Like Tree27Likes

End of Globalization?

Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66
    I don't think this should end globalisation - except where globalisation means buy all the things from one country that has developed a knack for producing cheap crap. I think it should change what is meant by business without borders.

    The outcome I would like to see is an end to the rampant capitalist programme of wealth accumulation for the few at the expense of the many. Instead of dragging down our own poor to the level of the poor in developing economies, countries should reverse the tide to raising those below the poverty line up in both their own and developing nations. The inequality of wealth holdings is helping to fuel this pandemic, and it is likely that, unless governments develop the moral backbone required to change, it is the poor who will pay for it in both lives lost and reduced income when it is over.

    I hope it means an end to the charity of the billionaires when they feel like being generous, and the start of taxation regimes that require them to participate in society not at their whim, but at a time and rate that democratic societies demand.
    I agree globalization should not end, and let's face it, some aspect of globalization is actually beneficial. We only tend to think of globalization in strictly economic terms (i.e. unfettered movment of capital, service and goods across borders), but globalization is more than just moving money and investment about, it is also about connecting the world (i.e., ease of international travel, at least prior to the outbreak, greater interaction and consequent better understanding of diverse cultures, etc), those positive aspect should not end.

    So the key to ponder is not an end to globalization per se, but what kind of globalization we are talking about. To do so we need to first grapple with globalzation as it is, not simply critic it but understand its complexity and dealing with tough questions that may not have easy answers.

    For example, one frequently cited criticism is exploitation of cheap labour to make consumer goods. I am not saying that is necessarily right, but you also have to look at this from the perspective of the labourer from the developing countries. No one is forcing them to work in those factories. They did it out of their own free will. Why? Because while the conditions may be tough, it is still better off than remaining as a farmer or fisherman where they may struggle to simply feed themselves. They see it as a first step towards upward social mobility. Should we deprive these workers of these opportunities?

    And another example. Are consumers really willing to put up with fewer choices and higher prices that comes with less globalization. After all, there is always a trade-off. Reverting to "pre-globalization" (if there is even such a term) means expensive products that is not always of good quality. International competition can be a good thing. Take American auto manufacturers for example. In the 70's, they were known for producing big fuel guzzlers that didn't drive all that well and were a maintenance nightmare. But the Japanese automakers flooded the market in the 80s with their efficient and reliable cars. It was this shock of Japanese competition that forced Detroit to produce better cars. Do we really want to take that competition away?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolboy

    For example, one frequently cited criticism is exploitation of cheap labour to make consumer goods. I am not saying that is necessarily right, but you also have to look at this from the perspective of the labourer from the developing countries. No one is forcing them to work in those factories. They did it out of their own free will. Why? Because while the conditions may be tough, it is still better off than remaining as a farmer or fisherman where they may struggle to simply feed themselves. They see it as a first step towards upward social mobility. Should we deprive these workers of these opportunities?
    When you talk about upward social mobility and opportunity, you are opening a can of worms that starts right at the heart of capitialism-driven social inequality. It's not as simple as saying the poor in developed countries don't want to work, or improve, or rise up. The system of wealth ring-fencing means the underclass are increasing unable to improve their standing from that of the previous generation.

    Scandinavian countries always seem to come out on top of the stats for the things I find meaningful. Social democracy does have its faults, but it has to be 1000% better than the systems that use elitism to keep the masses in their place.

    This article goes into it in depth from a US perspective, there's a video for those who are TL : DR.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

    https://youtu.be/hb28kAavh0M
    Coolboy likes this.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66
    The outcome I would like to see is an end to the rampant capitalist programme of wealth accumulation for the few at the expense of the many. Instead of dragging down our own poor to the level of the poor in developing economies, countries should reverse the tide to raising those below the poverty line up in both their own and developing nations.
    But that's not what's actually happening is it? The rich are getting richer and so are the poor. The pie is not a fixed size but grows as more contribute to the wellbeing of others. Those that are rich today are not the same as those 20, 50, 100 years ago.

    As has to be pointed out again and again, for all but the last 100 years or so of human history, most people were scratching away and spending all their time trying to stay alive by what they could grow or forage for themselves. The poor in the UK today can call on more luxury in terms of food, living and leisure time than even the current Queen's father ever had.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert
    not only cheap crap, there are big international firms buy shirts and hi-end clothing made by very low paid workers outside China, including India, Bangladesh, some in appalling conditions. companies to ensure huge profits to satisfy shareholders demand for ever-increasing profits.
    "Hello poor people, I've decided that you are being exploited, so to help you out, you are all out of a job". That'll go down well.

    Sweat shops may be shit, but it's the first step up from eating shit. Crap junk products were made in Japan, then Hong Kong, then Taiwan, then China........., then Vietnam and onwards. Look how lifestyles improve as the wave of development passes over.
    Coolboy likes this.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,841
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66
    When you talk about upward social mobility and opportunity, you are opening a can of worms that starts right at the heart of capitialism-driven social inequality. It's not as simple as saying the poor in developed countries don't want to work, or improve, or rise up. The system of wealth ring-fencing means the underclass are increasing unable to improve their standing from that of the previous generation.

    Scandinavian countries always seem to come out on top of the stats for the things I find meaningful. Social democracy does have its faults, but it has to be 1000% better than the systems that use elitism to keep the masses in their place.

    This article goes into it in depth from a US perspective, there's a video for those who are TL : DR.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

    https://youtu.be/hb28kAavh0M
    To clarify, I didn't suggest the poor don't want to work. I am saying they are freely choosing to work in those factories that some have condemned as exploitative labour sweat shops. Tough as it is, it is still better than their former lives. So that conundrum has to be addressed. Scandanivan economies also rely on globalized trade to thrive, despite their social democratic system of governance, so one way or another, globalization is still at the heart of the system.

    But you are spot on though about the increasing wealth gap and inequality. The gini coefficient has been going up in many countries. The traditional solution to that would be progressive taxes on the wealthy. But...I wonder sometimes if that is really the best or ideal solution. Or is there an alternative?
    Last edited by Coolboy; 03-04-2020 at 06:08 PM.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    21,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Coolboy
    To clarify, I didn't suggest the poor don't want to work. I am saying they are freely choosing to work in those factories that some have condemned as exploitative labour. Tough as it is, it is still better than their former lives. So that conundrum has to be addressed. Scandanivan economies also rely on globalized trade to thrive, despite their social democratic system of governance, so one way or another, globalization is still at the heart of the system.
    I do struggle sometimes with the attitude of some in the west regarding this. "Oh it is slave labour they only earn two pounds a hour!" The fact that two pounds an hour is two to three times minimum wage and the workers can live very well on that pay is not considered. "Oh they don't have aircon in the heat!" Nor do they in state schools yet the kids survive. So the factory gets shut down and they have no money at all.
    Coolboy and East_coast like this.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66
    When you talk about upward social mobility and opportunity, you are opening a can of worms that starts right at the heart of capitialism-driven social inequality. It's not as simple as saying the poor in developed countries don't want to work, or improve, or rise up. The system of wealth ring-fencing means the underclass are increasing unable to improve their standing from that of the previous generation.

    Scandinavian countries always seem to come out on top of the stats for the things I find meaningful. Social democracy does have its faults, but it has to be 1000% better than the systems that use elitism to keep the masses in their place.

    This article goes into it in depth from a US perspective, there's a video for those who are TL : DR.
    It would be good see the world collectively move away from our throwaway culture.

    https://qz.com/811525/sweden-gives-i...-whats-broken/

    No need for a new phone every 9m or 1yr, make products that are more easily repaired or upgraded. I recently bought a vintage amplifier that's older than me, last sold in 1978, still works perfectly with only original parts!

    Today electonics/appliances are made to break and difficult or prohibitively expensive to repair.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marke...pair-1.5475649
    Jackie1 likes this.

Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2