Modern Globalization

CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Great economics, or igniter for war</div> The description and title pretty much gives you a basis to work on. Thoughts may follow.


I'll kick start it by saying that Globalizing economics, like many things, has grey area. Isolationism no longer is a feasible tactic....mostly because of Globalization itself. Discuss

Comments

  • JammerJammer Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
    edited August 2003
    <span style='color:white'>Please wait with your posts until you came up with some kind of argumentation.</span>
  • WindelkronWindelkron Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
    I believe globalization is wrong because I believe that unregulated capitalism is wrong. Globalization essentially seeks to make the entire world one playing field for economics, however the truth is that different places are ... different, and companies will gravitate towards certain areas, neglect others, exploit areas and workforce, and bypass governments. In other words, a state of complete unregulated business exists under globalization (regulations in this case would be laws, which are struck down if they are considered "barriers to trade" by free trade organizations).
  • JammerJammer Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
    edited August 2003
    Biggity BAM! Lets get it on Wink! :-)

    1. Companies will gravitate to certain areas.
    Nope! Won't happen. If one market becomes saturated, companies, out of self interest, will move to a different area. This includes both workforce and sales. If everyone is selling Soda in The US, and making it in Argentina, you could make a killing making soda in Istanbul and selling it in Argentina. See how it works? Free Markets kick buns! The market will recognize places are different. If coke doesn't sell in argentina, companies will not make money doing so, and will therefore find another product to sell, or leave the market open for someone else to fill.

    2. Exploit Workers. Wrong again. The problem with third world countries is thtat they have weak democratic traditions. Therefore, workers are unable to excercise the inalienable rights that they need to avoid. True capitalism is a system where no man may force another to do anything. If a worker is exploited, it is by there own will. Right now, the problem is that countries aren't democratic and unemployment is too high. Capitalism is like colonialism. Bad for those living during its development, but exponentially better for later generations.

    3.Bypass governments. Under true capitalism, governments exsist to enforce inalienable rights. Corporations work by mutual agreements. Therefore, corporations have no power of anyone without their consent.

    Right now, we need MORE sweatshops. More sweatshops = more jobs = greater competition for workers = higher wages = new market = expanding companies = more workers = expanded market... Capitalism has no limit!

    Someone will bring up the 'Evil Monopolies' argument, which is refuted <a href='http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm' target='_blank'>here.</a>

    Most people do not understand capitalism. Get yourself a primer at <a href='http://www.capitalism.org/' target='_blank'>Capitalism.org</a> and then grab Ayn Rand's book <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451147952/qid=1061960517/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-6243730-6180048?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal</a>


    And this isn't an attack on Wink ( <3's Wink!) , I just get excited defending capitalism. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo-->
    EDIT
    Note the Avatar :-P
  • CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
    Capitalism works well...to an extent. Someday things will become so cheap to produce and everything will be automized. The Future is a communist/socialist economy. Capitalism will be, as it always has, the law of the jungle
  • StakhanovStakhanov Join Date: 2003-03-12 Member: 14448Members
    "Forbidding interdiction" and destroying barriers to free trade is utopia.
    For now we can see how the USA manage to bend the WTO's rules to maintain some kind of protection on a few vital sectors (agribuisness , steel industry) while trying to enforce free trade on other countries.
  • MelatoninMelatonin Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
    edited August 2003
    "To speak of 'limits to growth' under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society. The moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists, are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative. Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to make it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, pp. 93-94]

    as long as Capitalism exists, it will continue to devour the planets natural resources at an ever increasing rate, all in the name of profits.

    *edit, its an a, not an o*
  • DubbilexDubbilex Chump Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9799Members
    One word, Jammer: <b>NAFTA</b> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • ImmacolataImmacolata Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    edited August 2003
    I preferred the old kind of powder and gun globalization. Thats how the belgians, the dutch and the british carved out huge empires that made them filthy rich. Just as lopsided and exploitative as today, except they were more frank about it..

    "We want free trade" the rich countries cries.
    "Open your borders to our produce. Lower your tariffs".

    Except they make sure to keep up their own. EU taxes latin american bananas higher than african, because the french etc. has vested interests in banana producing countries of Africa. EU subsizidizes their own agriculture with mad amounts of money each ear, making sure not to import too much from the countries that kind of needs to export their produce. USA are duking it out with the EU on some steel tariffs. USA tries to punish korea for subsidizing RAM production. EU countries taxes anything imported from outside the region. Im sure all other countries do the same.

    Globalization seems to be a fancy gift wrap that conceals the age old premise of getting it your way and screwing everyone else over in the proces. So now our honored tech firms wants to sell us all their fancy products. But they make sure that we dont see any return because they moved all their tech support, billing and accounting to India, and all their manufacturing to China and Taiwan. Soon it will only be a small staff of sales persons and the board of directors actually working in your country. The rest is made in sweatshops in poor countries, and the dividends are paid out to stockholders in the many tax refuges of the world. And we all grow fat by eating mass marketed trash food.

    Thats the primary benefits of globalization.

    Now dont get me started on the DOWN side to globalization....
  • RyoOhkiRyoOhki Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
    Yeah it's always struck me as strange when the US harps at other countries for free trade whilst at the same time maintaining tariffs and trade barriers to foreign imports. Australia has been trying to import agricultural equipment to the US for years with no luck. True free trade only works when everyone lowers all protective barriers, which is currently by no means happening.

    However economics is not my forte so I will withdraw. I totally agree with everything Immacolata said though.
  • Nemesis_ZeroNemesis_Zero Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    edited August 2003
    The term 'Globalization' is one of those fancy buzzwords we put on everything that's practiced in more than three countries; it has thus economic, cultural, political, and social connotations. As far as I understand it, this thread tries to describe what is being called 'Neoliberal Globalization' (little connection to the American liberal political persuasion, so don't harp on that name), which largely describes the internationalization of a number of high-profile corporations which are capable of operating on a scale only governments could hope for 50 years ago, as well as the economic actions taken by first world countries to secure their positions.

    Before I start getting down and gritty, I'll have to touch one subject Jammer raised:

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalism is like colonialism. Bad for those living during its development, but exponentially better for later generations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Apart from the entirely different discussion of whether colonialism was a positive development, you can not weigh the suffering of a present <i>generation</i> - for this is what the word 'sweatshop' means in a large number of countries - out with the possible prosperity of future generations. Telling a person to suffer for the benefit of others - be this benefit contemporary or future - is in any case that does not include the free consent of that person (which can not be assumed in the case of a economic-social development) slavery.


    Anyway, back to the issue.


    Capitalist theory has one flaw: It assumes a certain equallity - the equallity of opportunity, that is of education, health, and chances of socio-economic ascent. It assumes an environment in which everyone is capable of pursuing his or her luck after his or her best abilities.

    The world is no such place.

    The current economic globalization was begun in a world of great inequallity - in a world divided in first, second and third rate, in a world where some countries managed (and manage) to equal their balance, while many others of them were (and are) incredibly indebted to the richest nations. The First World afforded (and affords) all of their children the opportunity of a higher education, while the Third World was (and is) still fighting analphabetism.
    This is not an environment of equal opportunity. It is forseeable that the biggest fishes of the First World, fueled by well educated managers and supported by stable national economies granting secure domestic markets and thus an invaluable safety blanket <i>will</i> be able to exploit such circumstances to dominate foreign markets, too.

    And just this happened.

    A corporation aiming on profit maximation, and there are no others, will inevitably search for the cheapest way of production - which means the outsourcing of all manual mass labours into the Third World and of as much mental labor as possible into the Second World, while the First World remains the main consumer market due to the improportionally bigger monetary potential amongst its population.
    This development does however barely benefit the countries invested into: A well run international corporation will, searching as always for ways of profit maximation, have found ways of paying as little (and little it'll be) as possible in taxes, likewise, the payment of the workers will, the logic of the corp dictating, be too small to create 'grass root' social improvements of any recogniceable effect.

    The most Third World countries do not know security at work or even the most fundamental legal guarantees for acceptable working conditions - these countries just didn't need them so far as they're only leaving the colonial stage of economic development. Now, the financial pressure of the corps investing into them, put forth through First World countries who benefit from those companies and are at the same time capable of essentially destroying most Third World countries economies by claiming their debts, blocks any kind of improvement put forth by the Third World countries governments, which are thus not capable of ensuring the rights of their citizens within their own country anymore.
    Seeing that the current demographic situation hints at a surplus of workers in comparision to the amount of work that has to be done, and considering the factual inability of low-wage workers living in different parts of the world to create functioning unions to claim their unailienable rights, I can't see a 'natural' healing of the social injuries the neoliberal Globalization has brought.
    From this perspective, there's little positive to be said about the Neoliberal Globalization.

    And while the Third World is forced to face social situations worse than during Manchester Capitalism, the First World became just as extortable: Cut free from their traditional binds to their countries of origin, the multinational corporations are capable of moving their employments wherever they please, which gravely endangers the First World, where these employments are gravely needed. Thus, they are forced to largely follow a determined corporations demands if it threatens to move its production into another country - no politican every survived by allowing some 5000 people to be fired because a car manufacturer decided it liked the Nepalese economic policies better.
    Thus, the Neoliberal Globalization leads to a cementation of itself as those benefitting the most from it can dictate a policy benefiting them as much as possible.

    This brief overview shows in my opinion that the current kind of economic Globalization leads to inacceptable economic, social, and political situations.
  • dr_ddr_d Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
    edited August 2003
    Exceptional post Nem and I hope everyone reads it thoroughly.

    I'm going to dummy down some of Nem's points to make mine. First World countries have always used the state of Second and Third world countries to increase their own status, because inherently there can only be so much wealth in the world, so the wealthier one nation is the less wealthy another must be. This of course isn't as simple as that, but I don't know of all, let alone have enough knowledge about all the economical and socio-political ins and outs of First World foreign policy to give any kind of in depth explaination.

    Getting to my point. Neoliberal Globalization is as Nem pointed out a flawed idea, it assumes things that are not true and would undoubtedly put an unbearable amount of stress on an already buckling international economy. If it were to be put into action there would literally be no limits on the profits corporations could generate for themselves, and I would assume no moral qualms to stop them, so the profits would escalate on an exponential level in a very short period of time.

    Ok my point really now. It's clear that this sort of globalization is a bad thing, but it is also on the extreme spectrum of possibilities, and as it stands now First World countries have been pushing this envelope as far as it could safely go. Despite the obvious flaws in this system current political happenings are showing evidence that we actually are slowly moving towards a form of globalization. The real problem with this is that all of these efforts are being made under current political ideals and the assumption that all of the world's Superpowers could work together to regulate this sort of system. That's all fine and dandy until you consider that all it would take is one nation to change their stance on the issue to cause massive problems. Say in about thirty years the US and allies finally manage to rid the world of terrorism and begin instating socio-economic infrastructures in formerly oppressed countries. There is an agreement signed by the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Russia to contribute resources and time to regulating these countries trade, growth, etc. After ten years or so the financial strain of regulating some of these countries forces Japan to abandon their duties, thus putting more pressure on the other nations, the eventual pressure forces Germany, Russia, Italy, and France to bow out of the agreement as well. This would leave the US and Britain as sole regulators of a now massive world wide economic system, and they would possibly pour resources into the project for several years before being unable to afford to do so and since this would have most likely put major drains on their economies they would be forced to collect debts from former Third World countries immediately collapsing the newly formed globalized infrastructure. This would lead to massive deflation and the possible collapse of US and British economies causing a massive worldwide depression.


    Pretty much what Nem was saying except with a huge disaster scenario added.
  • Nemesis_ZeroNemesis_Zero Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    One (unfortunately rather hefty) point, d: Neoliberal Globalization isn't a theory, it's the name put on an observation. It happens <i>right now</i>.
  • Hida_TsuzuaHida_Tsuzua Lamarck&#39;s Heir Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 79Members, NS1 Playtester
    I advise all in this discussion to go down to their local library and check out <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385499345/qid=1062018863/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-7899428-6487315?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>The Lexus and The Olive Tree</a>. It more than any other book explains what is globalization, how it is different from other systems, what causes it, the Electronic Herd (the true power of the Global Market), its effects on countries (first and third) and international relations (the McDonald's Theory of Conflict), the problems of it, how to use it and lastly the author's suggestions of improving it.
  • JammerJammer Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
    The McDonald's theory is null and void now. Yugoslavia had McDonalds during the Nato attack. For the uninformed, it says that no 2 countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war. Its designed to show trade (mutual self interest) trumping power.

    People have tried to refute what I said by bringing up America's hypocrisy in free trade. I agree. The US shouldn't say 'Free Trade' out of one mouth and bend laws with the other.

    Nem mentioned my future generations bit. I agree, its wrong to say 'Suffer now, it'll be better when you're dead' IF there is a way to improve the lives of the current generation. I beleive that, with the current pace of progress (read: none) in the third world, the most moral thing to do is work for a better tommorow. Its not like there is a viable alternative to capitalism that can fix the problems. Capitalism works, its just takes time. (Proof? How about an end in child labor and an increase in lifespan in Capitalist Democracies...). We're so far gone that its the only thing we can do.


    Dr. d mentions the collectivist view of wealth: the only reason 1 country is wealthy is because they made another country poor. That is simply not true. There is only one limit of wealth for a man: his mind. In order to use his mind, a man must be free. The failure of the third world isn't because the first world robbed them- the failure exsist because of an inferior culture which prevents man from reaching his full potential.

    To simplfy what I'm saying...
    Collectivists see Capitalism like a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. The marbles drop, and the only reason that some people have more is because others have less. Thats not how it works.
    Capitalism is like hungry hungry hippos, except that the players make their own marbles. The reason some people are behind is because something is preventing them from making marbles the best they can.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the first world is blameless. Multinational companies violate workers rights, but only because the host countries allow it. Unemployment is astronomical because many in the third world attempted managed economies (which don't work.) and have refused capitalism.

    Nem really hit the nail on the head. However, <a href='http://www.capitalism.org' target='_blank'>true capitalism</a> fixes these problems. I only noticed one flaw in his reasoning:
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Capitalist theory has one flaw: It assumes a certain equallity - the equallity of opportunity, that is of education, health, and chances of socio-economic ascent. It assumes an environment in which everyone is capable of pursuing his or her luck after his or her best abilities. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Capitalism does NOT advocate the equality of results. It advocates the equality of rights. Though people may not start in equal positions, all people have equal capacity for achievement. The argument brought up with this issue is inheritance- that the rich are only rich cause their daddy's did everything for them. This argument likes to ignore the fact that 80% of all Millionares are self made. Though it is true Bush that parents will reduce the burdens on their children, keep in mind that it is within their right to do so, the same way that poor people have a right to accumlate wealth. Capitalism is not nice or compassionate. It is just.

    I probably butchered my ideas, but they're also explained <a href='http://www.capitalism.org/faq/poverty.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>

    Nem- as for the merits of colonialsm, thats another topic. Whee! Time to bust out Dinesh!
  • WindelkronWindelkron Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
    Jammer, when I said "corporations will gravitate towards certain places" I meant that corporations will seek out places where their profit is highest (third world countries). This right away usurps "equality" from the whole picture because some places are "better" than others.

    When you say this <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Multinational companies violate workers rights, but only because the host countries allow it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    "host countries allow it" is what I'm talking about. "Barriers to trade" being struck down, for example.

    The thing is, (we may disagree on this, it's my opinion) but the time of the industrial revolution was probably the worst time for mankind. I'm not saying from a technological standpoint (from that view it was probably the best time in the world save the Neolithic revolution), but from a humanistic, environmental, psychological, and ethical standpoint. The revelation that competition begets "better" IMO doomed the brotherhood of humans. More competition resulted in, for example, greivous strikes against the environment/populace/government/etc. From that point on it was everyone against each other, each using a dirtier way of getting on top. What I'm trying to say is that the eruption of unrestrained capitalism was a Bad Time. Basically, what globalization means is the spirit of the Industrial Revolution, which was contained for a good two hundred years, has now burst out from the industrialized world and is revived with a new setting: the Third World. Basically, a repeat of unrestrained capitalism is happening, and I don't like that.

    [For unrestrained, I mean this. Newly-industrialized England did not have rules safeguarding workers, populace, environment from capitalism. Eventually it did because the people, who have a hand in making the rules, made the rules. However, if you imagine the entire world as a country where capitalism has free reign, the "world country" does not have regulations on capitalism, for the capitalists THEMSELVES make the rules (WTO, NAFTA, etc). The peoples' rules, in this case government restrictions on capitalist activity, are always overridden by the capitalists' rules.]
  • JammerJammer Join Date: 2002-06-03 Member: 728Members, Constellation
    While the Industrial Revolution was the worst time for mankind (not really, but for the sake of argument), the time since has been the BEST time for mankind. Its like I said: Capitalism sucks for those under its founding, but benefits those who lived after its foundation.

    The Industrial Revolution didn't end- its still going on today in the Technological Revolution. Its important to note that it wasn't unrestrained capitalism- it was VERY restrained. Capitalism only works when everyone has equal, inalienable rights and the use of force is removed from the equation. The industrial revolution did NOT allow workers their rights. It was when worker's rights were finally recognized that things got better. True unrestrained capitalism improved the situation; it did not cause it.

    What is the indust. rev symoblized by? Child labor, low life spans, widespread poverty. As true capitalism worked itself into the system, child labor was removed (aka, families no longer needed additional income from children), poverty abated, and the avg lifespan has INCREASED for ALL Americans.

    The current third world was in bad shape before the Industrail Rev (thanks Europe, and, to a lesser degree America). The third world has many of the industrial revolution's problems: high unemployment, child labor, etc. America is a proven case study that CAPITALISM FIXES THESE PROBLEMS. I say we let it happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.