What's wrong with Globalization?

Ok, could someone please tell me what's wrong with Globalization? I know there are abuses and problems, but as a general concept, what's the problem?

--
Brian Dear
Sorry, no ads on posts. You can add your blog site in your profile.

 

Opression of the poor in the name of corporate profit. Under globalization, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, it widens the social divide and perpetuates the worldwide class-war which is already out of control.

 

BTW, I didn't vote on the poll because all of the answers seemed to be written from a pro-globalization point of view.

 

I totally agree with you.

And not only that, globalization also forces an "Americanized" culture on EVERYTHING. Sure, it's good for the American economy, but it loses a sense of identity for those it's being pressed upon. They lose their culture AND their ways of life.

I also didn't vote in the poll because I disagree will all of the possible answers.

 

the process of the earth becoming as one consciousness reflecting the depths of love in which is was created can be a joyful one

 

That's a good point. I would say this is one of the reasons why there is so much anti-American sentiment around the world right now. People in other countries don't want to be assimilated by the American corporate machine.

 

I don't think there is that much anti-American sentiment because of American cultural "intrusions." I live in South Korea where there is an abundance of American, French and even Japanese cultural influence. The so-called anti-Americanism is not as prevailent around the world as many would have you think. It's usually highest in areas where there is something military happening. Even in Iran, Americans are welcomed and their culture invited. Globalization doesn't seem to be about oppressing the poor. The people of Indonesia, for example were in far more destitute poverty than they are now -- trade is their way out. As far as preserving a "way of life," perhaps one should visit Bangalore, India and then go visit a small village in Kashmir and ask the Indians what way of life they prefer. A life of poverty, or a life of prosperity. I've been to all of these places and have found that there isn't a backlash against American culture, there is a backlash against corrupt governments that pander to outside influences without careful consideration to the economic impact of their decisions. The major problem of globalization isn't America, it's the ignorance and protectionism of individual sub-sets of people. The world is better through trade, just ask India and even Bangladesh (despite their political upheavals.) Thanks everyone for your viewpoints, I enjoy learning from each of you.

 

I'm not sure about that. Alot of the people around the world who have problems with the USA directly cite Americanization of their cultures as one of the primary causesof the way they feel.

Even people in the middle east who support the Iraqi insurgency have said in media interviews that they want America out of Iraq to prevent the Americanization of Iraqi culture.

Similar points of view have been expressed among the people of Afganistan.

And it's not just America. The west in general is condemned by many of these people.

So with that in mind, I'm not ready to say that globalization is the best thing since sliced bread. To the contrary, it causes problems that we in the west could live without.

 

Afghanistan "culture," at least for the past 25 years has consisted of tribal factions fighting for their share of the opium trade. If this is the culture they are trying to preserve, then so-called "Americanization" wouldn't be such a bad thing. South Korea is probably one of the best examples of Western and traditional influences coming together in an industrialized society. It's possible to expand world trade without eliminating traditional cultural ideas. Just ask Japan. As far as Iraqis fearing Americanization, it's interesting to note that the cultures most "afraid" of Americanizations are among the most religiously balkanized. If people don't like McDonalands, nothing forces them to spend their money there. It's that simple, there is nothing in Korea forcing people to over pay for Starbuck's coffee -- there are plenty of alternatives, however Starbucks in Korea is always crowded. Why? The people choose to patronize these businesses. The interesting thing in Korea is when young people go to an old traditional Korean restaurant, then walk to Baskin Robbins for ice cream afterwards. It is possible to maintain cultural identity in the face of globalization. The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, assuming what you say is true, seem to be worried that their own culture has been repressed by violence for so long, that when they are finally free, they don't want to lose their cultural identity. A valid concern. The other extreme of the globalization argument is represented in North Korea or Turkmenistan. The cultures there are highly protected and preserved, however ask yourself -- are the people better off in their isolation? No one, except perhaps Kim Jong-il would agree that they are better off. Trade is the answer for peace. Thomas Friedman's McDonalds theory purports that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war. Perhaps Big Macs are the route to peace. It certainly isn't isolationism. Is globalization perfect? Hell no. But it beats the alternative of isolated countries attempting to be self-sufficient. North Korea's Juche belief is centered on isolationism and "self-reliance." The suffering of the North Koreans is not because Kim Jong-il is a madman, quite the contrary, Kim Jong-il is simply administering the Juche philosophy proposed by his dad, Kim Il-Sung. It's the economics of North Korea that is the problem. An economics based on the opposite of globalization. Great debate! I appreciate your insights..

 

Well said. I really enjoyed this one.

 

Wow. Maybe I'm just used to under-educated, misinformed posts, but...wow.

 

As a general concept there isnt much of a problem at all as far as I can see. The problem is peoples perception of what amounts to "globalisation". I'm not sure at all that it really is one concept so much as it is a bundle of different concepts with an economic theme behind them.
What the Chinese believe is globalisation will have a different perspective to what an Indian person or a citizen of the UK might think it is
Really you need to explain what you mean by "globalisation"?

Would you mind explaining what a "Juche" philosophy is please I havent heard of this ? I will look for it on the network but still its nice to get an idea of it from the person who raised it. cheers Ok actually no need to I just found it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

wow that really is something I just realised now why you say he is no madman -

was enough to get me thinking for a while and it makes sense too.

yeah my feeling too -

 

Basically globalization undermines the sovereignty of the United States and any other nation for that matter. It would render the constitution meaningless I think.


Bustramp

 

I think thats the point isnt it? It depends what globalisation means - but since the U.S.A's political establishments (not its government but its civil services (foreign departmment etc) ) are advocates of it then it would stand to reason that those in power dont think so - but thats what I mean it depends which side of the fence you sit will determine what you believe about globalisation

 

Well said. The concept of globalization as I mean it, is not necessarily the homogenization of cultures, but more the homogenization of economic systems to facilitate the unecumbered exchange of products and ideas. Globalization is the economic equivalent of freedom of speech. Of course, we all know that freedom of speech is not, nor should it be absolute, just as free trade should not absolute. However, the concept of freedom of speech as well as globalization is overall a good idea. Obviously, with trade and speech, there should be certain limits in order to not squash the rights of others. For example, US, EU farm subsidies are an example of where limits should be enacted. Those subsidies effectively limit the economic freedoms of developing countries (such as in Africa.) Those subsidies are not just unfair, they distort the market. Just as the mainstream media can distort elections via biased covereage.

My globalization "ideal" would involve graduated elimination of all tarrifs, but of course that would require the graduated elimination of domestic subsidies. Over time, the markets will create a more efficient and productive environment. This is the stated aim of the World Trade Organization, however domestic political agendas often preclude trade fairness. Much as Colorado can trade products and services with Illinois with minimal regulatory interference, I would hope that America and Zambia, or France and Uzbekistan could enjoy similar trade efficiency.

Economic balkanization is a poison. It is one of the root causes of poverty. If Africa can't sell tulips to Europe because the Dutch oppose tariff elimination, then Africa effectively will have a smaller or reduced market for their products, thus perpetuating poverty in that region. Bono is more of an expert in that area than me, go visit the One Campaign website for more about African trade and poverty.

Sorry about the longish posts, but clarification of my position was important. I am not in favor of cultural imperialism from any country. I am in favor of eliminating barriers to trade as it will benefit all economies, from developed countries like the US all the way down to small Bangladeshi basket weavers.

Much as the civil rights movement in the United States reduced barriers between races, I want to reduce barriers between economies. Racial segregation seemed like a good idea to some people throughout history just as economic segregation seems like a good idea to some now. Realizing that segregation hurts a country took many years, but looking back it seems obvious (to most of us) that segregation was wrong, both morally and economically. So to answer my own poll question, I think a rising tide raises all boats, however we need to ensure that all boats are ready for the rising tide..

 

A rising tide may raise all boats, but if you don't own a boat you drown. How many of us own boats? Reagan started that phrase and look at the division of moneyed interests now and the lower classes or those that think themselves as middleclass.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html

 

Interesting viewpoint that is actually very pertinent on the HipForums.

 

Thats not likely - look in times of great upheaval and change people become afraid and lose faith in the estblishment - I believe there was a western golden age, a heyday between about 1952 and 1971 and thats what a lot of people clung on to --- the hope it could always stay the same - but it couldnt always be that way . The powers that be arent all bad - theyre human too we have to stop thinking chaos is just around the corner - YOUR GOVERNMENT NEVER LET YOU DOWN BEFORE why would they do it now?
Perhaps they understand something we dont and we are the ones thats wrong - what happened to trust and good order in the political system?
Everything frightens the shit out of me too but I have faith that some people believe our way of life is good with me

damn I felt like an actor in lord of the flies when I typed that

 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. That's also at the extreme, negative end. Another would be the expansion of the ideal of freedom and greater market efficiency through elimination of trade barriers, a case already brilliantly put forth by superacidjax. Ideally, exposing cultures to each other presents the individuals of each culture and ideology to elect the better of the two, eliminating archaic ideals. The culture, ideology, and sovereignty of nations like N. Korea and Iran exist as suppressors of their people. While new ideals replace archaic ones, aesthetic and socially ritualistic components of the culture may certainly remain.

Globalization would likely entail not a revocation of the constitution but an expansion of it. Globalization is an already-occurring social phenomenon, anyway. Technology especially paves the way for externalities. The time has already come where internal atrocities are investigated by external entities. International law is, as well, a symptom of globalization. We now hold leaders everywhere accountable more so than ever. In addition to this, foreign powers compound the ever increasing, glorious concept of checks and balances. Iran, for instance, does not have a moral right, certainly not through any false notion of sovereign, to oppress its people. Going about changing this must not be instantaneous and unipartisan. The entire free world must stand up and encourage, perhaps through financing opposition, the power of the people hold their government in check. It's a negation of national sovereignty and an adoption of popular sovereignty.

 

Globalism, organizing a world wide policy? If it means undermining the sovereignty of the United States and putting constitutional rights in jeopardy for some foreign policy, No thanks.

By the way I didn't vote either, didn't like the choices.


Bustramp