted to come to the United States could do so legally -- like U.S. businesses can go to Mexico -- then there would be far fewer workers in Mexico willing to work for practically nothing. Supply goes down, price goes up.

Not that this is the only problem with corporate globalization... and not that I think a completely free market with open borders is the solution. But it certainly highlights the hypocracy of globalists.

So take the effort to make sure the company has good tech support. Don't blame the market for your laziness.


:rolleyes:

Well slick when you have maintenance contracts and you want your replacement parts, you still have to call.

A good phone jocky can tell after a few questions, you know what you are doing and send the replacments. Cheap labor stays to the queue card and wastes your time.

We have have 4 people for 800 computers so I think we are technically sufficent.

What about if you picket on land not belonging to the owner? Or negogiate with whoever owns the road leading to the factory to deny access?
That's fine except a) the factory owner may well own the road, b) they'd probably have to pay the road owner more than the loss of income and cost of enforcement making it very expensive, c) the factory owner would likely have some contract with the road owner to allow access, especially if trade unions make a habit of this.

The problem is that the "globalization" advocates don't really want a truly globalized economy. For instance, they think corporations should be able to move wherever they want to take advantage of cheap labor... but they don't want labor to be able to move to take advantage of higher paying or otherwise better jobs!

But of course, it is (in part) the inability of labor to move over national borders that maintains the difference in wages. If all the Mexicans who wanted to come to the United States could do so legally -- like U.S. businesses can go to Mexico -- then there would be far fewer workers in Mexico willing to work for practically nothing. Supply goes down, price goes up.

Not that this is the only problem with corporate globalization... and not that I think a completely free market with open borders is the solution. But it certainly highlights the hypocracy of globalists.
Here here. The pro-globalisation (with an "s", damn you!) people are often as hypocritical as the anti-globalisationists. End the international apartheid!

A single country has every right to not sell its goods. Much like I have the right to not sell you mine.
Certainly, under capitalism, this is true. But you don't have the right to reject me if you decide to sell something and I can pay.

Picketing is a violation of property rights by denying the owners access. Secondary strikes are stoopid but shouldn't be illegal. Doing nothing shouldn't be a crime!

What about if you picket on land not belonging to the owner? Or negogiate with whoever owns the road leading to the factory to deny access?

Sorry, guys, but I don't see picketing as something necessarily related to a violation of property rights. I mean, I'm for the rights to be on strike, but that means also I should have the rights to go to work if I want to. What if I don't support the strike?

Sorry, guys, but I don't see picketing as something necessarily related to a violation of property rights. I mean, I'm for the rights to be on strike, but that means also I should have the rights to go to work if I want to. What if I don't support the strike?Would you refuse any pay rise that is offered from the strike.

(And if I own the road, then under Lib's system it is entirely my right to stop you using it. So you going to work is a violation of my property rights.)

@Libertovania- If I have a police force can I use it to picket the factory?

@Libertovania- If I have a police force can I use it to picket the factory?
Eh? You may stop people going on your property but can't do anything about anyone else's property without their permission. This applies to everyone whether they have a shiny badge or not.

Sorry, guys, but I don't see picketing as something necessarily related to a violation of property rights. I mean, I'm for the rights to be on strike, but that means also I should have the rights to go to work if I want to. What if I don't support the strike?
It is a propety issue. You may stop someone going in your house but not going in someone else's factory (unless they ask you to stop people). The only difference is that one belongs to you and one doesn't.

Would you refuse any pay rise that is offered from the strike.
THW, it depends on who's gonna get the pay rise. If I'm not, then maybe I wouldn't support the strike...

(And if I own the road, then under Lib's system it is entirely my right to stop you using it. So you going to work is a violation of my property rights.)
Of course you're right. I just said there were more things to think about than mere violation of property rights. Over here (Spain) most roads are not private, so I've got the rights to get to my office. Obviously I wouldn't break into any private property, no matter the occasion.