Please tell me why globalization is so great.

[Deja Q]

Proponents, speak up. This is your chance to shine.

I am not fond of it; it disintegrates one's own country's infrastructure.

I have other reasons to say "nay" to it, but convince me. I'm all ears. And mutable.

[xchrom]

1. not me, honey -- i'm with you.

[whistle]

2. For corporations it's a way to maximize profits for the individual worker

...it is slavery

[Ravy]

3. Because since the effort to globalize the economy,

the world has been united in the vision of world peace and brotherhood, and it ended hunger throuout the lands. Americans are all happy and posperous. All is right with the world.
















:hide:

[Deja Q]

12. Tell that to the Americans who have lost their jobs because of it.

They see nothing that conforms with your charming dream. And our media has been less than forthcoming as well; apart from the usual "We're all going to die poor unless globalization happens". Uh-huh. We were all supposed to die of the avian flu by Spring 2006 too.

[Ravy]

31. Does all sarcasm have to be self-identified?

You would think it was obvious. Particularly with the hiding icon.

[sandnsea]

4. I like coffee and kiwi

And I like the idea of people in third world countries being able to participate in first world economies.

I hate that corporations are in control of global trade, that's the part that sucks.

[AliceWonderland]

6. You can certainly have products without corporate globalization

There's plenty of Fair Trade coffee beans out there and they're gooooood.

[sandnsea]

7. People don't differentiate though

They just lump it all in one "globalization" pile without recognizing that trade agreements help those fair trade coffee growers too. At least, if it weren't for the various corporate subsidies, etc.

[AliceWonderland]

24. I'm sorry, I'm not clear on the point here

And no, that wasn't snarky. Are you saying a movement like Fair Trade is part of corporate globalization and people won't make a distinction?

Fair Trade means an equitable and fair partnership between consumers in North America and producers in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. The chief concern of the Fair Trade movement has been to ensure that the vast majority of the world's coffee farmers (who are small holders) get a fair price for their harvests in order to achieve a decent living wage. Fair Trade guarantees to poor farmers organized in cooperatives around the world: a living wage (minimum price of $1.26/pound regardless of the volatile market); much needed credit at fair prices; and long term relationships. These fair payments are invested in health care, education, environmental stewardship, and economic independence. Fair Trade Certified coffee is the first product being introduced in the United States with an independently monitored system to ensure that it was produced under fair labor conditions; now we need a movement to demand it!!

This is very different than, say, the WTO model of international commerce"
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/

I apologize if I have misunderstood your point, sandnsea.

[sandnsea]

34. No

And you weren't snarky at all.

Fair Trade, such as fair trade coffee, is part of global trade. The promise of globalization, pre-nafta days, was to help individuals in third world countries earn their way out of poverty. Meaning, that it's one thing to give food to people and I support that in any event. But to end poverty in a region or country or the world, you have to have commerce. Global trade, fair trade, that sort of thing, is about the only thing that can be a long term answer.

Corporate Globalization, otherwise known as a Plantation Society, is what we ended up with.

I see two things happen. One person talks about the first kind of global trade and if they have the wrong "credentials", they are trashed by those who identify themselves as anti-globalists. What the anti-globalists really mean is that they're anti-corporatists. So the person who wants real global trade gets kicked to the side. The other thing I see happen is that words are co-opted and distorted, like sustainable forestry or even organic. One person uses them in their original context, a corporation uses them to sell products at a higher price and lobbies to loosen the regulation. Along comes the anti-everything person who refuses to recognize the distinctions and lumps them all together making it harder than ever to solve any problems.

[Deja Q]

13. At the cost of YOUR livelihood?

That's the difference between globalization as Christians would want it versus the way our reality is making it.

[blurp]

29. Not if your livelihood resembles organized crime.

If the mob takes over a community and forces those in the community to do only to business with the mob then that's obviously wrong. If the mob loses it's livelihood because their crime family gets busted up we don't object.

To some degree those in industries that are protected by trade barriers are holding the rest of the nation hostage in the same way.

[Deja Q]

30. Yes, but what happens when the mob wants to go to another community?

Little clashes between the communities occur...

Communities are gated. It's impossible to open them just for hand-picked issues. It just doesn't work.

[sandnsea]

35. As Christians want it??

What do Christians have to do with defining global economic policies?

I already said there's a difference between global trade and corporatism. And yeah, provided trade were conducted fairly for the benefit of human beings, then if I can't compete on the open market I need to find some other means to earn a living. It is true that everybody in the world has a right to earn a living, just like I do. It is also true that they have a right to not be exploited by US corporate assholes, which is where the global problem lies.

[unblock]

5. it makes it easier for the rich to just pick up and leave us

wait, i meant that sarcastically, but maybe that IS a good thing!

[Deja Q]

14. Except I believe that is what they are doing.

Right down to eliminating education, making the citizens more selfish and arrogant and competitive against each other via "reality tv", and I could go on for ages. But why should I? There's a sale at J C Penney and I mustn't miss it...

[Maccagirl]

8. Globalization means inter-dependency

which wouldn't be such a terrible thing if we could link arms and sing Kumbya. Clinton has spoken on this many times, but he talks about the problem, but doesn't seem to have the answer on how to change the human heart any more than I do.

[Deja Q]

15. Clinton was a fool or a tool.

We've seen the results of NAFTA.

It's time to put back into the USA again. Or else all our cries of "foul!" regarding jobs and education are worthless. Utterly.

Actions speak louder than words.

And many of Clinton's actions were... not very supportive either. I've mentioned them time and time again. But I will: NAFTA, DMCA, COPA, 1996 telecom act, 1995 welfare act, firing Jocelyn Elders, Monica, I could go on if I cared to.

And, yeah, if our leaders were more honest about it all it'd be easier to digest.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Our leaders are scared to death of the "T-word"

Tariffs that is--the only one I have heard a word from about trade is Dean. You know if the US productivity numbers slow down significantly over a few qts. our economy is toast, the trade deficit will bury us.

[jwirr]

27. EU was smart about it, they have kept their industrial base while

they participate in world trade. On the other hand we have given up our jobs and now import much more than we export because we have very little to export. We have become the worlds consumer. They make it we consume it. The real problem with that is that makes us dependent on products from outside our own control.

The sooner we begin to organize our world around local economies again the better off we will be. Just ask a simple question: Does my area of the country grow enough food locally to be able to withstand a crisis? Do we have the other vital items available locally in a crisis? I think many of us would be very upset with the answers.

When you realize what is missing in your area then you know where to begin rebuilding our nation and getting free from the dependence our current leaders have led us into.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. I think of it as one giant "Pottersville" (as in "It's a Wonderful Life")

Not enough George Bailies out there.

[cigsandcoffee]

10. It's one of the few clear paths to world peace and human unification.

You know - one human family.

Countries will be less inclined to go to war with other countries that they share an economic interest in, there will be greater and more frequent paths of communication between people in different nations, and everyone's standard of living, domestic infrastructure, and access to goods and services should improve.

That's the Utopian version of it, and the realities of making it happen aren't nearly so pleasant or immediately rewarding. But the goals are certainly noble and ideal, or at least they can be - it's not something I would discount out of hand.

[Deja Q]

17. Really. Just so long you remain profitable and mainstream.

There is no utopia and there never can be.

Never mind global warming, the sheer use of resources, US government dismantling programs (including education) I could go on. You think it's bad now with the USA's energy and material usage. China has eclipsed the USA on all things except oil, and it won't be for much longer before they use more of it. India is catching up too.

Surely it is better to stop using resources than to waste more of them?

Again, all I have seen is profiteering at the expense of the American worker, which is not stupid nor feeble. But we are the scapegoats. And until something realistic is said about what's going on, I cannot see globalization as turning Earth into a big-ass Shangri La. Big-a$$ for the fat cats, maybe.

But what can one do?

[cigsandcoffee]

20. Things will always be better for the wealthy.

The big trick is making it better for the people who live in shantytowns and tenements, with a life expectancy of under fifty years. There are too many of them left in the world.

Globalization of economy is one way that could happen. It's not a perfect way, but what is?

[eallen]

11. How many here drive a foreign-model car?

Assuming some here drive Toyotas or Hondas, let's ask them a simple question: Would they be worse off, at least in that regard, if (a) they had only the choice to purchase from GM and Ford, and (b) those companies hadn't modernized, due to competition with Japan, and (c) those company's prices were significantly higher, due to lack of that competition? Even if you drive only an American car, would you be worse off if car prices were significantly higher than they are?

It's easy to look at just that, and say "ah, well, cheaper and more reliable cars are not worth what's happening to GM and Ford." But it's not just that. Computers would be bigger, slower, and more expensive. American computer companies would be less successful, since trade barriers tend to work in both directions. In general, trade makes the world as a whole wealthier, and goods and services cheaper.

That's not the only issue. Of course. But it's an important issue. At least, it is to anyone who buys food, clothing, automobiles, cell phones, cable and cell service, or other consumer goods. So as you think about the other issues, keep that basic benefit in mind. I'm a liberal, and a pragmatic one, so I see many issues in terms of trade-offs, rather than in terms of black-and-white. I think there are legitimate calls for "fair trade," so that western nations don't essentially export pollution or labor abuses to other nations with lower standards, or at least, so that governments work to raise those standards.

[pooja]

16. you've caught yourself in the loop...

if globalized markets where fair (working standards and living standards), then you would have the real costs of products no matter where they were made.

[Deja Q]

18. Bingo. Why is DSL in China so low compared to the US? Ditto for

computers, food, you name it.

Medicines. Why so much more in the US?

Globalization is NOT about equalizing the playing field. Not when the cost of living for people in the US hasn't been adjusted to compensate.

[Phx_Dem]

25. cars?

The point of fair trade is to create an even playing field for competing companies, one which protects workers and owners both. If anything, the result of hypothetical fair trade practices over the last 30 years let say would be better Fords, Chevys etc, and better pay, workplace safety, etc. for foreign auto workers.

This statement:

"In general, trade makes the world as a whole wealthier, and goods and services cheaper."

is just completely wrong, what makes the world wealthier is WAGES, Cost of goods and services goes down for a lot of reasons, vigorous competition, productivity/efficiency improvements etc.

[eallen]

28. Productivity is very much related to trade. If you doubt that....

Imagine how productivity and wealth in the US would suffer, if businesses could not trade across state lines.

[skids]

19. One words: Laws.

The ability to skirt around laws in the near-term.

The ability to be the ones with the money and power when legal systems need to be "reconciled" in the long term.

[adriennui]

21. it isn't great, in fact it sucks

anything that results in the loss of good american jobs is detrimental to our survival as a country with decent living standards.

[Cleita]

23. It could be all right if the rules were fair, but the way it's

being done is disastrous.

[blurp]

26. Because more (globally) is produced with less or same human effort

If you consider everyone in the world, then, on the whole, globalization makes life easier.

Remember that everyone that gets paid for what they do also imposes a burden on the productive capacity of the economy. Every dollar or yen or euro is a claim for products and services. It is the promise of this comsumption that causes people to produce in the first place.

Now, if there exists producers in, say, China, that can make widgets for cheap compared to producers in the USA, then more resources are left over for more production since those being paid for the widgets consume less. It also tends to create more jobs (globally) since now money that would normally go to pay only for a single widget can now be spent on both a widget and something else. A person that spends $100 on a DVD player has just a DVD player, but someone that spends $50 on a DVD player can also buy $50 shoes or something else and thus indirectly employs both DVD makers and shoe makers.

That said, if you're an American worker making expensive widgets, you really don't want to split "your share" of resources with someone in China. So you set up trade barriers, etc, to protect your cut.

So whether globalization is good or bad depends a lot on how you obtained your share of the pie in the past.

If your industry has been protected by trade barriers, then you're going to lose, overall. If you're in an industry that's never had those protections then you'll win since now products tend to be cheaper for you and your dollar goes farther.

The issue of fairness comes into play here since it can be argued that those in protected industries have enjoyed the benefit of purchasing cheap goods and services from those working in non-protected industries, while those in non-protected industries have been forced to use only local/national producers. That is, some of us were forced to compete while others were given a much easier time.

You can do the same sort of analysis when discussing CEO pay or the military-industrial complex. The only thing different are the types of protections that exist.

For CEOs is might be the "good ol boy" network protecting them. If you're making tanks then maybe you're protected by the President you help to get chosen, er, elected.

Either way, the more that's spent, the more that must be consumed to produce something else. A CEO making $9 million a year or $1 billion spent on an F22 fighter is a huge drag on the productive capacity of the economy.

[On the Road]

37. That's a Good Description

You took awhile to write that.

I would add that historically, countries that have impeded international trade for long periods of time have suffered -- Mexico for most of the 20th century, for example.

Globalization does not equal economic Darwinism. You need controls. There are two sides. But to come up with the right policies, you have to recognize both the benefits and the problems.

[me b zola]

32. It is meant to make slaves of us all

Okay, not all of us--just 99.99999999999% of us.

[entanglement]

33. Depends on what you mean by globalization

If it means more wealth for rich investors and CEOs in developed nations at the cost of war, misery and exploitation for everyone else, I certainly oppose it. But if it means bringing humanity together, I'm all for it. May I point out that the citizens of wealthy nations have historically enjoyed the benefits of globalization (though we didn't call it that) in the form of land and cheap raw materials from colonies, forced labor etc. It's only now, when some of the COSTS of globalization are becoming evident, that voices are being raised in protest. Strikes me as unprincipled and selfish. This is the reason that any workers movement must be international and inclusive in character, otherwise the Bosses win (and everyone else loses)

[Terry in Austin]

36. Globaloney!

Its main function is to keep Thomas Friedman employed.