What has globalization ever done to you?

[Spiffor]

Arrian :
Erm, what is the connection between my whining on ACI and gsmosse's economic points ? I don't exactly get it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sava
: I'm not advocating a withdrawl of US companies. I'm advocating a level playing field. South Korea's success is attributed to the people, not some MNC's.

Sava: Yes, the people are what decide if a country is a success or not but how can they be successful without capital or without a good government to enforce fair laws and order?

[Sava]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


This is not a matter of choice. As an American you would NOT want the world to be populated by poor, hostile, frustrated, desperate countries. You need to set up a moderate elite in every country so that these countries would stay down and quiet. And those countries get a headstart on their own development. Is there a problem?

I agree 100%. It isn't a matter of choice. And I'm not talking about reducing foreign investment. I'm talking about improving things in America. If anything, increased prosperity in America will increase our ability to invest in foreign countries.

Sure Koreans have the same cultural values. But the Authoritarian Stalinist government in NK does not hold the same economic and societal values as SK. That is the difference.

My goal is to virtually eliminate poverty. I feel that this is a feasible goal. Pessimists may disagree, but they suck. How can America be expected to eliminate global poverty if it cannot eliminate it's own first? I want to change the American system in order to eliminate poverty. Then, we can work with the rest of the world in order to follow suit.

[Arrian]

Spiff,

None, really. And that's what I was saying (see the last sentance in the post). But "anti-globalization" seems to include both issues. Hence your comments regarding ACI and then gsmoove's comments on the socioeconomic impact of globalization.

Why are they in the same thread? The world "globalization" that's why. It seems to have become some sort of umbrella term that includes both your complaints, and the economic issues inherent when companies from a rich country do business with and (more importantly) IN a poor one.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Sava: Yes, the people are what decide if a country is a success or not but how can they be successful without capital or without a good government to enforce fair laws and order?

We're starting to get into the murky world of what capital is. But when you get down to it. Everything is based upon human labor. My goal is to create a system or improve the current system so that it is more efficient. I'm a firm believer in the potential of humanity. It is possible for us to have our cake and eat it, too. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do it.

[gsmoove23]

ranskaldan, boohoo, the investment of the MNC into a country will increase the job pool, adults only will work for the MNC and children will be able to take more jobs with home grown businesses. Of course, in regards to the MNC factories, adults will not have their jobs taken by children who can be paid less.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Sava

I agree 100%. It isn't a matter of choice. And I'm not talking about reducing foreign investment. I'm talking about improving things in America. If anything, increased prosperity in America will increase our ability to invest in foreign countries.

Sure Koreans have the same cultural values. But the Authoritarian Stalinist government in NK does not hold the same economic and societal values as SK. That is the difference.

My goal is to virtually eliminate poverty. I feel that this is a feasible goal. Pessimists may disagree, but they suck. How can America be expected to eliminate global poverty if it cannot eliminate it's own first? I want to change the American system in order to eliminate poverty. Then, we can work with the rest of the world in order to follow suit.

What kind of changes?

[Spiffor]

Arrian :
Well, actually, the word "globalization" wouldn't have rung my cultural beel if I hadn't read the article Siro posted.

But I think Che's post is clear and precise about the feelings of the "antis" towards globalization. At least, among the "antis" that I know, i.e who belong to a young educated middle class.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
ranskaldan, boohoo, the investment of the MNC into a country will increase the job pool, adults only will work for the MNC and children will be able to take more jobs with home grown businesses. Of course, in regards to the MNC factories, adults will not have their jobs taken by children who can be paid less.

Huh?

You need to rephrase a bit before I can figure out what you're saying.

[chequita guevara]

A lot of folks seem to forget that the law is easy to get around in much of the world for the right amount of money. Many run-away companies do not pay even the local minimum wage. Frequently one reads about migrant workers being chained to their workplaces, their passports stolen, and the plant shutting down without paying the emplyees (not necessarily all at the same factory). This stuff goes on in the US, where it isn't merely illegal but unconstitutional (13th Amendment, no slavery). It's worse abroad.

Protestors aren't upset that thee people have jobs. They are upset at the conditions underwhich these people must work. Frthermore, by breaking local laws and practicing slavery, it makes it that much harder for 1st world workers to compete fairly for their jobs. No one likes losing his job, but losng your job to a slave so your former boss can suck down even more profit makes a lot of people see red.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Che: The Anti-globalizers say they are internationalists but their fear mongering is the greatest restraint upon further international exchanges.

What fear mongering?

I'm sorry, but I don't hear any "anti-globalization" people saying or writing the views proported to belong to us. The only place you can read it are in the words put in our mouths by the authors of articles like the one Siro posted.

[gsmoove23]

Ranskaldan, its in reference to this...

What if the child has no choice other than to work in the textiles factory (let's say)?

Simply saying that MNC investment will increase the job pool for children, in countries where it is legal for them to work, whether they can work for the MNC or not.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Arrian
Why are they in the same thread? The world "globalization" that's why. It seems to have become some sort of umbrella term that includes both your complaints, and the economic issues inherent when companies from a rich country do business with and (more importantly) IN a poor one.

-Arrian

There is a perfectly natural alliance of sorts between the anti-globalization crowd and Union workers or uskilled workers in countries that are losing jobs to factories abroad. Its a double whammy exploiting workers abroad for dirt pay maximizing the profit in moving jobs away from more developed countries where workers have fought hard for the right to be paid decent wages.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Ranskaldan, its in reference to this...



Simply saying that MNC investment will increase the job pool for children, in countries where it is legal for them to work, whether they can work for the MNC or not.

In many of those countries there are domestic jobs for children anyway - usually along the lines of foraging at city dumps, working in the salt mines, joining the military (some countries) - or selling themselves.

MNC jobs pay more, are much better than some of those examples above, and free up at least some of the children for school.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Protestors aren't upset that thee people have jobs. They are upset at the conditions underwhich these people must work. Frthermore, by breaking local laws and practicing slavery, it makes it that much harder for 1st world workers to compete fairly for their jobs. No one likes losing his job, but losng your job to a slave so your former boss can suck down even more profit makes a lot of people see red.

I agree that this sort of thing should not happen. First the local authorities and the local workers should decid what sort of conditions are reasonable (I think everyone will agree slavery is not reasonable) but if that doesn't work then it is up to consumers to boycott firms which they feel, for what ever reason, aren't meeting their needs.

Just don't get mad when everybody else doesn't agree with you and decides not to boycott.