What's wrong with Globalization?

Globalization also will effect jobs here in the United States. Living in Michigan where factories were prevelent in past, but are now closing and moving overseas. THIS is the effect of globalization as well. The United States, believe it or not, cannot survive in a global economy. No one will buy our products because they are just too damn expensive...so people are losing jobs. These companies can move overseas, pay people a dollar a day and sell products that ARE competitive in a global market.

Maybe it's a good thing, but for people in my family, it's a bad thing, because now they are out of jobs at forty years old, having to start all over again at another job, getting paid half the amount they used to.

 

Who is trying to do that , and which policies - cant it just be that those policies are good for your country whether YOU believe that or not ? Why not have faith that you might not be the best judge?

Well if its any consolation your products are becoming cheaper to buy in Europe - the dollar is slipping at least against the UK pound
and that means the USA has a doorway into Europe - TAX FREE !!!!!!!
so long as they put outlets and manufacturing bases in Europe like Gateway Compuers did in Ireland at one time - I believe they shipped the materials ove from the USA assembled them in Ireland and sold the things cheaper than a lot of other companies but with better quality to them - I had a Gateway lasted from 1999 to now - thats what this is typed on
If the USA could increase its output by entering the Euro economy it would make sense - make money in Europe - bank it in the USA - then rebuild your home economy with it

Sorry to hear that ! I hope that things pick up soon

 

Actually, it was John F. Kennedy that coined the phrase in political discourse. John F. Kennedy repeatedly sounded the optimistic note that good times would be beneficial to all. In his June 1963 address in Frankfort, Kennedy said, 'As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats..'" This reference cites an earlier use of the phrase by President Kennedy in 1960.

In 1993, Theodore C. Sorensen said, 'As Legislative Assistant to Senator John F. Kennedy 1953-1961, I often received material from a regional chamber of commerce-type organization called 'The New England Council.' I was favorably struck by the motto set forth on its letterhead: 'The rising tide lifts all the boats,' and not surprisingly it found its way into J.F.K.'s speeches.'

JFK used this expression when facing critisism that his tax-cut proposals would unfairly benefit rich Americans.

For further reading:

Another Look at Whether a Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

A rising tide lifts all boats, from Wikipedia

Kennedy vs. Kennedy on tax-cuts

 

I still say if you don't have a seat in one of the boats you drown. I don't care who coined the phrase it's still not true for those that floating in the water and the lifeboats won't take them in. When the Titanic went down it was only those that had a seat in the lifeboat that survived.

Globalization is fine if it means viewing the world with respect and consideration, but if it only means looking for the lowest labor pool for your manufacturing...it's shortsighted. What happenned to developing and coming up with the best product and charging a reasonable fee for that product?

I don't buy Stanley tools or Levis anymore because they sold out. The American workforce made them what they were, but they felt no loyalty to the people that built them. They only felt a need to uphold their bottomline. Had they remained loyal to those that made them they might still have a reputation, and they would be able to demand a premium price. But by selling out they lessened their value.

 

Very interesting that you say that ! I bought a Stanley Chisel a few weeks ago and the quality was attrocious - whats the story there? Stanley used to be great - but now, like you, I dont buy their stuff no more

Modern analysts believe that no-one needed to drown on the Titanic if they had only kept their heads and thought a little more - the obvious answer (and what would happen today) is that they should have put everyone on the iceberg. Putting them in liferafts was a mistake - Makes perfect sense - There is no Titanic going to happen in the US economy or the global economy any time soon - what is happening globally is a major rethink to ensure that economies can sort each other out
If the economy is going down dont get in the life rafts - think your way out of it - get on the iceberg that sunk it and get help

 

Before getting into this I would like to point out that I stopped buying Levis when they shut down their last american plant about 4 or 5 years ago. The last pair I bought was made in Mexico. I mention this because of 2 stories that happened relating to that pair of Jeans.

1. I was at Heathrow Airport on my way back to the US after visiting family abroad. I was wearing my baggy Levis I had bought just a few months prior. As I went to sit down in the extremely busy waiting area I heard a loud tear. Turning to my soon to be ex-wife I said tell me that isn't what I think it was. She just busted out laughing. The jeans had, for no reason what so ever, torn across the bottom of my left buttock.

2. I returned to work a few days later and was talking to one of my co-workers when I noticed a restitch on the bottom on his left buttock in the exact same spot as mine had. I then observed that the Jeans he had on were the exact same pair that had torn on my ass for no reason. I then said to him, tell me, were those jeans made in mexico. Puzzled he replied that they were.


Globalization is not the beneficial-to-all, world-problem-solution that many see it to be. In fact it is quite the opposite. Reading over this topic I saw repeated many times that the tide rises all boats. I will point out the flaw of that metaphor.
Metaphorically. When the tide rises, there is no new water created, that water is sapped from surrounding bodies.
Economically. During the last 2 decades, the richest people in this country have been the rising tide, the working and the poor have been the surrounding bodies of water.

The current view of globalization is the most absolute centralization of power that could occur on our planet, i.e. THE PLANET. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This has been proven time and time again over all of history. Today, when a govenment becomes corrupt and oppressive, there are always surrounding countries to go to to flee. When the whole world is governed by the same oppressor, where will you go.
Globalization will only benefit those at the top. For everyone else it will create a limitless labor pool of people willing to work for almost nothing because the alternative will be not working for nothing. Death soon ensues. Globalization will most likely be centered around the United Nations who will disarm the worlds population. A disarmed population can do nothing to fight its oppressors. A good example of what we can expect from the UNs infinate benevolance was demonstrated in Katanga in the 60s when Zaire was freed by Belgium. If you are not familiar with this incident I recommend informing yourself. http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0036.html


Good leadership can only occur on a local level where the elected are accountable directly to those who are governed. It is those people who are closest to you who are the most likely to listen to you but who have the least power to act. To do so in any other manner is to request atrocity.

God I wish I had infinate time to write. But I dont.

Do your own research. I dont get paid to teach.

Travelling Matt

 

North Korea is the best example of a non-globalized economy. Ignoring or "opposing" globalization is to deny that certain countries and regions have natural competitive advantages. The North Korean economy has very little foreign trade and look at the state of its economy. Look at the welfare of its people. Have you ever been there? Have you ever been to Bangladesh or India?

Globalization is not about "centralizing" power. It's the opposite, it's about letting the market determine prices.. It's about supply and demand unencumbered by special interests. Globalization is about the decentralization of trade policy. In your own words, absolute power corrupts absolutely.. Which is why I oppose "planned" economies, such as in the former Soviet Union and North Korea.

As far as globalization benefitting only those at the top, I have to ask: "Are you high?" Is the economy of Bangladesh better or worse now than it was 100 years ago? Those Levis you bought that were made in Mexico were made by Mexicans that probably didn't have jobs before the plant moved in. Now, they are making more than their farmer countrymen. It seems ridiculous to deny that globalization has improved the developing world.

It seems like you are spouting the typical socialist party line of "protecting the worker." Blah, blah blah... the "worker" would rather eat than not have a job.

I would rather not pay union wages for a job that can be done more efficiently somewhere else. Why are cars so expensive? The United Auto Workers. Is an American car of higher quality than a Japanese car? Do Unions make it better? Unions are a monopoly on labor. As US Steel and Microsoft were "punished" for their monopolistic practices, why shouldn't unions be punished for attempting to extort obscene benefits and monopolizing skilled labor? Over $3000 on every GM car goes to pay retirement benefits for employees that no longer work for the company. Why should I pay for that? Shouldn't the employees have saved their own money? How could they? Prices for goods and services are too high, because labor costs are too high, which means people have less money left over to save. The Longshoremen make excess of $120-180,000 per year.. that's as much and more than a doctor! How much of that salary is added in to the price of every product you buy?

I'm done with this discussion. It depressing that so many people think that "the leadership" is out to get them. This class warfare crap is so passe. No one forces anyone to work, except maybe in Chad or the Sudan.. other than that, if you don't like the wages, don't do the job. If you don't like the product, buy what you do like. By voting with your purchasing power you can choose to support those companies with whom you agree. If you don't like Levis-- don't buy them. Very simple. Let the market sort things out. "Benevolence" isn't the solution. Your dollars are.
-
Brian

Read: Global Security, Economics and Politics for further discussion..

 

Globalization isn't inherently bad. Only the way certain portions of it have been applied - namely by the WTO/GATT/World Bank/IMF.

Condionality Loans, Agricultural Tariffs, Pharmaceutical Patent Protection, Enivronmental (lack of) Protection Laws, etc.

Outside of certain flaws, it's great.

 

Thank you! The Ag tariffs are one of my biggest complaints.. I am also highly opposed to farm subsidies, especially the US farm bill.. I'm here in Korea and the issue of rice subsidies is a big deal. Rice here costs more than double what it does in most developed countries due to tariff/ quota systems and inefficient production methods. I don't make much money, so rice prices hit me especially hard. If they'd eliminate the tariffs, I'd be able to spend money on other products, but instead, my money is being used to support outdated farming methods and as such, other industries are suffering..

 

Agricultural Tariffs are particularly insidious. They're one of the few industries that a third world state can develop fairly rapidly [they require lots of land (in the economic sense of the word) and little physical/human capital], yet their trading is one of the most heavily restricted, thus hugely limiting their development. At the same, manufactured goods, which are the specialty of industrialized nations (I know this seems counterintuitive, since everybody here seems to think everything is made in China ), have one of the most free trades around (excepting certain specific industries such as Automobiles). It is kind of a double-whammy on less developed nations.

Combine this with developed nations dumping products (selling them at below cost rates because of subsidies), often disguised as food-aid, and it virtually kills all agricultural industry in huge parts of the world. Third world countries can't retaliate with similar tariffs to protect their own industries because they can't produce enough to feed their people and their population can't afford their tariffs. Nor can they subsidize their industries, because of a lack of cash.

Although I suspect that they justify SK's rice protection for cultural reasons. I'm not sure though, I've never looked into it.

 

The rice tariffs are "cultural" in a sense. They are in place because the industrial base of SK developed much more rapidly than the agricultural sector. So if the tariffs were removed, SK wouldn't (according to the SK government) be able to absorb the out-of-business farmers that would enter the non-ag workforce. The problem is that in the 1960s and 1970s the Korean leadership focused on industrial expansion without paying much mind to moderizing the ag sector, as a result, the ag sector is now unable to compete on the world stage. This misstep has resulted in the ag sector being unprepared to compete in the world market, as compared to the electronics and steel industries which are newer and thus able to compete more effectively.

What is missing in this equation is the cost that the outdated ag sector is inflicting on the rest of the population (i.e. higher food costs.) This is an area that is ignored because the farmers scream louder than the general population and so, as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

Is rice really that expensive there? If I ate rice two meals a day for a month, I could probably do it for 12 bucks Canadian. Even twice that seems extremely cheap - is it really that expensive there?

 

Yes, compared to rice in the US/Canada, it is expensive. There is a tariff rate between around 400% on imports, although there is some progress in reducing that tariff. Basically, rice is costing on average 4 times more than rice would cost if purchased on the open world market. It isn't necessarily that it's difficult to afford, however spending 4 times as much on a staple food product more significant than spending 4 times as much on a non-staple. If the price of bread and milk went up 4 times in the US, imagine the effects on a family's grocery purchasing habits. They'd still buy bread and milk, (they're staples) but they'd have less money to spend on other products. Rice in Korea has a very inelastic demand curve.. which basically means that the demand will stay relatively constant regardless of price, since the food is so essential to Korean culture. There isn't a "substitute" product. In another example, if Coke went up four times in price, people could buy Pepsi (a close substitute.)

For more in depth reading on Korean Rice (from an academic perspective) click here.

For a Korea Times article about Rice moderization, Korea and Japan click here.

 

To clarify: that tariff rate is the rate required to keep prices on imports in line with domestic prices.

 

Globalization is happening as we speak. It has been happening since the fall of the iron curtain.

It's good for America NOW because we are the spearhead, however it's great for China as well...without the rising tide of globalization they would never have been able to pull off the last decade.

There will be growing pains...there certainly will be. But in the end, globalization is key. Don't just think about the commercial implications of it, think of the cultural mish mash, the education, the tolerance and god forbid...perhaps actual peace?

Maybe my view is a bit starry-eyed, but it's happening whether we like it or not so going into it with the best possible attitude is far better than thinking ever little bit of it will suck.

If you go in positive, then you try and fix the bad bits...if you go in thinking it will suck, you just use the bad bits to show the world you were right...what good is being right if everything sucks?

 

Son, I'm in my fourth year of a dual degree, one of which is Econ. You don't have to lecture me about inelastic demand curves, substitutes, and tariffs. Macro 101 was a long time ago.

 

I wasn't directing that at anyone in particular, many people don't have any idea about basic economics, which you obviously do. I didn't mean offense, but you would have to agree that if most people did knew basic economics, the level of discourse would be much higher! Good luck on your degree.. I wish more people would study economics formally, rather than just by reading interest group sound-bites..

 

The danger of a one world government, which is what would logically ensue following a one world economy, far outweighs the potential benefits.

 

The economy is already "One World," with a few exceptions (i.e. North Korea, Turkmenistan.) We already trade with the entire world.. it's the minor, arbitrary and illogical barriers to trade that are the problem.

I keep hearing of the "dangers" of a one-world government. First, what are the "dangers"? Secondly, a one world government is highly unlikely to be very strict because it would be impossible to get all the peoples of the world to agree on anything. The world can't even get the government of Fiji or Sri Lanka to work without violence.. it seems very unlikely that a one-world government is even possible -- or at least one strong enough to do anything substantial. But, educate me, I admit my ignorance on one-world governmental concepts.

 

The notion that the shallow-integration of economies automatically leads to deeper is knee-jerk fear-mongering.