Globalization

Ray,

This topic is normally a political or international affairs topic.

Def:
The generalized expansion of international economic activity which includes increased international trade, growth of international investment (foreign investment) and international migration, and increased creation of technology among countries. Globalization is the increasing world-wide integration of markets for goods, services, labor, and capital.

Check out the wikipedia take...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

Thanks.

It's a plot to make sure that all these potential enemies have to be saddled with the sort of women we are saddled with and thus face us on a level playing field.Once they have chintz curtains and matching carpets and antique telephone tables and fashionable frocks they'll be out of it.(See General Forum).

There are a number of reasons people are against it.

Personnally I feel that for it errodes cultures. I was think about this when I was brushing my teeth earlier. In the UK there are "political" parties, such as the British National Party (BNP), who are against immigration, the main reason they give for this is that they think people moving to England is distroying British culture. But for me, people moving to England does not do this, if people move to England they take on British culture, they live with in it keeping their own culture or they do something inbetween. I don't see this as any threat to British culture, what I do see as a threat is globalization. This is something I've though for a long time, but I'll give the example I was thinking of earlier.

First off, I should say for people not from the UK that we there are 5 main TV channels, although satalitte TV is growing the I'm this stuff all happerned a few years ago when it was slightly less popular, anyway.

Friday nights on BBC 2 use to be comedy night, they had Bottom, Red Dwarf, the Fast Show, Alexie Sale, Reeves and Mortimer(or Sail, perhaps) and other comedies, mostly, if not all, British. However BBC 2 no longer shows comedy on a Friday night, well maybe one show, but its not 2/3 hours of comedy as it use to be. This is because people have started watching Channel 4 which begun a comedy night of Friday's, showing Friends, Will and Grace and American shows.

I'm not against American shows, because their American, I think the Simpsons is the greatest show of all time, this isn't me saying I love the Simpsons, I honestly belive that there is no show that can match The Simpsons on any level, it's been funny for however long it's been on and it gets still getting better. I also enjoy scrubs, what I object to is run of the mill comedies such as Will and Grace, (I know this is getting a bit in to personnal preferance) being put on because it's cheaper to licence a show from America than it is to fund and produce a British comedy.

Globalization relies on a global culture to sell too. It relies on being able to make a film, TV show, Pop star ect. that will sell across the world, for that everyone has to want the same thing and have similar tastes.

People who are pushing the merits of globalistion are (usally) people who will gain the most. The people against it are the people who fear that it will make every city and every town in to mirror images of each other. The question here is what is best? A worldfull of cultural diversity or a world where there is a Mc Donalds on every corner opposite the Nike store?

There is also the problems with the running of the global ecconammy by the IMF and World Bank, but I don't have time to go into that right now.

terry wrote-



Aw shucks terry-that's a great pity.I was looking forward there for some enlightenment.

Sorry, I was trying to think of a way of putting that with out sounding arrogant or like a know-it-all. I know that post may of seemed a bit like I was bemoaning what I percive as good TV being replace by bad TV, but it really isn't ment to be like that.

I honestly belive that certain forms of comedy are part of british culture/sub culture. I do think that in britain stand up/"alternative" comedy in the late 80s/early 90s did have social and cultural significance. These comediens were the punks and the angry young men and women (incidently I can't think of many female comedian before this time) of their day. I also think that there is so much great comedy in England, and it is of a certain style, from The Goons through Monty Python to many british comics and comedys of today, such as the League of Gentlemen and The Might Boosh.

I can see the infulence of American culture in music, on TV and in people I know. Some of it's good some of its bad (opinons on how much falls under what catagory is personal opinon), but it's all a by product of globalization.

As for the ecconomical side, which I think is what most people who you see at anti globalisation protests are concerned with, it's intertwinded with capitalism.

Poor countries that don't have the capital to speculate and therefore acumulate borrow the money from the World Bank. Just like normal bank loans there are conditions for this loan, they have to pay interest on it. Thats the first problem, many countries cant afford the payments and the loans are gaining more interest then the the nation is paying back, so their debts are getting bigger and the loans that were ment to help these countries is actually making them poorer.

One thing a normal back would do, that the world bank didn't was backround checks of the applicants. A lot of money was lent to corrupt goverments, who spent it on a few palaces, irovy back scratchers all the trinkets you'd expect to find in a corrupt dictator's home who had been given billions spend making their country a better place. Later some checks did take place to see what the money would be spent on, but the types of people who kept the money before would spend it on roads or hospitals and then take more from the road or hospital fund, so they kept their little pleasure and still got the money from the World Bank. Some of these corrupt goverment have now been over thrown, but the World Bank refuse to cancel any of the debts

There were other conditions for the loans, most set out by the International Monetry Fund (IMF).

The IMF forced nations to make their ecconamies more "capitalist" before giving the world bank the OK to give them a loan. The problem was that most developed nations are far less "capitalist" than the IMF insisted the poorer nation become before allowing a loan.

One part of 'capitalising' these poor natons was to make them open up their markets for free trade, many American and European produce however, recives subsidies, this creates a unrealisticly low price for the product/produce so the people of their country cant export, and its cheaper to import than buy from with in the nation which would help the nations' economy. There are some exception, for example coco is purchased from South America and Africa.

Another IMF condition was to open up the nation markets to forgien capital, this was ment to help with gaining investment for businesses, but people would take out large loans in the country, then convert the money in to dollars, wait for the value of the currency to fall and then convert the dollars back to the nations currency and pay back the loan, sort of gambling on the nations ecconomic down turn, which oftern happened because of IMF policy. This was one of the main reasons the IMF policy failed in Asian (south or south-east I think). Until the 'bubble burst' the IMF had held [whichever part of] Asian [it was] up as evidence of how it policies work.

The nations were also required to privatise many of their services such as telephone and water services. This was often rushed due to the need for the loan and many of the countries did not have proper anti-monopoly laws, so the whole water system and supply would be sold/end up belonging to one company who would then be free to charge what they liked.


There were more conditions set out by the IMF, but it's been a while since I read anything about it and I can't remeber any more right now. Also it may of changed, however from the small amount I have read in the last year or so I get the impression that the IMF will not be going hugly out of their way to stop pushing ridged capitalist ideology on the nations it will hurt.

As I said anti globalisation is linked with anti capitalist and anti corperate movements (the coco that wasn't adversly affected by the opening up of markets to forgien trade has many other problems now, due to corperate power). The issues that many anti globalisation bods stand for cover a range of things including welfare, workers rights and other Socialist and Marxist ideas.

I personally do not like the argument about cultures. There will always be varieties in customs in different countries, and even different regions within a country.

Globalization might make certain celebrities more popular or certain shows or ideas more popular, but that's fine (within reasonable limit), and I think in a way it unites people globally. I think we have to keep in mind, mainstream culture is not fixed and it is not always changing either.

To be frank, I am indifferent to any argument about culture. I think the economic issue is troublesome. I mean, corporate monopolies could be, and arguably had been hard for locals.

Thanks terry.You astound me with you erudition.

When's the next big demo?Is there plenty of boozing and shagging?

The trouble with globalization is simply this: It doesn't matter a tinker's damn what you think of it or what I think of it. It makes absolutely no difference whether you or I like the idea or despise it. It is inevitable. It is happening now. It will continue to occur. To be against globalization and to demonstrate against it vociferously is to admit being related to the Luddites who tried to destroy all manufacturing machinery because they were opposed to what we laughingly refer to as 'the industrial revolution.' Globalization is in the same category. It is a historical inevitability. History rolls right over one, whether you like it or not.

Ray, Some people are against globalizatin because it takes away their jobs and transfers it to a country with lower wages.

Globalizatin is here to stay. It's up to each country to build up its social overhead capital (roads, communications, security, energy, and education) to remain competitive in the world markets.

The most powerful economies of the world used to be the US, Japan, and Germany. When Japan's economy was bursting at the seams, they failed to control inflation, and they suffered from deflation after their bubble burst about fifteen years ago. Their secondary problem was making loans to business that couldn't possibly pay it back. Those mistakes have hampered Japan's economy for the past fifteen years, and they are finally seeing some daylight.

With China's cheap labor and competition into hgih tech, Japan's advantages are decreasing at an alarming rate.

When the US and Japan started our economies after WWII, manufacturing was a major staple of our economies. As our economies started to grow, our clothing industry couldn't compete with cheaper labor in foreign countries, and we had to improve our competition in areas such as electronics, cars, and machinery.

To remain competitive, our country must ensure that our children get a good education. However, our school standards have been dropping against other developed countries, and our future looks bleak.

The American audo industtry have been losing to Asia, and the cost of American labor can't compete in the world markets. It doesn't look good for the middle class families working in those industries we dcan no longer compete.

More and more workers are against globalization.

Well said, c.i. Workers may be against globalization but it is "here to stay", as you put it.