NationStates Jolt Archive

Generalising, yes, but after an argument with a not-so-bright friend I would be interested in seeing what the learnerned people of NS believe. I, for the record, am for.

I'm for it, but I'd prefer a much gentler path than the one we're on right now.

Define "globalisation". Which part of it?

How can you be against globalisation? You can be against what people are doing now that globalisation is happening, but how can you be against the concept? What do you want? Turn the technology clock back a few decades?

How can you be against globalisation? You can be against what people are doing now that globalisation is happening, but how can you be against the concept? What do you want? Turn the technology clock back a few decades?

Don't ask me, ask the protestors. I assume they think that greed and corporations are part of Globalisation, which I believe they are. But I still support it, as someone mentioned, sans the unfair exploitation that can come with it.

How can you be against globalisation? You can be against what people are doing now that globalisation is happening, but how can you be against the concept? What do you want? Turn the technology clock back a few decades?
In the context of the question, I interpret globalisation to mean something more specific than the mere failure of peoples and things to be immobile. Unless I see reason to do otherwise, I interpret it as referring to particular recent inter-related ideology, processes, and structure formation, and over-all it is an inter-related cluster that I have grave reservations about.

I'm all for it a world without borders sounds dandy

I think globalisation is one of the the worst things that could happen to the world. I'll explain.

International politics work in a similar way that corporate politics do.
If your country sucks, people emmigrate and you lose tax revenue. If you have a really good country, people immigrate and you gain tax dollars.

Case in point, Mexico sucks, and every year millions of them illegally immigrate to the US because our civil life is better than theirs. People come in from Canada because our health care is better.If the entire world was one nation, we wouldn't have an option of where to live. If we didn't like the government, then tough beans.

In the corporate sector, if a company has competition, their prices must go down or their quality must go up to encourage new customers. Likewise, if there was no competition, there would be no reason not to raise prices and lower quality. The fact that upper management and CEOs want all your money actually makes sure you pay the lowest price for the highest quality product.

"Corporate vice is the civil virture" -Margaret Thatcher

The same priciple applies here.
Naturally, you disagree with me, but that's why I'm debating on this site.

Why does globalisation mean one nation - is it not possible to have free trade among many different cultures and countries and call that globalisation?

Globalisation FTW. Hands down. No question. Any short term drawbacks for unfortunates will be made back one hundredfold in the benefits implicit in globalisation and the developement it brings.

the only people I can imagine being justifiably against globalisation would be hemp wearing hippies who cry for the lost cultures of the old-world.

Black & white polls - For or against?

Why does globalisation mean one nation - is it not possible to have free trade among many different cultures and countries and call that globalisation?

Because trade barriers are a part of a nation's sovereignty; it's ability to control it's own economy and shut others out. Now, with globaliz(s)ation, you're loosening your grip and letting international market forces take over. So if clothes from India are cheaper than clothes from the USA, as a corporation, you're going to go with the clothes from India. If you're the American government, you don't want those clothes, because eventually, if they keep getting cheaper, American producers will have to raise prices in order to keep profits. Eventually, after clothes from Cambodia/Vietnam/India/China become so cheap it's like buying dirt, then the American producers will be forced to close.

Normally the governments of the world can just use tariffs to protect their industries, but with globalization, these trade barriers are destroyed. That's what people from the West who oppose globalization usually talk about.

People outside the West usually point to it and call it named like "neo-imperialism."

as far as the current understanding of the term goes - against.

"The only thing worse than being exploited by the global capitalist system is not being exploited by the global capitalist system.

Something my politics lecturer said today, and I think it holds true. If you talk to most of the least-paid workers in the world today they would probably echo it, they sacrifice their comfort so they can earn money that will pay for a better life for their children. And their children after them. Spreading the workload to those who are able to do it the cheapest makes sense, it spreads the money round and it helps alleviate global poverty.

the only people I can imagine being justifiably against globalisation would be hemp wearing hippies who cry for the lost cultures of the old-world.
Not necessarily. My cultural objections to globalisation stem from its effects on my country. I don't like the consumerist society and the Americanisation of Britain.

Not necessarily. My cultural objections to globalisation stem from its effects on my country. I don't like the consumerist society and the Americanisation of Britain.
Right, crying for lost cultures. I should have replaced 'legitimate' with 'worthwhile'. Cultures come and go. Yours will too.

According to Prof. Anthony Giddens (well known Friedmanite economist):

"Globalization is a fact, and it is driven by the communications revolution."

According to Giddens, and other free market apologists, globalization is all about the internet, mobile phones, being able to communicate to anyone from anywhere, etc. If this is the case (and this is no doubt part of it), then how could anyone be against it?

But this isn't the whole story. Globalization is much more than that. What it is, in fact, is the modern solution to Empire building. Let me explain. A hundred years ago or so, rich and powerful European nations built empires using military force (Britain, Germany, Holland etc). It was a fantastic deal for businesses at the time - empires provided a captive market and protected exploitation of resources around the world. However, it couldn't (and didn't) last. Military empire building is now very unfashionable.

What we do now (and "we", is the USA, Britain, France, Spain etc) is build economic empires. The tools with which we do this are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Bank. The original functions of these organisations were laudable enough at one time. For example, the IMF was set up after world war 2 in order to lend hard currency to nations with temporary balance of payments deficits. The WTO is supposed to regulate international trade rules. The world bank has a similar role to the IMF.

The way it works now (since about 1980), is as follows: When a nation gets itself into a bit of financial trouble, and needs to borrow some hard currency, they go to the IMF to borrow some. Prior to "globalization", this worked just like any bank loan, just on a larger scale. Simple.
Today, the IMF has a more sinister purpose. Before they hand over the cash, they demand "economic reforms", which work in four basic stages:
1. Remove financial controls on flow if international capital.
2. Slash government spending on just about everything, which includes getting rid of most of the civil service.
3. Make the labour market "flexible". Translation = crush your trade unions.
4. Privatise just about everything.

This process allows foreign multinationals to seize control of the nations assets (for example, British Gas now owns the national gas company in Brazil, IWL owns the water systems in Ecuador), often by paying much less than they are really worth. It also allows the rich elite to strip the remaining assets of the nation in question, moving the money out of the country. The most infamous example of this was Russia, where national output was cut almost in half by asset stripping which was made possible by implementation of IMF policies.

There are more details to this, but the basic fact is that "globalization" is about seizing control of foreign economies - it is economic empire building.

It has already been said that globalization is about removing tariffs. This is indeed true. This is the purpose of GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), imposed by the WTO. This does indeed remove barriers to trade, meaning that countries can no longer protect their local industries. But it's not universally applied. For example, Bush has imposed strict tariffs on steel imports to the USA, a clear violation of the GATT. Also, the WTO has blocked cheap imports of generic drugs to the USA from South America (Argentina in particular), which is also curiously incompatible with the GATT. Admittedly, this has more to do with another recently imposed article of globalisation, the TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property rightS) treaty, as imposed by the WTO. This is what has stopped Argentina from exporting cheap anti-retroviral medications to African nations (who are in desperate need of them to treat AIDS victims), and has also stopped India and Thailand from doing the same.

This is what globalization is all about, chaps. It's about Rich Nations and Multinational Corporations consolidating their control of the world, no matter what the cost to human life in poorer nations.

Because trade barriers are a part of a nation's sovereignty; it's ability to control it's own economy and shut others out. Now, with globaliz(s)ation, you're loosening your grip and letting international market forces take over. So if clothes from India are cheaper than clothes from the USA, as a corporation, you're going to go with the clothes from India. If you're the American government, you don't want those clothes, because eventually, if they keep getting cheaper, American producers will have to raise prices in order to keep profits. Eventually, after clothes from Cambodia/Vietnam/India/China become so cheap it's like buying dirt, then the American producers will be forced to close.

Normally the governments of the world can just use tariffs to protect their industries, but with globalization, these trade barriers are destroyed. That's what people from the West who oppose globalization usually talk about.

People outside the West usually point to it and call it named like "neo-imperialism."


What I find really funny is that I hear these sorts of arguments from the very same people who bitch about ‘evil corporations’ screwing over the poor worker.

Protectionism helps the domestic producer by keeping out competition at the expense of everyone else in the nation. You are screwing over the entire population to help one industry. How many people do you think work in the bulk textiles industry in the US that cannot easily find another job? Do you honestly think their economic gain outweighs the economic loss of every other person in the country?

In my opinion, lowering the cost of living for every man, woman, and child in the country is worth making a handful of people look for new jobs.

Generalising, yes, but after an argument with a not-so-bright friend I would be interested in seeing what the learnerned people of NS believe. I, for the record, am for.
Globalisation is inevitable...

ask the protestors.

I support globalization and I agree with the main criticisms of the protestors.

What are you talking about? Gloabalization.... The US has always had a hegemony over the world.

PS. Don't get any independant Ideas Air Strip One.;)

Protectionism helps the domestic producer by keeping out competition at the expense of everyone else in the nation. You are screwing over the entire population to help one industry. How many people do you think work in the bulk textiles industry in the US that cannot easily find another job? Do you honestly think their economic gain outweighs the economic loss of every other person in the country?



Your arguement is my eyes is kinda silly...

Take a look at the USA or the UK, trade deficits, reliant on foreign imports to keep the consumerism going that keepts the economy going. This in both natons has led to economically divided nations where the gap between rich and poor is huge.

Now take a producing country where goods are made. The gap between rich and poor tends to be narrower. The general well being of the nation better. (see 1950's USA, 1980's Japan, 1970's Germany) All these moments existed though protectionism. In fact most countries golden economic ages occure during protectionism when the rich/poor divide is minimal. If you don't have protectionism you tend to get the above but don't worry because Plasama TV's are cheap. ;)

Do I belive in globalisation, yes but not at the current pace. The crazy situations we have where in england we have fish in our seas but it is cheaper to fly it from god knows where at the ruin of our fishing fleet.

Such examples exist through out the world, and the distortion to the world economy at the moment is crazy.

ussually I'd find myself on the side argueing against Globalization, but now that I think about it...It would be way easier for me to conquer the world this way, I'll only have to over take one government, and overthrow one system, and once it's mine, it'll be easier to control- because everyone will already be dependant on the rest of the world and wont be able to function if for some reason they rebel...hmmm...

I'm for it, as long as America gets to to be the global government.

For, absolutely. No other system in the world has been so successful at developing the world's economies; we're talking over 2 billion people at present being brought out of poverty and in to the middle class, with accompanying rises in health, education, personal freedom, and economic opportunity. It has its problems, but no other system can provide benefits even remotely similar to the global economy, and none ever has.

Globalization has been a massive success and has benefitted billions of people in the span of a few decades, and to try and stop it is nothing more than foolish.

Never. I don't care if other countries merge, if the US were to ever surrender its sovereign rights, I'd disappear and wage guerrilla war until victorious or dead. And don't think that simply capturing me would do any good; I'd simply try to bust out. I might get killed in the process, sure, but I'd be holding true to my beliefs.

It has its problems, but no other system can provide benefits even remotely similar to the global economy, and none ever has.

There is an implicit false dichotomy in these kinds of arguments.

Globalization may be beneficial... but that does not mean that globalization as presently practiced is the right way to go about it.

With the exceptions of the usual protectionist outbursts from the reactionary nationalist right, the opposition to what is called "globalization" has focused on certain particular aspects of the way it has been implemented... not with the idea of a global economy in general terms.

Generalising, yes, but after an argument with a not-so-bright friend I would be interested in seeing what the learnerned people of NS believe. I, for the record, am for.

If by globalization you mean the current trends of neo-liberal protectionist agreements and neo-colonial imperialism, then absolutely not.

If you mean instead a general increase in understanding among peoples of all nations and an end to petty strife among nations, then I would be.

for, i think its more of a positive force than negative

Black & white polls - For or against?

For, obviously. No myrth here.

Never. I don't care if other countries merge, if the US were to ever surrender its sovereign rights, I'd disappear and wage guerrilla war until victorious or dead. And don't think that simply capturing me would do any good; I'd simply try to bust out. I might get killed in the process, sure, but I'd be holding true to my beliefs.

lol... Just lol.

Globalization may be beneficial... but that does not mean that globalization as presently practiced is the right way to go about it.

I agree. I do think, however, that our current system is necessary for these countries to develop the economic base to shift to improved forms of globalization.

With the exceptions of the usual protectionist outbursts from the reactionary nationalist right, the opposition to what is called "globalization" has focused on certain particular aspects of the way it has been implemented... not with the idea of a global economy in general terms.

True. However, I would definitely say the reactionaries are a far greater threat than those opposed to globalization as it is, for the simple reason that they want to destroy it while others simply want to change and improve it.

The way it works now (since about 1980), is as follows: When a nation gets itself into a bit of financial trouble, and needs to borrow some hard currency, they go to the IMF to borrow some. Prior to "globalization", this worked just like any bank loan, just on a larger scale. Simple.
Today, the IMF has a more sinister purpose. Before they hand over the cash, they demand "economic reforms", which work in four basic stages:
1. Remove financial controls on flow if international capital.
2. Slash government spending on just about everything, which includes getting rid of most of the civil service.
3. Make the labour market "flexible". Translation = crush your trade unions.
4. Privatise just about everything

This is not some dastardly plot to destroy the local economy and subjugate the people. Your tinfoil hat might be on just a little tight.

The IMF offers loans with certain requirements because they actually want the loans to be repaid. Silly concept that.

What do you think would happen if you just told every country out there that they could spend whatever they wanted, however they wanted, and not to worry about it because the IMF will simply pay off all your debts no-strings-attached?

If you get substantial loan from a bank, be it for buying a house, starting a business, whatever, you have to provide assurances that it will be repaid (be it in giving a lien on the asset you are purchasing or providing a detailed business plan showing how you are going to make a profit, and thus repay the loan). The international financial institutions are no different in that regard. If you need a few billion dollars, you have to show that you are going to turn your economy around and stop running up such substantial debts – otherwise they just flushed billions down the toilet and you will be back asking for more.

This process allows foreign multinationals to seize control of the nations assets (for example, British Gas now owns the national gas company in Brazil, IWL owns the water systems in Ecuador), often by paying much less than they are really worth.
That discount is directly proportional to the risk factor. Nobody wants to invest massive sums of money and then have the country in question nationalize everything or suffer some local revolt destroying your assets. If it were actually worth more, someone would offer more – assuming open bidding, which is usually the case. Which leads to your example…

It also allows the rich elite to strip the remaining assets of the nation in question, moving the money out of the country. The most infamous example of this was Russia, where national output was cut almost in half by asset stripping which was made possible by implementation of IMF policies.
This happened because of political corruption selling assets for substantially below their value to their friends and business associates. Not for any other reason. The Russian problem with privatization is purely a result of graft and corruption. Unless you are trying to say that ubiquitous and extreme corruption as exemplified in Russia is inherent in all capitalist systems and international trade, this is a very spurious example.

There are more details to this, but the basic fact is that "globalization" is about seizing control of foreign economies - it is economic empire building.
Globalization is nothing of the sort.
Globalization is simply the process of freeing trade and communication around the globe.

It has already been said that globalization is about removing tariffs.
This is part of it, yes. It is about the free movement between countries. Thus people can find the best goods in the world and producers can find the best markets in the world.

But it's not universally applied.
And here we have a common example of very poor reasoning.
You are using examples of bad results from people resisting globalization and implementing protectionism to argue for resisting globalization. Using the harmful effects of trade barriers to argue in favor of trade barriers is really quite silly.

This is what globalization is all about, chaps. It's about Rich Nations and Multinational Corporations consolidating their control of the world, no matter what the cost to human life in poorer nations.
Actually globalization is quite the opposite – it is just that wealthier nations are better able to resist globalization. Unfortunately there are hordes of ignorant masses who are easily deluded into thinking that protectionism (which does nothing more than protect wealthy individuals at the cost of benefits to the market as a whole) is better than the free exchange of goods and services.

If you want a good example of what protectionism does, just look what happened to Argentina. One hundred years ago it was booming and prosperous. The First World War ushered in a protectionist regime which put the country on a downward spiral. The economy of the country and the living standards of its people suffered drastically.



I will choose just one example off the top of my head – sugar.
The US has a 300% (iirc) tariff on sugar and pays direct subsidies to sugar beet farmers

The drawbacks of which are that the vast majority of companies involved in some way with sugar have higher costs, consumers have to pay more for sugar and things made with sugar, the government has to collect more taxes to pay the sugar beet producers, and the poor farmers in the rest of the world are denied a market for their goods.

The benefits… a few sugar beet farmers in South Dakota don’t have to switch to growing something else. Oh yeah, and the huge agricultural firms making corn syrup have more demand because their massive subsidies allow them to be a cheaper sweetener than sugar.

You’re right… protectionism is so much better for everyone involved. :rolleyes:

Thomas Jefferson said states should be individual laboratories of democracy. They should be independent of one another and the federal government so that they can do their own thing. I agree with jefferson and I believe the same applies to countrys. Against globalization!

Humm. Globalization started way back in pre history. What part of the world doesn't have rice or bread, or beer for that matter.

So now you want to know if I am for or against a multi millennial human behaviour pattern?

Guess what - it doesn't matter a damn whether we are for or against it, its going to keep on happening - unless you want to tie the entire population of the world down into some collection of extreme isolationist totalitarian states.


Next question - are you for or against trade? - sorry same question as the last one.

Humm. Globalization started way back in pre history. What part of the world doesn't have rice or bread, or beer for that matter.

So now you want to know if I am for or against a multi millennial human behaviour pattern?

Guess what - it doesn't matter a damn whether we are for or against it, its going to keep on happening - unless you want to tie the entire population of the world down into some collection of extreme isolationist totalitarian states.

Next question - are you for or against trade? - sorry same question as the last one.

You didn't have to be so deliberately obtuse, jerk-face-boy. :P