So how is globalization of capitalism good for the world?

[Dachs]

Why the hell would you recommend that book to anybody who isn't either an economist or a masochist? Smith was a terrible writer and the book reads like crap. You might as well try learning about Byzantine history by reading Anna Komnene's Alexiad.

 

[Masada]

I didn't find it that bad - I must be one of the aforementioned masochists.

 

[aelf]

Why the hell would you recommend that book to anybody who isn't either an economist or a masochist? Smith was a terrible writer and the book reads like crap. You might as well try learning about Byzantine history by reading Anna Komnene's Alexiad.

I didn't say read the whole book. I actually said read a few pages. You know, the invisible hand stuff.

 

[JerichoHill]

Well I don't know about that. All the studies I've seen about social mobility in the United States show that it's very low. And the discrepancy between rich and poor is only increasing. And since in the US, money leads to the best education (private schools, private universities), which leads to the best networks, the people with the capital keep the money within their own kind.

And I think you know that those rags to riches stories are not indicative at all of real life, or are at all common. They're just excessively reported because we all love a good tale of the American Dream.

Syterion, I don't know where you read these studies, but instead of citing vague studies, here's some actual studies

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

One of the problems is that in Europe, if you're a minority, you're pretty pigeon holed into a lower class status. At least folks can move here in the US (well, Asian and Hispanic, generationally speaking

Other links;

http://www.yale.edu/ciqle/rc28/abstracts/Abstract_RC28 Yale.pdf (Basically, the normally used scales of mobility are too big and general and not providing a good view)

If anything, education plays an insurance role in aiding to ensure one's social class doesn't fall. College education is unequal distributed, because it requires resources that poorer folks don't have.

 

[Quackers]

Er, no. Labour supports pretty standard neoliberal policy; it has nothing to do with government spending. You have heard of New Labour, right?

Yes the manufactoring industry is gone but over the past 13 years New labour has built up a client state of like 6 million public worker employees which rely on wealth creators for there pay packets - which is kind of identical to the subsidies our industries got over 30 years ago.

 

[Dachs]

I didn't find it that bad - I must be one of the aforementioned masochists.

Or economists...

I didn't say read the whole book. I actually said read a few pages. You know, the invisible hand stuff.

Surely there would be a more recent and accurate statement of the beliefs behind the whole thing? I dunno, "go back to Adam Smith" sounds like "go back to Plato" or "go back to Herodotus" to me. One would think that in the intervening centuries the appreciation of how trade works would have improved.

 

[Kerozine]

It's kept in check ideally by a well-functioning liberal democracy.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

why do you not kill yourself? Are you greedy?
The answer: all human action is an attempt to make better the state of affairs of the actor. All human action is greedy. The very fact that the actor is the one in control of his physical manifestation is proof of that.

Redefining "greedy" to mean something like "willed" is unhelpful.

 

[Berzerker]

I just don't get it. I don't see how a system literally based on greed can be expected to have the interests of others at heart. I don't see how it can help the developing world at all, when in the interests of profits they actually have an incentive to pay amounts that provide no increase in quality of life.

I hear things like capitalism allows for the greatest innovation which increases quality of life for all. It may lead to the greatest innovation, but I don't see it benefiting anyone significantly beyond those who already have power, money, and quality of life. As far as I can tell, all globalization allows is lower priced goods for the rich, as well as allowing international corporations to control the economies of developing nations. Local business/vendors can't compete with these corporations, and they lose all autonomy.

Can someone explain? I don't understand.

There are different ways of satiating greed, criminal (and ideological) gangs simply take what they want, capitalists provide a service. They may not care about you but if they want your business they'll have to care about satisfying you more than their competitors. As for globalization, call it a race to the bottom (of production costs) if you will, but you cant transform 3rd world countries into economic powerhouses over night (albeit S&E Asia was pretty fast) without an industrial foundation, and just like the 1st world today, it takes time to build it along with the political will to improve working conditions. This is where the media and public/private associations come in, they tell people about the working conditions in central american sweat shops and consumers demand changes.

 

[Bill3000]

I disagree, willed IS greedy, since the actor is the one who exercises his will.

...that's not what greed means. Greed is the excessive desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I disagree, willed IS greedy, since the actor is the one who exercises his will.

Good or moral or selfless type of action is merely a subset of greedy action.

Let me rephrase my previous statement as an injunction: Please do not appropriate a word with one meaning for use to mean something distinct for which there is already a word.

 

[Verbose]

One of the problems is that in Europe, if you're a minority, you're pretty pigeon holed into a lower class status. At least folks can move here in the US (well, Asian and Hispanic, generationally speaking

Found nothing about this in either link you provided. Was there a third one specifying this we missed out?

(Well, yes, I tend to disbelieve this statement, with the caveat that Europe is rather a big and diverse place.)

 

[aelf]

Surely there would be a more recent and accurate statement of the beliefs behind the whole thing? I dunno, "go back to Adam Smith" sounds like "go back to Plato" or "go back to Herodotus" to me. One would think that in the intervening centuries the appreciation of how trade works would have improved.

If people have been saying much more credible things than the invisible hand stuff he wrote, then I guess I'm not catching it.

 

[Arwon]

Did Adam Smith have anything to say about comparative (not absolute) advantage, for instance?

 

[Ecofarm]

Did Adam Smith include externalities (and the black-market or completely unregulated market that these reside in) and how best to regulate those so as to bring the ENTIRE market into the equation?

 

[BasketCase]

I just don't get it. I don't see how a system literally based on greed can be expected to have the interests of others at heart. I don't see how it can help the developing world at all, when in the interests of profits they actually have an incentive to pay amounts that provide no increase in quality of life.

Take a look at life two thousand years ago, when "fast" communication was delivered on horseback and most people lived the exact opposite of global capitalism. Or, for that matter, dive deep into the Amazon rainforest and take a sneek peek at some of those primitive societies that have absolutely no contact with the outside world.

Then note that you're living here instead of there. That should clear it all up, quick smart.

Globalization and capitalism may suck, but the reason we have them is because all the alternatives are far worse.

 

[Glassfan]

I honestly didn't think that was an insult. I thought it was accepted by most capitalists that it was based on greed. And that greed is good.

Not so much greed, as self-interest. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations wrote that as each of us improves our own situation, we improve our communitie's situation. My self interest causes me to work harder - to get pay raises and promotions. With better pay I can buy more stuff. The store I buy it from can then make more profit and hire more staff and give them better pay.

Greed is usually defined as acquisitive or selfish desire beyond reason. It is not in my capitalistic interest to take what's mine and what's yours.

I think international capitalism can go astray because economic laws vary from country to country.

 

[Arwon]

Um, no. Subjectivity doesn't mean you can't weigh relative interests, it just means you can't precisely calibrate or quantify it. "I want giant-arse car" is less important than "I want to not die" regardless of how much relativism you want to invoke.

Also, there's a basic concept called diminishing marginal utility, and one called a poverty line, which do in fact, serve as a perfectly good quasi-objective way of quantifying the relative importance of different interests.

 

[BasketCase]

Some people (not including myself) would define it as having more than those around you. Their philosophy being that if you already have more, you should give it away.

 

[crazyunits]

so instead of private companies globalizing we should have governments globalizing? I don't quite get what your point is OP.