Is globalization a threat to the power of the people?

[Terxpahseyton]

I just had an insight which seemed interesting enough to me to serve as the starting point of a thread:

In the last decades economic globalization greatly outpaced political globalization. I think that we can agree on. That means, that political power remains fractured and quarreling, while economic power increases in global impact and centralization of authority. I think everyone will understand that this means an automatic power-shift towards the economic powers.

Two practical example to illustrate what this can mean in the real world:

- Taxes, wages and other legal burdens: It has never been more easy to put pressure on local or national governments to fit taxes and other legal conditions to the liking of the corporate world. A self-identified corporat fatcat underlined this impression as the usual going of business in his recent Ask-a-thread. In other words, the economy can dictate political conditions. If this only takes place within one nation, i.e. two local governments rival over a factory or whatnot, the national government can intervene - hence the political side - and with it the people - still has the last word. In a globalized world, there is no central authority to check on such developments. Corporations have free play and the government and with it the people loose their say

- The financial crisis: The major and powerful financial players act globally and have a global impact. But when faced with the by them caused global crisis, our national governments failed to act globally as well. As a consequence, they are rather helpless, because solo efforts would be punished by the market, as many fear. Again, the economy seems to have free play, the people can only stand and watch.

I may exaggerate a little in my conclusions, but only so people see the great scope I see.

So OT, what do you think about that? Is globalization a threat to our ability to steer the economy as a people, to the best of the people? Becomes or has the economy become too powerful in its disputes with the state? May this even be a threat to democracy as we know it?

Discuss!

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

The world is not ruled by governments, it is ruled by banks. No government can attack the banks since they can outmaneuver them. No one can regulate them since there will allways be one country that will allow it.

 

[Tahuti]

Economic globalization outpaces political globalization because corporations and economic interests don't cling to romantic ideas about nationalism and move beyond mythological religious and ethnic boundaries if it withholds them from profit. Since the majority of people still think in such antiquated notions, political globalization will never take pace until people start to think otherwise.

If globalization removes power from the people, then so be it. It didn't necessarily have to turn out like this, but it is what people will get for thinking in notions that are only relevant because the same people think they are for no good reason (namely, nation-states and religions).

The world is not ruled by governments, it is ruled by banks. No government can attack the banks since they can outmaneuver them. No one can regulate them since there will allways be one country that will allow it.

Governments have all resources to do anything they desire against or for banks. However, politics keeps governments from desiring anything that breaks from the status quo. If banks are a problem, it is government's unwillingness instead of inability to do anything about it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So if people cling on to nationalism they deserve to be screwed? How so? Because you dislike nationalism so much? Because you find it so easy to move beyond it? Or because you hope it will force the people to move beyond nationalism?

Governments have all resources to do anything they desire against or for banks. However, politics keeps governments from desiring anything that breaks from the status quo. If banks are a problem, it is government's unwillingness instead of inability to do anything about it.

I think unwillingness and inability can be the same thing here. Sure they can theoretically do whatever they want on their soil. But in a globalized system, you get screwed in the butt if you do not abide the rules of the global market. And I think this huge main worry is what paralyzes politics. I am not sure it is universally justifiable, but it always sounds scary and can potentially be very scary.
I.e. what use is it to put your financial sector in order, when it will only mean that financial capital will flee that order towards more open markets and the next crisis will hit you anyway, as it hits everybody?

 

[Kozmos]

The worst nations usually have the greatest patriots.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, I think it is wrong to view "the market" as some kind of unified force that tries to battle our governments (and in that, the peoples that elect it). Different participants in the financial markets have different interests the same way as different nations have different interests.

The big difference in the "market vs. state" balance of power is actually created by those states who still think they're better off letting the financial system run amok. Their short-sighted interests, combined with the discouraging factor their position has on other countries, make it impossible to impose the necessary global limitations on a global problem.

The markets, on the other hand, have no problem in expanding their influence at the expense of governments.

 

[Tahuti]

Sill: I don't like it myself how the system works either, since nearly everyone (me included) will be screwed over for what not even nearly everyone thinks or cares about. That is democracy: That everyone must take responsibility for what the majority wants or places into power. It can lead to good decisions, but also can rob people of having a sense of individuality, screwing themselves and others in the process.

I don't think nationalism in itself is bad, but it should be more seen as a sense of community rather than some kind as higher reality.
What I meant was that I have strong issues with the idea that political policy should be based on nationalism, since after all, its just a feeling, not something palpable.

Leoreth: I'm not seeing "the market" as some kind of unifying force. Neither do I think government and markets are dichotomies in constant battle with eachother, and cooperation between them usually does more good than ill. But for all good or ill corporations and markets have done to this world, I do believe they are being rewarded for thinking beyond political boundaries.

 

[duckstab]

Economic globalization outpaces political globalization because corporations and economic interests don't cling to romantic ideas about nationalism and move beyond mythological religious and ethnic boundaries if it withholds them from profit. Since the majority of people still think in such antiquated notions, political globalization will never take pace until people start to think otherwise.

If globalization removes power from the people, then so be it. It didn't necessarily have to turn out like this, but it is what people will get for thinking in notions that are only relevant because the same people think they are for no good reason (namely, nation-states and religions).

I agree with you up to a point. I don't think you can blame the current situation working people find themselves in on provincial ethnocentric attitudes.

Suppose I hear of a high-paying job for a software architect in Germany. My barriers to applying for that job are significant. I have to learn German, become sufficiently fluent to pass a technical interview, uproot my family, etc. The impact on my life is huge, even if I am willing to put aside my national identification. And I'm fortunate that I'm an educated professional. How is a construction worker going to be able to afford to take time off work to learn a new language? Where are they going to find the money to relocate?

But if Google, say, wants to buy a German software company, they've got people who are fluent in both languages, they've got cash, and they've got lawyers. The impact on certain individuals will still be significant, but Google doesn't have to relocate its HQ to Munich or anything like that.

In other words, the fundamental asymmetry is that capital can cross national boundaries much more easily than labor.

Eventually things are likely to improve because if the current Euro zone crisis is any indicator, there's a growing need for robust international political institutions. And if the citizenry of a nation the size of Greece can threaten to bring down the whole house of cards, it's irrational to think the global economy can go on without some sensitivity to the interests of labor.

 

[Dachs]

haha what does globalization even mean

 

[berkut]

The global market is a kind of aristocratical democracy, every dollar invested is a vote of aproval or desaproval toward a government, and those with more money vote more times.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

haha what does globalization even mean

It means the transcending of whatever you are concerned with, which traditionally used to reside with specific communities, beyond the boundaries of nations over the whole or the vast majority of the world, creating a new inter-connective state of things. A sum which is more than its parts if you will (silly, but illustrative). However one should add, that this phenomena in modern terms is accompanied by our incredible communication equipment and general equipment and wealth, which in itself creates a whole new world with whole new rules.

Which economically as well as culturally as well as in other areas has vast implications.#

The global market is a kind of aristocratical democracy, every dollar invested is a vote of aproval or desaproval toward a government, and those with more money vote more times.

Great description, I love it. And very accurate.

 

[Dachs]

It means the transcending of whatever you are concerned with, which traditionally used to reside with specific communities, beyond the boundaries of nations over the whole or the vast majority of the world, creating a new inter-connective state of things. A sum which is more than its parts if you will (silly, but illustrative). However one should add, that this phenomena in modern terms is accompanied by our incredible communication equipment and general equipment and wealth, which in itself creates a whole new world with whole new rules.

The few parts of that definition that aren't buzzwords (and they are a very few) seem like they would be fairly contentious, actually! For instance, one might argue that political globalization involves the fragmentation of larger political groupings into smaller ones on the grounds that that's basically been coterminous with the period of so-called greatest economic globalization. Most of the rest of what you have to say just seems like it involves "change", which doesn't say anything at all, because history is intrinsically "change".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

For instance, one might argue that political globalization involves the fragmentation of larger political groupings into smaller ones on the grounds that that's basically been coterminous with the period of so-called greatest economic globalization.

Then someone would be pretty stupid, because the concept of globalization is not a theory to predict the future, it merely is a tool to try to better understand what is going on in an effort to better grasp the chances and risks of the future and of now. As a history buff that is not your area of thought, I can understand that, but if one wants to discuss the present and future, one can not rest on theories with predictive power only. That would be way too narrow-minded. Maybe this is why you don't like to talk politics.

 

[Dachs]

Then someone would be pretty stupid, because the concept of globalization is not a theory to predict the future, it merely is a tool to try to better understand what is going on in an effort to better grasp the chances and risks of the future and of now. As a history buff that is not your area of thought, I can understand that, but if one wants to discuss the present and future, one can not rest on theories with predictive power only. That would be way too narrow-minded. Maybe this is why you don't like to talk politics.

Wow, that was completely out of left field and didn't really touch on what I was talking about at all!

You've successfully described history (attempting to learn why something happens/happened) and why it is not a science (because it does not have predictive power). Considering that I'm probably CFC's loudest opponent of futurism, predictive models in the so-called social sciences, and the like, it bemuses me that you'd decide that I thought your definition was BS because it's not predictive. No, I consider your definition to be BS because it's not even descriptive.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Your approach is too vain that I can be bothered to further comply. Smartness combined with vain can be just as dumb as pure dumbness.

edit: But you are right that I should have replaced "predictive power" with "finished and ready to be exactly characterized" or maybe something better. The idea is the same.

 

[BasketCase]

Answer to the thread question: yes and no.

Lack of globalization results in economies that are insulated from each other. And suddenly the word "monopoly" comes to mind. Different economic circumstances simply eliminate some problems and produce others. One thing will never change, however: no matter what the economic circumstances are, sharp economic minds will find a way to make a profit from those circumstances. There will be rich people (and problems for poor people) no matter what.

 

[Camikaze]

I think unwillingness and inability can be the same thing here. Sure they can theoretically do whatever they want on their soil. But in a globalized system, you get screwed in the butt if you do not abide the rules of the global market. And I think this huge main worry is what paralyzes politics. I am not sure it is universally justifiable, but it always sounds scary and can potentially be very scary.

I think this is the most important point. Globalisation seems to cause a convergence of policy. Neoliberalists would think this is a really good thing, because it's converging according to their interests. But I'm not so convinced when the results behind it are dubious at best. And this is a limitation on the power of people, assuming a democratic system. Politics is based domestically, but you have this big influence from outside that pervades the scene.

As an example, people are unable to vote for their government to set a local content quota condition on foreign investment, because the neoliberal WTO says that's the way things should be (meanwhile, other countries are able to protect their agriculture). I guess it's debatable whether it's actually a bad thing or not (whether it's a 'threat'), but it certainly is a limitation.

 

[Tahuti]

haha what does globalization even mean

I would understand it as a interdependence between individuals and states that is increasingly global in scale. Things people tended to see as foreign are now considered ordinary in a globalized world.

As an example, people are unable to vote for their government to set a local content quota condition on foreign investment, because the neoliberal WTO says that's the way things should be (meanwhile, other countries are able to protect their agriculture).

Actually, governments are free to leave the WTO, even though the WTO has hardly any actual power to begin with (your example of governments protecting agriculture proves that, as the WTO has officially forbidden it). However I don't see how foreign investment could actually hurt a country.

 

[timtofly]

It is only a threat if those wielding the power deem it so. All idealistic forms of globalization promote themselves as "for the people". If they did not, no one would "buy" into them.

Freedom is a local concept and can only be carried out locally. Freedom is "like-minded" cooperation. It is not "corporation". When one incorporates they are giving up local freedom to gain "hopefully" mutual respect. While it is doable that all of humanity could "get-along", it is also true that all of humanity do not have the same mind-set. People do have their own opinions and a lot of times those opinions clash. Total agreement will never work when one side has a fear of being "back-stabbed".

BTW the term 666 is not one man "in-control". It is the economic acceptance of the whole world to "trust" this one man. Most think that you follow this man or you will die, and that is how it is "portrayed". I would like to propose that when it happens it will be a "relief" and not a "burden". There will not be a choice in the matter, but it is the end of an indoctrination for the need of globalization. Now dachs may be perturbed at this "predictive" model, but hear me out. It is humanities survival that tends to historically and mentally draw men together as a community. Most wars have been religious in nature and even if culture is involved it is the "religious" side of culture and not the (you need my culture) side of culture.

The fight to bring science to the forefront is the "throwing" off of religion and has united humanity in a way that religion can not. It is easier for humanity to agree and find commonality in science than try to reconcile in their religion. Once science has been established it takes over the humanities and predicts humanitarian aid as more feasable as a human endeavor as opposed to a religious endeavor. In reality the outcome is different, but who needs reality when we have predictive sciences?

 

[innonimatu]

Actually, governments are free to leave the WTO, even though the WTO has hardly any actual power to begin with (your example of governments protecting agriculture proves that, as the WTO has officially forbidden it). However I don't see how foreign investment could actually hurt a country.

I do agree with the OP that "globalization" (and I'll add: in its aspects of "harmonization" of laws between different nations and ever more international treaties) does undermine the principles of democracy, by restricting (very much so in many areas) what people can decide.

But I also agree with you that the choice to sign those treaties, and to continue to abide by those treaties, was a political one, and that governments are theoretically free to denounce them at any time. However, there is a common tendency to go with what seems to be the mainstream ideas of the times, and few governments dare going against estabelished trends. Therefore that theoretical freedom of action is in practice far more restricted. It will be exercised, sometimes, but without many followers... until some "big" event serves as a catalyst for a quick change in public perception of what this ideas of time time are. And then suddenly everybody wants to change their social/economic systems...

Just as the world changed in the 1970s as a consequence of oil shocks and other economic disruptions (these probably tied into the then ongoing collapse of the european colonial empires and shifts of influence), and again in the 1990s (collapse of the USSR), something can easily change the present idea of the world held by both politicians in power and people in general. Collapse of the EU? Perhaps... In any case, it's when that kind of shift happens that a new idea gets formed, and what idea exactly will become the new trend is not predictable. I could throw a few guesses, but the important thing is: a new mainstream would (will) form, and it too will in practice limit the democratic options of people!

Democracy is not a sham, but neither is it all it's held to be. People tend to be conservative, unless their lives are collapsing around them, thus the majority of a population will happily limit its own collective choices. Why break a good thing? That for young people with little to lose, and their relative numbers are diminishing. The exception are those seemingly cyclical crisis points, where things can go any number of ways.
So, stability: governments are actually giving to people what they seem to want. The good news is that national governments do seem to respond to the desires of the majority of their populations; the bad news is that (representative) democracy is (most of the time) a system much bigger on stability than on providing for a wide range of personal choices. And that stability is not even real stability: sometimes it is about not admitting problems or making any changes. Case in point: Greece, now (and that's just the most extreme one, among many). It must abandon the Euro, devalue its currency, and let its banks go bankrupt. But most of the greeks themselves, despite all the anti-austerity complains, still do not want that!