 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They brought in their own species of animals and plants without paying attention to indigenous species, thus causing many to extinct. |
The travel was hardly one way. Potatos, Corn, tomatos, squash, beans, suger beets, and yams all came from outside Eurasia.
quote:
Another major problem of globalisation is economic domination. By exporting capital, MNC's seek to dominate emergent markets. Local industries are no match for these deep-pocketed monsters; they can drive out competition by a sustained price war. The World Bank and IMF are unwitting (?) accomplices in this economic imperialism, their loans have an awful numbers of strings attached to them. |
Ask yourself why the local competetors aren't large or efficient. Hmm, could it be because they don't have enough capitol or a large enough market or the technologic know how? So how do you solve those problems?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
Bodd, you are missing the main point of AG protesters. It's the big business stitch up they're angry about, and the suppression of other culture's at the local level that result from that.
The destruction of fast food restaurants is thuggery and pointless, and I don't agree with that behaviour at all. Far better to hit them where it really hurts - the balance sheet. (Any notice how McD's corporate report went? I was delighted).
Your argument about restaurants really doesn't hold up. All those ethnic places serve Westernised versions of their food, not the originals. If you want a real Madras, catch a plane.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, if they had better food. |
You go eat at McDonals for the quality of the food? really?
What matters in fast food is not what you eat, but how you eat it, it is the model that matters, not the exact things offered (which is why, as i said, McDonads around the world vary thier menus to fit local tastes, specially the less western a state is).
quote: So? I'm not really seeing the point here: if the anti-globalization people have their way, they will end up creating and perpetuating that which they are supposedly protesting - two worlds, one progressive and rich, the other backward and poor*. |
Yes, but the west did NOT become rich because of globalization. Europe and the Us became rich from internal sources (capital, manpower, so forth), as well as Japan. If there is one global economy, why does that lead to eeryone being well off? Don;t we need the poor to be cheap labor? Why should capital go to some place like Namibia, when Nabimia has little to offer the global economy? At the same time, if someone in Namibia gets some capital, why should they invest back in Namibia, when perhaps investing elsewhere will get much bigger returns? If there is nor eason to invest in Namibia, there will be capital flow out of it, and certainly such a place would never be rich, until the world economy found a use for it.
I think allowing the free movement of capital and resources is fine, as long as labor has the ability ot move freely too. Until labor has the same freedom of movement as capital and resources the benefits from globalization will be uneven.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:28
|
|
Two problems
a) The spread of anglo-saxon culture, while not *that* immoral per se, can tend to create a mentality, as well as an actual situation, where one forces ones own culture upon another people and environment, in which it is unlikely to be as successful (imagine wearing an overcoat in Eritrea), or particularly endearing to the local population, with their own cultures. I would argue that this is something that should be done in moderation, and slowly.
b) While globalisation is a good idea in theory, I'm sure I speak for many anti-globalisation protesters when I say that in practise, the humanitarian abuses, ecological damage, polical levering and economic polarisation of the world, are things that this current interpretation of globalisation has to account for, and stop. I am NOT against globalisation, as it can, properly implimented, be a good tool for redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, and kick starting the economies of poor nations, so they can all contribute to the global economy.
"Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by Indian culture next?"
It is hardly being wiped out. The two cultures in this example are merely being mixed. Each culture takes elements from the other, and auments itself with them.
For example, some indian food that to me feels like a SWAT team in ones mouth, has practically become national British dishes, while many Indians in Britain, and in India itself, enjoy cricket, football, rugby etc. My Indian friends are sharing in my hangover today when we went out last night and got plastered. We dont regard ourselves as different cultures.
The attitude of cultural competition as it were, "we wipe out their culture before they wipe out ours", is based on fallacious assumptions.
"I'd rather have a McDonald's and a fish and chip shop than two fish and chip shops"
Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by American culture next? 
"They have a genuine concern about protecting other cultures" ... who arent in a position to defend themselves economically against the influx of another culture, thus in this current globalised environment, the native culture will suffer. Different cultures should be integrated, not wiped out by globalisation, otherwise it adds another West-centric element to the current system, that need not be!
I think that if people want to take elements of our culture, then we should let them, just as we choose to take elements of other cultures that we are exposed to. Unlike the view of the globalisation protesters that the strawman argument uses, stopping the outward flow, as well as the inward flow, is not a concern, rather I think they are more concerned about it being forced on them, instead of them choosing.
British people arent having Indian culture forced on them. If they choose, the only Indian influence is environmental, and I dont think it is reasonable to say that simply because the sight of an indian restaurant offends one, that it is reasonable justification to eliminate that influence. People in the third world, when the newcomer is more powerful than the native culture, havent been afforded quite the same luxury of cultural choice.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
McDonald food is unhealthy and tastes very mediocre. The only reason why people in other countries flock to it is it's American and majority of people look up to everything American.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elijah
"McD's gets its money from families whose kids are in love with McDonald's food"
You reckon they put weed in the burgers? One time, I ate a Big Mac (big mistake), I felt, tired, dispondent, irrationally happy, sleepy, then the urge to buy more big macs. |
Almost every kid I know loves McDonald. I have yet to encounter one who doesn't like it.
I personally loved McDonald until about age 16, from then on I suddenly started despising it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:28
|
|
I mean the local competition. Here its viable. If I dont want to go to McDonalds, I have decent restaurants to choose from.
Look at the situation in Prague. Many of the larger restaurants are falling out of business because of newer international chains (admittedly not entirely fast food). When I was there in oct 2001, I counted 3 starbucks!!! There isnt a single starbucks in Northampton and I want my latte!!!
In a third world nation, one has an economically powerful nation, effectively extendign itself via corps into business there, mcdonalds etc, but especially the clothing companies, with the result that the local culture is simply overwhelmed.
Here, the economic effect of american culture is more limited, so we were less likely to be overwhelmed by it.
You are of course correct, no-one is forcing people to go into macdonalds and eat a happy meal at gunpoint, but the sociological and economic effects are somewhat more suttle than that.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|