Globalization, good or bad?

Isn't globalization a new word for colonialism?

I think you mean imperialism, but I personally don’t buy that line of argumentation too much. Yes for weaker states like those of Central America, or Africa Globalization is very much a neo-imperialism. But the anti-imperialists of these regions have largely failed in their endeavors for economic autarky.

The fact is that the western economy depends on inequality between the 'western world' and the 'rest'. There can be no fair relationship. Basically the economic muscle of the western world has to dominate the entire world in order to give us our consumer society.

In the shortsighted sense that is true but in a long term view on the situation tells us of a more important more to the story of Globalization. The Western markets are already exploited to their fullest extent, I mean Germany, and Switzerland can only grow so much economically. What the capitalist economy is doing is a massive re-organization of the world’s wealth in two directions. Firstly more money will be put into the hands of the rich, there is no doubt. Secondly the rest of the wealth will have to go to nations like China, India; Brazil not only is their potential markets virtually non-exploitable, they easily replace the shrinking markets of Europe, and North America. If the rich want to stay rich they need to exploit new markets, and make them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Globalization is is very much like corporate colonialism/imperialism or whatever you want to call it.

Globalization has given corporations a power they had never before and took away the power from the people who work for them and have to live near them.

Globalization meant that regulations beneficial for employees lost their power. If a company thinks that the control it too tight, or the unions have too much power they simply move the factory to another country. A country which doesn't have these rules, which doesn't have tight rules on pollution, which doesn't have rules on safety, etc.

Globalization increased inequality. You can believe it or not, but the statistics do not lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Globalisation is GOOD, the people who are doing it are BAD.

of course, good and bad are merely polarized labels... but im sure you know what i mean here.

the secret gov'ts and corporations that are trying to make a global network are all doing it for their own financial, monetary, and power GAIN. they will force LAWs upon the innocents who live in mentioned countries, with no option but to fold in to the new world order.

If we could create an honest system between countries, with no lies or cover-ups or black projects, then perhaps Globalisation could be VERY BENEFICIAL to HUMANS in GENERAL, not only the elite.

If we could cooperate in a trustworthy manner I would support Globalisation...

Until then, i OPPOSE globalisation.

But even with opposition the New World Order ("Globalisation") is forming as we speak.

Will you be ready for the changes ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[Globalization is is very much like corporate colonialism/imperialism or whatever you want to call it.

I know this is going to sound very odd, even I can’t believe I am thinking this. Is that so bad? What was the alternative? Many states cannot sustain anything, let alone a standard of living. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, all developed from imperialism and investment from imperialist powers. I think the problem stems from people’s inability to separate nationalism from economics. Gloablization is the abandonment of these terms like imperialism, nationalism etc.

Globalization has given corporations a power they had never before and took away the power from the people who work for them and have to live near them.

That is true, corporations have done some pretty bad things, but a lot of companies are investing in things like IT, and the service sectors. I wouldn’t call those things necessarily bad. We cannot condemn globalization completely.

If a company thinks that the control it too tight, or the unions have too much power they simply move the factory to another country. A country which doesn't have these rules, which doesn't have tight rules on pollution, which doesn't have rules on safety, etc.

Whose fault is it? Those countries maintain such a low standard for a reason.

Globalization increased inequality. You can believe it or not, but the statistics do not lie.

Show these “stats”?

 

I hope you do realize that the economical 'development' of sout america was staged by the west (mainly the US) and resulted in multiple genocides. Your cheap consumer items your buy not only cost money and resources, they also cost and have costed lives.

I hope you are also aware that the planet is not big enough to sustain a western consumer society for ALL people in the world. We would need in fact several planets. Do I need to explain the consequences of this? I can repeat one. Our economical system is based (necessarily) on inequality. Labour rights and work regulations are more and more 'liberalized'. Which basically means that the clock is turned back. Precious rights which were fought over by many people for a long time disappear as snow under the sun.

Of course globalizations seems really nice if you live in the west. It also seems very promising. Who doesn't like to watch an add for a shiny new car. Too bad not everybody can afford it. Too bad it would be impossible for everybody to actually have a car (resourcewise).

 

hope you do realize that the economical 'development' of sout america was staged by the west (mainly the US) and resulted in multiple genocides.

Being from South America (the Southern Cone more specifically) I can tell you that the dictatorships in the continent had really much more to do with the stop of the “communist menace”. In Latin America communism was a very real threat, I abhor what the US did there and I believe the people of the continent should have had a right to self-determination. The only nation who opened up during those dictatorships was Chile with her neo-liberalist reforms. Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil only started in the 90’s and the recent patch has been very painful.

Your cheap consumer items your buy not only cost money and resources, they also cost and have costed lives.

They haven’t that is hyperbolic in its assumptions. The opening up of the major Latin American states has been brought about by the democratization of the countries in the 90’s. Latin America under those dictators were fascist, and they don’t like open markets.

I hope you are also aware that the planet is not big enough to sustain a western consumer society for ALL people in the world.

I don’t think that is the eventual goal of globalization, the goal is to increase profits. Now in order to that we need to make new markets, and leave the old ones behind. The 1st world will begin to suffer from a reorientation of markets; capital will begin to flow to those nations. Globalization is imo natural, capitalism for all its icky-ness is a self-regulating system like that of nature. Since here in the West, our populations are beginning to shrink (as a result of our material wealth) the same should occur in these new nations, and their population growth slow, and the process starts all over again. I am not calling for anarcho-capitalism here, but I do not believe that individual govts can do much if anything, we need a collective organization to deal with the corporate power of the future.

Our economical system is based (necessarily) on inequality. Labour rights and work regulations are more and more 'liberalized'. Which basically means that the clock is turned back. Precious rights which were fought over by many people for a long time disappear as snow under the sun.

I don’t disagree with that statement, yes worker rights is a significant portion of the problem. But are we going to deny these people jobs so they can starve instead? There should be local standards (forced by the UN/G8) which finds the appropriate amount of money that a person needs to survive in state x, and a corp. that breaks that law (UN resolution/g8 resolution) will get a fine. Yes capitalism is based on inequality, every system in practice is. Even our own family structure is bias, and unequal in terms of its hierarchical structure. I don’t see why you would be so angsty, I mean are you wiling to take $30,000 pay cut for equality?

of course globalizations seems really nice if you live in the west. It also seems very promising. Who doesn't like to watch an add for a shiny new car. Too bad not everybody can afford it. Too bad it would be impossible for everybody to actually have a car (resourcewise).

That’s why China’s car market is growing up to 16% per annum? I suggest you look up some stats to substantiate your argument.

 

I only make about 15,000 a year. Of course, that doesn't mean sh.i.t because I don't have a contract. In fact my boss informed me yesterday that she will only pay me for june and july and then I can fuck off.

anyhoo, inequality has actually increased in last decades not decreased because of globalization. Not only in 'the third world' countries but also in the west.

A Quote from 'Upside down world', by Eduardo Galeano (you probably heard of him if you are from south america)

'Consumerism has been imposed bit by bit, year by year, ever since Hawker Hunter jets bombed Salvador Allende's presidential palace in 1973 and General Augusto Pinochet inaugurated the era of the miracle. A quarter of a century later, the New York Times explained that it was the "coup that began Chile's transformation from a backwater banana republic to the economic star of Latin America." On how many Chileans does that star shine? One-fourth of the population lives in absolute poverty and, as Christian democratic senator Jorge Lavandero has pointed out, the hundred richest Chileans earn more in a year than the entire state budget for social services. U.S. journalist Marc Cooper found quite a few imposters in the paradise of consumption: Chileans who roast in their cars rather than roll down the windows and reveal that they have no air-conditioning, or who talk on toy cellular phones, or who use credit cards to buy potatoes or a pair of pants in twelve monthly installments.'

One swallow doesn't make summer. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to asume everybody can have a car and drive it. You can disagree with that of course. If you have some statistics that show that everybody can have a car on this planet and drive it around at leasure.

 

And another quote from Galeano, because he says it better than I ever could:

'The leaders who promise to take the countries of the South into the first world by an act of magic that will turn us all into prosperous subjects of the kingdom of waste ought to be tried for fraud and as accessories to a crime. For fraud because they promise the impossible; if we all consumed like those who are squeezing the earth dry, we'd have no world left. And as accessories to a crime because the lifestyle they promote - the huge orgasm of delirious consumption they call happiness - sickens our bodies, poisons our souls, and leaves us without the home the world wished to become long before it existed.'

(no links because they don't exist. Buy the book.)

 

anyhoo, inequality has actually increased in last decades not decreased because of globalization. Not only in 'the third world' countries but also in the west.

Inequality in Latin America is as common as the air we breathe. Were I am from income distribution is pretty evenly spilt, so I don’t see much of the same divisions in capital and labour. Brazil who hasn’t really even started to open up has always been the most unequal of all states. 80% of the land is owned by 5% of the population. Inequality is Latin America is institutionalized, and racial. Being from the region I can tell you racism there is widespread, being a white Latin American, I see the racism all the time against the mestizos, and natives of the continent. Inequality in the region is centuries old, and Latin America like North America has been cursed by the pains of the past.

'Consumerism has been imposed bit by bit, year by year, ever since Hawker Hunter jets bombed Salvador Allende's presidential palace in 1973 and General Augusto Pinochet inaugurated the era of the miracle. A quarter of a century later, the New York Times explained that it was the "coup that began Chile's transformation from a backwater banana republic to the economic star of Latin America." On how many Chileans does that star shine? One-fourth of the population lives in absolute poverty and, as Christian democratic senator Jorge Lavandero has pointed out, the hundred richest Chileans earn more in a year than the entire state budget for social services. U.S. journalist Marc Cooper found quite a few imposters in the paradise of consumption: Chileans who roast in their cars rather than roll down the windows and reveal that they have no air-conditioning, or who talk on toy cellular phones, or who use credit cards to buy potatoes or a pair of pants in twelve monthly installments.'

This is all true, and obviously disgusting. But what was the alternative? Socialist economic measure like autarky anddependcia has failed horribly. You know why Latin America is worse off then Asia today? Because our govts were fascist, and a fascist govt believes in limiting trade, and by not becoming dependant on foreigners for economic growth. Looking at the Reagan legacy on news 24/7, this globalization has also impacted the US. The rich in the west as well have gotten significantly richer as well, and the middle class is losing influence, thanks to the likes of Reagan. But no one can deny the country is better off today. The reason why Chile is a good example is because the inequality is much worse then in the US, but this is a worldwide phenomenon.

In my opinion, it is unrealistic to asume everybody can have a car and drive it. You can disagree with that of course. If you have some statistics that show that everybody can have a car on this planet and drive it around at leasure.

I am not suggesting that everyone on earth can drive a car, I am anti-car (unless green) quite frankly. I think that we as a world society can have a certain level of development, are you suggesting we should top the reorientation of capital because not everyone can have a car? It seems like Western elitism here.

 

This is silly.

The only "resources" of any merit, if we ignore the false limits and definitions imposed by your green politicians and fear mongers, are power and energy. A complex machine, of any sort (be it manual or mechanical, self powered or otherwise) has one purpose: the conversion of energy states. That is, we can convert thermal into electrical. Electrical into locomotive. Etcetera.

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It is impossible, physically, for the human species to "run out of energy." We may run out of resources to drive a specific transfer system, but the univerasal constant remains. It is simply a question of harnessing and tapping an additional power source; the potential is limitless (by any human boundary scope, at least, though the universe itself may be finite).

Prior to the invention of the steam engine, the sole source of power was human effort. One might have argued that the earth would have exhausted its resource supply at the theoretical limit of every living man speeding away on a stationary cycle. Except that a new, more efficient, energy transfer system was discovered in combustion, the transfer of heat energy into locomotive energy.

If our precious earth should possibly "run out of resources," the question is not one of energy limitations but of system limitations. We have grown excessively reliant on combustion, especially given the ready availibility of alternative energy sources (namely, nuclear, the remainder are decades away from practicality), I'll concede that point. But to state that "every living being could not have a car" because of some arbitrary limit on available energy is flat wrong.

In regards to our economic system being based (necesarily) on equality...

Ours is the only system which is based on absolute human equality (insofar as we are an laisez faire society). Each invidual is free to choose the course of his labors, and free to dictate the terms by which the product of his efforts are exchanged. A corporation is nothing more than a conglomerate of individuals each working towards a common goal (namely, the creation of a product in the pursuit of profit). In capitalism, there is no such beast as forced association.

The disparity in income is only "inequal" if one makes the argument that "some earn more per year than others, therefore the system is necesarily not equal." Mathematically sensible, granted, but such a statement assumes that each individual does an equal amount of work as his compatriots.

If that were true, then by definition, every individual WOULD earn the same amount. Within a capitalist system, the quality and value of your labor determines your income level. Speaking ideally, of course.

This may or may not actually be the case. I'd say it was not, unfortunately. But the problem is your proposed labor laws, not the economic system. Unfettered capitalism will naturally result in all those things which you seek: higher wages, better working conditions, etc. It MUST. The reason is simple: All things being equal, which employer do you pick? In such a case, you'd likely choose randomly, or at best accoridng to some abstract condition outside the control of your employer, such as geographic location.

So, in order to guarantee the best workers for the job in a truly FREE and OPEN environment (where it is as illegal to force workers to work as it is to force employers to employ) one must provide incentives. Henry Ford characterized this attitude when he offered his factory employees an unprecidented $1.25 an hour and standard eight hour work week, well ahead of any American minimum wage or eight hour work day laws, beating out his competitors in a saturated market that would have otherwise been impossible for him to break into. Automation and machined parts helped, too, of course.

As for the exploitation of new markets in order to supply an "old market" with luxory consumer produts at the lowest possible price, this is elementary economics. However, what's important is the result of this "exploitation:" inevitable market growth and eventual prosperity. Examine every frontier market in history which has embraced global capital, from the American colonies, to India post-isolationism, to China post communism, to Eastern Europe. Even South America is seeing incredible growth rates since the relative reforms of the late 20th century, post Cold War. If it, and Africa, can establish stable market economies and liberal governments, they too would enjoy the fruits of this "exploitation" now reaped by the Asians (which, by the way, the UN should be spending its billions trying to foster, rather than using the money to build a crutch the impoverished are forced to cling to desperately for support, with no hope of ever being able to self-sustain, in the form of that most poorly named 'foreign aid packages').

And if you take a look at your so-called ideal states, the liberal (political, not literal) pseudo-socialist democracies of Western Europe and Canada, what has the result of their "beneficial" labor laws and stranglehold corporate regulations been? Economic stagnation, and even regression, with GDP rates soon to be surpassed by such fledgling upstarts as the aforementioned China and India.

 

That is not an argument.

I don't have politicians.

That sure isn't going to mean anything for the world's oil reserves.

And what has this got to do with globalization?

The problem is not running out of resources. The problem is that modern economics and globalization are thoraoughly based on inequality.

Maybe you can address the real points instead of dancing around.

Do you think we can all live like in the west based on our current system?

If not, why do you think the western world (or just our political system) is willing to change their luxurious position and give up what they have now?

Are you saying it isn't?

Indeed, everybody is free to be exploited.

You are denying we exploit people in third world countries so that we can have everything we desire? They work harder than you do for almost no pay. Shouldn't they get more money if your system is so equal? I though not.

Yes, funny. Factories are moved abroad and then companies claim that they just abide the local rules. Although the same policy in labour laws and poluting would be impossible in the original location. Yes, Bopal was really out of control of the employer. No wait, it wouldn't have happened of course if that particular chemical plant had been in the US because there are different safety standards. Still the company can claim it is innocent because it abided the local rules. Welcome back to reality. It is nice that you want to live in a fairy tale world but there is nothing equal about the economic global system.

Henry ford also thought it would be nice to do some thought coontrol on his factory workers and Ford didn't mind moving factories abroad as soon as it became too expensive in the US. And i'll bet those factories are not abiding US pollution and labour laws. I.e you don't give shit about how people are mistreated in the third world as long as you get you brand new ford for a decent price. You don't care if a region gets polluted as long as you can consume.

Nice propaganda. Your basic economics should tell you that not everybody can live like you.

I think we live in a better society than the US. Both economical and on a social level. That is what our ideal-states have given us. Economic stagnation? Really? At least we have health care. At least we have social security. At least we don't live in constant fear.

At least we can prick through rethoric on economic necessities and laws and needs.

We still fuck over everybody else because that is the nature of the globalization. But at least we don't pretend we doing it for them. yeah right, we are developing other countries so that they can have a better live.

Read something about Latin America. See what your precious government has caused in the name of economic stability and development.

 

I quite agree, but redistribution isn't possible with the current system.

 

I think globalization is bad not only because of the political/economic issues, but of the way it destroys cultures. On a very small scale, i can trot down any high street in the UK and am bombarded by global enterprises. Well not global as such, its Americanisation. Mcdonalds, kentucky, starbucks,etc. It makes every place look exactly the same. The thing is tho` ,i`m a bit of a hypocrite, i eat macdonalds, drink starbucks,etc. I suppose we`re stuck with it. Life sucks get a helmut

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Globalization is definitely bad. Gigantic resources are being wasted to chase the cheapest labor force around the globe. Western human potential is being wasted big time too. Those resources/people are needed to be invested elsewhere, or globalization will turn into world-wide barbarization in the foreseeable future. Secondly, mimicking American style prosperity worldwide is a disaster in itself.

 

I quite agree, but redistribution isn't possible with the current system.

How isn’t it? Did you know that the UK has over 70% of its GDP invested overseas? We live in a $51 trillion world economy, and the developing world now has half of the world’s GDP in their hands. Many states are on their way to becoming first world states, for instance once Argentina, Uruguay recover from the economic malaise and stable economic growth happens they will be some of the first to enter into the first world. Millions of people in India and China will achieve first world status as well. We must remember that “middle class” is not synonymous worldwide, in India for instance being middle class means that you make around $8,000 a year. Also (for Americans) they should not be complaining about Globalization at all. Consider that by far the world’s largest recipient of FDI is the United States with over $1.5 trillion worth of investment compared to $450 billion in China. Capital is moving away from the first world into the third world because it has too. In order for capitalism to work profit must always be paramount, and the way to do that is to i) create new markets, ii) gear the world economy into one that is complimentary with comparative advantage, iii) get rid of borders, and iv) make the west go deflationary, and the third world inflationary so a synthesis could be found. That will take a very long time indeed, but its already happening in Japan.

 

This capital is not really there for the purpose of redistribution. In the end most of it is supposed to flow back.

I didn't know Argentina was becoming a first world state. My girlfriend's father (in argentina) seems to need two fulltime jobs to just survive. He is not the only one. Is that what we are striving for? Work your ass off untill your drop because our economies need to grow?

You would think that with all this economic growth the wellbeing of people should have improved over the last few decades.

If I am not entirely mistaken formal working hours have gone up in the US, Canada and Japan instead of down like in some European countries. Is this what growth of the economy is all about?
-More job insecurity
-lower wages
-increase in working hours

I just don't buy the propaganda of economic growth. This system is not made for most people. It is made for a few.

In 1995 3 out of 10 of the largest fortunes in Japan were not based on real ecomonic assets, instead 7 multimullionaires were nothing more than financial speculators. Do you think these people contributed anything to the world other than taking money away from someone else? I guess they now are able to help the world by giving people credit (insert sarcasm here).

 

Economically:
Globalization is good.U.S. markets have already saturated,so the need for new markets is tremendous.Asian Markets(Like China,India,Sing. etc) are big,REALLY BIG. and policies of these countries (most of the Asian countries) are of Reformists...So benefits can be tremendous.
Thought Front :
I think our ultimate aim would be to create a world with no boundaries,borders and that we finally live as one single Race living on Planet Earth...It has already started,believe me with the advent of Internet and Knowledge Overloads etc.It is the future...

bye!

 

Argentina can become a first world state even though many argentinians keep working in the cicumstances you hinted at. The united states is a first world country, while it has the same phenomenon.

I am majoring in international economics. We discuss a lot about this subject. What bothers me is how the professor keep pounding in the heads of the students that globalization is great and good, the only lacking superlative would be:" holy."

 

US markets are saturated with Chinese goods, Wal-Marts, McDs, lawyers. How globalization will releave those saturations? They will become only worse as globalization will proceed. Country with 500 billions of trade deficit shall not worry about saturation of its markets with domesticly made products.