Is globalization a progressive force?

[Guest pappajacks]

I heard an interview the other night where some self-proclaimed analyst said that globalization is a progressive force.

 

I believe there are many problems with Gloabalization and I don't see it as a progressive force. It will continue to evolve and who knows where it will lead. We haven't reached that borderless society yet but I tend to think that a few of the counties trying to change to be part of the global economy will be worse off.

[Guest Some Guy]

Globalization has it's faults but I think it's a good theory. It is progressive as it will ultimately help all countries to some degree or another. A lot of people get all huffy because they think it will help America more than others, when the opposite is probably true. Americans will lose jobs to the 3rd world. But in theory those jobs would help the 3rd world country develop an ecomony and become a 1st world country and then the standards would equalize at least somewhat. My main problem is that I don't think this part will happen without some major regime changing through out the world. Can you see, for instance Brazil's gov't ever getting its shit together enough for it to develop? I can't.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

I just took an exam over this...

 

I'll write more after I look at the notes and grab a couple of hours of rest.

[Guest MrRant]

Well the Romans managed to keep up globalization for many years.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Well the Romans managed to keep up globalization for many years.

Not really. The Roman Empire was very centralized, and Rome was hardly a global empire anyways. They never did manage to conquer the Persians, for example.

[Guest EricMM]

The biggest problem of anti-Globalization arguments is that they imply that the third world countries have no choice in the matter.

 

It seems like most of the countries in this world of ours are much more corrupt and certainly more fucked-up than the US. If Nike wants their shoes made in other places because it's cheaper, the only people who can complain should be Americans for losing jobs.

 

How the hell are workings getting five cents an hour being exploited? If they are used to more, they would take it. If their governments are not allowing them to do other jobs, they should change their government.

 

You can't blame America for ALL of the world's problems. Some? Sure. Most? Iffy. All? Hells no.

 

It's not America's fault that Africa is a flyblown fuckhole, it's AFRICAS fault. It's not racism, it's African corruption. There are no other excuses.

[Guest MrRant]

Well the Romans managed to keep up globalization for many years.

Not really. The Roman Empire was very centralized, and Rome was hardly a global empire anyways. They never did manage to conquer the Persians, for example.

I consider globalization the assimilation of other cultures into your own either by force or peace and Rome did do that for a very long time. Everywhere in Europe was "Rome" almost as well as Egypt etc. You would also have to remember that for what the "world" was at that time they did rule most of it except for some parts/people like the Persians that you mentioned.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

bump. i wanna hear what big dante cruz has to say.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

globalization and free trade sucks and is good for no one. NAFTA has taken away so many jobs of americans it's not even funny. FUCK FREE TRADE. We need more protectionists as elected officials. We need to tariff imports on other countries and force our companies and others move back here. Globalization sucks

 

--Rob

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Yes, because weakening the world economy as a whole HAS TO help US, right?

 

...

 

Right?

 

Kotzenjunge

Wants the Pat Buchanan Clone to Stop Talking

[Guest RobJohnstone]

well, yes it would. As long as we manufacture things here, we don't have to depend on imports like a colony. Also with protectionism, forcing our companies back here brings back tons of jobs and with our people working, they also pay taxes. Everyone is happy. Globalization works against us way to much.

 

--Rob

Wants Kotzenjunge to realize he is wrong

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

You do realize that no country on the planet is immune to global downturns, right? Other countries affect us just as we affect them through currency exchange rates, our stock markets, and trade ratios. You wonder why we start worrying if East Asia starts getting shaky or Western Europe is unstable. Even non-monetary factors can affect economies, as confidence in spending during wartime is tempered and often lessened. It is *IMPOSSIBLE* to cut ourselves off from the world economically. Not only impossible, but absolutely fucking retarded.

 

And your sig is beyond ignorant, please get rid of it, because like I said once before, it automatically shows that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about before we even read your posts.

 

Kotzenjunge

Is Going To Let More Dissection-Styled Posters Take Care Of This Fool

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Protectionism does not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. We simply do what other countries do to us. We tariff what they export to us. Our market is much needed to them so they will still send as much as they do now. Other countries pay slave wages, send us their products and then destroy us in the market because we do not tariff them. If we tariff them it evens out the market. Before 1914, we were always protectionists and we grew more than any nation in history. Once the democrats like Wilson and FDR came in with Free Trade, we started to slump. Protectionism works, always has, always will. Free Trade never works, and Globalization will not work either.

 

--Rob

[Guest LooseCannon]

Globalization *is* a progressive force. For one, I believe that artificial boundaries between people are inherently anti-progressive, and the elimination of tariffs is a movement away from that. The drawbacks that occur, occur only because of artificial boundaries that already exist in the form of the nation-state. Unfortunately, we're faced with the same bleak reality we faced at the turn of the century in this country, when the majority of commerce was viewed as intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce and thus subject to state regulation instead of federal regulation. This led to a "race to the bottom" as state's vyed for businesses by competing to see who could have the most business-friendly labor laws, and the weakest regulations. This same "race to the bottom" is seen in many of the poorer countries today, and leaves the American blue collar worker fairly screwed in the short-term. In the long-term, however, eliminating trade barriers works to the benefit of everyone, as it is more economically efficient. Of course, we should do something about the short-term problems free trade causes, but the answer is not to move backward and embrace tariffs, as that would only be postponing the problems. Tariffs, in fact, hurt the consumer more than anyone else, and a couple of courses in economics would allow you to see that they don't "even out the market." They raise prices and stifle competition, and close markets to our products, hurting our economy. Also Rob you're historical analysis is inaccurate, but I don't feel like like going into the two-pronged spiel correcting you would require.

[Guest DrTom]

As long as we manufacture things here, we don't have to depend on imports like a colony.

That's a gross oversimplification. Just because we manufacture something here does not mean there aren't better alternatives that people will find. Steel is a good example: we manufactured a lot of it, until companies that used massive quantities of it realized they could get better, cheaper steel from the Japanese.

 

Having a free market doesn't mean only your products are subjected to it, while everyone else's are taxed into oblivion.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Wow, Deputy Hawk wants to hear what I have to say. I feel very special. Thank you.

 

If by globalization you mean free trade and the encouragement of capitalism worldwide... well, that's an entire semester in and of itself. First off, LooseCannon hit the nail on the head: it is a race to the bottom. Third World countries try their best to draw in industry and to do it they toss out enviormental regulations, they drop manufacturing regulations and they make sure the minimum wage is cheap. Okay, so now they're cheap and they let multinational corporations (MNCs from here on out) do whatever the hell they want to. Fantastic. Protectionism and tarriffs exist as a rationale about keeping the market competitive with US produced goods where people are paid the minimum wage in this country, and therefore prices must be higher. Right? No, not necessarily. Profits can just be cut and built more slowly over a longer period. Second, let's jack tariffs up like a bitch and make all imports expensive as anything you've ever dealt with. Is that going to ensure better prices in the domestic markets? Someone doesn't know his history. Look to the tariff around the time of the War of 1812. We made the tariff to hurt the British and our own merchants jacked the prices of their own products up to just beneath the price of the imported goods to make an even bigger profit. Besides, if people are particularly brand-name obessed, it's not going to mean jack how much it costs, they'll go for it anyway. In short, protectionism is a nice idea, but its ability to hold water ranks right up there with a sieve and a screen door.

 

Okay, that's out of the way. Let's establish a few things about the workers in these Third World countries. Item one, yeah, they're paid half a cent every ten days. Bear in mind that the US dollar, the yen, the British pound, the Euro, these are all high-end currencies and we're putting them up against countries that have devalued their own currency in an attempt to stem an ebbing economy. Or, one better is that they have gotten a loan from the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank and one of the stipulations is to freeze the value of the money until things start getting better without tampering with every variable at once like a panicked kid in an algebra class. So we're talking about what qualifies as minimum wage in these countries. Two, the people in sweatshops don't have to stay there. They stay because its consistant work and they're trying to provide for their families.

 

Sorry, wanted to clear that up right off.

 

Now, that being said, that's capitalism at work, right? Our vaunted globalization at work and wreaking terrible havoc across the world. There are two alternate models that have been tried to improve economies in Third World nations, not counting Asia, which I'll get back to. The Latin American/African model is one that comes from the original imperialism. They're cash crop economies. What they tried to do is to diversify as quickly as possible and drop commodity/cash crop exports. So, here are these nations trying to build themselves into stable economies by dropping the only means they have of supporting themselves. Granted, the intentions are good, and sometimes situations that involve MNCs get complicated, but if they're really wanting to do this correctly, well, there are ways around it. What the model tried to do was basically diversify the entire economy to be totally self sufficient, then get into the global trading game. Anyone else see why they fell flat on their faces?

 

The Asian model isn't too terribly far off from straight capitalism. Step one for these countries was for the government to take a heavy interest and in some cases become the major shareholder for the cash-producing industries of the country. Then, by having a heavy hand in the cash flow that comes in and goes out of the country, not only can they stabilize debt unlike the L. America/Africa model (which ignored its means of making any money at all) but they can put the money into diversifiying their economy in a limited fashion. They don't have to import everything. In fact, in some cases, they have to import very little and import luxuries and/or very few necessities. Then, from that one major industry, they can create a powerhouse in another, much like Japan did with the backwards little company called Toyota. But once Toyata had governmental support and gained enough recognition in America, then they were established and the situation ran from there.

 

To end this lond, somewhat disorganized (to top it off, written entirely too late) rant, other methods have been tried. Globalization is about the only route to go, however, that is not to say that some variants of it are not better than others.

 

EDIT: adding in some things I forgot about.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Well, I know most if not all of you hate Pat Buchanan but, in his book The Great Betrayal he goes into much depth on this subject. You can get it here BTW

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

 

Anyway, I am someone who believes in looking back into history to figure out the future, because history repeats itself. Now america was a protectionist nation up until 1914. We had more growth than any other nation in history. While we were a protectionist nation we never had INCOME TAX other than wartime. Free trade is a liberal idea which causes liberal effects. Why not take a look at what happened in the 1980's. Reagan saw that our domestic motorcycle market was dying. He tariff'd the shit out of japanese motorcycle's and harley became the strongest company again. I would also like to say that tariff's do not raise prices on everything, they just raise them on imports. Domestic products would not have a tax and if they did, it would be very small. Thanks

 

--Rob

[Guest NoCalMike]

would be nice if "american" corporations such as Nike, Ford, Chevy, etc....decided that it was in the best interests of AMERICANS and AMERICA as a whole if they did all their manufacturing and labor in America instead of closing plants and warehouses to go open new ones in indonesia to pay 8 year old kids 10cents a week. It is just sick, and what is worse is that most people don't give a shit and are actually convinced that wearing the shoes of a basketball star is something to hold in higher regard than the digust of labor issues and sickening practices of these companies.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

would be nice if "american" corporations such as Nike, Ford, Chevy, etc....decided that it was in the best interests of AMERICANS and AMERICA as a whole if they did all their manufacturing and labor in America instead of closing plants and warehouses to go open new ones in indonesia to pay 8 year old kids 10cents a week. It is just sick, and what is worse is that most people don't give a shit and are actually convinced that wearing the shoes of a basketball star is something to hold in higher regard than the digust of labor issues and sickening practices of these companies.

nicely said

 

--Rob

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

Only problem with that is that they can't pull sweatshop labor with cars like they do shoes. That's why there are car manufacturing plants in the US.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Only problem with that is that they can't pull sweatshop labor with cars like they do shoes. That's why there are car manufacturing plants in the US.

Ford and Chevy have car parts plants all throughout Mexico. They may not pump out parts any faster, but they sure as hell pay the workers very shitty, plus there are probobaly about ZERO labor laws that restrict the companies from taking advantage of their workers in Mexico and other third world countries.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Although I've been against sweatshop labor for as long as I can remember (it was one of the first "political issues" I remember realizing), the sad thing about it is that as terrible as the working conditions are and as low as the pay is, it actually is still a better opportunity for these starving third-world'ers than farming (which is what most did before, either slaving at a modern-day "plantation" or attempting in vain to grow enough crops of their own for basic survival and maybe a slight surplus for extra money).

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Only problem with that is that they can't pull sweatshop labor with cars like they do shoes.  That's why there are car manufacturing plants in the US.

Ford and Chevy have car parts plants all throughout Mexico. They may not pump out parts any faster, but they sure as hell pay the workers very shitty, plus there are probobaly about ZERO labor laws that restrict the companies from taking advantage of their workers in Mexico and other third world countries.

Also plants in mexico do not have to keep up on health codes and such things that cost millions if not billions a year to keep up on. And no taxes because of our non tariff agreements. The only people that win in globalization and Free Trade are the rich. The middle class gets screwed.

 

--Rob

[Guest LooseCannon]

Well, I know most if not all of you hate Pat Buchanan but, in his book The Great Betrayal he goes into much depth on this subject. You can get it here BTW

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

 

Anyway, I am someone who believes in looking back into history to figure out the future, because history repeats itself. Now america was a protectionist nation up until 1914. We had more growth than any other nation in history. While we were a protectionist nation we never had INCOME TAX other than wartime. Free trade is a liberal idea which causes liberal effects. Why not take a look at what happened in the 1980's. Reagan saw that our domestic motorcycle market was dying. He tariff'd the shit out of japanese motorcycle's and harley became the strongest company again. I would also like to say that tariff's do not raise prices on everything, they just raise them on imports. Domestic products would not have a tax and if they did, it would be very small. Thanks

 

--Rob

The American economy was harshly cyclical prior to 1914 as well. Alternating between brutal depressions and periods of growth. Your fallacy is that you think this is a one variable equation. America happened to be protectionist and it grew quickly, therefore protectionism will cause growth in the American economy? It's beyond silly to not look at other factors that could explain the rapid growth. A. America was in a stage of development at the time. B. Untapped resources were being tapped.

 

Also look at the simple mathematical truth that as the economy gets larger, an equal amount of growth will be smaller as a percentage. The economy grew in volume in the 90's more than in any other decade in this nation's history. But as a percentage of a number in the trillions, it was a smaller percentage. At any rate, growth in excess of 4% is often considered to be more damaging to the economy in the long term due to inflation. Look again at the cyclical nature of the American economy prior to 1914 before we developed a coherent and sensible monetary policy to see this.

 

Also, tariffs do cause price increases. They fuck over the consumer. This why up untill the 70's Unions actually supported free-trade, because it was understood that it meant cheaper goods. Domestic business's can raise their prices to just under the import price or else it allows a non-competitive domestic brand to compete with a superior foreign brand. You may think that's a good thing, but you're wrong. If as a consumer, you can get a better product at a cheaper price, than that is the product you should buy. The economy depends on people making such rational decisions so that resources can be allocated efficiently. If American product X is unable to compete with Foreign product X, then the resources we put into American product X should be used to produce something else that we are able to produce better. Economic efficiencies, such as tariffs, leave us producing at other than the optimal level of output. A graph could explain this better, but unfortunately I'm unable to draw one here.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

No graph needed I understand your response and I've heard it before. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that liberal form of thinking. This will never be settled here because you believe in one thing, I believe in another and we are not going to change that by argueing over the internet.

 

--Rob

[Guest EricMM]

Then why argue at all, over the internet or anywhere else?

 

If you can't agree with the truth when you hear it, then you shouldn't really be here. And it's practically been proven that you can't, considering your ignorant sig.

[Guest LooseCannon]

He apparently believes calling an idea "liberal" is enough to dismiss it. It's really not even a difference of opinion. It's that one of us understands how economics works and the other doesn't, and he refuses to learn because it clashes with what he wants to believe is true. The man is amazingly closed-minded, but if that's the way he wants it, fuck him. It's not our problem.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I'm in the middle class, and I am able to buy far more things now, then I (or my family) could before NAFTA went into effect.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

are you canadian? That's probably why.

 

--Rob

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

are you canadian? That's probably why.

 

--Rob

True. I can't speak for Americans, but it's good for us.