 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
LiberalAtheist
|
|
The problem isn't with globalization, but lawless, totally unregulated globalization (something stemming from market fundamentalism). As noble prize winning economist, and critic of globalization Joseph Stiglitz put it: Globalization is neither good or evil, it is a technology that can be used for good or evil.
Just like atomic power, or chemistry, or the internet, economic systems are just a technology. And a technology can be used or misused. In any event some good dirt on globalization can be found in Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents. Note that globalization does do some good, it has I believe overall raised living standards substantially in the third world (just look at how South Korea has something like 28 times as much wealth as North Korea, and about four times as much wealth as china, probably because those countries are more economically isolated).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
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. |
AGGIE PWNS! 
|
|
| |
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 13:32
Not even a "0/10"? 
|