Globalization

[galaxy]

I was just wondering what you guys think about Globalization?

[Uncle Martin]

Man,... its like totally global.

 

Globalization is a very general term, could you be more specific please? Global economy, currency, government, WHAT?

[Freethinker]

I live on a Globe!

[nemo]

Galaxy,

 

At some point, I'll have to teach my daughter to bait a hook as well as you baited your question. I have run into a few primary schools of thought when discussing "Globalization" with different people; was your question intended to start a thread with the topic of:

 

• [*]America is rich, so I should pay for the 13 children of a failed warlord in Rwanda who is dying of AIDS because the American economy is keeping the 'man' down

[*]We should help our unfortunate global neighbors by sending most of our jobs to countries where people will work for 12 cents an hour without lunch at the age of 3

[*]My pappy worked on the factory floor, just like his pappy and his pappy before him. I have the same skillset as my great grandfather, so why can't I have a job that will always be there for me, just like him?

[*]Multinational corporations are the enemy. Everyone is a sellout. Rage against the... hey man, pass the chips - I'm gettin the munchies again.

 

Just curious.

[lindagarrette]

I would be willing to discuss globaliation but not on an emotional level. It's not a good or bad thing. It just is. I look at it as an extreme form of capitalism, but with less regulation. The ultimate free market economy. The problem with it and with almost all economic systems, is that it sounds good ideally, but when people get involved, react with greed, intolerance, and power, things get out of hand. It's natural, in our environment for the strong to victimize the weak. Perhaps in the future, when humanity becomes more civilized, it will be possible to have a libertarian socialism that works. that would encompass globalization in the economic, social, and political senses yet leave people free to do as they please without harming themselves or each other.

[TeleMad]

US Companies ARE harming others when the ship skilled jobs over to India. And it's not just the IT jobs...I just saw in some article that pharmaceutical companies are starting to outsource/offshore their work also. Any technical/skilled job that does not require the person to be physically located in our country can - and eventually likely will - be offshored.

[lindagarrette]

I think that the only way to prevent businesses from obtaining resources of whatever kind from outside a nation is to institute extreme tariff restrictions on all imports. That way, all work done off shore would be heavily taxed by our government before it can be implemented. Some people are in favor of an isolationist policy but most know that it would not work out in the long run. The law of economics will prevail.

[lindagarrette]

Another option for accommodating globalization without losing US jobs, is for the workers here to accept significantly lower wages. Corporations, most of which are, in theory run by board of directors answerable to millions of owners, worldwide, are obligated to optimize profit.

[Uncle Martin]

I can certainly understand those in third world countries wanting to increase their standard of living. I also don't blame anyone for taking advantage of an opportunity. I will not willingly lower my standard of living(which is nothing to brag about) in order for someone elses to increase. Which seems to be what is happening. I wonder, does our little planet have the resources to accommadate a middle class standard for all 6 billion plus humans?

[IrishEyes]

I wonder, does our little planet have the resources to accommadate a middle class standard for all 6 billion plus humans?

 

Does this planet have the resources to offer every single person what they need to survive? I mean, forget about offering everyone a middle class standard for a second, and just think about offering every person the chance to have food, shelter, clothing... The middle class 2 story, white picket fence would be great, but let's get food to their belly's first!

 

In answer to your question, I don't think the planet could support 6 billion plus at the US middle class standard. But I think it is more than capable of sustaining the basic needs of its current inhabitants. Of course, then the fun becomes who gets to define what the basic needs are, and how they should be met by the people that are currently not receiving them. I guess if there were a standard, some kind of formulaic answer (1 car + 3 meals + 8 days of clothing + 1 bed + $30,000 in credit card debt = middle class) then we could go about issuing that to every person. Until then, I don't see it ever happening. I don't think it's in our nature to look out for other people like that, as proven by the amount of people currently living in poverty compared to the enormous wealth that a very small percentage of the population controls.

[Uncle Martin]

These are some very good insights Irish. I fall into the category of "working poor" in the U S, yet many around the world would consider me to be one of the wealthy few. However, I am not willing to give up my often broke down pick-up truck with 246,000 miles on it and walk 10 miles to work so that someone else can eat. I don't consider that selfish at all. I think a world of 3 billion living decently is infinitely better than a world of 6 billion or more, just barely surviving. If the wealthy few that I think you refer to, the 2% that control 90% of the worlds wealth could somehow be brought down to a reasonable level, many of the financial and hunger problems that currently exist could be at least diminished.

 

Sadly I agree that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

If the wealthy few that I think you refer to, the 2% that control 90% of the worlds wealth could somehow be brought down to a reasonable level, many of the financial and hunger problems that currently exist could be at least diminished.

 

 

I dont agree with this unc. The reason being is that the majority of wealthy people are self-made, in which case they deserve everything they have made (the same as everyone else). I dont see the poor having a right to demand from the rich simply because they have more than them.

 

Politics and technology are the reasons why hunger exists, not because the 1% keep their wealth instead of pursuing equality.

 

For that matter (when i think about it), why are the poor poor? Are we not the sum-total of our past actions?

 

Why do the poor nations on average give birth to more than wealthy nations per citizen? They're helping their own demise.

 

Why do they flood to areas with poor agriculture, ruining the soil for future production for longer periods of time?

 

Are most poor nations that way because they messed their own country/economy up through poor budgeting actions and their inability to say no to a short term good deal (such as themselves getting into copious amounts of debt for their whims of the moment)? Just look at the UK at the moment for a downward spiral of economy - the country deserves the crash if/when it comes.

 

In part i agree with equality. Just look at the benefit of giving women the same power as men has had to human species in the main (increasing the happiness of the other 50% has increased the overall happiness of the whole).

 

But in the main i dont agree with equality. The reason being is that the idea basically is to "give to the needy", but this says that "the consumers sit back and receive whilst the producers works their ***'s off", which isnt right in my book.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: geko

 

 

 

I dont agree with this unc. The reason being is that the majority of wealthy people are self-made,

Are they? GW Bush? Paris Hilton? Prince Charles?(heh-heh), The royal family is really self made? Even if some are self made and have worked hard for what they have, are they really worth billions? I agree that many of the wealthy have earned a comfortable lifestyle, but c'mon, how could any decent human have a clear consience while sitting on a solid gold toilet seat on their 200 ft. yacht that they only use once a year to impress friends?

in which case they deserve everything they have made (the same as everyone else) .

I think this is wrong. Most of the very wealthy got where they are by exploiting the work of others, not through their own labors. Alot have simply inherited their wealth. Many have stole it. And do you truly think that 6 months work on a movie is actually worth 20 million dollars for an actor? I think some of our sports contracts are approaching the billion dollar mark, is being able to throw a ball very well really worth more than what 1000 average Joe's like myself will make working for 40 years? I agree that those that work harder, or smarter, or have a unique talent or ability are worth more, but not billions more.

I dont see the poor having a right to demand from the rich simply because they have more than them

I don't either, glad we agree on this one. I don't know the answer to approaching a more equitable system. Mind you, I do not advocate socialism,...that has been tried and failed. Capitalism is not the perfect plan either.

Politics and technology are the reasons why hunger exists, not because the 1% keep their wealth instead of pursuing equality.

This is an interesting statement,...please tell me more.

For that matter (when i think about it), why are the poor poor? Are we not the sum-total of our past actions?

This question deserves a thread of its own, I hope someone will step in here and take this point further. I feel that personally I am the sum-total of my past actions. Many of those actions were based on limited available opportunities though. When the company's president's son makes $1,000,000 a year for playing video games in a corner office is he the sum-total of HIS actions? No. Both he and his daddy are being paid by the people on the factory floor making $6.15 per hour. And most of them are on that factory floor because they are too busy working 60 hrs. per week to get the education they need, or start their own company.

 

There is also such a thing as bad luck. About 15 years ago I was doing quite well and expected to be among the rich. Until my wife acquired cancer. I had my own prospering business but somehow failed to have medical insurance. The cost of her treatments and time involved cost me my business, home, investments, ruined my credit,.... so here I am. Totally my fault for not having insurance.

Why do the poor nations on average give birth to more than wealthy nations per citizen? They're helping their own demise.

Agreed, we are currently discussing this in the dysgenics thread.

Why do they flood to areas with poor agriculture, ruining the soil for future production for longer periods of time?

Not many nations have the natural resources to be self sustaining. It is human nature,... no,.... just nature, to do anything to survive.

Are most poor nations that way because they messed their own country/economy up through poor budgeting actions and their inability to say no to a short term good deal (such as themselves getting into copious amounts of debt for their whims of the moment)? Just look at the UK at the moment for a

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 10:24 AM - Unc

As long as the working class allows this to happen,... nothing will change.

 

We're probably on the higher end of the middle class, but that's not always saying so much. We are still and probably will forever remain part of the working class. I'd like suggestions on how we can STOP this from happening. How do we, as the US middle "working" class, effect enough change to affect the entire world?

 

I agree that if people pulled their own weight, things could change. But HOW can people be inspired to pull their own weight, when it is so easy to remain on welfare for 20 years, or they run into a streak of catastrophic illness with no health insurance, or a father dies, or the factory moves overseas? I'm not advocating hand-outs, but I think there really should be some sort of standard. I mean, really... just because a child is born into a very poor family in a third world country, does that child really deserve to go hungry every night because they are the sum-total of their past actions?

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I mean, really... just because a child is born into a very poor family in a third world country, does that child really deserve to go hungry every night because they are the sum-total of their past actions?

Another good observation I think. It looks as if "the sum-total of our past actions" hypothesis is failing fast. This is such a complicated and important issue. I can see no simple solution. Hopefully someone with more insight will join in on this.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: geko

In part i agree with equality. Just look at the benefit of giving women the same power as men has had to human species in the main (increasing the happiness of the other 50% has increased the overall happiness of the whole).

I do think that the sexes deserve equal rights, but I think many of societies ills are a result of this equality also. Over the course of the last six decades while women have gone to work, originally for a better standard of living, wages have been effectively lowered to the point that a two income household is now a necessity in most cases, not a choice. I can't prove that big business and government conspired to double the work force by introducing women into it starting en mass after WWII, while cutting wages roughly in half. It is a win-win situation for them from a strictly monetary standpoint. Besides,...we need another "conspiracy theory",... don't we?

 

In my opinion, not having at least one parent at home has lead to many problems that face our youth today. The high school dropout rate, drug abuse, crime, alcoholism, etc,..... would be lessened with the proper nurturing that only a full time parent can deliver. Financial hardship forced my mother to go to work when I was in my late teens. It had a VERY noticeable and negative effect on my younger sibblings.

 

So while I do agree in equality of the sexes, I feel it is detrimental to society as a whole to put parents in a financial position that leaves them no option but to basically let their children raise themselves. The term "latchkey children" should not have ever been coined.

[IrishEyes]

So while I do agree in equality of the sexes, I feel it is detrimental to society as a whole to put parents in a financial position that leaves them no option but to basically let their children raise themselves. The term "latchkey children" should not have ever been coined.

 

A very well formed response, Unc. I agree with most of it, and even giggled at the new conspiracy, though it doesn't seem all that far-fetched, does it?

I also agree with equality of the sexes. However, I don't think that means that we have to have identical jobs, or should have the same responsibilities. Or to put it in another way, I don't think every woman should feel pressure to perform by society in the workplace if she wants to be home with her children. But then again, I feel the same about any man that feels the call to be home with his kids.

 

But I'm not so sure that 'society" has put parents in a financial position that leaves them no options but to basically let children raise themselves. While there are many cases of single parent families where the choice seems to be taken away, still many other families make that choice all on their own, based upon what they 'need' in order to be 'happy', rather than what may actually be in the best interest of their children or family as a whole.

 

This is from personal experience, on many different levels. I LOVED being in the Navy, and I was really great at my job. I got an enormous amount of satisfaction from my success, and would have gladly stayed in forever. It was a very tough decision for me to get out... for about 3 seconds. Once I realized that my children were being raised by the day care center instead of by me, that I spent about 2 hours a day with them at the most, and that was full of food, bath and bedtime routines, the decision was not difficult at all. We sucked it up, gave up some "extras" that we thought we needed for so many years, and exchanged the day care bill for my income. It wasn't easy, at all, especially at first. There were many adjustments that we had to make, including groceries and entertainment expenses that had to be re-examined. I think it may have been hardest on the kids, then me. Mr. Irish is very agreeable, and was wonderful through the transistion. But it was OUR decision to have both of us working, not anything that 'society' did, unless you count promoting the myth that everyone should have everything that they want when they want it, regardless of the cost. And it was OUR decision to put the interests of our children above our own selfish desires. I don't mean to sound holier than thou, and I realize that not every single person or family is able to do what we did, but I also think that there are many that are CAPABLE of making the change, but very unwilling to do so. ...my how I strayed from Globalization, huh? Sorry bout that, and hope you understand.