Globalization

[Cowperson]

Is economic globalization good or bad?

An examination in Newsweek called "The Dark Side of Globalization"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11081039...eek/from/RL.2/


And a frothing "yes" to globalization in the Washington Post via a columnist denoucing a best-selling author who had a frothing "no!!"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022601265.html

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

To me the interesting question isn't 'is Globalization good or bad?', its, 'is Globalization inevitable or not?'.

Just in the middle of reading Milton Friedman's, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", and while he's a bit of a centrist/pragmatist, he certainly implies (ad nauseum) that Globalization, for better or worse, is inevitable. Its just a matter of how much you're going to be damaged fighting it, or how prosperous you'll be accommodating it.

[troutman]

Toronto Star columnist Naomi Klein's No Logo, published at the very end of 1999, caught the imagination of the next millennium's first generation of activists, becoming the bible for the international anti-globalization movement. Documenting the ubiquity of brand identities and the harsh labour practices and self-censorship that the megabrands enforce, No Logo is both an encyclopedic expose of the many-tentacled modern corporation and a recipe book for resistance.

I remember reading the above-noted book a few years ago; I often found myself in agreement with much of what Klein was saying. However, she was never able to convince me why globalization was bad. I kept thinking, true, true, but so what?

[Cube Inmate]

200 years ago we had Luddites who were scared snotless that they were going to be replaced by machines; I wonder how many of their descendants are now living happily in grass huts, weaving their ways to happier lives?

Now we have granola-munching hippies who are scared snotless that they're going to be replaced by cheap Chinese and Indian labour (I haven't read the article, but I'm 99% sure that it mentions those two countries). Wonder how many of them wear "made in Taiwan" t-shirts?

...efficiencies always win, and usually end up benefitting everyone. Until we reach a point where our essentials are no longer made on earth (e.g. Coruscant in SW) I'm not going to worry.

[Bobblehead]

It all depends upon the rules that are put in place. If jobs are lost because of lax child labour and environmental laws elsewhere, then it is bad. If jobs are lost because somewhere else is willing to do it better than you for the same money, or the same as you for less money, then it is good. And even that is way too simple an argument since it doesn't include the hundreds of other considerations that need to be thought out.

The biggest problem I see in these debates is each side always tries to reduce the topic down to simple platitudes, but the issues are too complex to be put on protest sign.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

To me the interesting question isn't 'is Globalization good or bad?', its, 'is Globalization inevitable or not?'.

Just in the middle of reading Milton Friedman's, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", and while he's a bit of a centrist/pragmatist, he certainly implies (ad nauseum) that Globalization, for better or worse, is inevitable. Its just a matter of how much you're going to be damaged fighting it, or how prosperous you'll be accommodating it.

I agree that it is inevitable, but how can Developing nations in particular take advantage of Globalization? You've got underdeveloped economies, which can have some Multinational investment, however, with the way capital moves around the globe, those companies can bail on you at any time.

Take Nike, country hopping for making its shoes and the difference in pay is maybe 1 US dollar per day if that?

Right now, Globalization is benifiting a lot of the wealther countries and Multinational corperations. In turn, developing nations are usually exploited.

So how do the developing countries develop their economies if these MNCs just bail leaving tons of people jobless as soon as they start asking for pennies more a day?

[Cube Inmate]

Which do the anti-globalization protesters tend to worry about more: exploitation of 3rd-world countries, or loss of jobs in the 1st world?

The hippies might worry about exploitation...
Lou Dobbs publishes (or at least he used to) a list of American companies "exporting jobs overseas" on his nightly CNN show...

Which is the more powerful force?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I agree that it is inevitable, but how can Developing nations in particular take advantage of Globalization? You've got underdeveloped economies, which can have some Multinational investment, however, with the way capital moves around the globe, those companies can bail on you at any time.

Take Nike, country hopping for making its shoes and the difference in pay is maybe 1 US dollar per day if that?

Right now, Globalization is benifiting a lot of the wealther countries and Multinational corperations. In turn, developing nations are usually exploited.

So how do the developing countries develop their economies if these MNCs just bail leaving tons of people jobless as soon as they start asking for pennies more a day?

Well... this would be the 'bad' part of Globalization. Technically, the countries that started behind (many waaaaay behind) are screwed. They'll get better through completely open and free market economies (better = wealthier), but they'll probably, barring some major event, be behind for the next century or two.

Though, one of the main things killing the development of poor countries via Globalization is that many of the 'first-world' countries (and companies) enjoy keeping their market controls when it benefits them, while demanding that developing states drop all controls. 'Developed' nations usually want 'underdeveloped' nations to be their breadbasket, generating commodities, exporting them cheaply, then importing expensive, finished goods made out of those same commodities.

I think if the first-world is serious about Capitalism and Globalization (inevitable, I believe), then they'd better start cleaning up their own backyards by reducing/eliminating tariffs and 'unfair' trade practises.

[ken0042]

I found when I went to the Dominican Republic that they realized where they were in all of this. The one thing they had to offer was tourism, and I don't know if I've ever been to a country where the people are so nice. Even off the beaten paths people would say hi as they passed you.

It's something they can offer the world that cannot be taken away as easily as a factory moving.

In "Back to the Future II" they showed a poster for a travel agency that said "Surf Vietnam." Maybe it wasn't so far fetched after all.

[flamingchina]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

To me the interesting question isn't 'is Globalization good or bad?', its, 'is Globalization inevitable or not?'.

Just in the middle of reading Milton Friedman's, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", and while he's a bit of a centrist/pragmatist, he certainly implies (ad nauseum) that Globalization, for better or worse, is inevitable. Its just a matter of how much you're going to be damaged fighting it, or how prosperous you'll be accommodating it.

Funny, so am I.
(I'm actually learning more than this book than in my international trade class at uni.... that was 500$ down the drain )

I don't necessarily agree with Friedman though is the inevitibility of globalization, as we've gone through periods of history where globalization retreated. (after Roman empire, China after 1450 or so, after WW1/depression)
I think in the future we will still see swings back and forth along the line, but most likely, we'll keep seeing more and more globalization (2 steps forward, one step back)

One thing the Friedman does talk about is that in globalization, the winners really win, and the lesser winners, not so much. I think this is often really what gets the goat of the granola munching hippies. being #1 in Canada is all well and good, being #1 in the world makes you that much bigger.

[kermitology]

BTW it's Thomas Friedman and avoid The World Is Flat. What a terrible book. He's repetetive, juvinile and boring in that book.

As for globalization, considering the sharing of information that goes on around the world it's certainly enevitable. It's up to individuals to make sure that corporations don't use it to take advantage of a culture.

Personally...I'm for it. Eventually everything gets evened out. You take advantage of people until they become smart enough to take control of their lives and their work. You just have to deal with that whole taking advantage part.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Though, one of the main things killing the development of poor countries via Globalization is that many of the 'first-world' countries (and companies) enjoy keeping their market controls when it benefits them, while demanding that developing states drop all controls. 'Developed' nations usually want 'underdeveloped' nations to be their breadbasket, generating commodities, exporting them cheaply, then importing expensive, finished goods made out of those same commodities.

Yep, one of the principals of comparitive advantage. Export whatever you have an advantage in, and in most cases in the developing world, that means raw materials, but their value isn't as fixed finished goods. Then in turn opening their markets to purchase many finished goods from developing countries.

I think the developing world if they are to have any power in this at all need to band together and enact some reforms. Maybe something like a global minimum wage law, where it can at least be semi advantagous (not something earth shatter like 6$ an hour, but something like 10$ a day). Enough to keep money in their economy, and money in the hands of the people who make the economy grow.

[Shawnski]

Given a wage floor like that, Caramon, would you not think then the deciding factor on whether a company would go to country "x" over country "y" would not be the skillsets available? For countries that are truly needing the work, but are the least educated or less trainable, there would be no incentive to give them that opportunity (training cost + productivity vs labour costs). There are obviously other factors, and as someone mentioned previously, as the wages grow, the chances that the company might move again rise. However, what is left behind is the experience, and thus an opportunity for individuals to take the next step themselves. It's not a great scenario when a company moves, but it is better than not having one there in the first place.

Complex issue, no question.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Given a wage floor like that, Caramon, would you not think then the deciding factor on whether a company would go to country "x" over country "y" would not be the skillsets available? For countries that are truly needing the work, but are the least educated or less trainable, there would be no incentive to give them that opportunity (training cost + productivity vs labour costs). There are obviously other factors, and as someone mentioned previously, as the wages grow, the chances that the company might move again rise. However, what is left behind is the experience, and thus an opportunity for individuals to take the next step themselves. It's not a great scenario when a company moves, but it is better than not having one there in the first place.

Complex issue, no question.

Yep, there are going to be limitless problems no matter what system, at least this way the developing nations will be generating some capital.

But to your point... skill sets taught by MNCs? Not a chance. Those sweatshops give you very little tangible experience for jobs.

Most is very menial division of labour type crap.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

But to your point... skill sets taught by MNCs? Not a chance. Those sweatshops give you very little tangible experience for jobs.

Most is very menial division of labour type crap.

Your perspective, and that is fine by me. I never said they were teaching them rocket science. But you can't say they are not learning and gaining experience... even if they are learning that is NOT what they want to do, for similar companies, or even on their own.

Who knows, perhaps people take away the knowledge of the process and start making products themselves. They are then the better for it, no?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Who knows, perhaps people take away the knowledge of the process and start making products themselves. They are then the better for it, no?

Well yeah that sounds nice, but I can't imagine it really works that way. Is some guy in Indonesia making 10 cents an hour punching lace-holes in a pair of sneakers going to start his own line of shoes if the company moves the factory to Vietnam?

[Shawnski]

No, but MAYBE he/she might just start making soccer balls or SOMETHING Rouge. One by one even. Or maybe it just helps him or her in getting a different job.

Holy cow...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

No, but MAYBE he/she might just start making soccer balls or SOMETHING Rouge. One by one even. Or maybe it just helps him or her in getting a different job.

Holy cow...

I don't know what religious cows have to do with it. All I'm saying is that it sounds a little unbelievable to me that a job in a sweatshop and the "experience" gained in one leads to much.

MAYBE it does though, and they might make SOMETHING, but it just seems unlikely to me.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

No, but MAYBE he/she might just start making soccer balls or SOMETHING Rouge. One by one even. Or maybe it just helps him or her in getting a different job.

Holy cow...

Uhhhh maybe. But in all likelihood not. Let's be realistic here.

[FlamesAddiction]

The problem I see with sweatshops is not necessarily the nature of the work, and the work environment. Although both of those things are bad enough, the part that I find the most morally offensive is how the children are "acquired" from poor families. It's not very far removed from slavery.

The fact that the economies in the wealthy and developed nations of the world rely on this system in order to maintain the availability of cheap goods is extremely concerning.