Myths of our time: globalisation

[Dinner]

The BBC has put out an excellent article on globalization which refutes many of the claims anti-globalization protesters have been putting out. Protesters had claimed that globalization would force everyone to be "Coca-Colonized" and that locally made products would be driven out of business by rampaging multinational corporations. The truth is many specialty makers are doing more business then ever as globalization opens up new markets and expands demand for their products.

Does this change anyone's opinions about globalization? If you are against globalization then what are you basing your opposition upon?

[Az]

WOW OERDIN! Thanks for the link! NOW I see the truth! thank you so much!!!!!

[/non-existant reformed anti-globalization activist]




On a more serious note, I am rather ambivalent about globalization.

[Whaleboy]

Good article, a bit specific, I want a full treatment of globalisation. Speaking generally, I think its a great concept, in terms of bringing people together and distributing wealth around the world. Unfortunately, in its current practise, it is based upon the blood and sweat of the very poor. I dont see that this needs to be the case. I have, and will in the future, protest against sweatshop conditions and abuses in the third world. In principle, globalisation is a great idea, for many of the reasons this article extolls.

[Tripledoc]

Oerdin. You might want to check out (ha) how Wal-mart is exporting workplaces by focusing on cheap imports.

[Az]

Globalization should also have globalized enviromental standards, and globalized labour standards. This doesn't mean that wages must be the same, but that people should enjoy the same freedoms, and the we all won't be screwed over via the enviroment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Globalization should also have globalized enviromental standards, and globalized labour standards.

And watch the third world slowly die as they can't pay for the increased environmental and labor standards? When companies move away from these countries because there is no point? I love the logic of these anti-globalization guys.

This doesn't mean that wages must be the same, but that people should enjoy the same freedoms

Labor standards being the same also means wages.

[Agathon]

Well, the central argument against globalization is that it allows capital to dictate policy by means of the threat of capital flight. It's an essentially anti-democratic platform, witness the MIA which amounted to a corporate bill of rights that could not be challenged by democratic means.

You hear a lot of crap about "anti-globalization" protesters. Most of them are pro-globalization as long as democracy and democratic institutions are globalized along with markets.

Many "anti-globalization" protesters are really pro democracy protesters.

[Az]

And watch the third world slowly die as they can't pay for the increased environmental and labor standards? When companies move away from these countries because there is no point? I love the logic of these anti-globalization guys.

There is nothing funnier than Imran trying to act humane.

There still is a point: wages will be much lower, and most other costs depend on local wages as well. Of course, you people think that enviromental regulation, and basic workers' rights are worthless, so I guess my point is lost there. If you're trying to tell me that the factories in the 3rd world will stop being profitable due to enviromental regulations and the unheard of ability of people to organize, I am sorry, but that's hillarious.

Labor standards being the same also means wages.

it means the ability to negotiate and unite. Wages will remain much lower.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Globalization should also have globalized enviromental standards, and globalized labour standards.

And watch the third world slowly die as they can't pay for the increased environmental and labor standards? When companies move away from these countries because there is no point? I love the logic of these anti-globalization guys.

Come on, you know what they mean. We need to do more to address poverty and that includes giving a lot more to poor countries, debt relief.

It makes me laugh how the establishment portray their enemies as ill educated idiots. Sure there are some clowns around, but many of them are highly educated people.

[Zero]

GLobalisation = good

I feel comfortable knowing that I can always rely on burger king for great tasting cheap craptastic fast food meal everywhere around the globe.... in case I'm too afraid to try out the local foods.

[Az]

Originally posted by Zero
GLobalisation = good

I feel comfortable knowing that I can always rely on burger king for great tasting cheap craptastic fast food meal everywhere around the globe.... in case I'm too afraid to try out the local foods.

Saved my ass in London.

[JohnT]

It makes me laugh how the establishment portray their enemies as ill educated idiots.

There's some sort of saying about pots, kettles, and the color black but for the life of me, my uneducated ass can't think of it.

[Shogun Gunner]

As with many things in life, process are neither intrinsicly moral or immoral. Also, these process bring both good and bad. The interpretation is dependant upon many factors that change over time. Often people protest economic policies when they don't understand the benefits and costs.

To say globalization is good or bad is overly simplistic. Quite frankly, it doesnt' matter what anyone thinks. The cat is out of the bag and globalization will always move forward at some pace (can be sped up or slowed down).

[Az]

This isn't entirely correct, Shogun Gunner. Historically, there were many times when global trade fell. Like WWI, and afterwards, IIRC.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Good article, a bit specific, I want a full treatment of globalisation. Speaking generally, I think its a great concept, in terms of bringing people together and distributing wealth around the world. Unfortunately, in its current practise, it is based upon the blood and sweat of the very poor. I dont see that this needs to be the case. I have, and will in the future, protest against sweatshop conditions and abuses in the third world. In principle, globalisation is a great idea, for many of the reasons this article extolls.

Stereotypical.

Anti-globalization seeks to stop the movement of jobs to the third world.

Period.

They are not concerned for the welfare of the third world worker at all because what they seek is to deny jobs to the third world workers which only condemns them to live in stone age poverty. Anyone can see that the people of Thailand, Singapore, Maylasia and now China have been enormously helped by investmest from the first world. This is fact. This is the truth. The "sweatshop conditions" argument is a red herring.