So what is so bad about globalization?

[Tee Kay]

There is nothing bad about globalization. Everybody wins, except for the spoiled brats/hippies that use it as a pretext to destroy public property..

And also the 3 billion or so impoverished people who are being profitted on by big western nations and companies.

 

[Theige]

And also the 3 billion or so impoverished people who are being profitted on by big western nations and companies.

Fully one half of these 3 billion currently reside in one of 2 countries experiencing EXTRAORDINARY economic growth; growth that can be directly attributed to globalization.

 

[Elta]

Fully one half of these 3 billion currently reside in one of 2 countries experiencing EXTRAORDINARY economic growth; growth that can be directly attributed to globalization.

And it's all equally distributed right?

 

[Narz]

Narz, you cannot possibly assert that trade has not increased people's well being.

It has increased the well being of some & decreased the well being of others.

 

[Echse]

globalisation is good for everyone.... everyone with rich parents.

 

[El Koeno]

Time is the first thing that comes to mind. What use is all the money in the world if you're away from friends & family nearly all the time. Ask any healthy child whether they'd rather have daddy show up on the weekends buy them crap and say "now isn't this nice!" w/ an insincere grin on his face and then dissappear or to not be able to provide new shiny things and gadgets every week but spend quality time w/ them and not be distracted w/ work all the time. There are a multitude of others ways to measure quality of life beyond money (not saying money isn't a factor but it's hardly the only one), I'm sure if you sat and thought about it you could name ten or twenty yourself.

Things are not as black and white as you make them out to be. Subsistence farmers don't spend all day playing with their kids, and factory workers aren't dumbed down consumerist slaves who never see their kids.

 

[Rambuchan]

I think Hong Kong is a good exemple for a country that developed (and alot!) under a basically liberal capitalist system.

Yes, that's an obvious example. There aren't many others though, are there?

And, if we're being quite honest, we should also mention that Hong Kong's economic development was accompanied by a bloody good show of gun boats, which always helps oil the cogs.

Plus, even if there was not a single exemple, it would not be prove of impossibility. All developed nations had corrupt leaders once, this does not mean that developing nation ought to have corrupt leaders to achieve developed status.

Fair point. Rephrasing this line for accuracy, I would then ask, but why do conditionalities often include following policies that have been shown not to work and are in fact detrimental? (Admittedly, there are less of these in the last 5 years, building on the observations I am highlighting here, but there still are some and they were aggressively pursued previously).

The protectionism practiced by most developed countries in their past, most economists agree, harmed their development. They could be richer now had they beign more rational.

Which economists agree?

Your argument however is a very common one, so it requires further clarification. The notion of free trade is not based on absolute advantages, but rather on comparative ones. So even if a country was capable of producing everything cheaper and better than another, trade between the two would still increase the total wealth of both.

This is a common one too. It's got its holes.

What this theory doesn't account for is things like:

~ Diversity and sustainability within the economy, such specialisation from exploiting a comparative advantage can hurt bad when things go awry, leaving a country vulnerable.
~ The existing state of the developing country's infrastructure, which it assumes to be well established. If a developing country's infrastructure (or legal system for that matter) isn't well established, then that country will not benefit as fully as Ricardo claims.
~ Further to that there is the disinterest from this theory in human rights and environmental protections, largely because the legal framework is assumed.
~ One can also see how such liberalisation of trade in such circumstances can see heavy outflows of resources from the developing world alongside heavy inflows of capital from the developed. What this has done many times is take out resources, but the capital invested doesn't really go toward development of the economy. Rather than going on say health and education, this investment will go into the most efficient extraction of said resource. The country doesn't grow as might be projected.
~ And even when the economy grows as a whole, which is all Ricardo is interested in, that wealth doesn't always get distributed in a sustainable fashion. When wealth as a whole finds its way into too few hands and the wider population doesn't experience it, this is a recipe for instability, insurrection, civil and cross border war, which is in turn a recipe for economic downturn. Nigeria's oil industry is a classic example of this. China's economic policy is now turning to stability through equity. India's last election saw the people vote in a government supposedly in favour of a more equitable distribution. Latin America's democratic changes are reflecting this inequity too.

Nobody makes that assumption. I have never met a single person who said that world economy is a perfect free market, nor read any text stating that.

You surprise me. It's implicit in the approach of the Washington Consensus.

The false assumption, I would argue, is that just because the market is not perfect this automatically makes free trade a bad thing.

Not automatically. But when free trade is applied to an imperfect template, it is often a bad thing. With plenty of examples around the world (NAFTA & Mexico and African agriculture in the global market, to name but two) isn't this view well grounded? The imperfections in the market cause detrimental effects when free trade takes place in such a context.

Another false (and yet common) assumption is that developed nations do not follow policies like those proposed by the IMF or WB. They do. I posted on another thread the recommendations of the infamous Washington Consensus, and pointed out how even "socialist" Scandinavia follows the overwhelming majority of said principles, which are very moderate and not at all laissez-faire.

Sure, they will follow some. But it's hardly a faithful following of the spirit and letter of the Consensus.

Actually, if Europe and the US would drop their subsidies and tariffs, it would be their agriculturers who would be out of a job. It is the EU and US who cannot compete, in agricultaral issues, with Brazil (for exemple), not the other way around.

To continue the line I followed with my first post, the loss of jobs in the first world shouldn't be a problem, according to this view of globalisation. The whole point of readying a nation for a global market economy is to have safety nets in place. In the USA and EU, there is that safety net in place. Unsavoury as it is, when miners or farmers in the US or EU lose their jobs they have social security, they have education to reskill, they have a diverse array of industries to find re-employment and so on. The developing world typically doesn't have these in place.

European subsidies and tariffs are a perfect exemple of keynesian nonsense screwing, and badly, the poor of the world.

An example of badly and unfaithfully implemented Keynesian nonsense perhaps.

Those two bodies hardly have the power to direct globalization. In fact they only act when requested by the actuall governments.

I really don't understad why the IMF and WB come under so heavy fire. Frequently I disagree with their proposed policies - but it's not like they force them down the throat of anyone.

You underestimate the scale of their operations and the level of obligation. Look at the fields the World Bank operates in here, dictating policy when 'co-operating' or granting aid and development loans. Some 185 countries, all but a handful of the UN members, co-operate in the machinations of the IMF and World Bank, and adjust their economic policies accordingly (often relinquishing sovereignty over their economies). I think they do have the power to direct globalisation and are using it.

 

[LordRahl]

And it's all equally distributed right?

I see - it's got to be equally distributed or it's bad? Wrong. I am sick of tired of people complaining about the gap between rich and poor increasing. Everybody seems to be forgetting that while the gap is getting bigger, everybody is getting richer. The rich just get richer faster. Compare the poor from 50 or 100 years ago to the poor today. You'll be very surprised.

 

[JerichoHill]

It has increased the well being of some & decreased the well being of others.

I think that if we look at how the world was 50,40,30,20,10 years ago and today (Pick any number going back), and I'd say that the world is getting to be a better place.

if globalization upsets someone so much, then do not participate in the online world, because THAT is as much globalization as McDonald's in China.

 

[El Koeno]

I think that if we look at how the world was 50,40,30,20,10 years ago and today (Pick any number going back), and I'd say that the world is getting to be a better place.

I agree. And this is a good video of somebody demonstrating it with numbers (Hans Rosling's TedTalk, which many here might have seen). And, the best part, he presents the numbers in a very interesting way. And we've all had teachers/professors to show us how hard making numbers interesting can be.

 

[Theige]

And it's all equally distributed right?

Of course not, that is impossible.

 

[Theige]

It has increased the well being of some & decreased the well being of others.

The main point being, it has increased the well being of a far larger number than it has decreased, hence the effect of increased trade is a net gain, always.

 

[Narz]

Things are not as black and white as you make them out to be. Subsistence farmers don't spend all day playing with their kids, and factory workers aren't dumbed down consumerist slaves who never see their kids.

No. But at least farmers get to work w/ their kids & teach them. I'd rather be a hard working Amish boy on a farm than a Bangladeshi one in a factory.

I think that if we look at how the world was 50,40,30,20,10 years ago and today (Pick any number going back), and I'd say that the world is getting to be a better place.

That's your subjective opinion and as you said, cherry picking variables such as televisions per capita is not an accurate measure of quality of life. Mental illness has risen pretty steadily along w/ globalization.

if globalization upsets someone so much, then do not participate in the online world, because THAT is as much globalization as McDonald's in China.

True. I never said I'm not slightly hypocritical (who isn't) but I make my moral concessions consciously. Even as a homeless man on the street I'd still be immeshed in the globalized world. Even if I ran off to live w/ the virgin tribe of so & so they'd still probably be connected in. It is pretty much impossible to avoid. I am not "anti all trade" but I do think that overall globalization is having a negative effect (the full inmplications of which we are only just starting to feel).

The main point being, it has increased the well being of a far larger number than it has decreased, hence the effect of increased trade is a net gain, always.

You cannot say that objectively. That's like saying objectively automobiles make the world better. That's not true if you're someone from whom pollution has contributed to your death or if you've been maimed in an auto accident. Not to mention it's effects on global warming

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Neither is this. Long-Haul transport is actually more efficient per unit transported.

That is beside the point, since a long-haul trip will likely be followed by a short, inefficient haul anyway.

 

[Theige]

You cannot say that objectively. That's like saying objectively automobiles make the world better. That's not true if you're someone from whom pollution has contributed to your death or if you've been maimed in an auto accident. Not to mention it's effects on global warming

Its not that I'm saying it objectively, I'm stating fact. Without trade we'd still be in the middle ages. . .. .. .. . we'd still be nomads.

Your analogy sucks. Disregarding that automobiles are a single product, are you saying the world would be a better place right now had the combustible engine never been developed? (You cannot turn this into a global warming argument. People can make all the claims they want, nothing can be proven either way)

Automobiles have already made the world better, unquestionably. How many people's lives have gotten better because of automobiles? Way more than hve been hurt or killed in automobile accidents, as well as those who have died from pollution (btw nearly impossible to calculate?). But we have realized we cannot burn oil forever. So we look for fuels that minimize environmental impact. This is happening. If the . .. .. .. . hits the fan like you say it will, it will happen very fast. If it continues as it is now, it will happen slower. The world will not collapse.

Don't be so pessimistic.

 

[Narz]

Its not that I'm saying it objectively, I'm stating fact.

whatever you say.

Without trade we'd still be in the middle ages. . .. .. .. . we'd still be nomads.

I never said anything about "without trade".

Your analogy sucks. Disregarding that automobiles are a single product, are you saying the world would be a better place right now had the combustible engine never been developed?

There is no way of knowing but perhaps.

(You cannot turn this into a global warming argument. People can make all the claims they want, nothing can be proven either way)

Um, global warming has already been happening for decades, have you been living in a cave?

Automobiles have already made the world better, unquestionably.

Sorry but your opinion is not unquestionable.

How many people's lives have gotten better because of automobiles?

Unlike premature deaths from air pollution or car accident statistics it is impossible to say.

Way more than hve been hurt or killed in automobile accidents, as well as those who have died from pollution (btw nearly impossible to calculate?).

About 750,000 in China alone (premature deaths from air pollution). Again, this is just your opinion.

But we have realized we cannot burn oil forever. So we look for fuels that minimize environmental impact. This is happening. If the . .. .. .. . hits the fan like you say it will, it will happen very fast. If it continues as it is now, it will happen slower. The world will not collapse.

The world will be fine. Likely human beings are going to experience a significant dieoff though.

No species has ever gone thru expodential growth like this

without an inevitable die back. I know we think we're unique and special and so, so smart but we're reducing our long term carrying capacity every day by destroying biodiversity, polluting our fresh water sources, air & soil, etc. And God forbid anyone says we should change our hubristic ways, curb population growth and transition to a more sustainable way of life, they are then cast as a chicken little and enemy of progress. We've entered a mass extinction era comparable than the one that killed the dinos & 75% of other species. But no one wants to hear that ****, if it saves them 12 cents to catch sardines in Canada, ship they to China for processing and then ship them back to Canada, then by God it would be economically (the new morality) wrong to not seize the opportunity, environment & human rights cost be damned.

Don't be so pessimistic.

I am realistic.

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

....... if it saves them 12 cents to catch sardines in Canada, ship they to China for processing and then ship them back to Canada, then by God it would be economically (the new morality) wrong to not seize the opportunity, environment & human rights cost be damned.

Maybe it is better to ship them to China and back. Is it smart to have literate, educated Canadiens waste their time on processing sardines?

 

[Part_Time_Civer]

....... if it saves them 12 cents to catch sardines in Canada, ship they to China for processing and then ship them back to Canada, then by God it would be economically (the new morality) wrong to not seize the opportunity, environment & human rights cost be damned.

Maybe it is better to ship them to China and back. Is it smart to have literate, educated Canadiens waste their time on processing sardines?

 

[Theige]

I never said anything about "without trade".

Well that was my point. Globalization = more trade, and without trade, we'd be nowhere

Um, global warming has already been happening for decades, have you been living in a cave?

Sorry I should have said the extent to which global warming will change/destroy our way of life.

Unlike premature deaths from air pollution or car accident statistics it is impossible to say.

About 750,000 in China alone (premature deaths from air pollution). Again, this is just your opinion.

You could say everyone has enjoyed the benefits, not sure if you can say the combustible engine increased economic growth by x amount

Those 750,000 (btw I thought it was like 2 million) are not attributable just to cars. I see your point though, growth without environmental regulations = very bad for people. China will have to do something about this eventually. The people must demand from their government a cleaner way of life.

The world will be fine. Likely human beings are going to experience a significant dieoff though.

No species has ever gone thru expodential growth like this

without an inevitable die back. I know we think we're unique and special and so, so smart but we're reducing our long term carrying capacity every day by destroying biodiversity, polluting our fresh water sources, air & soil, etc. And God forbid anyone says we should change our hubristic ways, curb population growth and transition to a more sustainable way of life, they are then cast as a chicken little and enemy of progress. We've entered a mass extinction era comparable than the one that killed the dinos & 75% of other species. But no one wants to hear that ****, if it saves them 12 cents to catch sardines in Canada, ship they to China for processing and then ship them back to Canada, then by God it would be economically (the new morality) wrong to not seize the opportunity, environment & human rights cost be damned.


I am realistic.

Our hubristic ways changed long ago. Environmentalism isn't new by a long shot. How much land was set aside, even before ww2, to be protected? (Adirondack park, NY, still the largest protected area in the US, in 1890s. And then Teddy Roosevelt came along)

And don't tell me that today, right now, there is not an up swelling of support for almost any environmental initiative. Population growth is being curbed in many nations. All the west and China have been experiencing a much slower population growth for several decades. We must develop the 3rd world to the point where their population growth slows as well. It is unfair to impose restrictions on industry in the 3rd world that are in place in the 1st world. They will never get off the ground and their poverty would perpetuate. When they have achieved a certain level of prosperity, it is then possible to make their industry cleaner and more efficient, just as it happened in the west.

You are right, more must be done to protect the environment. 80% of people in the US support more environmental protection. Its happening, maybe not fast enough, but it won't happen faster, as long as most people's lives are not significantly changed. You underestimate the human race's ability to respond to catastrophe though. I think we have a vast untapped potential for cooperation towards a common goal, when it is truly necessary. And as I said, there are many, including many in power, who are already working towards the goal of sustainability

 

[Narz]

Maybe it is better to ship them to China and back. Is it smart to have literate, educated Canadiens waste their time on processing sardines?

So what you are really saying is that it's optimal to take advantage of people willing to work for pennies so Canadians can have white collar cushy jobs where they can post on Civfanatics.

Our hubristic ways changed long ago. Environmentalism isn't new by a long shot. How much land was set aside, even before ww2, to be protected? (Adirondack park, NY, still the largest protected area in the US, in 1890s. And then Teddy Roosevelt came along)

People are doing good to protect the environment but it's not enough. The idea of saving a few "natural" places (where is an unnatural one I wonder) and bulldozing over the other 90% as we see fit is not enough.

And don't tell me that today, right now, there is not an up swelling of support for almost any environmental initiative. Population growth is being curbed in many nations. All the west and China have been experiencing a much slower population growth for several decades. We must develop the 3rd world to the point where their population growth slows as well. It is unfair to impose restrictions on industry in the 3rd world that are in place in the 1st world. They will never get off the ground and their poverty would perpetuate. When they have achieved a certain level of prosperity, it is then possible to make their industry cleaner and more efficient, just as it happened in the west.

But w/ current technology will not allow for the 3rd world to all live like 1st worlders. Simply not enough resources. Besides, who will process Part_Time_Civer's sardines is everyone is wealthy enough to have useless professions like hair stylist, sports star or professional video gamer? Solar powered robot slaves maybe but say that doesn't work out, then what?

You are right, more must be done to protect the environment. 80% of people in the US support more environmental protection. Its happening, maybe not fast enough, but it won't happen faster, as long as most people's lives are not significantly changed. You underestimate the human race's ability to respond to catastrophe though. I think we have a vast untapped potential for cooperation towards a common goal, when it is truly necessary. And as I said, there are many, including many in power, who are already working towards the goal of sustainability

Well, all I can say is I hope you're right. It seems to me though that the many cultures of the world, while "closer" in certain ways are as alienated from each other as ever. Look at the way much of Islam looks upon the US for example or the attitude of many on this forum towards 3rd world nations (or "crappier countries" as some CFC wit who's name I don't recall once said).

Anyway, I appreciate the respectful discourse. Again, I hope you're right humanity can come into some sort of balance w/ it's environment & within itself collectively.