So what is so bad about globalization?

[JerichoHill]

Leisure Time

Time for leisure varies from one society to the next, although anthropologists have found that hunter-gatherers tend to have significantly more leisure time than people in more complex societies. As a result, band societies such as the Shoshone of the Great Basin came across as extraordinarily lazy to European settlers. [3]

Capitalist societies often view active leisure activities positively, because active leisure activities require the purchase of equipment and services, which stimulates the economy. Capitalist societies often accord greater status to members who have more wealth. One of the ways that wealthy people can choose to spend their money is by having additional leisure time.

So granted on the leisure of those folks, but they didnt have internet, thought the world was flat, no a/c, no heating, at the mercy of the elements, etc. etc. etc.

Sorry< I fail to believe that a regular Shoshone wouldn't have been happier today if they were immediately placed as a regular joe (lets ignore all the improbabilities).

Globalization bad? Narz, this forum is globalization.

 

[Narz]

So, wait, Narz, without multinational corporations, what would happen to the people who work for them?

I mean, do you agree that Nike sweatshops for example provide a net benefit for poor Asian families?

Well it's a tricky situation because many such places are overpopulated & desperate w/o enough jobs to feed everyone. But I don't think Nike sweatshops are the answer. Or if they want to claim to be the answer, they should provide decent working conditions, fair wages and try to help uplift the community. I know a company doesn't necessarily have a responsibility for the 3rd condition (helping the community) but they should do it anyway.

 

[Mise]

Well it's a tricky situation because many such places are overpopulated & desperate w/o enough jobs to feed everyone. But I don't think Nike sweatshops are the answer. Or if they want to claim to be the answer, they should provide decent working conditions, fair wages and try to help uplift the community. I know a company doesn't necessarily have a responsibility for the 3rd condition (helping the community) but they should do it anyway.

I agree entirely that sweatshops aren't the answer, but definitely think we in the West should create some kind of incentive/disincentive-scheme for multinationals, so that they are rewarded for paying fair wages etc, and punished for not. We should neither trust nor expect multinationals to do it themselves. The problem, as I see it, is making sure that there isn't such a disincentive to pay fair wages that the multinationals decide to pull out of poor countries entirely, so that the population doesn't get any wages at all...

I think taxation would be a good place to start, as long as it results in import taxes from those countries being reduced overall (because, as I say, the disincentives could end up hurting the poor country more than the multinationals did).

The other issue is that goods bought in the West are so detached from their origins that it's impossible to tell how they were made, and how the people who made them live their lives. I mean, if Nike shoes had pictures of the sweatshops they came from on the label, no-one would buy them... Many goods have Fair Trade logos on them to help people, but not enough people know about them for that to be effective (and also, it's easy for someone to rationalise and say, "well just cos it doesn't say Fair Trade doesn't mean it was made in a sweatshop"). I think Western governments should look into mandating a rating system that rates the company/product on social responsibility etc, so that the public can make their own minds up about how much their willing to pay to end 3rd world poverty.

To my mind, as long as everyone has all the information, and all "bad things" are properly costed with respect to how much we're willing to pay to rectify them, I'm happy. If it turns out that no-one cares about the 3rd world, then so be it, but at least we'll see it clearly.

 

[Narz]

So granted on the leisure of those folks, but they didnt have internet, thought the world was flat, no a/c, no heating, at the mercy of the elements, etc. etc. etc.

Thought the world was flat? Heh, is that the best you can do? So did humankind for most of civilization's history. Mercy of the elements? People generally knew how to survive in their various climes. Unlike people today, many of whom would be screwed majorly w/o the massive influx of energy needed to heat them in the winter & cool them in the summer.

Sorry< I fail to believe that a regular Shoshone wouldn't have been happier today if they were immediately placed as a regular joe (lets ignore all the improbabilities).

You're entitled to your opinion.

Maybe you can do a study where you go to some primitive tribesmen and interview them as per their level of happiness and then interview some average income workers in Bangladesh or Singapore and present us the results. Until then, I just have my theories and you have yours.

Globalization bad? Narz, this forum is globalization.

If I had a wide social network of friends, extended family, children, elders, trading partners from other tribes, ect. I wouldn't need this forum. Just as if I lived by a stream I wouldn't need a "Soothing Nature Sounds" CD.

Not that I'm b!tching about CFC, I love it, it's great and I'm happy to be alive today and be where I am. That said, I think I'd probably be psychologically more well adjusted if I lived in a different way. Not that I would want to go off into the jungle & join the Wakakame or whoever. Ideally I would like my children (when I have them) to grow up w/ the best of both worlds. In that were to not be possible I would take the tribal lifestyle (PLUS as much of the modern technical, medicinal, philosophical, etc. etc. accumulated knowledge I could (as well as great literature, games, funny cat pics, whatever, like I said I'm grateful for all this stuff but I don't think it necessarily makes happiness).

Edit : Mise, will get back to your post soon. Have to go for a bit.

 

[JerichoHill]

In that were to not be possible I would take the tribal lifestyle (PLUS as much of the modern technical, medicinal, philosophical, etc. etc. accumulated knowledge I could (as well as great literature, games, funny cat pics, whatever, like I said I'm grateful for all this stuff but I don't think it necessarily makes happiness).

.

narz,

But you don't get to stay tribal hunter gatherer forever. Folks will find an edge, invent a new spear. The spear inventor will want to be treated better. He invented the spear, after all.

What happens if there's a drought? A calamity? Today, we can ship food to an island stricken by a typhoon in a matter of days. Thats not going to happen living a hunter gatherer lifestyle.

Why did humanity change? Because its the lot in our lives to try and improve them. So basically, they did. We may now be rich enough to improve our lives by undoing a few things, but no one seriously wants to go back to the hunter gatherer days.

I dont know if you've done it, but for 3.5 months I hiked the Applachain Trail with 3 friends, and in our best health. We basically had to carry our food on our back, find water, find food, etc. It was fun, because we knew that we would back at campus in the fall. I couldnt imagine living like that.

 

[Narz]

To my mind, as long as everyone has all the information, and all "bad things" are properly costed with respect to how much we're willing to pay to rectify them, I'm happy. If it turns out that no-one cares about the 3rd world, then so be it, but at least we'll see it clearly.

The thing I wonder is, do people want all the information.

And of course, corps will not give out anything they don't need to.

narz,

But you don't get to stay tribal hunter gatherer forever. Folks will find an edge, invent a new spear. The spear inventor will want to be treated better. He invented the spear, after all.

What happens if there's a drought? A calamity? Today, we can ship food to an island stricken by a typhoon in a matter of days. Thats not going to happen living a hunter gatherer lifestyle.

Why did humanity change? Because its the lot in our lives to try and improve them. So basically, they did. We may now be rich enough to improve our lives by undoing a few things, but no one seriously wants to go back to the hunter gatherer days.

I dont know if you've done it, but for 3.5 months I hiked the Applachain Trail with 3 friends, and in our best health. We basically had to carry our food on our back, find water, find food, etc. It was fun, because we knew that we would back at campus in the fall. I couldnt imagine living like that.

I'm not saying I want to live like that. Just saying it wasn't all bad and now it isn't all good. I wouldn't want to live w/o the internet either or many of the luxuries I take for granted but I'm aware of the costs too. Some things are almost all benefit w/ little cost (like the Internet, IMO), other things (like the right to drive a private I.C.E. vehicle) have much higher ones.

 

[JerichoHill]

to get to having an internet, there were many intermediate steps, all of which costly, and all of which probably more polluting!

 

[Narz]

Yeah of course, can't change the past but we can (hopefully) eliminate some of the negatives w/o all of the positives.

 

[Princeps]

So it not really globalization that's there problem, but rather law and order (or lack of that really). I do agree they should be allowed to protect their industries though.

Globalization per se is not a problem. I mean, what is misleadingly called "anti-globalization" movement is actually often pretty pro-globalization, all labour unions call for internationalism, and they all simply advocate a different form of globalization. Globalization is a pretty neutral thing as such, the world is becoming smaller because of creater technology, but it's the laws and order, the violent power of state institutions define the shape which the globalization takes. The current form of globalization is defined by the corporatist governments and institutions of the western world, and it's only purpose is to benefit the investors and money-lenders, while the rest is left to the "free markets".