So what is so bad about globalization?

[Shadylookin]

Globalisation = Destruction of local culture for money

Thats why I hate it

how so? It may hurt small local businesses, but there are clearly still cultural distinctions between countries that engage in trade.

 

[Mise]

As such, there is heavy criticism that the power wielded, which is significant, and policies dictated to the developing world via these institutions are biased, politicised and do not serve those they are supposed to. This is best seen at work in the conditionalities that are put in place to accompany policy directives (the case of Ethiopia's banking sector is one good example here). But this is increasingly coming under fire and there is a growing movement to reform governance and voting rights at the IMF and World Bank.

Many, like myself, hope that dealing with 2) will introduce parties that will bring less of 1).

Rambo, do you believe that the world would be a better place without the IMF and World Bank at all?

I'm no fan of either, but I honestly believe that both sides end up better off because of their efforts. There's room for improvement, but I believe that they are both net positive influences on developing nations, not negative.

 

[innonimatu]

Karl Marx believed that company that are bigger are always more efficient, and that therefore by a process of natural selection only the biggest companies would survive. In the end, all production would be controlled by just a few (resulting in utmost exploitation) but of course before that would happen, revolution would already have taken place.

You can understand why Karl Marx would think that if you consider that he lived in an era in which bigger companies were almost always more efficient, because the industries they operated in (railways, sea transport, cotton production etc) dictated economies of scale.

What Marx failed to see was the development of human capital on the one hand (firms cannot pay me 5 cents per hour, because there's 'capital' stored in my head) and the problem of 'information costs' (I think Coase calls them differently but forgot the term) on the other hand. That means that your local hardware supplier may be more efficient than Staples, because they are smaller and can respond more flexible to the market. Marx was a great economist, but in the end his theories became obsolete.

I wasn't actually thinking about Marx, but I don't think the theory you explained above is entirely obsolete. Marx wrongly believed in absolute trends that inevitably led to a necessary outcome - in that he was very much an economist. In the real world things keep changing, with no historical inevitability in sight.
But some of these changes do lead to greater concentration of power and wealth, over a period of time - the gilded age in the US, and whatever name these last two decades sill be called, were two such periods. They will be reversed, but in the meanwhile they produced their winners and their losers.

Economies of scale in service-based economies are indeed smaller than in industrial-based economies, but they still exist, and so does the single-culture problem - just how did the american mortgage companies, and the banks, sink into the present crisis (one that has now spread to many other countries)?

I do have doubt. If the gains are really ofsett by the transportation costs, then why would the market demand these products? I always try to pay a little as possible for the stuff I buy, I think it's reasonable to think everybody does (on most occasions).

You misunderstood me, I meant fuel efficiency. Fuel can be only a small part of the total cost of a product. But if products travel far more kilometers then more pollution will be produced. JerichoHill argued that long-haul transport was more [fuel] efficient per unit transported - that may be true, but I don't believe it will be enough to balance things.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

Economies of scale in service-based economies are indeed smaller than in industrial-based economies, but they still exist, and so does the single-culture problem - just how did the american mortgage companies, and the banks, sink into the present crisis (one that has now spread to many other countries)?

Well, it's not so much a single-culture problem as a single capital market problem. (which is of course in essence the definition of globalization)

You misunderstood me, I meant fuel efficiency. Fuel can be only a small part of the total cost of a product. But if products travel far more kilometers then more pollution will be produced. JerichoHill argued that long-haul transport was more [fuel] efficient per unit transported - that may be true, but I don't believe it will be enough to balance things.

Aha, so what your really saying is that the (monetary) cost of fuel does not respresent the 'real' cost of fuel (expressed in things like polution and the like)? In other words, fuel should be made more expensive so that economic decisions become more fuel-efficient?

 

[JerichoHill]

And there's also the fact that 'globalization' is a media created word for a process that has been going on since Marco Polo brough spices back from China.

'Globalization' is not only the production of materials and units in far away lands , but the sharing of thoughts between peoples previously unconnectable by distance..ie...these forums.

 

[innonimatu]

And there's also the fact that 'globalization' is a media created word for a process that has been going on since Marco Polo brough spices back from China.

'Globalization' is not only the production of materials and units in far away lands , but the sharing of thoughts between peoples previously unconnectable by distance..ie...these forums.

If so then where did the concept of "intellectual property" came from? That goes against the sharing of thoughts.

Different places require different strategies for government. "Globalization" is being used as an excuse to push a single form of government upon everyone in the planet. You're right that it is a media creation: in other words, a propaganda tool. Of course the practice doesn't match the propaganda: unequal trade treaties continue, only now they favor some economic interests through international treaties, far harder for citizens to oppose. When was "intellectual property" ever discussed and put to a vote? Trade tariffs, interest rates, even taxes... the public is simply told that these are "too complex" to be discussed. Or that they are the product of international agreements - and therefore not up for discussion.

This is the globalization that has been attracting opposition: a hidden technocracy who no one really understands, used to further short term interests of the groups with access to political power, without any accountability to the citizens of supposedly democratic sovereign states.

Aha, so what your really saying is that the (monetary) cost of fuel does not respresent the 'real' cost of fuel (expressed in things like polution and the like)? In other words, fuel should be made more expensive so that economic decisions become more fuel-efficient?

Yes. In time those costs will emerge. But the problem with short-term policies that are (perhaps inevitably) followed by governments, and that most certainly always result from "free markets", is that prices do not reflect those costs when it matters. Economists have pretty names and lots of theories for the problem, but somehow it remains unsolved...

Then there are other problems, old ones that have been endlessly discussed are are cyclically either considered important or dismissed:
is free trade more or less advantageous that the promotion of certain local economic sectors?
are trade deficits good or bad?
is industry necessary?
comparative advantage should be followed or countered in the interests of other goals?
can the population be sacrificed now in the interest of future growth?
if so, will they actually see anything of it, as supposed, in the future?
should a government rule as the people wish (resulting, perhaps, in populism), or in the best interests of the "nation"?
how does a particular law or trade deal favor or damage particular groups of people?

And so on... Globalization is merely a propaganda tool to further some of these, and other, views, at the expense of others. The usual strategy is to state that a particular view on a subject is the one that fits globalization, and because everybody knows globalization is inevitable this view is the correct one, and not even worth discussing.

 

[amadeus]

If so then where did the concept of "intellectual property" came from?

The concept (and practice) of copyright has been around for hundreds of years.

 

[innonimatu]

The concept (and practice) of copyright has been around for hundreds of years.

No, it hasn't. Well, copyright has, in Britain, and it slowly spread, but only as a very limited form of monopoly (and most likely motivated for a wish to make censorship easier).

"Intellectual property", the idea of equating this limited monopoly to the much better established concept of property, is a very recent invention.

 

[BasketCase]

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

Everything is an import, Skad. Are you a farmer? A McDonald's worker? An auto mechanic? A doctor? A lawyer? Most likely you are, at most, one of these. Almost certainly, you are none of them. Which means that you depend on other people to farm your food, cook it, repair your car, repair YOU, and provide you legal services. Not to mention the 20 million other professions I left out, which you depend on to live a safe and comfy life.

Whether those people are on the other side of some line drawn on a map is unimportant.

 

[JerichoHill]

No, it hasn't. Well, copyright has, in Britain, and it slowly spread, but only as a very limited form of monopoly (and most likely motivated for a wish to make censorship easier).

"Intellectual property", the idea of equating this limited monopoly to the much better established concept of property, is a very recent invention.

Because the goods and services we were using and inventing changed? We're much more now in economies where non-physical, non-tangible goods are valued. So Im not seeing your point here.

Whats the difference between a process (theory) improvement in say, stock valuation, versus a better designed car in our economies today? I dont see a difference between a non-tangible asset and a tangible asset

(other than the tangible part)

 

[JerichoHill]

No, it hasn't. Well, copyright has, in Britain, and it slowly spread, but only as a very limited form of monopoly (and most likely motivated for a wish to make censorship easier).

"Intellectual property", the idea of equating this limited monopoly to the much better established concept of property, is a very recent invention.

FYI: Copyrighting has been around AT LEAST as far back as the Roman Empire.

"Prior to the invention of movable type in the West in the mid-fifteenth century, texts were copied by hand and the small number of texts generated few occasions for these rights to be tested. Even during a period of a prospering book trade, during the Roman Empire, the occurrence of piracy was unlikely. This is because books were, typically, copied by literate slaves, who were expensive to buy and maintain. Because of this fact, any pirate would have had to pay much the same expense as the original publisher, effectively destroying any economic incentive for piracy."

Backing up your argument that copyright hasnt existed very long as an argument against copyright ignores that it was technology that humankind developed that allowed folks to copy cost-effective in the first place. So, unless youre wanting to venture into luddite waters, I dont see your case.

 

[illram]

Everything is an import, Skad. Are you a farmer? A McDonald's worker? An auto mechanic? A doctor? A lawyer? Most likely you are, at most, one of these. Almost certainly, you are none of them. Which means that you depend on other people to farm your food, cook it, repair your car, repair YOU, and provide you legal services. Not to mention the 20 million other professions I left out, which you depend on to live a safe and comfy life.

Whether those people are on the other side of some line drawn on a map is unimportant.

Sure it is. If every job in your community is given to people outside your community, what does your community do for work? For money?

I personally know that the medical and legal fields definitely make it harder for people outside the country to come into the US and find work. Professional fields such as these are one of the places that probably won't succumb to "outsourcing" globally due to the practical problems inherent in such an undertaking.

No, it hasn't. Well, copyright has, in Britain, and it slowly spread, but only as a very limited form of monopoly (and most likely motivated for a wish to make censorship easier).

"Intellectual property", the idea of equating this limited monopoly to the much better established concept of property, is a very recent invention.

It's in the US Constitution, but I don't know if thats what you mean by recent.

 

[innonimatu]

"intellectual property" is in the US constitution, and equated to traditional property? You must show me where. The possibility for imited copy monopolies or patents is included, but they are never considered property.

@JerichoHill, I challenge you to produce any evidence of laws concerning copyright, prior to 16th century Britain. Roman laws? No unsubstantiated claims from wikipedia, please, Justinian compiled a lot of imperial age legislation, and to my knowledge the concept of copyright was not included in his code.

You have a valid point in claiming that technological innovations eased the copy of works. But you can't use it to back copyright, because prior to this ease of copy authors did not live off the proceeds of their "intellectual property" anyway. The excuse that copyright was meant to protect authors was just that, an excuse. Aristotle, Petrarch or Da Vinci (just to provide a few examples) never had any need of copyright to produce their works. And from what I know of the first two, at least, they would find the idea revolting.

Ease of duplication therefore did not require any new laws. They were drafted not to "protect authors" but to create a new business model where naturally no business exists - by enforcing an unnecessary legal monopoly. Why exactly should a book be the "property" of the writer - or of the company that publishes it? Only because it became easy to do on an industrial scale and therefore exploitable for business? It could equally be argued (and Lessig argues it, by the way) that precisely because copying a book has now became as easy as taking a photograph the "owner" of the book should have no more rights over copies than the owner of anything else that people photograph every day...

But I don't want to hijack the thread away from the main topic of globalization. Would anyone care to comment on the relation between globalization and democratic control of government by the citizens? Because one of the main charges against globalization is the way it is used to justify technocratic styles of government.

 

[Slobadog]

Global free trade means that business fortune and misfortune experienced in one country can more easily affect another country. It can increase the risk factor.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@innonimatu
You have a valid point in claiming that technological innovations eased the copy of works. But you can't use it to back copyright, because prior to this ease of copy authors did not live off the proceeds of their "intellectual property" anyway. The excuse that copyright was meant to protect authors was just that, an excuse. Aristotle, Petrarch or Da Vinci (just to provide a few examples) never had any need of copyright to produce their works.
And how were works made or copied in those days? Few people knew how to write, costs to publishing a manuscript were prohibitive, and most folks skilled in such belonged to monasteries. These prohibitive costs were DE FACTO copyright protection. Since costs were so high, there was no need for actual law.

 

[Thlayli]

Regardless of what people think, globalization is an inevitable, irresistable process.

Given the choice between an $80.00 handbag made in the United States, and a $20.00 handbag of similar quality made in Malaysia, the vast majority of consumers would choose the foreign-made one. That is why once-thriving American industries such as textiles and steel have shrunk to shadows of their former selves. Equally so, Malaysia's per capita income has risen, and opportunities for economic advancement are now possible.

The simple truth of the matter is that the American minimum wage is more than the average Asian factory worker could ever dream of receiving.

The growing interdependency of international economies and financial markets has been good for growth, especially in the developing world. However, the West's relationship with East Asia, which has yet to fully complete its own process of industrial revolution, makes this an awkward issue, and a rising level of national debt has slowly been piling up on the Western side.

In the long-term, bearing with the ebb and flow of free trade will be positive, since as living standards rise in the developed world, Asia and the West will begin to move towards parity in our trade balances, and economic sustainability will begin to become a possibility.

Protectionism is ultimately self-destructive, nativist, and futile.

 

[illram]

"intellectual property" is in the US constitution, and equated to traditional property? You must show me where. The possibility for imited copy monopolies or patents is included, but they are never considered property.

It was considered property in the sense that it was alienable, i.e. transferable. I know nothing about its origins in England but as far as the Constitution and American copyright origins go, it has always been considered property, albeit intangible property.

But I don't want to hijack the thread away from the main topic of globalization. Would anyone care to comment on the relation between globalization and democratic control of government by the citizens? Because one of the main charges against globalization is the way it is used to justify technocratic styles of government.

I agree to an extent. My problem with corporate globalization is the creation of extra-legal trade agreements and international laws that seek to limit the ability of local populations to regulate environmental or employment law. In other words, corporate lobbying on a global scale to make exploiting third world nations easier and more profitable, at the expense of the health and welfare of third world citizens. So yes, I agree globalization of that sort does threaten democracy.

BUT blame needs to also be shared with the third world governments that actively collude with, and profit off of, such corporate exploitation. Also, I agree with others in the thread that in theory, globalization (i.e. the increase in the flow of goods, information, and jobs) between countries is inevitable and can be used for good purposes as well as bad. The key is helping underdeveloped and third world citizens to profit from their resources rather than be exploited for them. (The current drama over Iraqi oil is a perfect example of the first world doing its best to siphon off third world resources at the expense of third world citizens.)

As for IP, I am a firm believer in the necessity of IP laws. Although I do believe they are being abused and that digital technology has created a whole new slew of issues that has largely outpaced IP law, I agree with the theory behind IP law in general: to foster and encourage innovation and creativity and reward those who create.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If so then where did the concept of "intellectual property" came from? That goes against the sharing of thoughts.

To make a long story short, it's propaganda. "Intellectual property" is a catch-all, undefined term that can be made to cover at least four different areas: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. The term was invented to bias people into thinking of these as property - "If you're driving the car, I can't drive it at the same time" - when some of them are more analoguous to sunsets - "If you're enjoying the sunset, I can do so too" - and so it's a form of begging the question by sneaking the conclusion ('as property') into the problem ('how do we treat these different areas').

 

[Narz]

So what is so bad about globalization?

It destroys local businesses and people's ability to be independent.

A documentary (could be called a globalization case study) I recently watched sums up some of the problems well.

 

[El Koeno]

But I don't want to hijack the thread away from the main topic of globalization. Would anyone care to comment on the relation between globalization and democratic control of government by the citizens? Because one of the main charges against globalization is the way it is used to justify technocratic styles of government.

This is difficult. Because on the one side you want the people to control their own policy, but one the hand the interests of the population of any state will be too narrow due to globalization.

Take global warming. The EU thinks we need to do something to make the problem more manageable. But it needs action from other countries as well. So in a sense, I think it might be unavoidable that some of the policies that affect us are made by technocrats who work behind the scenes at conferences such as the one on Bali.