globalization

[sidekick]

i just had an interesting conversation with someone who is very pro-globalization, while i'm pretty anti-globalization. i wanted to see what other people's opinions were on this one.

basically, i think that globalization is a good idea in theory. yes it would be nice if everyone in the world could share their resources and get rich and live happily ever after, but people are too greedy to let that happen.

this cycle of exploiting third world countries and raping them of their resources while profiting from them is only going to continue...i mean, why would corporations work to raise the standard of living in developing world countries if what they have now is such a good deal for them? raised standard of living only means that the people there are going to demand more from their employers. that's when the corporations move onto another country and start all over again. those transnational corporations didn't move their operations overseas so they could start the morally sound business of building the economy in a third world country, they did it so they could reap the benefits of underpaying desperate people while selling the products they made at high prices back at home!

the guy i was talking with said that globalization will make the countries richer, but for that to happen they have to become poorer first. i'm not really sure i follow that logic?

he also claimed that it's a problem with bad governments in developing world countries, but i would say that it's both bad government as well as transnational corporations taking advantage of governments that don't have regulations and labour laws like ours does.

if globalization is going to work then we need to get rid of these transnational corporations, i think. developing world countries should be helped to harvest their own resources and trade fairly with other countries, instead of having corporations harvest their resources and sell them without the host country seeing much profit.

thoughts?

[wum]

i think you should try a narrower definition of globalism. I think what you're talking about is 'corporatism' whereby business can use government to flex it's power.

In a true free market, libertarian society, no one would be forced off their land at gun point to work in a factory.

[cinist]

if it results in the coming of the communist utopia, i'm down

[sidekick]

it's true, globalization is a large term. but i'm talking other things here than just the problem with transnational corporations.

there is a problem with the Free Trade Agreements where new environmental laws are shot down because they violate free trade with other countries. for example, i'm pretty sure i remember a case where canada was sued by the states using NAFTA because canada wouldn't allow a certain product into the country because it contained a banned substance. i could be wrong about that though, but i remember something like that happening.

i also know that there is pressure on european countries that have banned GE foods to allow GE foods into their countries using free trade agreements as leverage.

free trade should mean free trade...not forcing your goods on another country at the expense of their health, environment or other issues.

[mapleleaf4ever]

Screw that, I look good in a Suit and want a nice Porsche.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

it's true, globalization is a large term. but i'm talking other things here than just the problem with transnational corporations.

there is a problem with the Free Trade Agreements where new environmental laws are shot down because they violate free trade with other countries. for example, i'm pretty sure i remember a case where canada was sued by the states using NAFTA because canada wouldn't allow a certain product into the country because it contained a banned substance. i could be wrong about that though, but i remember something like that happening.

i also know that there is pressure on european countries that have banned GE foods to allow GE foods into their countries using free trade agreements as leverage.

free trade should mean free trade...not forcing your goods on another country at the expense of their health, environment or other issues.

but shouldn't the consumer be savvy enough to not consume a harmful substance

[sidekick]

i guess i would say then that i support free trade (not free trade agreements as they are now though). i think that countries, rich and poor, should have equal opportunity to trade with each other...but i don't think that agreements should be formed that make it easy to knock down environmental or health laws and claim them as barriers to trade.

[cinist]

peep this ...

“To him, Free Trade is the normal condition of modern capitalist production. Only under Free Trade can the immense productive powers of steam, of electricity, of machinery, be fully developed; and the quicker the pace of this development, the sooner and the more fully will be realized its inevitable results; society splits up into two classes, capitalists here, wage-laborers there; hereditary wealth on one side, hereditary poverty on the other; supply outstripping demand, the markets being unable to absorb the ever growing mass of the production of industry; an ever recurring cycle of prosperity, glut, crisis, panic, chronic depression, and gradual revival of trade, the harbinger not of permanent improvement but of renewed overproduction and crisis; in short, productive forces expanding to such a degree that they rebel, as against unbearable fetters, against the social institutions under which they are put in motion; the only possible solution: a social revolution, freeing the social productive forces from the fetters of an antiquated social order, and the actual producers, the great mass of the people, from wage slavery. And because Free Trade is the natural, the normal atmosphere for this historical evolution, the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created—for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favor of Free Trade.”(Engels: On the Question of Free Trade)

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by wum

but shouldn't the consumer be savvy enough to not consume a harmful substance

if a country wants to ban the use of GE foods then that is their right. there shouldn't be anyway that someone else can force you to import something that you have banned, free trade or not.

[sidekick]

"i only endorse this because it means my revolution will come sooner!"

haha.

[cinist]

:).......

[Goodfellow]

curse this subject! curse it to hell!

I did a research essay on a specific part of globalization for french 12. I missed the class telling me when our presentation was. (ok so I missed the whole week ) and I hotboxed my truck on the way to school, first class being french, oh guess what! I'm first up! 10 minutes of talking to the teacher recorded for provincials in french. I was so high I could barely formulate a sentence. I almost failed french and missed my bilingual certif. cuz of that

:(

[stringbeans]

yeah there's a lot more to globalization than just the corporate aspect of it. im pro-globalization moreso for knowledge and intellectual property being shared around the world

THANK YOU INTERNET

[mapleleaf4ever]

[wum]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

if a country wants to ban the use of GE foods then that is their right. there shouldn't be anyway that someone else can force you to import something that you have banned, free trade or not.

But this isn't what causes poverty is it?

I think the real problem is for example Venezuela where McDonald's comes in and uses the military gov't to force peasants to use their land exclusively for cattle raising.

Same story in other parts of the world where they are forced to work in factory or similar dealio.

The key is to end the power monopoly of the state and give them guns.

[mapleleaf4ever]

^ So you want to start a Proletariat Revolution where they'll instill their own Peasant Leader? Now you've got an inexperienced ruler with no idea how stuff works. That's just asking for him to become another Military Junta and then it all happening again. Wow, I sound almost like the USA. I'm down for Democracy and all, but they'll need help especially if they've lived under an oppressive regime for a long time.

[wum]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

^ So you want to start a Proletariat Revolution where they'll instill their own Peasant Leader? Now you've got an inexperienced ruler with no idea how stuff works. That's just asking for him to become another Military Junta and then it all happening again. Wow, I sound almost like the USA. I'm down for Democracy and all, but they'll need help especially if they've lived under an oppressive regime for a long time.

Democracy ==> Socialism ==> exact opposite of freedom

Give them guns and King James Bibles so they can be like the early American colonists.

[mapleleaf4ever]

And look where that got them. Iceland has it right... Oldest continuous Democracy. Religion and the State should be separate. We can't go around burning people at the Stake for "sins" no matter how fun it is and the fact you could sell the rights to Fox.

[wum]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf4ever

And look where that got them. Iceland has it right... Oldest continuous Democracy. Religion and the State should be separate. We can't go around burning people at the Stake for "sins" no matter how fun it is and the fact you could sell the rights to Fox.

their Althing was a bit different i think.

didn't they mostly deal with judicial matters, and not have the power to graduate taxes and shit?

I like their justice system best. Financially compensate your victims. If you refuse, you become an outlaw and you're fair game

[mapleleaf4ever]

Damn skippy. I do believe they have their own House of Representatives etc. Nice and stable, people don't fuck around. Piss off a Viking and you get what's coming to you. But really... I like the National System. Globalization... meh... like stringbeans said, there's parts like the IP and the sharing of Scientific Research that I believe would be awesome for the World. But Corporate-wise... what we have is working. Sure we have corrupt Governments, but if you think about it, it's going to happen somehow. Humanity will never be perfect, well at least not while I'm alive and personally that's my focus... Okay, my Children too. But after I'm dead I'll expect them to look out for #1 like me. So the chain continues, it'll be slow evolution to a working society with a lot less people bitching, sick, poor etc. And that day will ironically be the day that the Universe implodes and restarts. I forsee it. BEDTIME! :)

[SEAN!]

i dont really want to get into it because i can go on for hour and i can post all sorts of statistical evidence and graphs but im too tired for that shit, you know how i feel about this issue jake...

Empirical evidence shows that globalization(increased trade and investment) makes poor countries richer not poorer. if anyone should be afraid of globalization its the unskilled blue collar worker of the industrialized world they are the most likely to face poverty as a result of globalization...as for the rich countries of the 'core' exploiting the poor for natural resources thats more dependance theory. A theory which is grievously flawed(which is what happens when political scientists and sociologists dabble in economics) due to the strong ideological basis in whcih it has been formented. an ideological basis that has led to the failure to examine evidence that is more then ancedotal in nature and arguably more importantly ignores the history of the world's economic devolpment.

plus we can throw in some post modernist theory, when we say that the third world is exploited through its trade with those countries of the core our examination is hedged within a western and eurocentric point of view. how do you think these 'exploited' people feel about economic development in their country through globalization/trade when their other alternative is to starve? People in the devolped world who ascribe to an anti-globalization stance typically focus far too much on the percieved income inequalities which arise from it. this way of viewing the world is a luxury afforded to them due to their own wealth, those who are truly feel compasionate about the poor of the world should focus on the elimination of their poverty before they get distracted by issuses of inequality. The only solution to poverty is expanded economic development in the underdeveloped world, the best way to expand this development is through increased global trade and investment which is characterized by expanded 'globalization'

p.s corporations dont need to focus on building the living standards of the denizens of the regions they occupy, they do that simply through employing them.

p.p.s globalization never made anyone poorer and theres nothing you can do to stop transnational corporations or globalization, we simply have to live with it. to think it can be stopped is to ignore the very development of our own country. (the hudson's bay company was a transnational corporation) basically gloablization has been around forever, its only technological innovation which has made contact so widespread

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

it's true, globalization is a large term. but i'm talking other things here than just the problem with transnational corporations.

there is a problem with the Free Trade Agreements where new environmental laws are shot down because they violate free trade with other countries. for example, i'm pretty sure i remember a case where canada was sued by the states using NAFTA because canada wouldn't allow a certain product into the country because it contained a banned substance. i could be wrong about that though, but i remember something like that happening.

it was a canadian firm suing the claifornian government for banning the fuel additive MTBE the basis for the claim was that the change in regulations was made soley to benefit a domestic american company.
i dont know if the case has wrapped up yet but due to the rathjer dubious legal grounds upon which it was made its likely to fail
http://www.watertechonline.com/news....e=4&N_ID=33504
the nafta agreement allows for companies too sue governments(and other corporations) on the basis that they give preferential treatment to domestic companies and enact unfair legislation to restrict the operations of companies based in foreign signatories to nafta. This aspect of the nafta agreement essentially ensures that trade is "fair" using terms youve stated yourself.

as for countries getitng fucked over when they sign trade agreements...im sure it happens but ultimately its their responsibilty to do their due dilligence to ensure that risk on their part is minimized, just as you would when signing a contract. as for environmental regulations,as i said before countries cant be sued for their environmental regulations, thats entirely their own perogative, however an opportunist company can state that various CHANGES in rules were made in order to create an unfair trade situation, which is exactly what happened in this situation. court cases based on dubious claims such as these typically dont get far. on the flip side of the environemnatl coin, its clear that issuses such as global warming and the use of CFC's is a global problem, how else would these issuses be addressed without multilaterial co-operation on a global scale. Institutions such as the UN, UNICEF, World health organization, red cross etc are global institutions which im sure you approve of yet they are the result of globalization and are essentially the same, in legal and power terms as trade aggreements and institutions which over see them such as the WTO.

Finally the poor world isnt exactly helpless, they arent made to sign these agreements and they typically have not if they do not find it to be in their best interest. just look up on the innernet whats been happening at the current doha round of the world trade talks. the third world has also been using globalization and trade to not only improve their own economic devolpment but also compete with/reduce their dependance on the first world. this is witnessed by the potential freetrade region of the south america's, the G20 nations, and arguably the latest cafta aggreements(as the u.s is unlikely to benefit as much from that agreement as the individual central american countries will)
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/...50321top7.html

p.s i lied about not geting into this...its bed time peace out

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by stringbeans

yeah there's a lot more to globalization than just the corporate aspect of it. im pro-globalization moreso for knowledge and intellectual property being shared around the world

THANK YOU INTERNET

yeah, i know there is more. that's why the poll says "causes more problems than it solves" or "solves more problems than it causes" not just 'bad' and 'good'

[sidekick]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

The only solution to poverty is expanded economic development in the underdeveloped world, the best way to expand this development is through increased global trade and investment which is characterized by expanded 'globalization'

i agree that expanded economic development would really help eliminate poverty in the underdeveloped world, but i think the answer lies in those countries themmselves exporting and importing goods and not in the transnational corporations doing it for them and paying them wages that are barely enough to live on. i'm sure that lots of those countries have many usable resources and could be mining, farming, foresting, etc... for themselves. wouldn't that help them climb out of their economic sludgehole more than what's going on now?

i know it sounds like i'm this nice well-off white guy living in a far away country so it's easy for me to be like, just kick out the companies that are paying them! but, i think that with a little help these countries could get their own economies going without the need for those companies. there must be things that they have that canada and USA would want to buy at fair prices. just because they are desperate for income doesn't mean we have to take advantage of that (although we will, i'm sure).

like i said before, i think that globalization does have a way that it could work to make everyone richer, but that really depends on fair trade. that's why i voted in the poll to say that globalization causes more problems than it solves right now. maybe in the future that will change, but i don't really see it happening unless some serious monitoring of what's going on in developing world countries comes into place.

so yes, globalization is a neat idea, but it seems too flawed to work properly right now.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Sidekick

i agree that expanded economic development would really help eliminate poverty in the underdeveloped world, but i think the answer lies in those countries themmselves exporting and importing goods and not in the transnational corporations doing it for them and paying them wages that are barely enough to live on. i'm sure that lots of those countries have many usable resources and could be mining, farming, foresting, etc... for themselves. wouldn't that help them climb out of their economic sludgehole more than what's going on now?

i know it sounds like i'm this nice well-off white guy living in a far away country so it's easy for me to be like, just kick out the companies that are paying them! but, i think that with a little help these countries could get their own economies going without the need for those companies. there must be things that they have that canada and USA would want to buy at fair prices. just because they are desperate for income doesn't mean we have to take advantage of that (although we will, i'm sure).

like i said before, i think that globalization does have a way that it could work to make everyone richer, but that really depends on fair trade. that's why i voted in the poll to say that globalization causes more problems than it solves right now. maybe in the future that will change, but i don't really see it happening unless some serious monitoring of what's going on in developing world countries comes into place.

so yes, globalization is a neat idea, but it seems too flawed to work properly right now.

looks like we agree.

however as a cold hearted economist i see all trade as fair.