As far as I understand the economics, globalisation means more money for everyone. Comparative advantage allows for everyone to concentrate on whaqt their nation does best, and so the world's total wealth increases. Why work to prevent globalisation? Protectionism never helped anyone. It just leads to bigotry and capped economies. I agree that people should be put first: which is why I support an international living wage, international environmental standards, and international child labor laws. But fighting globalisation in general seems pointless and futile. Why not work to form international institutions to correct the problems of the phenomenon? Then everyone will be more wealthy, and human rights will be improved by international oversight. After all, without global help, those poor children in Bangladesh aren't going to do so well. Banning free trade hurts everyone: the people overseas lose jobs, American consumers have more expensive products, and we have to divert the labor force to performing things that they shouldn't have to be doing. So, what's the point? ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Ummm how about it leading to a one world government? ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
One of the political problems with it is that, in the short term, it can hurt an economy through lost jobs. People have to be retrained and that takes time. In addition, unskilled labor is cheaper abroad, so that puts an emphasis on education here, but the reality is not everyone can get a white-collar job. Another issue is one-sided globalization. For example, if the US opens its markets to China, but China does not reciprocate (which is how it is now for the most part), what happens is a huge trade deficit and significant amounts of money flowing from the US to China. In theory, it's a great idea and has huge positive on a macroeconomic scale. But on a microeconomic scale, it can really mess with an economy and people's lives. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Unemployment, despite the current semi-recession, is still extremely low. With NAFTA, etc, if it really caused that much unemployment, wouldn't unemployment have spiked up? As I understand it, CERTAIN jobs are lossed, but the economic gains more than compensate with new, higher paying ones. Also, I fail to see the problem with trade deficits. Political economists like Gerald Segal have been arguing that trade deficits are a sign of a *strong economy*, not a weak one. They're really just good for the consumer, and don't hurt industry, provided adequate wealth-creation is taking place internally. I agree though, protectionism on one side and free trade on the other sucks . ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
I never worry about the one-world government thing. I mean, we can't even get a strong third party in our own government, so I can't imagine us agreeing to join up with the Greens and Socialists in Europe! I like the idea of globalizing, but it can create significant problems when it comes to enforcing your ideas. Freedom and democracy are predicated on a free exchange of ideas and that process is actually slowed when you increase the size of the world monolith. I am TOTALLY for an international living wage, international human rights standards and many other qualities that help protect a planet that is shrinking daily. But, there are so many problems with globalizing economies, it seems like it will need to be something that requires a long, slow evolution rather than a forcible change. Besides, we really already have a global government. About 20 or 30 worldwide conglomerates own a piece of nearly every industry in the world. Ever since market share and investors became more important than customers (Q: How is it that Amazon.com can go in the red every year yet still be in business? A: Investors), companies have worked at increasing their holdings in all types of businesses. It is only a matter of time before they are in control of most everything anyway. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Not everyone wants to live in a democracy ... And just what are you going to do when your only government turns communist or something wonderful like that. ------------------ If Bill Gates had a dime for every time Windows crashed... Oh, Wait!! He Does!
On world government: Personally, I think it's probably necessary. National governments became reality when economies expanded, and they centralized accordingly during the Enlightenment to deal with the shrinking world. Once, the feudal realm was all that was necessary: all things necessary were contained on the estate. Government is, after all, nothing more than a forum for resolving problems. Now that problems are global, new supranational institutions must emerge to combat them. I think that eventually this will necessarily lead to a global system of governance. After all, treaties aren't going to ever be enough to solve problems like terrorism, the environment, or multinational corporations (MNC)s. Global action is necessary. About MNCs: they don't scare me as much as they do some. I think int'l institutions will eventually control them, and as they're unable to meet the individual needs of people, I don't think they'll ever weild too much power. I hope so at least ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
This topic is way too complex to go in-depth in the thread, but I could be wrong. If you're really interested in learning about Globalization, buy the book "Globalization". It just came out this last year from Indiana Press I think. It is a collection of articles and essays of the various viewpoints and affects of globalization. I just took a class last semester called Globalization and I still have so much more to learn.
The spelling. Sorry haven I couldn't resist! ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
Well, if Haven were British or the like, it would not be a problem. ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
As I understand it, CERTAIN jobs are lossed, but the economic gains more than compensate with new, higher paying ones. This is true. However, the people who lose the jobs aren't necessarily qualified for the new, better jobs. That's why it works great on a macroeconomic level, but not on a microeconomic level. They're really just good for the consumer, and don't hurt industry, provided adequate wealth-creation is taking place internally. Agreed. However, wealth-creation can't happen forever. At some point, if money continues to flow out without flowing back in, there are serious repercussions. This doesn't affect the US right now because, while consumers are pouring money out of the US, investors are pouring money back into the US due to the strong economy. However, in a recessionary economy, that's not the case and over a long period, trade deficits can cause economic problems. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Honest to God, one-world government is my BIGGEST fear. There are so many reasons to fear it. We're already beginning to see a push for a world court...this frightens the crap out of me. Other cultures do not respect concepts of due process and reasonable doubt and etc and etc. I do not want to be held to the standards of any government where the Chinese have a say. Ultimately they don't want my say in their affairs either. Our laws are a reflection of our culture...the same is true of every culture. Some nations value individual liberties above the community. Others value communitarian values. Some do not value human life the way we do. China's government controls the actual reproductive habits of its citizens. There is legal slavery in Sudan. I DO NOT WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY THOSE FOLKS!!! I do not wish to see the Bill of Rights stripped out of existence because other nations think search and seizure protections are silly. These are the kinds of things Americans have fought and died trying to protect. Quite honestly, I would do the same today. There aren't just a ton of things I would voluntarily raise my hand to die or kill for...but individual liberty and the Bill of Rights is one of them. I will be dead before this comes to pass, I assure you. We talked in another thread the other day about whether or not the US could take over the world. Ultimately, some of us concluded we could from a military standpoint, but could not maintain control simply because implementing a government would be unworkable. Some pointed out that these cultural differences are what brought down the Roman Empire...or at least weakened it. We can barely find common ground among the people in this country across the states (see disparity in voting patterns between Texas and NY). How in the world do you think we could do it globally?? ------------------
Maybe that spiritless commercially organized socities aggressively acculturate pristine domestically organized cultures. Hey all that in only 2 anthro classes! Yeehoo! ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
Madmax: In parts of Utah, polygamy is common. In Alabama (it's alabama, right?), a symbol of slavery is still flown as the state flag. In Idaho (20 miles away from where my dad lives!), white supremecists assault passing motorists. In Appalachia, many people lack electricity. America isn't as advanced as some think . Seriously though, I understand your concern... but at the same time, problems are emerging that individual nations *cannot* deal with... they're at a fundamentally broader level. IMO, the US, or another "civilized," country isn't going to let their sovereignty be threatened unless it's really in their interest... which would probably not include surrending much power to Sudan. Democracy is the same globally as nationally; sure, it really sucks that your redneck, illiterate neighbor can vote, but it's necessary for a pure system. And generally, one would hope that more informed people will vote. The same's true internationally. Sudan and Cambodia are balanced by the EU nations and Japan, etc. Long way off, so don't get too scared . We're really only helping out on the "world court" proceedings so as to prevent Henry Kissinger from being tried for human rights violations (well, that's what a friend of mine surmised, and it's a funny thought). ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited May 18, 2001).]
Sorry, SpaceCity, but the Federation in "Star Trek" is a federation of planets, not one world. There's no mention of a one world government on Earth in Star Trek. ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out".
haven -- I'm not talking about a stupid redneck neighbor...I'm talking about people who have no concept of due process setting up some world judicial system...or people who have far less regard for individual rights than our Constitution calls for setting up an executive branch to enforce the law. No thanks. In no way am I saying we're more sophisticated than the rest of the world. But we do have certain values which I, as a citizen, hold close. And ultimately individuals in the US have far more to lose in the way of liberty and protection from our government than most of the rest of the world does. I'm not willing to just turn that over after my grandfather fought for it in WWII. ------------------
If you do not have a problem with one world goverment, I wish you would take the time to read the book of Revelations {sp?} in the Bible. ------------------
Rocks -- I hear you...but that argument ultimately isn't very persuasive to this audience. But I agree...that concerns me too. Particularly since the intellectual elites of the world tend to hold Judeo-Christian ethics with a bit of disdain. ------------------
