What is Globalisation to you?

[Aphex_Twin]

Why is it good, why is it evil and more importantly, what is it?

Will the free market spell death for socialism? Will "fair trade" have a place in a globalised world?

Will the World turn into a cultural and political monolith? Will local traditions, languages and customs wither and die?

Will it mean the enslavement of the third world? Will it mean the triumph of the (evil?) corporations?

Just some ideas to throw around.

 

[Winner]

I think it is an increasing connection between economies and cultures.

In the middle ages, it was pretty unimportant, if some Asian empire felt to barbarians. Nowadays, very small changes affect global economy very much.

I don't think it's bad or good, it is simply here and it is unstoppable. We should get used to it. It is obvious that the globalisation is continuous process, which was started some 15,000 years ago.

- The socialism is dead from the beginning, it only takes some time before the socialists realize that. I am glad the globalisation speed up the process.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

It's overrated in terms of its social and political effects.

Yes, other nations have American stores, watch American movies, etc. That does not mean that they are turning into American states, nor does it mean that they are becoming any friendlier to America.

France, for example, has multiple McDonald's, but it clearly has a foreign policy not only independent of America, but in conflict with America's own plans. When I went to Prague, I ate dinner at a McDonald's, and ordered the exact same thing I would have gotten in America (that is, if I ate at McDonald's in America, which I haven't in years). Yet, does this make Winner any more prone to act in a pro-American fashion? Of course not. China is building Wal-Marts and Fords, but at the same time it's also building mobile ICBM launchers to ward off an American first strike (and guess where the missiles are aimed). The examples are endless.

We're not becoming "one world" by any stretch. Rather, the many worlds that make up this Earth are becoming ever so monotonous.

 

[Winner]

You obviously don't see the difference between globalization and americanization.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

You obviously don't see the difference between globalization and americanization.

I was using Americanization as an example of globalization; that is, as a specific case of where one culture adopting the companies and culture of another culture does not make that first culture more accepting of the second on a political level.

If you like, I can also give you the example of America not getting any less defensive of Taiwan because of the popularity of Chinese Food Restaurants, or something like that.

 

[Winner]

I was using Americanization as an example of globalization; that is, as a specific case of where one culture adopting the companies and culture of another culture does not make that first culture more accepting of the second on a political level.

If you like, I can also give you the example of America not getting any less defensive of Taiwan because of the popularity of Chinese Food Restaurants, or something like that.

OK then.

Anyway, I don't think it has no impact on the behaviour of countries. The dependance on other markets makes them vulnerable. Any war would hit them very hard, therefore they tend to avoid war.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Anyway, I don't think it has no impact on the behaviour of countries. The dependance on other markets makes them vulnerable. Any war would hit them very hard, therefore they tend to avoid war.

I disagree, because I don't believe globalization causes any sort of true dependence.

In most cases, globalization is a matter not of nations seeking things they cannot otherwise produce, but of nations seeking things at the lowest price possible. For instance, what we import from China is not anything we could not either produce on our own or get from another nation; we get it from China simply because it is the cheapest option.

In case of any sort of crisis with China whereby trade would be threatened, we could go back to those more expensive sources if we needed to. So I don't see it as any serious deterent, because the costs of that are something that any state is likely willing to endure given the sort of interests at stake in a war.

 

[Shylock]

I see it as one of the wings of the New World Order. The bad kind ala 1984,

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Two additional points against "trade peace theory":

- trade does not eliminate conflicting strategic interests, which are the root causes of wars. It may certainly create other, confluent interests, but it does not wear down existing differences. This is subtle, but important.

- there is ample evidence that nations will trade with each other even if they consider themselves strategic rivals likely to go to war soon. The most common example given is Germany and Britain in the period 1900 - 1914. They were in an arms race, of all things, and yet they were each other's largest trading partner.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

It means easier travel and flow of information, and thus is good in my book.

 

[bombshoo]

A 10 year old girl in Nigeria eating Sushi.

 

[samildanach]

France, for example, has multiple McDonald's, but it clearly has a foreign policy not only independent of America, but in conflict with America's own plans.

America and France? Plans?

If there is conflict between them it has got nothing to do with plans. Garlic maybe.

 

[stormbind]

To me, globalisation is international trade including the outsourcing of manufacturing and services in accordance with predefined business objectives.

Globalisation exists within policies of colonisation, imperialism, or open market. Globalisation is not new and it is not changing, but changes in technology are making it more accessible to individuals.

 

[luiz]

I basically agree with Winner. Globalisation is a phenomena that started at the dawn of mankind, and since than is getting faster and faster. It can't be stopped.
Globalisation means greater exchange of people, culture and goods between nations and regions. How can that be a bad thing?

I can understand people who oppose the current model of global economics. I cannot understand nor respect someone who is opposed to globalisation.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Globalisation, to me, means rich people getting richer and the poor being run into the ground.

 

[Damnyankee]

A 10 year old girl in Nigeria eating Sushi.

Not really, they just call it raw fish and move on.

 

[Winner]

I disagree, because I don't believe globalization causes any sort of true dependence.

In most cases, globalization is a matter not of nations seeking things they cannot otherwise produce, but of nations seeking things at the lowest price possible. For instance, what we import from China is not anything we could not either produce on our own or get from another nation; we get it from China simply because it is the cheapest option.

In case of any sort of crisis with China whereby trade would be threatened, we could go back to those more expensive sources if we needed to. So I don't see it as any serious deterent, because the costs of that are something that any state is likely willing to endure given the sort of interests at stake in a war.

Of course it does.
You're right when saying that in the worst possible case, US can be self-sufficient. Yes, probably it can, at least in food production and the most of industrial production. But the costs of being self-sufficient is enormous, it would decrease the living standard of population many times - that's why the countries which are trying to be self-sufficient are the poorest ones.

The "trade peace theory" works if the interdependence is enough high and both countries have governments which need public support to remain in power. Yes, it doesn't work entirely, there is always possibility that one or another government will simply act irrationally, but in general, I think the more trade exist between two countries, the lesser is the probability of war between them.

I don't think your example with Britain and Germany before WW1 is correct. The trade exchange before WW1 is nothing comparable with today's trade volume. Also, both Germany and Britain weren't democracies in today's standards.

 

[Winner]

Will it mean the enslavement of the third world? Will it mean the triumph of the (evil?) corporations?

Trans-National Corporations are OK as long as they hasn't enough political power.

This is one of the reasons why the nation-states are forming trans-national bodies such as the EU - single national government simply isn't powerfull enough to deal with TNC's alone.

 

[stormbind]

Are you referring to Britain giving women freedom to vote? How is this related to globalisation?

 

[Winner]

Are you referring to Britain giving women freedom to vote? How is this related to globalisation?

I beg your pardon?