What is so bad about Globalisation?

[classical_hero]

This is an offshoot from this thread. The G8 Summit

So what is so bad about Globalisation?

 

[punkbass2000]

Just as a suggestion, people may want to define "globalisation" before running ten pages of flames.

 

[luiz]

There was already a thread about the definition of Globalization, I think.

As for your original question, there is nothing wrong with Globalization, it's great actually.

 

[classical_hero]

People making money whilst not being that fair to those in poorer countires that work for them (think nike and sweatshops). This is how business has run for centuries, people making lots of money whilst the bottom level workers get screwed over. but now its global, so apparently that makes it evil.

You seem to be confusing greed with Globalisation. When peopl are greedy, that is when bad things happen, whether you are in a Global economy or an Isolationist economy. Greed is the enemy, not necessarily Globalisation.

 

[Rambuchan]

And good information on globalisation can be found with this gentleman, Anup Shah on his "Global Issues" site, which is always a good first port of call.

 

[punkbass2000]

Anyway, I think most will agree there is nothing intrinsically wrong with globalisation, it's just that it opens the door to greater injustice.

 

[Shaihulud]

I think many people fear that greed is actually behind the push for globalisation. That seems to be one of the reason behind all the protests and something about motherearth and stuff .

 

[nonconformist]

It also destroys cultures.

 

[E-Raser]

Anyway, I think most will agree there is nothing intrinsically wrong with globalisation, it's just that it opens the door to greater injustice.

Furthermore globalistation is a very big advantage. Because it opens the door to greater disbalance and injustice it will rise the number of the suffering people- this will speed up the developement towards socialistic systems and therefore globalistations is something I adore.

 

[farting bob]

It also destroys cultures.

Care to give examples? And i say greed and globalisation can be linked, since the whole purpose is to increase profits or lower costs, thus more money. But globalisation can have a good impact on the workers in other countries. It gives them jobs they may not have been able to get before, it can give them new skills and it may encourage intrnational investors to look into that country /area.
Personally, i see nothing wrong with globalisation, and i wouldnt be surprised if many of those protestors at G8 couldnt give detailed explanations and examples to back up there arguements.

 

[punkbass2000]

Care to give examples? And i say greed and globalisation can be linked, since the whole purpose is to increase profits or lower costs, thus more money. But globalisation can have a good impact on the workers in other countries. It gives them jobs they may not have been able to get before, it can give them new skills and it may encourage intrnational investors to look into that country /area.
Personally, i see nothing wrong with globalisation, and i wouldnt be surprised if many of those protestors at G8 couldnt give detailed explanations and examples to back up there arguements.

Well, that may be true, but really you can't expect a ton from your average person, protestor or not. But really, read No Logo by Naomi Klein for about a million examples of these business not really benefitting the workers.

 

[nonconformist]

Care to give examples? And i say greed and globalisation can be linked, since the whole purpose is to increase profits or lower costs, thus more money. But globalisation can have a good impact on the workers in other countries. It gives them jobs they may not have been able to get before, it can give them new skills and it may encourage intrnational investors to look into that country /area.
Personally, i see nothing wrong with globalisation, and i wouldnt be surprised if many of those protestors at G8 couldnt give detailed explanations and examples to back up there arguements.

Well, if I were to, for example, want to go to Tukrkey, I'd prefer to eat in a Turkish restaurant than a McDonalds.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Globalization gives more power to corporations, who are in turn, above the law and in the pockets ($$$) of politicians. The whole capitalist system is at fault, and a solution will never occur, because of greed.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well, if I were to, for example, want to go to Tukrkey, I'd prefer to eat in a Turkish restaurant than a McDonalds.

Yes you'd probably have a McShish or a McAdana. This is the sorry, pathetic and misleading face of globalisation. Cultures don't get destroyed completely. They get disproportionately morphed into other ones, as shown here. Some do die out and their way of life often dies out also. Cultures, like economies, must preserve themselves as best they can in an open and competitive way, and strong ones should work hard to empower them for the good of all. This is the spirit behind globalisation which I shall define for the purposes of my example as:

[the free transmission of goods, capital, knowledge and labour within a unified and interdependant political and economic system]

A case in point: I was in India twice last year. I followed the on-going saga of Kanada (a prominent dialect in southern India) language films protesting against the onslaught of Hindi speaking films ('Bollywood'). It's a mini-globalisation case in point. In southern cities like Bangalore cinema houses were actively boycotting 'Bollywood' films. Kanada activists were storming Hindi shows and trashing the cinemas. Now this is an interesting and pertinent case, with several relevant points:

- Who controls the means of production? (Mostly Bollywood in this case)
- Who controls the means of distribution and sale? (Ditto)
- Who is the audience/consumer? (This is a bit more equal and this is why this situation got inflamed, because the audience were not part of the other processes to deliver the product)

See this is often the case with globalisation. Both the means of production and of distribution/sale (the later often being the most lucrative) fall into the hands of wealthy nations' companies. And they pay their vast corporate taxes into those wealthy countries' treasuries. And the dividends from those companies are paid out to wealthy shareholders in wealthy nations.

Problem in this scenario is at the point of consuming. Globalisation has mostly been seeing poor developing nations consuming wealthy nations' products which they can barely afford in the first place. They are also producing goods for wealthy nations to distribute and sell around the world. In the developing countries themselves, people are often selling wealthy nations' goods to one another, which are produced in those countries, often with foreign, wealthy management and shareholders behind the companies. This all in the context of protectionist measures which run counter to the notion of a globalised economy. So it's the move to globalisation which is exacerbating already inbuilt inequalities. Square peg in a round hole.

This is why globalisation can be seen as a bad thing. It's exposing many economies to a ruthless market race in which they do not yet have the capacity to run in. They are going to lose, much like many African economies have - and exactly how the Kanada films will lose out to the Hindi films.

 

[E-Raser]

Globalization gives more power to corporations, who are in turn, above the law and in the pockets ($$$) of politicians. The whole capitalist system is at fault, and a solution will never occur, because of greed.

Although your analysis is right your conclusions are wrong.

 

[amadeus]

Well, if I were to, for example, want to go to Tukrkey, I'd prefer to eat in a Turkish restaurant than a McDonalds.

You mean you can't get Turkish food in Turkey anymore?

If you want to shut down American restaurants in Turkey, we should shut down Turkish restaurants in the USA.

 

[amadeus]

Globalization gives more power to corporations, who are in turn, above the law and in the pockets ($$$) of politicians. The whole capitalist system is at fault, and a solution will never occur, because of greed.

Corporations also employ people and pay wages.

Would you be better or worse off if General Motors, Microsoft, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, IBM, and DuPont didn't exist?

 

[Rambuchan]

Corporations also employ people and pay wages.

Would you be better or worse off if General Motors, Microsoft, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, IBM, and DuPont didn't exist?

Many people would be much better off.

EDIT - Like companies making the same produce in their own developing markets, who would not otherwise have to compete with companies that bear an undue advantage over them.

Also people wouldn't die of AIDS if companies in the same gang as you mention were not so profit minded about their life saving produce.

 

[Keshik]

Globalization is a threat to the communists, who protest in force. The resulting wealth creation and increases in standards of living will make it harder for them to gain converts. Any other argument they will profess is a smokescreen.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Corporations also employ people and pay wages.

Would you be better or worse off if General Motors, Microsoft, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, IBM, and DuPont didn't exist?

If the corruption wasn't there, I'd be fine with it. Not every corporation is evil, but the system can be exploited at the expense of those who do not gain.