Globalization

[CelestialBody]

 

[REDWAVE]

Bad globalizers!

Globalization is bad because it involves the total domination of the entire world by huge multinational corporations, even to the extent of overriding the will of the majority of the people. NAFTA tribunals, for example, are powerful secret courts, totally biased in favor of big investors, which can fine nations millions of dollars for enacting environmental or workplace safety laws.

 

[Guest]

 

[peachykeen]

it's bad for producers (the actual humans, not the corportate entities), it's bad for consumers, it's bad for the environment. You know, this is something I actually care about a great deal and could go on about at length, but I am really rather exhausted and have turned my brain down to 'low' for the rest of the evening. So I can't properly discuss it now and do my position justice. Which makes me a bit sad, as I feel it's worth discussing...I just can't properly right now...

 

[The Heretic]

it's bad for producers (the actual humans, not the corportate entities), it's bad for consumers, it's bad for the environment. You know, this is something I actually care about a great deal and could go on about at length, but I am really rather exhausted and have turned my brain down to 'low' for the rest of the evening. So I can't properly discuss it now and do my position justice. Which makes me a bit sad, as I feel it's worth discussing...I just can't properly right now...

I would be interested in hearing you support your assertions PK, because in general I feel just the opposite is true. I have never heard anyone who held your position present a cogent, logical and valid argument for their position beyond a ranting about the megacorporations, etc. - and if you can come up with something better than that I would read it and maybe even respond to it.

 

[peachykeen]

I would be interested in hearing you support your assertions PK, because in general I feel just the opposite is true. I have never heard anyone who held your position present a cogent, logical and valid argument for their position beyond a ranting about the megacorporations, etc. - and if you can come up with something better than that I would read it and maybe even respond to it.

mmmm. maybe sometime when it isn't nearly midnight and I haven't been up for going on 19 hours and had two glasses of cab sav. Right now I just wanna talk about like boobies and dicks and stuff.

 

[Olivianna]

I love how people think that globalization is a new or modern phenomenon.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Olivianna]

Well, without globalization there wouldn't have been a Renaissance. That is, the results of the Renaissance stem largely from the growth of powerful banking communities in Italy and Northern Europe, which were in turn intimately connecting with massive trading and networking of textiles and dyes between Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and the Far East.

There exist extensive accounts of the 16th- and 17th- century Mughal court - many of which were written by Europeans. What were they doing there? There were Jesuits, diplomats...and then there were the Portuguese and later the French and the British. Were they there for religion, for politics, for trade - or is it all part of the same thing?

Globalization has been going on for eons. The difference today is that things happen much more quickly. It's also much more complex than that.

 

[ithaqua]

There must be some good things about globalization, it only stands to reason that the transfer of ideas and goods around the world would help everyone.

Here at home though, farmers are going out of business. The steel industry is almost dead, and trade imbalances have skyrocketed. I blame the Europeans

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[dickE]

Start with this:

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm (you oughta be sitting down)

Then do a web search (google.com is good) of "global governance".

Be aware that these plans are well along in implementation........the populace is just now becoming slightly aware that something's up!


Note: Watch for terms like "global commons". Things like air, water or wildlife--things that know no borders anyhow--are key to global attacks on national sovereignty. They're ways for a nation to cede lawmaking powers to nameless, faceless, secretive, sequestered international tribunals that are unaccountable to the citizens.

 

[The Heretic]

First off, shipping labor off to other nations means fewer jobs here.

Generally that means jobs go where they are needed more - where jobs are fewer and therefore labor expenses are lower. This is overall a good thing, even by socialist standards; it may mean fewer of these types of jobs locally, but spreads the wealth out. By capitalist standards it is a good thing because there is labor and market diversification, and possibly more profit.

Often what happens when people working in those types of jobs lose their jobs is that they adapt and go on to other jobs - often better jobs. This is what happened to me when I was young; I eventually learned that I needed to adapt, educate myself and get a better type of job. I still face competition from such countries as India and Russia where software engineering talent is less expensive and plentiful, but if I keep improving myself I can compete. This is a "good thing"; people need to continually adapt and improve themselves.

Secondly, the lack of environmental, safety and labor standards in developing nations.

This is not the fault of globalization. If anything globalization will affect this in a positive way as companies export their jobs and assembly plants they also export at least some of their safety and environmental standards. Often such standards actually save the companies money in the long run. Moreover, what is the alternative? Do people in developing nations deserve to be unemployed because their country's standards are not as good as ours? How are they ever going to improve those standards if their standard of living doesn't improve. The USA also once had bad (or worse) standards than we do now - but we slowly improved them over time because as workers became employed, increased their lifestyle standard, increased their skills, they increased their power and say in how the country and companies were run.

My third concern lies in the nature of the global community, as it exists now, and as it will exist in coming years. As more and more nations develop, and their labor force integrated into the global system, employment opportunities will move. At the moment many companies direct their telephone calls to India during odd business hours, so that when you call HP's 24hour service line, you might not be speaking to someone in this hemisphere.

So? This is a bad thing? I think it is great that somebody in a developing nation gets a job - if they can do the job for less then they deserve it.

What happens when technical jobs start moving to a cheaper market?

Most people will benefit. The people in the cheaper market benefit from the jobs which usually pay more than what they made before, the people in the original market benefit with less expensive goods and services.

Do labor unions form, drive up the cost of labor and force up the cost of doing business?

Why should they? Unions are virtually dead - they serve little useful purpose anymore.

Does it increase the salary of a computer engineer in India?

SLowly but surely, yes.

Will multinational corporations maintain their factories in countries where the cost of labor has jumped due to unionization of the work force and enforcement of strict labor laws?

Why shouldn't they maintain their factories in developing countries when they maintain them in first world countries?

Or by "maintain", do you mean keeping the factories there? There are other economic factors besides labor for keeping a factory any place in the world. There is the infrastructure, the cost of the buildings themselves and their equipment - it is not that easy to just up and move a factory.

Will they stay because by virtue of the fact that they've fed money into these places before through the jobs they've created, they've opened up a new market for goods?

They probably will if the factory is there to feed the local economy. For instance, if the factory is a Coca-Cola bottling plant then it will probably stay there. If it is a computer assembly plant whose final product comes to the US then they may move it if it makes economic sense.

Does the environmental devastation stop?

What "environmental devastation"? How is this the fault of "globalization"?

 

[The Heretic]

Note: Watch for terms like "global commons". Things like air, water or wildlife--things that know no borders anyhow--are key to global attacks on national sovereignty. They're ways for a nation to cede lawmaking powers to nameless, faceless, secretive, sequestered international tribunals that are unaccountable to the citizens.

Water and air indeed know no borders, as does wildlife to a certain degree. Russia does not have the right to pollute their air with radioactive fallout from Chernobyl because the rest of the world has to deal with that pollution. To that end I support international laws preventing such pollution.

 

[dickE]

Generally that means jobs go where they are needed more - where jobs are fewer and therefore labor expenses are lower. This is overall a good thing, even by socialist standards; it may mean fewer of these types of jobs locally, but spreads the wealth out. By capitalist standards it is a good thing because there is labor and market diversification, and possibly more profit.

Often what happens when people working in those types of jobs lose their jobs is that they adapt and go on to other jobs - often better jobs. This is what happened to me when I was young; I eventually learned that I needed to adapt, educate myself and get a better type of job. I still face competition from such countries as India and Russia where software engineering talent is less expensive and plentiful, but if I keep improving myself I can compete. This is a "good thing"; people need to continually adapt and improve themselves.

This is not the fault of globalization. If anything globalization will affect this in a positive way as companies export their jobs and assembly plants they also export at least some of their safety and environmental standards. Often such standards actually save the companies money in the long run. Moreover, what is the alternative? Do people in developing nations deserve to be unemployed because their country's standards are not as good as ours? How are they ever going to improve those standards if their standard of living doesn't improve. The USA also once had bad (or worse) standards than we do now - but we slowly improved them over time because as workers became employed, increased their lifestyle standard, increased their skills, they increased their power and say in how the country and companies were run.

So? This is a bad thing? I think it is great that somebody in a developing nation gets a job - if they can do the job for less then they deserve it.

[/b]Most people will benefit. The people in the cheaper market benefit from the jobs which usually pay more than what they made before, the people in the original market benefit with less expensive goods and services.

Why should they? Unions are virtually dead - they serve little useful purpose anymore.

SLowly but surely, yes.

Why shouldn't they maintain their factories in developing countries when they maintain them in first world countries?

Or by "maintain", do you mean keeping the factories there? There are other economic factors besides labor for keeping a factory any place in the world. There is the infrastructure, the cost of the buildings themselves and their equipment - it is not that easy to just up and move a factory.

They probably will if the factory is there to feed the local economy. For instance, if the factory is a Coca-Cola bottling plant then it will probably stay there. If it is a computer assembly plant whose final product comes to the US then they may move it if it makes economic sense.

What "environmental devastation"? How is this the fault of "globalization"? [/B]

Just sad.

You're on the losing end of a zero-sum game and you can't see your standard of living ratchet down right before your eyes for the illusion of cheap imported goods and the $billion+ PER DAY trade deficit....a problem your kids and mine will find to be far worse than inflation is today.

The globalists love your wide-eyed gullibility. They count on it, in fact. They enjoy the ease with which they can buy you off.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[sufisaint]

The entire planet will become one boring mass market culture.... This is a good time to be alive...we may be one of the last generations to see the "ancient" cultures before they die out. Where every city looks same...we can already see it happening...east is becoming west and east is popular in the west now...

 

[EllieTalbot]

Olivianna's right- globalization has been happening all throughout history, in all cultures. It's simply the ever-constant process of expansion inherent in human nature.

Now that we're in the 21st century, with technology binding us ever closer, it will happen much faster, and for the first time become truly "global." There are going to be costs and benefits for all nations, and there's no way around it.

I think that there are more positives than negatives to it. To my way of thinking, if we become truly global, we'll be closer to real peace. It's funny how they say that money makes the world go 'round. It's meant to be a cynical statement, but it's true. It's so much harder to kill your neighbor if you rely on his money or his goods.

 

[The Heretic]

Just sad.

You're on the losing end of a zero-sum game and you can't see your standard of living ratchet down right before your eyes for the illusion of cheap imported goods and the $billion+ PER DAY trade deficit....a problem your kids and mine will find to be far worse than inflation is today.

The globalists love your wide-eyed gullibility. They count on it, in fact. They enjoy the ease with which they can buy you off.

I've got news for you dude - my standard of living has done nothing but go upwards. It will continue to go upwards because I continue to adapt and get better job skills.

As for trade deficit, that is the sign of a strong economy, and is not near as important as GNP.

 

[The Heretic]

What you've done is skim my argument without providing instances where globalization has benefitted the community that has opened its markets.

I don't have to prove globalization is good - you have to prove it is bad or at least make a substantive argument for that point. As for skimming your argument I addressed a number of your points - the ones I felt like addressing (the main issues). I am sure other people will be along to address the others.

Sorry if I seem like I am wimping out, but I have been spending too much time on Lit., and if I have my way I may soon be spending much less time here due to other committments (

).

 

[dickE]

I've got news for you dude - my standard of living has done nothing but go upwards. It will continue to go upwards because I continue to adapt and get better job skills.

As for trade deficit, that is the sign of a strong economy, and is not near as important as GNP.

Unlike the GNP which is nothing less than a witch's brew of "paper wealth" or "net worth wealth" or, as ordinary people discovered to be true a couple years ago, "Wall Street wealth" which can't be spent but only be used to borrow more money against, the trade deficit is real.....and it will be paid back....with real money that is becoming more and more difficult for this country to do as we constantly send our basic, fundamental "wealth creators"(true, tangible wealth)--mining, manufacturing and agriculture--to some third world country and "buy" (import) back from them that which we once provided for ourselves.

Free trade is a sign of an economy in decline dressing itself in a new suit it can't afford.....like pre-WWII Great Britain whose "wake-up call" was ultimately delivered by German U-boat.

We're digging a terrible hole for our kids and taking away from them the tools they'll need to repair the damage.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Globalization is explained as simple as this.

Democratic republics with any modicum of human rights or pollution controls, will have to shed these benefits in order to compete with nations that do not have them.

Globalization is a race to the bottom of wages, human rights, the environment and democracy.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I've got news for you dude - my standard of living has done nothing but go upwards. It will continue to go upwards because I continue to adapt and get better job skills.

As for trade deficit, that is the sign of a strong economy, and is not near as important as GNP.

^^^ And this is a lie. The Heretic, shortly after this, complained publicly that he'd been out of work 2-3 years out of the last 5 years, and that he's quite paranoid of losing his job to offshoring.

 

[CelestialBody]

Globalization is explained as simple as this.

Democratic republics with any modicum of human rights or pollution controls, will have to shed these benefits in order to compete with nations that do not have them.

Globalization is a race to the bottom of wages, human rights, the environment and democracy.

The thing about racing to the bottom, is that at some point there's nowhere to go but up. It's just a hellish ride down.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The thing about racing to the bottom, is that at some point there's nowhere to go but up. It's just a hellish ride down.

Or you just sit there at the bottom, permanently.

Globalization is trying to rewrite the societal ethos.

Recognize this propaganda?

1) Blame and hate on the poor. If you're poor, you deserved it. If you're poor, you deserve to be left to the wolves.

2) No privacy. Your personal information is the property of marketers and employers to do with as they (profitably) please, but not in any way controllable - or sometimes, even viewable - by you.

3) Workers are disposable. Workers are inherently evil, businesses are inherently good. Businesses make the economy and workers rip people off.

4) Safeguards and consumer protections are unnecessary overhead imposed by a communist nanny state.