 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Globalization: What, why, how, good?
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Different opinions on and practices of globalization are causing/triggering a lot of tension in the world.
I confess my basics of globalization are everybody getting along; no violence or war; people can travel fairly freely, if they have a passport and visa (if necessary), and the country permits them in.
I don't believe in outsourcing, or bringing people in (esp. at lower wages), if there are people who can do the job in the company's home country. (And I may have been affected by some of this, a couple decades back.)
I don't begrudge anyone a job, but I do think that a country--any country--should take care of its own people first. A compromise might be to have some work done overseas (like crafts made by and supporting tribal women) and having about the same number of jobs in the home country (like packing, mail order, administration), and everyone getting a good wage, according to their local economy.
I'm not an economist, and I don't understand international trade. But, from what I've heard in the news over the years, agreements like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) helped cause maquiladoras (factory sweatshops), and countries, companies, and people didn't benefit equally from NAFTA. Many people are afraid of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Resentment over the effects of NAFTA in the US has caused a lot of anger and disaffection. But people who don't suffer ill effects--and even do benefit--think NAFTA is the bee's knees. (Old colloquialism, meaning that something is cool or good.)
So...what is globalization? Is it mostly good, and is the good enough to risk the not good? Is there a satisfactory way to treat everyone fairly?
Discuss. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The world is an interconnected place, to deny this is foolish.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
If globalisation means all people respecting all other people equally, I'm for it.
If it means giant international corporations dictating to governments, I'm against it.
Which seems more convincing right now?
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't believe in outsourcing, or bringing people in (esp. at lower wages), if there are people who can do the job in the company's home country. (And I may have been affected by some of this, a couple decades back.)
I don't begrudge anyone a job, but I do think that a country--any country--should take care of its own people first.
Then you do not believe in globalisation!
It is all about extending markets, particularly labour markets beyond the boundaries of nation states. If someone in India is prepared to write computer code for 1/3 the cost of someone in the UK, why is it right to deny the Indian worker the opportunity to work?
You then face questions of why the UK worker is more expensive, can they and should they reduce their demands, what about paying for the infrastructure, healthcare, education in the respective countries, are the offerings really comparable etc. etc.
But fundamentally, the issue of globalisation is about including people of all countries in our economic decisions, rather than "jobs for the boys" which in the past has left half the world struggling to feed itself.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
oh, and here's a really interesting graph about what globalisation has done to global wages. In summary, it has been good for the world's poorest and the world's richest. But the losers have been the very people we've heard from in the UK's referendum and the USA's presidential election. That is, the low skilled, low paid workers in rich countries. They have paid the price of raising the incomes of the poorest people in the world (and the richest!).
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
On balance it's a good thing, although like any political or economic process it generates winners and losers. It's certainly preferable to protectionism or governments deciding which industries should flourish and which should not.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The idealistic principle behind globalisation is that access to a wide range of markets enables those in less well off places to benefit.
The reality is that it's the most well off who can afford to take advantage of it, by moving operations to the cheapest possible places. They suffer no consequences for doing so and leave behind the communities that previously provided their labour.
And that's why it doesn't work as promised. The money moves.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The money moves strictly for the benefit of the rich. That it sometimes* helps the poor is secondary.
I do not begrudge people being rich, but how rich does one need to be at the expense of others?
*oftimes that movement of labour comes at the expense of workers' safety and lives.
[ 10. November 2016, 13:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well you get President Trump for a start ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Inadequate ability to regulate when companies are so wealthy that have resources exceeding that of countries. Which gives us Cameco the Canadian uranium company which self-deals to a company in Switzerland to sell uranium at $10 a pound, which then sells it at somewhere between 3 and 13 times that amount, avoiding $2.1 billion in taxes in Canada. And it might be declared by a court to be completely legal. 'Tis but one example, with Apple doing the same in Ireland. There are many examples.
The rules outside and inside of countries for those with lots of money are objectively unfair. The really interesting internal to a country story is that President-elect Sexual Assault has apparently benefitted from internal tax right off rules. And so did all the USA bank-gamblers.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
The money moves strictly for the benefit of the rich. That it sometimes* helps the poor is secondary.
Yeah, but if say you live in a developing world country where the standard of living has improved radically over the last thirty years you can probably cope with the fact that the people doing the investing weren't doing it from the goodness of their hearts.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Callan--
Except that those companies that outsource and employ the poor often make them work in unsafe conditions.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I just watched again this West wing episode 19, from Season 5. More than 12 years old, yet pretty relevant to this discussion.
A couple of Jed Bartlet's observations were IMO on the money re globalisation. The first is that Heads of State, particularly in democracies, who seek to stop its onward march are rather like Canute facing the waves. The second is this.
quote:
Who gave us the notion that Presidents can move the economy around like a play toy? ... It's a lie
.
I'm afraid it is another Trump lie. As the rustbucket states will find out. A humane government provides training schemes and transitional unemployment support to help its citizens cope with the process. And maybe, just maybe, can make a few treaty arrangements to help create a more level playing field.
Good episode, BTW. Like most of the WW episodes. I suspect the Trump West Wing will be a more surreal environment. I just looked at Obama's face.
[ 10. November 2016, 19:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
The money moves strictly for the benefit of the rich. That it sometimes* helps the poor is secondary.
Yeah, but if say you live in a developing world country where the standard of living has improved radically over the last thirty years you can probably cope with the fact that the people doing the investing weren't doing it from the goodness of their hearts.
That works beautifully until the same logic strips you of everything that you appeared to gain.
The fundamental problem with gloabalisation is that it is dehumanising. It renders everything but money invisible, disregardable, worthless. If you happen to be standing next to the money for a while, that's great for you, but don't expect it to stay there. It is utterly unaccountable to anything, anyone but itself, and can simply get up and leave at a moment's notice, taking everything of value with it. Except you, because you're worthless.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Callan--
Except that those companies that outsource and employ the poor often make them work in unsafe conditions.
Well, yes they do, what do you think our own industrial revolutions were like? But as populations get richer and better educated they can better defend their interests. There was an article a few years ago in The Economist (natch) about the development of welfare systems in East Asian countries. The sort that, when I was growing up, were synonymous with sweatshops. I remember when I was at university that commentators seriously argued that we couldn't afford a minimum wage and we'd have to seriously think about our welfare system because we would have to compete, in the future, with Asians who would not bother with such persiflage. It turns out that Asians have no more enthusiasm for working like Trojans for pocket money than the rest of us.
Anyway, there is a perfectly good test case for globalisation. Korea. South Korea has had all the horrors of the leftist bestiary. US Backed Military Dictatorship - check, commercial penetration by US soft power - check, economic exploitation by rapacious local elites - check, working conditions of the sort that would turn the sort of Victorian factory owner described by Marx into Polly Toynbee - check. The North, on the other hand, has been unsullied by globalisation. Global capitalism and market forces have never penetrated it's hallowed shores. No American factory has ever turned to it's people as a source of cheap Labour. So tell me, where would you rather live?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The presentation of North Korea as some kind of liberal paradise is so fatuous as to be beneath contempt.
As for South Korea, as previously mentioned, all of the above is marvellous until the favour of the almighty gods of global capital moves elsewhere. After all the natural resources have been exploited and just as the the people begin to acquire some idea of their own importance and worth, those gods look elsewhere for a reliable source to feed its need for endless surplus value. The reality that this is not in limitless supply is not allowed to get in the way until everything has been exploited to the point of exhaustion.
And we're nearly there.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Callan--
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So tell me, where would you rather live?
Here in the US, thanks. While people do starve here, they're far fewer (AFAIK) than in North Korea. But, given the details listed, I wouldn't want to live in South Korea, either.
I wasn't exactly sure which point you were trying to make. You seem to think globalization is a good thing, but you pointed out lots of problems in South Korea. I think the main problem with North Korea is the Kim family's crazy regime. If they were sent to an uninhabited but livable island somewhere; and the North Koreans got initial humanitarian aid, so they no longer starve and can have a chance to think clearly, they could decide their best path from there.
I just think that countries/governments should take care of their own people *first*. IMHO, the whole idea of "those people come here to get work; and yes, our people won't have jobs here, so they'll have to go abroad for work" is rather like a parent bringing a new kid into the household, and no longer taking care of their own child. And then telling the kid they'll have to go look for food and care elsewhere.
I firmly believe that everyone, everywhere, should have everything they need, plus some luxuries. And if someone wants to live and work abroad, and a country is willing to have them, great! But no one should *have* to go abroad to work and live, without full and free consent.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The presentation of North Korea as some kind of liberal paradise is so fatuous as to be beneath contempt.
Unless done ironically ..
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The presentation of North Korea as some kind of liberal paradise is so fatuous as to be beneath contempt.
I don't think that's what Callan is doing here. North Korea is simply an example of what happens to a state when you don't allow exploitation by multinational capitalists. I remember from discussion of the "third world" back in the 1970s, we used to say that there's only one thing worse that being exploited by multinational companies; and that's not being exploited by multinational companies.
Remember that back then, it was 1/3 of the world that went to bed hungry each day. These days it's normally quoted as about 1 in 7, or thereabouts. I know it's a bigger population now, but to me it looks like progress.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Goldenkey:
quote:
Here in the US, thanks. While people do starve here, they're far fewer (AFAIK) than in North Korea. But, given the details listed, I wouldn't want to live in South Korea, either.
I wasn't exactly sure which point you were trying to make. You seem to think globalization is a good thing, but you pointed out lots of problems in South Korea. I think the main problem with North Korea is the Kim family's crazy regime. If they were sent to an uninhabited but livable island somewhere; and the North Koreans got initial humanitarian aid, so they no longer starve and can have a chance to think clearly, they could decide their best path from there.
Things have moved on a bit since the last episode of M*A*S*H*. South Korea is now a reasonably well run democracy and the 11th largest economy in the world. My point is that a lot of the complaints about Globalisation are valid but there are a number of countries in which it has had demonstrably good effects. South Korea being one of the most notable examples and a telling contrast from it's nearest neighbour.
quote:
I just think that countries/governments should take care of their own people *first*. IMHO, the whole idea of "those people come here to get work; and yes, our people won't have jobs here, so they'll have to go abroad for work" is rather like a parent bringing a new kid into the household, and no longer taking care of their own child. And then telling the kid they'll have to go look for food and care elsewhere.
Goldenkey, meet 'The Lump Of Labour Fallacy', 'Lump Of Labour Fallacy' meet Goldenkey. The Lump of Labour Fallacy is the idea that in any economy there are a given number of jobs and that whenever an immigrant moves to another country and gets a job there is one less job for one of the locals. But if immigrants move to another country and get jobs they spend their money in the local economy which causes growth and economic growth causes more jobs to be created. It doesn't mean that if Mr Singh moves to Iowa someone from Iowa has to move to India to fill the economic position that he has vacated. In places where you have endemic unemployment it's usually because of lack of investment. Immigration, by and large, tends to follow investment. In the UK at least anti-immigrant sentiment is largely concentrated in poorer areas with little economic activity and very few immigrants.
quote:
I firmly believe that everyone, everywhere, should have everything they need, plus some luxuries. And if someone wants to live and work abroad, and a country is willing to have them, great! But no one should *have* to go abroad to work and live, without full and free consent.
Well, I agree with you. I am in favour of people having nice things. But if you want those nice things you have to have economic growth to pay for them. And if you are going to have economic growth someone with a bit of spare capital is going to have to invest it somewhere. And if you don't have economic growth people will move somewhere else. Does it ever occur to you, for example, to wonder why there are so many people of Irish descent in the US? By and large, people move from poor areas to rich ones. If South Korea had the same rate of growth as the North but not its restrictions on emigration we'd all be wondering why all these South Koreans had moved here and Trump and Farage would be inventing shiny new forms of racial prejudice to accommodate them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A really sick part of globalisation trade agreements is that a company can start to research, say the development of a mine or oil pipeline. If the host country's environment laws say no, the multinational may sue against the laws, is essence having them changed.
The idea behind globalisation seems to be that all regulations shall be rational and coordinated. It will be interestimg how the recently signed EU-Canada freetrade agreement pans out (CETA). Will the EU be sued over subsidies to farms and not accepting GMO foods? Will Canada have to accept further dismantling of egg and dairy marketting boards? What about pesticides? These things start slow, and build. Some things admittedly fail.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Callan, funnily enough I was reading this critique of the economic growth mantra earlier this week.
Economic growth isn't required to have nice things. It's only required to have ever-nicer things, in the obsessive quest for things.
As to why there are so many Irish people in the US... sure, seeking economic growth does have something to do with it, but there was a phase where people were driven more by a basic desire to remain alive than a desire to get ahead.
[ 11. November 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In some parts of the world economic growth is the difference between staying alive and the less palatable alternative.
orfeo's attached article is very long on sanctimony and very short on analysis. If you have a nice job in a first world country it is very easy to say "we don't need economic growth any more". If you live in a poorer country or a poorer region of a richer country, not so much. Let's assume we can all agree on an adequate standard of living for everyone in the entire world. Let's say its the median income of someone in a comparatively well off part of the world. You are still going to need economic growth in the well off part of the world to get those below the median income, into the median income and in the less well off parts of the world to get their citizens up to the level of the people whose median income we are using as a benchmark. Hopefully, when we get to this level of prosperity we can watch a fall in the population of the human race (by a reduction in the number of children people have, I hasten to add) but as long as the numbers are expanding we will need economic growth to ensure that everyone is fed and clothed and housed. And certainly it's not relevant to my pointing to the example of South Korea as a country which has benefitted from globalisation. It may be true, for aught I know, that the South Koreans, today, ought to give up the pursuit of stuff, in the name of avoiding global warming, but it certainly wasn't true when they began their long march to prosperity. And it's still not true for a lot of human beings today.
And Humble Servant is quite right. Going from 1 in 3 of the global population going to bed hungry to 1 in 7 is quite an achievement and the ultimate aim ought to be to get it down to zero. To get to this point will require a better distribution of the world's resources and it will also require something else. I will leave you to guess what but if you would like a clue do arrange the letters "Grwoth" and "Econocim" into a well known phrase or saying.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Basing that kind of progress on economic growth is unsustainable because it's based on two lies.
The first is the availability of infinite resources.
The second is consequence-free consumption.
Fundamentally, the US election has underlined the problem in horrifyingly stark terms. There simply isn't enough available for everyone to have as much as is now normal in the richest societies. We have to learn to live differently, or die.
That is the stark choice. Globalisation is a fatal attempt at a distraction.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Basing that kind of progress on economic growth is unsustainable because it's based on two lies.
The first is the availability of infinite resources.
The second is consequence-free consumption.
Not sure what consequence you have in mind for #2.
But on #1, earth's natural resources are indeed finite.
So on the one hand maybe there's some point in getting out there to mine the asteroids. And for those of us staying here, perhaps more of our income needs to be spent on services and less on goods.
Unfortunately, things seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Economies of scale mean that stuff gets relatively cheaper, and labour gets relatively more expensive. Once upon a time people mended watches and sharpened tools. These days, seems like it's cheaper to throw away and buy new.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
There simply isn't enough available for everyone to have as much as is now normal in the richest societies. We have to learn to live differently, or die.
Or just accept that not everyone can have as much as is now normal in the richest societies.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Isn't globalisation just what happens when know-how and capital from one country get together with labour and land in a second country to produce stuff ?
Who could object to that ?
The argument so far seems to be that such a process
- isn't entirely under the control of the government in either country
- isn't a commitment of jobs for life for the workers involved.
Both of those are true, but do they really amount to an overwhelming case for not allowing the activity ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's about cheap labour. It's about maximizing profit at the expense of your sales market's labour. Any benefit to sweat shop workers in Bangladesh collapsible fire traps is incidental. It's about becoming a global monopoly in agriculture destroying local culture. What's to object?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
It's about destroying everything and anything until all the money in the world is at the top of the tree.
It's about dehumanising life until everything and everyone is dead.
That is the endgame because it puts no value on anything other than itself. It is blind and deaf to anything and everything that actually matters.
For that reason, it is the devil,.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, if he doesn't exist, it isn't necessary to invent him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, if he doesn't exist, it isn't necessary to invent him.
By their fruits shall ye know them.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's about cheap labour. It's about maximizing profit at the expense of your sales market's labour. Any benefit to sweat shop workers in Bangladesh collapsible fire traps is incidental. It's about becoming a global monopoly in agriculture destroying local culture. What's to object?
Abuse of monopoly power is certainly something to object to. Does globalisation increase monopoly ? Or increase competition ?
Not meeting local fire safety and building standards is something to object to. Is a multi-national business more or less likely to do that than an indigenous firm ?
What's the alternative for the cheap labour ? No jobs ? Or even-lower-paid jobs. If a multi-national firm increases the demand for labour in a developing country, the price of labour there will go up...
Not clear to me how you think preventing multi-national production is going to remove the bad things you identify.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Globalize equality. Tax wealth. Let capital do what it likes. And tax it, tax it and tax it again.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
As far as I can tell, in the US rust belt, some towns which used to have a big factory, or perhaps a number of smaller ones, which provided income for families, and hence kept the local economy afloat, i.e. shops and the like, found that the factories closed down, as the work went overseas, or was replaced by automation.
Of course, this has always happened, but there is the perception that globalization has speeded it up, and also that free trade deals have.
It's often referred to as the 'hollowing out' of once prosperous towns.
I don't know if anyone has a solution to this; well, Trump is proposing tariffs on foreign goods, but this can actually depress trade.
[ 21. November 2016, 20:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... found that the factories closed down, as the work went overseas, or was replaced by automation. ...
Except that those are mutually exclusive alternatives.
With the former 'nasty foreigners with funny coloured skins' have undercut us and taken our jobs. With the latter, neither we nor the nasty foreigners have got the jobs.
And if 10,000 grim, health destroying and body deforming jobs at £/$ 10 per day are now replaced by machines but there are 7,000 new and better jobs in healthier environments paying the equivalent of £/$ 25 per day, but elsewhere, is that better or worse, bearing in mind the total number of jobs is 3,000 less.
It's a bit like the Scargill case that because of the loss of community etc miners should be expected and entitled to go on being paid danger money and risking pneumoconiosis to go down antiquated and dangerous pits that had been worked out anyway.
I don't know the answer to that, but nor does anyone else.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as I can tell, in the US rust belt, some towns which used to have a big factory, or perhaps a number of smaller ones, which provided income for families, and hence kept the local economy afloat, i.e. shops and the like, found that the factories closed down, as the work went overseas, or was replaced by automation.
Of course, this has always happened, but there is the perception that globalization has speeded it up, and also that free trade deals have.
It's often referred to as the 'hollowing out' of once prosperous towns.
I don't know if anyone has a solution to this; well, Trump is proposing tariffs on foreign goods, but this can actually depress trade.
The answer is to move on, start your own business, make things and sell them online, stop expecting things to stay the same.
You make sure benefits are real and adequate for those who can't do those things - Obama was just beginning to address this, tho stymied at every turn by those same people who voted for Trump.
Trump is promising a move back to past ways - it won't happen. Change is here to stay, always has been.
It's a shame, in days gone by Americans were known for risk taking and moving on.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Boogie, should a teacher or other middle class civil servant have to do the same as the white working class?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, Obama's fans talk of him creating X millions of jobs, but then he inherited the economic crash, and you would expect a recovery at some point.
I'm not sure if everybody can start businesses and move on. People are in communities, near their family, and so on.
I suppose Trump has a magic wand.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
Economic globalisation, like all economics, has winners and losers.
Removal of tariffs means cheaper cars. It also means it's no longer economically viable to assemble cars in New Zealand. But it means better access to other markets for dairy or wood or other exports.
So the argument goes, it's removed an artificial, protectionist barrier. Which in some cases is true. But it's also opened up competition in the labour markets with countries with intolerable labour conditions. Shouldn't some barrier be in place to prevent shedding of fair terms and conditions in favour of exploitation of human beings as a resource to be pillaged?
Certainly some of the more recent trade agreements have some common expectations around labour conditions.
On the other hand, shoes and t-shirts are pretty damned cheap and if I don't have to think to hard about why then woo-hoo.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... found that the factories closed down, as the work went overseas, or was replaced by automation. ...
Except that those are mutually exclusive alternatives.
Obviously the same factory can't do both, but it's perfectly possible for some factories to do one and some to do the other.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
