 |
| |
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
I think chegitz guevara just about summed it up in a nutshell, (edit: in the first post he did). After that all you can do is cite examples of it happening to prove the point. Basicaly it stuffs the third world(often enviromentaly) while weakening the middle wealth of the developed countries, but helping the rich get richer.
From the infamous Nike shoes from south american sweat shops etc to America's unlevelled playing field in the logging dispute with canada(to show its not just the third world that can suffer from globalisation) etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
BEcoz it makes the poor poorer and da rich richer!!1
I don't have to back this up. This is the argument of most idiots.
|
Actually there are data that confirm this. And were recently published.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:30
|
|
There's nothing wrong with globalization per se, in theory, etc. etc.
The problems arise when it is actually applied, usually in a manner which is inconsistent with its virtues. Take "free trade" for example. It is usually applied exclusively to industrial goods and manufactures, never to services, and it is applied rather discriminately at agricultural goods which despite having tariffs and taxes dropped, do NOT have subsidies dropped.
Hence it is easy to coerce smaller countries into accepting free trade agreements which end up serving nothing more than to benefit corporate interests in the larger country. In my country for example, NAFTA wiped out the small and medium industrial sector which was unable to compete with the giant US firms (the giant Mexican firms of course, profited).
The neoliberal economist will immediately say, that was the optimal solution since those firms were inefficient and consumer prices were higher. Of course he will not say that such an act involved the loss of thousands of jobs which were not easily replaced. He will also not say that most of the surplus winnings of those new firms don't end up in the host country either.
All in all the neoliberal supporters of globalization use a very hypocritical double standard. They argue on one hand that national barriers in trade should be eliminated and that it should not matter what the origin is of what you are buying, as long as it is cheaper and better, people are universally better off. Yet if national barriers are to be dropped, then they should also be dropped in respect to labor and migrational movements, institutional and jurisdictional boundaries, and well pretty much everything else. In a true, globalized world, someone from Niger suffering from famine should have no problem moving to England and working there. As it is obvious, that is far from the case.
As long as the nation-state exists as the pre-eminent constitutional arrangement in the world, true globalization cannot exist.
Last edited by Master Zen on 06-09-2005 at 03:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bosh
"anti-globalization" is a bit of a misnomer. Few people are against globalization per se, just the current form it is taking. |
The main argument is obvious. Most prosperous societies regulate their markets to ensure that they don't produce too many undesirable goods (pollution, unsafe working environments, poverty, etc.). The enforcement mechanism is democratic: corporations would love to pollute more (since anti-pollution measures cost them money), but the voting public doesn't stand for them since they are the ones that end up on the receiving end of the pollution (so do the owners of the corporation, but the increased profits from polluting are more attractive to them - otherwise they wouldn't do it).
In other words, markets must be regulated to prevent market failures and what economists call free riding (like when you have to breathe polluted air so that GM can make more money – you absorb the cost of a transaction to which you did not consent).
Market fundamentalists oppose this because they deny that market failure exists (for the most part or at all). However, they are simply wrong – anyone can point to thousands of examples of market failures in the real world.
The solution is again obvious. Since markets are now more global than ever, corresponding global regulation is needed. The dispute is over the regulations.
Business wants the regulations to enforce contracts and provide compensation for decisions that governments make that cost businesses money. Surprisingly, there isn't really anything wrong with that - it means that people can invest with more confidence.
The problem is that business doesn't want all the other pesky regulations to which we have become accustomed: things like workplace safety, welfare safety nets, and pollution controls - the sort of regulations that cost businesses money, but benefit everyone by compelling businesses to pay the full cost of their impact on society.
(They also do not recognize that developing countries cannot support a radical market economy – most sensible people realize that many countries require a period of protectionism to build up the necessary institutions and practices that will allow a market economy to benefit their citizens.)
Without the second sort of regulations, markets would become a global menace as they would be within countries if they were not regulated.
The "anti-globalization" people are complaining because business, due to its wealth and political connections, is able to secure a regulatory framework that benefits it over the common good. They would rather that the framework for globalization was designed to benefit everyone, and not just business interests. In this respect, their case is unanswerable. The problem is that the media focuses on the extreme radical wing of the movement and this drowns out the real issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
In a true, globalized world, someone from Niger suffering from famine should have no problem moving to England and working there. As it is obvious, that is far from the case. |
Free borders.
--
Anyway, what I was coming to say, to help poor Kuci, is that one of the problems with globalization (mostly 'free trade') is that countries tend to say they are free trade, but engage in protectionist activities. They will extol the virtues of free trade for some goods, but other goods, they'll slam shut.
Some examples include the EU and US's agg subsidies and the US's recent lumber and steel tariffs.
The point is that the countries with stronger economies can pick and choose while the 'weaker' countries don't necessarily have that luxury, because they can't stand up to organizations like the WTO.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-09-2005 02:18
Smiley 
and envirnomental protections 
.
. It was the West's creation of a consumer class that turned the 1st World into the economic powerhouse it is today. 
|
|