News Globalisation is the label given to the process

[Adam]

Going through my files now, and I've found some more essays and such from high school. Enjoy.

GLOBALISATION

Globalisation is the label given to the process of exapnding trade and seeking equilibrium of labour bases throughout the world. It has good points and bad points, but of course only the bad points have received any publicity recently, mainly because of the violet protests of students who don't actually know why the term means or involves.

I'll list here some of the factors of globalisation:

1) Foreign trade. Nations who can not trade for each other's required or desired resources have been going to war with each other for thousands of years. The way they avoid such wars is by trading with each other, swapping the raw materials and luxuries they want, buying them off each other. The more nations are involved in some internetaional standard of economic co-operation, the few chances there are of wars for resources being fought. That is a very simple concept.

2) Unions drive up labour costs, thus labour in areas/nations without unions is generally cheaper.

3) Larger companies which can afford to relocte their labour bases ten to want the cheapest efficient labour combined with the lowest transport costs for moving the products from that labour base to the market.

4) Relocation of labour to poorer nations where unions are less likely to be organised, if they exist at all, stimulates the local economy, providing jobs in that new region. And of course any economic stimulation is a good thing, as it allows for better health care and education, which in turn through increased expertise further stimulates the economy.

5) Relocation of labour away from more industrialised places of course costs jobs in those places, and results in the first world nations gradually becoming nations of consumers with minimal production capabilties of their own.

In brief, the major points are:
- Foreign trade stops wars.
- Unions drive up labour costs in more developed nations.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for business.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for those nations.
- Relocation of labour costs jobs in first world nations and turns them into pure consumers.

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that relocation of the labour base to less developed nations is not done by large companies for the purposes of helping those countries. They do it to save money, to increase the profit margin. Unfortunately, because those nations don't have unions, the workers are employed in conditions which would be illegal in nations with effective unions. The result is that, while in the long term the relocated economic activity is good for the less developed nations and their people, in the short term those people will most likely be screwed for some time.

 

[Zero]

Globilization is one more way for the rich to redistribute resources to themselves, at the expense of others.

 

[FZ+]

- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for those nations.

Case studies - eg. Sao Paulo, China dispute that. Instead, these suggest that without proper regulation, global corporations destabilise economies in the countries they move to, and any economic advantage barely filters down to the actual employed.

Economic success does not directly translate to better living conditions.

 

[Sunfist]

I agree. It is a wealth redistribution tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Case studies - eg. Sao Paulo, China dispute that. Instead, these suggest that without proper regulation, global corporations destabilise economies in the countries they move to, and any economic advantage barely filters down to the actual employed.

China's economy is growing BECAUSE OF, not in spite of the influx of capitalism. In fact, if not for their economic reforms to allow capitalism, they'd probably already have collapsed like the USSR.

 

[kyleb]

i like that you used the term "screwed" your school work.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by russ_watters
China's economy is growing BECAUSE OF, not in spite of the influx of capitalism. In fact, if not for their economic reforms to allow capitalism, they'd probably already have collapsed like the USSR.

Erm... russ... maybe you can just read that again?

I didn't dispute that capitalism can have a good effect on economy. I am saying that globalisation does not always equal good effect on economy, and good effect on economy is not always "good for the country". I am saying that when it is done WELL, then so. But to say globalisation = always good/bad is to oversimplify. Globalisation without controls is generally bad.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Erm... russ... maybe you can just read that again?

I didn't dispute that capitalism can have a good effect on economy. I am saying that globalisation does not always equal good effect on economy, and good effect on economy is not always "good for the country". I am saying that when it is done WELL, then so. But to say globalisation = always good/bad is to oversimplify. Globalisation without controls is generally bad.

You're right, I'm not getting it. What negative effects of globalization does China display?

 

[FZ+]

Widespread environmental damage, unequal development/investment, continuation of government repression, increase in rich/poor divide.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Major problems that occur with globalization:

When companies move to cheaper labor bases, the original workers loose their jobs. This always has short-term negative effects. If sufficient steps aren't taken to enable these people to take on other jobs, there is a long-term bad effect.

Powerful and rich companies move into 3rd-world countries, taking over their resources. The people there lose control of these resources and become dependent on these companies with little hope of improving their situation above sweatshop conditions.

Since the people running these companies are not locals, they care little about the effects of environmental degradation and other injustices.

Counter-arguments:
These companies may create low-wage jobs, but do not distribute their wealth into the community. It's just more money in the hands of the higher-ups. This is not exactly the best economic stimulus.