Globalization, good or bad?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Undecided, Mar 14, 2004.

?

Globalization is...

  1. Good

    45.8%
  2. Bad

    29.2%
  3. Other (please explain this position)

    25.0%
  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I want to see how ppl react to globalization with the recent craze of anti-globalization going on around the US. I want to see why ppl support/oppose Globalization. Is Globalization in your mind a good or bad thing? And for who? Remember Globalization has its victims and its winners.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Good and bad aren't at issue since globalization is inevitable.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Ok that is an opinion, Globalization to me is stoppable. It requires a economic contract btwn the North and the South, btwn the ppl of said country and the companies of said country. Public support is essential for the survival of Globalization IMO. The power is in the hands of congress, and there is a tinge of anti-globalization happening. But you missed the purpose of the thread, it was whether or not Globalization is good or bad, regardless of its momentum, do ppl benefit or do they suffer.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I don't think so. Maybe now, maybe 10,000 years from now, but this system cannot help but become more and more integrated if the species is to survive. Technological advancement and increasing populations are gonna make it pretty much impossible to stop I think.

    The borders will become more and more gray the more time passes, even if you try to draw them more clearly, they will eventually spill over, as population is gonna

    Globalization will continue because companies benefit from it. It's simply economics really, resources are all over the world and demand will seek the most convenient route to it. That will inevitably cross cultural/country boundaries. Even if you make policies against it, black markets form. It is best to try to manage it. You can't really stop it unless you stop technological advancement and population growth.

    Everything is on a pendulum, but sometimes it's being wound up. This one is on the way up. Can't stop it I don't think. It'd be bad to try to really completely stop it. Controlling the pace is about all that can be done.

    Oh did I? Are you sure? You simply don't understand the issue.

    It's a little insulting when people just assume you don't understand eh?

    People will always both benefit and suffer from whatever happens. Regardless it is not a question of "is it good or bad". The question is: "since globalization is eventually inevitable, how to we get the most out of it for everyone along the way?". I'd say, by embracing competition and capatalism and providing the social infrastructure to support the labor base (medical, housing, etc.).
     
  8. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,574
    Its inevitable that another baby will be raped.
    That doesn't mean you can't make a judgement on whether its good or bad.

    What exactly is globalisation anyway? ... :ashamed:
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Sure but he's asking if it's good or bad for people. It's like increasing population in a way. Is increasing population good or bad? Well, you might say bad but really that depends on how it goes down eh? You can't really stop it, but you can manage it.

    I see it as the "increasing interdependency of political/economic entities (on the global scale)" or something to that effect.

    I dunno, I suppose you could stop globalization, but only through what I would consider excessively draconian measures. I doubt the motivations to undertake such measures will ever overtake the economic advantages of allowing "nature" to take its course.
     
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    I don't think so. Maybe now, maybe 10,000 years from now, but this system cannot help but become more and more integrated if the species is to survive. Technological advancement and increasing populations are gonna make it pretty much impossible to stop I think.

    Technology has separated us as much as it has integrated us. It all depends on how we use it. I don't know if humanity can really give up on labels, nationalism is dead imo or is dying. But with terrorism fascism is soon to follow, and the globalization that we have enjoyed could be stifled.

    The borders will become more and more gray the more time passes, even if you try to draw them more clearly, they will eventually spill over, as population is gonna

    I concur that nations will merely become nothing more then nominal states. So you at least know where you are, the question is how much power is society willing to give up going on to the next stage of history?

    Globalization will continue because companies benefit from it. It's simply economics really, resources are all over the world and demand will seek the most convenient route to it. That will inevitably cross cultural/country boundaries. Even if you make policies against it, black markets form. It is best to try to manage it. You can't really stop it unless you stop technological advancement and population growth.

    Companies do benefit, but the premise of this thread is do people benefit, that is why I think you lost the premise.

    Oh did I? Are you sure? You simply don't understand the issue.

    Must you always be confrontational? I understand my own issue. The issue is ppl not companies, or nationalism.

    It's a little insulting when people just assume you don't understand eh?

    But you didn't, don't continue this discussion to merely save face.

    People will always both benefit and suffer from whatever happens.

    Who does, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie?

    Regardless it is not a question of "is it good or bad".

    It is always a question of good or bad, we wouldn't do something if it were bad. Psychological hedonism dictates as such, this is why I call Globalization, Utilitarianism on crack. The question remains is Globalization good or bad for all? Or is it good for a select few who are in control?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    What exactly is globalisation anyway? ... :ashamed:

    Globalization is mostly economic integration of states. But it does take many other forms:

    -environmental globalization
    -social globalization
    -cultural globalization
    -political globalization
    -financial globalization

    There are more certainly, but globalization is the process of making us into one world. The only thing is that instead of states which have been the benchmark for the last 300 years, we are going into a corporatist society.
     
  12. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    I agree with undecided here. The question is; is it good or bad for people?

    It depends on your perspective. Some are threatened by the ideal of globalization because of its 'one world' concept - all of us living happily ever after in a global community driven to consume and feed the corporate machine. But how will that look? Can other societies preserve their cultural identity in a world fuelled by Bic-Macs, television and stylish clothes? Can ones political and/or religeous beliefs survive this kind of shift? Ultimately, some people see a price to be paid for a 'one world' concept, a price that's too high, so they oppose it.

    Some are not threatened in the least by a 'one world' concept. More often than not, the supporters of globalization (or one world concept) are people who stand to gain from it - expand their resource base, expand their economic base and expand their cultural base. The only threat to pro-globalization zealots are the ones who oppose it.

    The dichotomy between these two ideologies is hardly reconcilable. One side feels threatened by the consequences, and the other feels threatened by its opposers - its clear to me there "IS" a line here.

    It freightens me to think that globalization is a machine in of itself that will chug ahead regardless of political or social intervention. Why is it that this phenomena is acceptable in a world that values free speach and the will of the people - Democracy? Apathy for this prevails in those who have nothing to lose.
     
  13. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    A side note....

    I recall a prof. telling me that, "Rights only exist for those who don't need them." It took me years to figure out what the hell he was saying, that was until the pro-globalization movement started.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Globalization is good for the majority of the world's population, who are way below poverty level by our standards, including the sizeable portion of them who are downright destitute by anyone's standards, lacking such necessities as weatherproof shelter, clean water, and basic medical care. An integrated planetary economy including job distribution to low-wage countries raises the per capita GDP of those countries. Of course they have to go through the "sweat shop" era on their way from the "abject squalor" era to the "prosperity" era, but so did all of our countries, and sweat shops are a vast improvement over no work at all.

    Globalization is good for the environment. Prosperous people have more GDP to allocate to what were formerly considered luxuries, such as clean water and clean air. They are more efficient at food production so they don't need to convert forests into farms. Their lands become attractive to tourists (including their own more mobile population) who will pay to see the exotic flora and fauna, making them worth preserving.

    Globalization is good for civilization. Prosperous people can afford education and become less easy for religious and political leaders to manipulate. They travel more and become conscious of the brotherhood of all humans. They understand their mutual economic reliance on other countries and have a personal stake in avoiding wars.

    Globalization is hard on wealthy nations, but only in the short run. America is currently undergoing a painful lesson in the quotient of the total planetary GDP divided by the total planetary population. Our incomes are dropping and many of our jobs are moving offshore -- to people who have no employed relatives to move in with, no government social programs to make poverty survivable, and no still-robust economies open to an entrepreneur with a good idea. This will normalize eventually. In my youth we complained about the job loss to Japan, but now their wages and cost of living are similar to ours and they buy lots of stuff from America. The same is happening in South Korea and India, and will happen next in China and Indonesia.

    The long-term picture is rosy. Nanotechnology promises to double the planetary GDP within 15 years, and to add two or three zeros to it by the end of the century. Just as the computer revolution increased the total wealth by creating jobs that require virtually no resource consumption, the nanotech revolution will do the same thing only on a grander scale. And just as the computer revolution spread that wealth around more evenly than an industrialist could have ever imagined, the nanotech revolution will bring about even more parity.

    Yes, my focus has been entirely on economic issues. Prosperity will make the solution to all of mankind's other problems more attainable, as I have noted in a couple of the above examples. We live in an age when absolutely everything is measured in monetary units, but there's no good reason that this standard measure should prevent humanity from fulfilling its dreams.
     
  15. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    UUmmm, Fraggle rocker, are you sure you arent being sarcastic in the above post?
    Right, well take it in the short term, ie next 50 years or so. Longer than that, in "the grand scheme of things" globalisation might actually be good in the way youve just said, but then again, maybe not, and you and i wont be around to find out.

    "Globalization is good for the environment."
    Not really, look at all the previously pristine places pollute dby tourists, eg CAncun. Or various rivers in the mexican MAquiladora. Or much of China, which thanks to globalisation of trade, has mountains of waste from manufacturing piling up.

    "Globalization is good for civilization. "
    In some ways yes, in others no. Many cultures get destroyed, and all the other uneconomic stuff that economists like to denigrate cos they cant measure it. Others are preserved because of their uniqueness. Mutual economic reliance? Well, that actually almost is right, but it doesnt necessarily need globalisation for that to work.

    "Nanotechnology promises to double the planetary GDP within 15 years, "

    WTF? Where are you getting your figures? And which nanotech are you talking about? Working nanotech is decades away, unless your talking about stuff using nano sized particles, which has been around for over 80 years.


    "Just as the computer revolution increased the total wealth by creating jobs that require virtually no resource consumption"
    You know, I'd like to agree, but then look at the way our total resource consumption has increased regardless. And the amount of paper in the paperless office.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    "the nanotech revolution will bring about even more parity"

    ermmmm, no. Couldnt agree less. The key question here is who owns the technology? Will it be like biotech in the hands of oligopolistic players? Probably.

    'Globalization is good for the majority of the world's population, who are way below poverty level by our standards, including the sizeable portion of them who are downright destitute by anyone's standards, lacking such necessities as weatherproof shelter, clean water, and basic medical care. An integrated planetary economy including job distribution to low-wage countries raises the per capita GDP of those countries."

    except that in the opening up of the ocuntries, they arent even getting out of the sweatshop very well now, are they, because companies move to the next cheapest place. Look at Mexico. Indeed, look at attempts to create local growth and economies, destroyed by the forces of globalisation, because its cheaper to import stuff than grow it locally, eg corn in Mexico. What im trying to say is these people often had work, then globalisation destroyed their jobs. Can you name a country that has developed to anywhere near modern western standards with properly open borders and a real free market economy?
     
  16. fireguy_31 mors ante servitium Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    667
    Fraggle...

    Do you recall engaging me in a similar conversation a little over a year ago, maybe two? I don't want to turn this into a 'your opinion' against 'my opinion' thread. I respect your position. But there are inherant problems with our present economic system - its benchmarks and measuring tape.

    The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) yard stick does not give a true reflection of good or bad but rather, is an economic tool used to determine the 'wealth' of a country - not its 'health'. GDP does not incorporate true resource value, state of the environment, the value of human life(or the condition of the human being), nor does it truly reflect the Standard of Living. But the proponents of Globalization consistantly use GDP to re-enforce their claims that 'life' will be better. I personally don't see the connection.

    The Exxon Valdez spewed millions of gallons of oil off the shores of Alaska yet the US GDP rose that year because of the clean-up costs and other spin-offs. There were jobs, media attention and millions of dollars in fines levied - not to mention replacement costs of the oil spilled. The damage done to the environment, the loss of the natural resource(oil) and the damage done to another economic sector(fishing)was never factored in. According to the GDP the Exxon Valdez disaster was a good thing.

    The GDP net benefits is not a true measure of value, therefor not a good premise to base a pro-Globalization argument on.

    EDIT: the value system in other less fortunate countries is not anchored in dollars and cents as much as ours is - afterall they have no dollars and cents. To impose our value system - GDP - on a country with a different value system is modern assimilation, not globalization.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Good: COMPLETE globalization is the only way to 'eventually' stop the people of certain countries from being used at the expense of their health/well being. As long as it is mostly economic globalization, these problems will persist.
    Bad: I think cultural diversity will mostly vanish, although this depends on how globalization occurs.
     
  18. travis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    160
    Globalization is a vague word used by the ruling elite who control most of the world's media to bring about world government. It doesn't matter if you call it the New World Order, global conquest or world government, it leads in the same direction; the masses will be at the mercy of the ruling elite who are now promoting this vague idea.
    Communism was the same, just packaged differently. It was never intended as a workable ideology, just a means of usurping existing powers. It didn't work out exactly as planned so now it's "Globalization".
    No thanks. I got a good whiff or the New World Odor and I don't like the smell.
     
  19. Alaric Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    I basically agree with Fraggle, but the changes due to the opening of societies can be more or less painful depending on how its handled. Improving labour mobility and access to information are two crucial elements that could make the transition easier - imagine a poor society that is blessed with a democratic government that encourages freedom of information and directs foreign aid into improving the infrastructure, allowing the citizens to more accurately and efficiently distribute themselves where the work is, versus a closed traditionalist poor country with an authoritarian leadership where the citizens end up crowding in cities and working for a pittance because they've been told that there are plenty of jobs there - and once they're there, they're stuck, allowing companies to exploit their lack of freedom and distorting the free market. I would like to think we can learn something from the Industrial Revolution and that sweatshops are not an inevitable part of industrialisation. Even if that's too optimistic, it can certainly be mitigated.

    Personally, I would rather that people in the third world knew more about the wider world before they are thrown into it, because otherwise the myth that the rich countries are exploiting them and/or hording wealth will cause a lot more unnecessary bumps in the road.
     
  20. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    I'd almost agree with the first sentence, except I am not sure if its actually possible or desirable anyway, at least under the present global economic system. Even if every country was as well developed as the USA, money would still slop about the place, there would still be massive concentration of resources and people, and of course, GDP and suchlike would have a harder time growing. It also depends upon whether nanotech etc can deliver before I retire 9in about 40 years)

    AS for the cultures stuff, I think that to some extent it will occur no matter what kind of globalisation occurs. But if its "the right" kind, then new cultures will arise out of the ashes, maybe in as great a numbers as the ones that are killed off just now. Or if "the wrong kind" occurs, then yes, its off to grey goo heaven.
     
  21. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,588
    Globalization is inevitable. That is not up for debate.

    Now if you want to discuss how current and future governmental policies of the various governments of the world can have positive or negative influences on the inevitable spread of globilization, then let's talk about that.

    The thread headline is akin to asking "Sunlight, good or bad". The question simply cannot be asked in that manner without certain qualifiers. Is globilization going to be a good thing for the average Canadian? Is globilization going to result in a better or worse quality of life for the average Bangladeshi? Will globilization significantly reduce the spread of militant religious fanatics? These are examples of a fair question with regards to globilization.

    On a personal level, globilization will most likely be a "bad" thing for me as a middle class American. "Bad" meaning that my standard of living will most likely not be as high as that of my parents, relative to the rest of the world. John Lennon probably wouldn't see this as an inherently "bad" thing, but that's another topic. I don't think that I will have a poor standard of living by any standard, but with the current re-distribution of wealth spreading at an alarming pace, it's impossible for anyone to forecast what my potential standard will be in ten, twenty, thirty years from today. There simply isn't an applicable economic model for this circumstance.

    I see it as a bad thing for me and my family in many respects, but on a global level, I hope that it will bring light where there has never been anything but darkness. What is it they say? Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
     
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Globalization is something imo that is necessary for mankind to get out of the squalor that we live in today. Globalization is more then mere economics, and everything is going to change. You here about the "death of the UN" but in reality the UN should be becoming much more powerful year by year, it is the only body that can really set global policy. I think that we as a global community must get rid of the vestiges of a bygone era. You know that thing called nationalism that has killed about 180 million persons in the last century, yes that should be gone. I think humanity has always tried to have this globalization, and one thing about Globalization that scares ppl is that any form of "NWO" requires one culture, and one ethic to preside over all of us, and we as a human beings have tried usually through violent means to achieve this. From Alexander the Great, to Caesar, to Hitler this has been tried by all. Today principally you hear democracy is essential to the Globalization that we enjoy. I think we have seen that it is not, China for instance has been a main beneficiary of globalization. Ever since China went from backward economic policies of the Mao era, into a capitalist one we noticed that the country has experienced an unbelievable jump in living standards. 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty in China. But this doesn't come with a cost, the environment has suffered, and today there is a huge income disparity btwn the coastal regions and the west. But nevertheless the powerhouse of this century will be China and India. The US, Europe, and Japan will have to lose jobs, and economic power in order to prop up this NWO. I think that (as a catholic) God or logos has indeed made it so Globalization works. If you look at the pop. projections of Europe and Japan together over the next 100 years their pop. will decline from 800 million in Euro to 300 million, and Japan from 120 million to 60 million. Which allows corps. to move the excess jobs to countries that need them. The deaths of around 560 million ppl is a good thing for millions more. Living in the West I recognize that we will be going down the road of deflation we have to, the 3rd world has to come up (inflation) and we have to come down to create the synthesis economy that this world needs. Our living standards will come down, but it won't go down to the point of barbarism.

    But is all peachy keen? Of course not, and as long as we have nation-states Globalization will never be able to play itself out. Self interest will drive humanity for a while to come. Already in the US gas prices are going through the roof, and for a reason. India and China and sucking more and more Middle East oil, leaving less and less for the US. The world's resources are getting tight. China in 20 years has increased her consumption of oil from 4 million bbl/day, to around 6 million. China used to be self-sufficient in oil, not anymore. Already I can see a great game in the Middle East btwn these powers. Another big what if is water, that simply is not available everywhere, some say that Egypt and Ethiopia could go to blows over the Nile. Turkey isn't making many friends with Syria and Iraq because their extensive damming/irragation projects in Kurdistan. The list goes on and on with water. Unless desalination and better use of water (i.e. drop irrigation) it [water] will become a very precious commodity this century. Which leads to a critique of Globalization, things that we would consider should be barred from private hands are going into those private hands. Power companies all over are being privatized and in return customers have to option but to pay the outrageously high bills. But I believe that Globalization will give us a solution, firstly we should become self-sufficient in terms of energy production. But a solar panel on our houses, not only do we save the environment, and we save money. The Hydrogen revolution does not seem to far off, as Iceland is striving to be the first Hydrogen powered nation, totally independent of oil imports. So there will be wars over resources, which does add the question is Globalization really that good for nations?

    For ppl the average joe, or Xia, whomever. Their lives will be better off then today. Arguably not in North America, especially the US. They have a naturally growing population and thus the shortfall of jobs will make the American Joe suffer to his cheaper brethren Xia in Shanhai. But in Canada, Euro, Japan, etc which declining pop. Outsourcing jobs is a good thing indeed. The ppl in the 3rd world country will benefit, already wages are going up. Trade is increasing, and HDI figures are going up for just about everyone who has embraced Globalization. The stats are showing a betterment of ppl's lives. So I say yes Globalization is a good thing, but we in the 1st world will have to give up a little to make up for the rest.
     
  23. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    So I say yes Globalization is a good thing, but we in the 1st world will have to give up a little to make up for the rest.
    Well this is one option. It would be fairly easy for us to equalize world to an early 1900s quality of life. Very few of us would actually have to work. The thing is that we are constantly advancing technology (one of the arguments why we will always have jobs, as advanced as we get). What I'm hoping actually happens with globalization, is that the 1st world countries (namely the US) is unable to keep up it's current pace of growth.... giving the rest of the world time to catch up. Not really a step back for the 1st world... more of a delay and equalization.
     

Share This Page