give me anti-globalization arguments!

[Pekka]

Riding with a dirtbike into small town in Holland.

Hi, where are you from?

-Cambodia!

Ah, have a bazooka and blast a cow with it, only 20 euros!

[Master Zen]

There's nothing wrong with globalization per se, in theory, etc. etc.

The problems arise when it is actually applied, usually in a manner which is inconsistent with its virtues. Take "free trade" for example. It is usually applied exclusively to industrial goods and manufactures, never to services, and it is applied rather discriminately at agricultural goods which despite having tariffs and taxes dropped, do NOT have subsidies dropped.

Hence it is easy to coerce smaller countries into accepting free trade agreements which end up serving nothing more than to benefit corporate interests in the larger country. In my country for example, NAFTA wiped out the small and medium industrial sector which was unable to compete with the giant US firms (the giant Mexican firms of course, profited).

The neoliberal economist will immediately say, that was the optimal solution since those firms were inefficient and consumer prices were higher. Of course he will not say that such an act involved the loss of thousands of jobs which were not easily replaced. He will also not say that most of the surplus winnings of those new firms don't end up in the host country either.

All in all the neoliberal supporters of globalization use a very hypocritical double standard. They argue on one hand that national barriers in trade should be eliminated and that it should not matter what the origin is of what you are buying, as long as it is cheaper and better, people are universally better off. Yet if national barriers are to be dropped, then they should also be dropped in respect to labor and migrational movements, institutional and jurisdictional boundaries, and well pretty much everything else. In a true, globalized world, someone from Niger suffering from famine should have no problem moving to England and working there. As it is obvious, that is far from the case.

As long as the nation-state exists as the pre-eminent constitutional arrangement in the world, true globalization cannot exist.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Master Zen
There's nothing wrong with globalization per se, in theory, etc. etc.

Only at a very simplisitic level.

[:) Smiley]

Globalization kills kittens.

There's nothing wrong with globalization per se, in theory, etc. etc.

Problem is, it's name and mechanics have been appropriated by US imperialists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Smiley
Globalization kills kittens.

QFT

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Master Zen
There's nothing wrong with globalization per se, in theory, etc. etc.

Only at a very simplisitic level.

Just like communism

[Kuciwalker]

I was tempted to say that, but held back given that che has actually been a big help

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Take "free trade" for example. It is usually applied exclusively to industrial goods and manufactures

Not even that. A prime example is the row between the PRC and the US over textiles. Notice while the US pays lip services to "free trade," barriers - in the form of tariffs or quota - can and will suddenly spring up, usually on the basis of some hollow "dumping" allegations.

[Zkribbler]

As a basic concept, globalization is a good thing.

The problems with globalization is that it exports to third-world counties only the raw concept of industrialization. Although this does result in a lot of goods being produced cheaply, this process fails to export two ameliorating factors which we have developed in the West: labor unions and envirnomental protections .

Labor unions protect against exploitation of workers, create hire wages, build a strong middle class, and hence create a class of consumers . It was the West's creation of a consumer class that turned the 1st World into the economic powerhouse it is today.

Environmental protections have obvious long-term benefits. Today, huge swaths of the former Soviet Union are uninhabitable due to the Soviet's ignoring of damaging impacts on that county's environment. Environmental protections not only create a more attractive living environment -- and thus a better standard of living -- but these protections also lead to a healthier population.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Also, globalist trade organizations such as the WTO, force countries to adopt certain trade policies or be punished, while the people appointed to it are unelected.

You don't elect any members of a president's cabinet, either. FWIW, you don't even elect a president, you just elect some person who may vote for the candidate you like to elect.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
IIRC, the Senate doesn't even confirm the person the U.S. sends, but he can change U.S. laws.

I reckon somebody in a previous cabinet signed the treaty, maybe even a president.

[Bosh]

"anti-globalization" is a bit of a misnomer. Few people are against globalization per se, just the current form it is taking.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Bosh
"anti-globalization" is a bit of a misnomer. Few people are against globalization per se, just the current form it is taking.

The main argument is obvious. Most prosperous societies regulate their markets to ensure that they don't produce too many undesirable goods (pollution, unsafe working environments, poverty, etc.). The enforcement mechanism is democratic: corporations would love to pollute more (since anti-pollution measures cost them money), but the voting public doesn't stand for them since they are the ones that end up on the receiving end of the pollution (so do the owners of the corporation, but the increased profits from polluting are more attractive to them - otherwise they wouldn't do it).

In other words, markets must be regulated to prevent market failures and what economists call free riding (like when you have to breathe polluted air so that GM can make more money – you absorb the cost of a transaction to which you did not consent).

Market fundamentalists oppose this because they deny that market failure exists (for the most part or at all). However, they are simply wrong – anyone can point to thousands of examples of market failures in the real world.

The solution is again obvious. Since markets are now more global than ever, corresponding global regulation is needed. The dispute is over the regulations.

Business wants the regulations to enforce contracts and provide compensation for decisions that governments make that cost businesses money. Surprisingly, there isn't really anything wrong with that - it means that people can invest with more confidence.

The problem is that business doesn't want all the other pesky regulations to which we have become accustomed: things like workplace safety, welfare safety nets, and pollution controls - the sort of regulations that cost businesses money, but benefit everyone by compelling businesses to pay the full cost of their impact on society.

(They also do not recognize that developing countries cannot support a radical market economy – most sensible people realize that many countries require a period of protectionism to build up the necessary institutions and practices that will allow a market economy to benefit their citizens.)

Without the second sort of regulations, markets would become a global menace as they would be within countries if they were not regulated.

The "anti-globalization" people are complaining because business, due to its wealth and political connections, is able to secure a regulatory framework that benefits it over the common good. They would rather that the framework for globalization was designed to benefit everyone, and not just business interests. In this respect, their case is unanswerable. The problem is that the media focuses on the extreme radical wing of the movement and this drowns out the real issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In a true, globalized world, someone from Niger suffering from famine should have no problem moving to England and working there. As it is obvious, that is far from the case.

Free borders.

--

Anyway, what I was coming to say, to help poor Kuci, is that one of the problems with globalization (mostly 'free trade') is that countries tend to say they are free trade, but engage in protectionist activities. They will extol the virtues of free trade for some goods, but other goods, they'll slam shut.

Some examples include the EU and US's agg subsidies and the US's recent lumber and steel tariffs.

The point is that the countries with stronger economies can pick and choose while the 'weaker' countries don't necessarily have that luxury, because they can't stand up to organizations like the WTO.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't elect any members of a president's cabinet, either. FWIW, you don't even elect a president, you just elect some person who may vote for the candidate you like to elect.

All our ambassadors have to be confirmed by the Senate. I think our representative at the WTO should have to face this as well.

Not even that. A prime example is the row between the PRC and the US over textiles. Notice while the US pays lip services to "free trade," barriers - in the form of tariffs or quota - can and will suddenly spring up, usually on the basis of some hollow "dumping" allegations.

As if undervaluing the yuan wasn't an illegal trade mechanism, or government loans that are never paid back. China is hanging us with rope they sold us, which they lent the money to us so we could buy it.

Letting China in the WTO was a major mistake, but it benefitted a certain powerful corporation in Clinton's home state.

[Berzerker]

Friedman interviewed an Indian about outsourcing and globalisation and he said the loss of culture bothered alot of people, not wages or corporations. The modern world is always crashing into tradition, but the collision is far worse when modernity is moving so fast. The village elders see the young walking around with cell phones, blue jeans, CD players etc., and they see their way of life slipping away.