So what is so bad about globalization?

[Ofuh]

I see a lot of people on the internets esp. Ron Paul fanboy types who are militantly opposed to any form of globalization. WHile I am aware a good number of these likely have no idea, they just do it because... RON PAUL!!!!! but, there has to be an equally strong number of informed people who actually have an opinion on why a more interconnected world is a terrible idea.

Hell, I would go as far to say as some type of one world government, some type of senate so that no one country has too much power on another (some fear the thought of someone across teh globe telling us what to do.) Now I don't want to sound like some kind of conspiracy theorist, but most everyone agrees the world as we know it is eventually going to end somehow. Whether it be natural disaster, an alien force, self destruction, or for the religious: a dvine power; earth may very well be eventually doomed. How are we going to put together the effort to flee to another location in space if we are unable to all work together because we are too busy caring about our own skin? What about aliens? It is much easier to conquer someone who is weakened from fighting themselves than fighting a united enemy (yes I'm aware if aliens actually did attack we would probably unify, but by then it would likely be too late).

I don't know, there just seems to be too much militant patriotism from e-political analysts these recent days. Perhaps there's something I'm unaware of or misunderstanding, but I really don't see how a closer world both economically and if done correctly, politically is such an evil idea.

 

[skadistic]

There are down sides like being beholden to imports. Farming out your manufacturing base can be bothersome too.

 

[mrt144]

There are down sides like being beholden to imports. Farming out your manufacturing base can be bothersome too.

i like the word usage in this sentence.

importing many goods has a great amount of benefits too, just like most things in world econopolitics have good and bad parts.

 

[JerichoHill]

Umm.

Just a minor point. Ron Paul is adamantly FOR free trade, and therefore, globalization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Free_trade.2C_not_managed_trade

Paul is a proponent of free trade, and opposes many "free trade agreements" including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[63] stating that "free-trade agreements are really managed trade".[64] He says they serve special interests and big business, not citizens.[65] He often proposes instead that the U.S. engage in unilateral free trade by the simple abolition of trade barriers at home (similar to Hong Kong's approach), rather than send massive, unaccountable foreign aid.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional.[63] He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that "fast track" powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTA's on the country's behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTA's.[65]

Paul also has an above 83% pro fair trade voting record in the House of Representatives according to Global Trade Watch.[12]

 

[Arwon]

The manner in which it's happening. The lack of progress on free movement of labor is, for example, problematic.

 

[gallego]

I don't think that globalization is overall a good or bad thing, but an inevitable one with ups and downs. The economic downsides in brief are increased volatility of world markets, loss of jobs and the race to the bottom, corporate profit as an overwhelming social force, increased inequality (although the overall well-being of society is rising)...

And culturally, some people don't want to live in a Western, liberal, commercial society. Look at Islamic fundamentalists for a very outspoken example.

 

[Murky]

Problems with globalization

• Increases the gap between the rich and the poor
• Tends to shift labor to markets where there are poor working conditions
• Reduces the number of jobs available to unskilled workers in a country with a failing educational system
• Quality control and product safety are much more difficult to maintain
• Increases shipping traffic causing damage to the ocean's ecosystems
• Poorer countries must try to rapidly meet new energy demands from industry
• More workers suffer illness and injury because of unsafe working conditions
• Increases the burning of fossil fuels and Co2 emissions linked to climate change

In short, it's bad for poor people, bad for the environment and bad the for the consumer.

 

[amadeus]

Problems with globalization
Increases the gap between the rich and the poor

A lot of people in developing countries are better off now than they were 30 years ago, before those countries liberalized their trade policies.

Tends to shift labor to markets where there are poor working conditions

Working conditions are better in the factories than they are in subsistence agriculture. The wages are also better. Why else would they be so filled with workers?

Reduces the number of jobs available to unskilled workers in a country with a failing educational system

The complaints I always hear from leftists is that all of the jobs in this country are becoming unskilled jobs.

Quality control and product safety is much more difficult to maintain

If the company is a private enterprise, it generally tends to care much about the quality control and safety of goods. Quality was ignored in countries that didn't have industries susceptible to market fluctuations; the Yugo is probably a good example of this.

Poorer countries must try to rapidly meet new energy demands from industry

That's the nature of development. Would it be better if these countries remained impoverished and unindustrialized?

More workers suffer illness and injury because of unsafe working conditions

That's the risk one takes in working in some industries.

 

[Felix Luce]

I think that globalization can only bring about good things. Like any other drastic change in the world, it has some minor repercussions. But the effects it has over-shadow any repercussions....

 

[Perfection]

I think that globalization can only bring about good things. Like any other drastic change in the world, it has some minor repercussions.

Doesn't the second thing kinda contradict the first?

I mean a reprecussion (regardless of severity) doesn't seem like a good thing.

 

[aaglo]

I can think of a couple of thigns that are bad about globalization:

- the private small enterprises around the world die out, because of huge producers take over the market with cheaper products. It also causes some unemployment.

- pollution levels increase, since products have to be transported increasingly longer distances.


There's two. That counts as a couple, I believe

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Globalisation will somehow cause immigrants to simultaneously take our jobs and leech money from our welfare system!

 

[JerichoHill]

@@aaglo
I can think of a couple of thigns that are bad about globalization:

- the private small enterprises around the world die out, because of huge producers take over the market with cheaper products. It also causes some unemployment.
This is not a true statement. There is in many industries and inherent benefit to being local. As for unemployment, it would cause frictional unemployment, which is a type of unemployment economists are not concerned about (we care more about structural)

- pollution levels increase, since products have to be transported increasingly longer distances.
Neither is this. Long-Haul transport is actually more efficient per unit transported.


There's two. That counts as a couple, I believe [/QUOTE]

 

[Murky]

@@aaglo
I can think of a couple of thigns that are bad about globalization:

- the private small enterprises around the world die out, because of huge producers take over the market with cheaper products. It also causes some unemployment.
This is not a true statement. There is in many industries and inherent benefit to being local. As for unemployment, it would cause frictional unemployment, which is a type of unemployment economists are not concerned about (we care more about structural)

- pollution levels increase, since products have to be transported increasingly longer distances.
Neither is this. Long-Haul transport is actually more efficient per unit transported.

Pollution does increase bccause of the rapid industrialization required in the countries that are providing labor. Look at China as an example of that.

 

[JerichoHill]

Pollution does increase bccause of the rapid industrialization required in the countries that are providing labor. Look at China as an example of that.

Depends on the tech level. The US pollutes much less now as their industries modernized. Take a gander at our pollution output per coal power plant vs. china's

 

[bathsheba666]

What we need is a world movement against globalisation.....

 

[Murky]

Depends on the tech level. The US pollutes much less now as their industries modernized. Take a gander at our pollution output per coal power plant vs. china's

It depends on their primary sources of energy for driving industry doesn't it?

 

[JerichoHill]

yeah, i suppose thats true murk

 

[Fuzzz]

What we need is a world movement against globalisation.....

How 'bout the WSF?

 

[Swedishguy]

Globalisation goes hand in hand with capitalism, which is bad.