View Full Version : Globalization
05-04-01, 04:44 AM
Recently, there were major protests held in every state capital city in Australia, outside each stock market. They even went outside of the Prime Ministers office, and burnt a replica of him.
I am just wondering what exactly Globalization is about? I have some idea, like free trade, profit over people and the environment and so forth, however, I do not know exactly what it is about.
I knew the protests were going to happen, but I was shocked to find that a seniour police officer was stabbed with a syringe. I also saw images of protesters trying to take bridles off the mounted police officers horses. Also, I heard that the protestors had one horse on the ground and were kicking it. This was on a popular talk-back radio program which only deals with facts. I really feel sad when I hear things like this. Seeing the face of the mounted officer seeing his horse/friend get punched, I can't help but feel sorry for all of this. I think as most people do, that only about half the amount of protestors actually know what they were protesting about. Being supposedly for the environment whilst being cruel to animals, seems to me the most vile and most hypocritical thing you could do and I am saying that as nice as is appropriate on this board.
A MacDonalds resturaunt was also graffitied and vandalized.
I think that next year, on May 1, ithe army should step in with rubber bullets and water cannons, and battons, because if in the protest people can not stick to the views to which they are protesting it then becomes rioting and vandalism.
Did any of you people hear about this or have some more information about Globalization?
Hmm... From what I understand of this issue, decisions are being made regarding our future, but those making the decisions have neglected to include us in the process. I think that some fear that our world is becoming one big corporation where the majority of us own no stock.
Boris, my local head, what are the details regarding this issue?
If what the government is trying to do is to push to open up trade this is definetely a good thing, and is not just putting profit over people. Trade barriers exist because of corporations and special interest groups that are able to gain enough political influence to receive protection. One of the great myths is that regulation is only for the good of society and those who favor regulation are simply altruistic and no one would ever profit from regulation. Many industries are able to operate at inefficient levels because of trade barriers, which increases prices and lowers overall welfare of society. These individuals and corporations who have this protection fight to stop any opening of trade barriers, but unlike others get to hide under the guise of altriusm. We need to protect the environment and prevent corporations from becoming too large, so keep the regulation that is producing a higher profit for our industry at the expense of society.
If the trade barriers are open, resources in society that are currently allocated to inefficient industries will be reallocated to efficient production. This will increase productivity as resources are used for the most efficient purpose. The price of products will fall with free trade across the world and the welfare of people will increase. This is a case of increasing the welfare of people and profits.
Opening up the world to completely free trade is one way to increase welfare of all people by the expoitation of a countries comparative advantage.
My problem with free trade is the opportunity it presents to those who would exploit the disadvantage of one group, creating a pool of profit within the relatively rich retail market of another group.
Also, a corporation is the frankenstien monster of human greed, an entity created for one purpose--profit. Compassion, as offered by a corporation, is more of an excrement and a tool for corporate PR. Ask those who have lost their jobs recently, where compassion stands in relation to the <i>bottom line</i>.
It would be foolish to place much faith in a future which depends on corporations because the nature of the monster is to exploit the world, not save it.
Where's Boris? We need a detailed analysis of the One World issue. Maybe Tiassa can play with the morals of it. This is an issue worth exploration.
Hmm...honey do's are calling me. Have a good weekend.
Making a profit is not a bad goal. It allows the business entity to survive and grow if it is successful. The American people have associated big business and big government to be in the same bag and so they paint it with the same brush.
To make a point look at the Exxon Valdez (?) Through neglect of the skipper of the vessel the ship ran aground, spilling the contents of itís cargo into a sensitive marine environment. This caused huge losses in the fishery business and those businesses that catered to the fishery trade. This was not the only impact. The environmental area will take years to recover back to its original state. The employer was held responsible for the actions of its crew. The public views big oil as the culprit and paints all the industry with the same viewpoint. If the public is so irate over the actions of this particular industry then the answer is simple. Boycott and do not use the products made by this industry. No business can survive economic disaster and continue to exist. Business must respond to its customers or go the way of the Dodo. However, I do not see Joe Q. Public driving any less or using any less electricity. All that is heard is the hue and cry of the consumer saying he is wronged and doesnít trust the entity he complains of.
As to world tradeÖ.
It too, is a two edged sword. To obtain goods at cheaper prices is desirable. To lose jobs because of it is not. Business will send their orders to those who can make it cheaper to reap the profit difference. One such company who took a stand is Walmart. On itís labels are the words made in america . If you believe that sending jobs to other countries at our expense is wrong, buy from them. Support their idea. On the other hand if you believe that cheaper goods are the most desirable and not the idea then do not purchase from them. The choice is yours by what you believe. The majority will tell a company how it should act and respond. This is the basis of free enterprize. And yes, you do have a say!
Profit is as you said not a bad goal. I would go as far to say that it is the only goal that a corporation should be expected to seek after. All companies should be producing at the point at which the marginal social costs equal the marginal social benefits. This is market equilibrium and the efficient allocation of the countries resources. The social costs will take into account costs of pollution and other negative social effects, the only difficultly is internalizing these costs to the corporation. For the market system to function at the efficient level the corporation must make the socially optimal profit maximizing decision, if it does not there will be inefficiency.
On the subject of free trade there will be an effect of jobs moving to countries that can produce at a lower cost. If a country can produce at a lower cost than the United States they are more efficient at producing that particular good and should produce the good and trade. This will cause the U.S. to lose jobs in certain sectors, but what will happen is the resources allocated to that sector will be reallocated to the more efficient sector and than the U.S. trades that good. Free trade will cause jobs to shift to other sectors, not an overall loss of jobs. The job markets will shift to higher skilled jobs in the U.S. as the lesser developed countries handle lower skilled jobs as their economies develop. There will be more investment in human capital in the United States, which will lead to more technological development. This exchange will be mutually beneficial to both the industrialized nations and lesser developed countries. The United States will receive goods at a lower price and can exchange human capital and lower cost technological innovations to lesser developed countries.
The Ricardian way of thinking holds true.
It may well be that I am to sensitive to job loss. Having gone though a number of cutbacks with the company Iím employed with (10% per year for 9 years) I can look around and realize the experience that we have lost. Not only that but the job duties did not decrease with the loss of people. We just work longer and harder to obtain the same level of closure. So if I have been a little harsh then I offer my apologies.
For us these are trying times. We are in the middle of a huge market shakeup. One not likely to settle down in the near future. On one hand those of us who have toiled during our life to make ends meet and will one day retire. Leaving the job market to those who are younger and more able to pick up the reins. On the other hand, those picking up the reins are fewer in number. The job market must compete for those fewer workers and still get the job done. I foresee that there will be a large drop in the stock market reflected by business closings for lack of workers to fill those jobs. I hope that I am wrong but everything seems to point that way. In preparation for that end, large corporations are now doing what they can to automate and computerize everything that can be handed over to a machine and replace workers. The job market for the future will certainly be different from what it is today. I would hazard the guess that this is also a driving factor in the loosening of trade barriers. So much for speculationÖÖ..
It may not come of in my market economist way of reasoning all the time, but I am sensitive to the job loss issue as well. I myself am a week away from a layoff, which isn't a huge problem because I was quitting the job in two months anyway, and my Dad was laid off from his job when I was younger. I just don't see free trade as the problem with job loss in the future.
With open trade it is going to force the coming in work force to receive more training and more education. If we continue to invest in human capital workers will become more valuable. If the trade policies remain in effect I think that the work force will remain largely untrained, because people will not have the economic incentive to receive training. I believe in educatation and training mainly because it makes employees more valuable. If we continue to make labor more productive and more valuable as the economy moves to more skilled industries I think we can increase the welfare of society and the happiness of individuals in their jobs.
The other thing is a see a an upturn to the economy coming. I think right now we are going through an adjustment after a productivity shock. I think there are firms that people were pumping money into that had no future profitability. I think the fall in the market was a result of the fall of inflated expectations. The technology created during the productivity shock is still there it just needs more skilled individuals to take advantage of it. If we can move resources to industries to take of advantage of this than I see other upturn coming. Opening up trade barriers will help in the reallocation of these resources.
Maybe I am too optimistic (not something I am usually accused of), but I have had it drilled into my head that free trade helps society and all evidence I have seen makes me believe it. I also believe in the power of free markets and free trade frees up market resources.
<i>"Making a profit is not a bad goal..."</i>
Well, I have a pencil which I purchased for a nickle. I will sell it to you for the discount price of a dime--my original price was 15 cents yesterday, so you can be certain that you are getting a bargain. Watch for my commercials on TV.
Tobacco is a product for profit, as is heroin.
I read that parents in Africa are selling their children into slavery for profit.
A farmer in Canada was sued because within his fields were plants which contained patented genes, a mutant produced and owned by a large corporation. Apparently his crop was pollinated by the larger surrounding farms. I suppose we better think twice before taking our next breath. It might contain a patent.
Is anyone in CA sitting in the dark right now because of the desire for profit?
<i>"To make a point look at the Exxon Valdez (?) Through neglect of the skipper of the vessel the ship ran aground, spilling the contents of itís cargo into a sensitive marine environment. This caused huge losses in the fishery business and those businesses that catered to the fishery trade. This was not the only impact. The environmental area will take years to recover back to its original state. The employer was held responsible for the actions of its crew. The public views big oil as the culprit and paints all the industry with the same viewpoint."</i>
Who hired the skipper? Also, who is paying more than $2 for a gallon of gas these days? Are there any questions regarding price manipulation in our minds? Does anyone else remember the energy crisis of the 70's? Did the Exon pay for that mess, or was it the consumer and the tax paying citizen?
<i>"Making a profit is not a bad goal..."</i>
<i>"Business will send their orders to those who can make it cheaper to reap the profit difference. One such company who took a stand is Walmart. On itís labels are the words made in america."</i>
That can be misleading. If I remember correctly, a product must only be assembled in america to wear the claim, <i>"Made in America."</i> You can produce most of your product in Mexico, then ship it north for final assembly (two components at the very least).
<i>"If you believe that sending jobs to other countries at our expense is wrong, buy from them. Support their idea. On the other hand if you believe that cheaper goods are the most desirable and not the idea then do not purchase from them. The choice is yours by what you believe. The majority will tell a company how it should act and respond. This is the basis of free enterprize. And yes, you do have a say!"</i>
If it was only so simple. Much like the Canadian farmer, we are limited to the environment in which we live. He could not control the direction in which the wind blows. We can't walk down the street without being subject to the motivations of profit. When you look at the claim on a package which states, <i>"Made in America," </i>can you be certain that statement is the whole truth?
<i>"The American people have associated big business and big government to be in the same bag and so they paint it with the same brush."</i>
E-mail your representative as an average voter, then try the same thing under the guise of corporate contributer. Tell me which concern recieves a response.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that greed is a natural component of our being. I also understand that a corporation is an inflated extension of that part of our nature. It works to influence our decisions and our environment. Just look around you. Now, how is it involved with the New World Order/One World/Free Trade Agreement?
You two are taking this thread in another direction. Continue, please. I will just read.
You indeed have my sympathies. Loss of a job hurts whether youíre prepared for it or not.
As to the education aspectÖ.
It is foreseeable that most companies will have some kind of training course(s) to see that their people are ready for the work environment that they are to be exposed to. I know the company that I work for has requirements to ensure that their people are certified to perform the jobs that they are required to do. That certification process takes many years before they (the workers) are of quality level. Once those workers are lost they donít come back. No one can afford to wait to see if the job that they preformed is coming back. All must eat.
And though it may not look like it from these ramblings and typings, I to believe in free market. But I just canít resist stirring the pot every so often
You are so right! I tend to ramble and rant every so often. Thanx for the redirection.
Not me. I never ramble and rant, but I forgive both of you.