The "Where is the world going?" thread got me thining about lots of world issues one of which is the affects that Golbalization and the WTO is having on the world that we live in. I was just wondering what you guys thought about this. Does the world need a organization to regulate what is supposed to be free trade amongst nations? If we were to find a way to raise the human rights/quality of living in all contries to "western norms" what would the affect be on the world?
Maybe I have not thought this through all the way, but it seems to me that the world needs cheap labor (although I find child labor, sweat shops very horrid, just listen to my senerio). Say some large corporation goes to a country with lower human rights laws, like China or Russia to make a prodect because it is cheaper than in the US. If someone went and raised the wages to match minimum wages, benefits, etc that many societies have adopted. What are we going to do when a pair of Levis cost $500?
Globalization, your thoughts?
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Originally posted by Virgil57
Does the world need a organization to regulate what is supposed to be free trade amongst nations?
I've been doing quite a bit of research over the last year into economic history, and I've yet to find a single instance of "free trade among nations." Trade has always been governed by a host of laws, many of them passed by governments desirous of building or protecting trade within their lands. These same laws were very much praised by the businessmen and women of their time and place. Tarriffs, taxes, entry fees, registration fees, material fees, permits: it is a constant. One of the jobs of government is to protect internal trade, and that's why governments spend so much time regulating it while calling it "free trade" to get votes.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I'll tell you my thoughts on the WTO: All they ever do is sit around and discuss how to better the situation of trade, but they never regard who they might be hurting in the process, because they of course got it made. They've got a happy family of 10 living somewhere in the caribic on some private island, with 7 cars and a bank account that could feed the world. Just look at how many ppl lost their jobs because of their "agreements". That's all i gotta say bout that.
A life without freedom, is no life at all
-William Wallace
-William Wallace
There is a need for thing like terriffs and such because they are a very important part of the economies of all countries involved in international trade (which is almost every country in the world). The WTO was supposed to establish a set of trading rules or guidelines that countries need to abide by when trading (which they probably do). I do think the WTO is poor way of resolving trade disbutes, I think it has only solved 1/3 of trade disputes since the late 90's. Just one example I can think of off the top of my head is when Venezuela charged to US with trade discrimination because there gas refinment methods did not meet current EPA standards and the US didn't want to buy their gas. The WTO agreed that it was discrimination and forced the EPA to lower environmental standards.
But what about the affects of globalization on the world. There is definatly a trend of global organizations imposing regulations on many nations of the world. Do people consider the possible economic/social reasults of gobalization or is it something that will benifit all? I think that it is a very very hard question to answer. On one hand everyone would like to see better conditions for workers around the world, but would the increased cost of goods cause a major depression in the world economy?
But what about the affects of globalization on the world. There is definatly a trend of global organizations imposing regulations on many nations of the world. Do people consider the possible economic/social reasults of gobalization or is it something that will benifit all? I think that it is a very very hard question to answer. On one hand everyone would like to see better conditions for workers around the world, but would the increased cost of goods cause a major depression in the world economy?
I'm actually studing globalization and free trade right now in my business/economics/politics class, and I have an amazing (and opinionated teacher), who quite possibly is the smartest person I've ever seen...
Like him, I'm against it. In free trade, one country (the richer one) will always have the advantage, and the lesser country (the one with the weaker economy) could and will be taken advantage of. In globalization, all the rich countries will be grouped together, and be very rich, and all the poor or undevelopped countries will be grouped together, and guess who will have power?
In the Europeen Community, Germany (and mostly France) have control over all the other countries economies. Why? Because Germany and France have the strongest economies, so they have control.
Globalization = Equality is only a perception that people try to sell you.
Speaking of multinational companies producing elsewhere in the world, Nike produces things in China. The workers are paid 16 cents an hour, and they must work 84 hours a week (not including the "overtime" which they must work too, they get fined if they don't do overtime). Thats at least 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Benefiting all? I think not.
Like him, I'm against it. In free trade, one country (the richer one) will always have the advantage, and the lesser country (the one with the weaker economy) could and will be taken advantage of. In globalization, all the rich countries will be grouped together, and be very rich, and all the poor or undevelopped countries will be grouped together, and guess who will have power?
In the Europeen Community, Germany (and mostly France) have control over all the other countries economies. Why? Because Germany and France have the strongest economies, so they have control.
Globalization = Equality is only a perception that people try to sell you.
Speaking of multinational companies producing elsewhere in the world, Nike produces things in China. The workers are paid 16 cents an hour, and they must work 84 hours a week (not including the "overtime" which they must work too, they get fined if they don't do overtime). Thats at least 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Benefiting all? I think not.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
Huge subject, and emotional too. I've heard all the discussions, pro's and con's, and what bugs me is that everyone thinks there's a choice. Suppose we decide, politically, that globalisation is BAD and we don't want it. What are you going to do? Split up all multinationals? Set up trade barriers?
The way I feel is that we're staring ourselves blind at a concept that we can't do anything about, and have opinions about it. It would be more beneficial for the poor nations if their interests were taken into consideration in areas we can do something about - for starters, remiting all loans that the third world spend all their money paying interest for. Another area that would be sensible to address is the burning of foodsources to keep marketprices stable. The largest buyers of grain are the help organisations, and they get to pay for it like everyone else. If the price drops too low, nations often choose to burn their grain rather than be at risk of "dumping the market", a deadly sin in the market economy. The list goes on...
Just my 0.01 Euro.
The way I feel is that we're staring ourselves blind at a concept that we can't do anything about, and have opinions about it. It would be more beneficial for the poor nations if their interests were taken into consideration in areas we can do something about - for starters, remiting all loans that the third world spend all their money paying interest for. Another area that would be sensible to address is the burning of foodsources to keep marketprices stable. The largest buyers of grain are the help organisations, and they get to pay for it like everyone else. If the price drops too low, nations often choose to burn their grain rather than be at risk of "dumping the market", a deadly sin in the market economy. The list goes on...
Just my 0.01 Euro.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
I think Silur has got a good point:
The way I see it the global economy will probably continue to grow at a rate that is most likely much faster than it is now. There isn't much that can be done about it. A single Multi-National corp probably has more influence than all of the human rights activits on the global level. Also given the current economic structure of the world I am not even sure how to shift from the path of globalization.
Suppose we decide, politically, that globalisation is BAD and we don't want it. What are you going to do? Split up all multinationals? Set up trade barriers?
The way I see it the global economy will probably continue to grow at a rate that is most likely much faster than it is now. There isn't much that can be done about it. A single Multi-National corp probably has more influence than all of the human rights activits on the global level. Also given the current economic structure of the world I am not even sure how to shift from the path of globalization.
The debate has mainly been "is globalisation good or bad?". That's very similar to "Is the weather good or bad?". The point is that we don't do something about the weather as such, since it's an effect of nature that as of yet is beyond us. What we do is get warm clothes, or perhaps kill a few furry animals, or burn a few trees to keep warm, we make umbrellas or (my favourite) stay indoors when it rains. To continue with the analogy, those who suffer the most from weather catastrophes are the third world nations.
In both a macro and micro perspective, whoever has resources will be able to get more resources, while he who doesn't won't. This is true for individuals (experiment: try going to a store 1) dressed in a Armani suit, 2) dirty clothes and a wildly grown beard and ask for a rebate), corporations (theres a reason the dot.com companies managed to borrow billions of $ with no collateral, while most traditional industrial corporations had a rough time getting any investment capital at all) and nations (well, this one's pretty obvious).
Now, should we decide to adopt communism worldwide, then that's another matter. It would, however, just give us a different assortment of troubles. Then perhaps we'd discuss government corruption in a similar fashion instead, exchanging one problem inherited in the system for another.
In both a macro and micro perspective, whoever has resources will be able to get more resources, while he who doesn't won't. This is true for individuals (experiment: try going to a store 1) dressed in a Armani suit, 2) dirty clothes and a wildly grown beard and ask for a rebate), corporations (theres a reason the dot.com companies managed to borrow billions of $ with no collateral, while most traditional industrial corporations had a rough time getting any investment capital at all) and nations (well, this one's pretty obvious).
Now, should we decide to adopt communism worldwide, then that's another matter. It would, however, just give us a different assortment of troubles. Then perhaps we'd discuss government corruption in a similar fashion instead, exchanging one problem inherited in the system for another.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman