Give it to me straight on globalization...?

Question

what is globalization's intrinsic evil, apart from that which it derived from, commerce and trade, supply and demand?

Is the answer in the widening of a gap between developed and undeveloped, have and have not?

Yes?

Answer 1

The intrinsic "evil" of globalization is that it benefits many in little ways (such as lower prices of many goods and services), but it hurts a few in big ways (such as loss of employment). Globalization is no less "evil" than technological progress; the invention of electric light bulb, for example, benefited many, but reduced making candles and kerosene lamps from major industries to crafts...

Also, globalization sometimes gets blamed for things that have nothing to do with it. Ask people on the street, and they will tell you that U.S. manufacturing jobs are moving to China. Ask professional economists who actually researched the matter, and they will tell you that China is losing manufacturing jobs about twice as fast as the U.S. In fact, the world as a whole is losing manufacturing jobs. Why? Mechanization and automation...

Answer 2

Globalization is the extension of free trade to the global economy. Of course every country tries to protect certain interests depending on political realities, so globalization in its pure form does not and probably never will exist.

It is the opposite of isolation.

Those who oppose globalization argue that it widens the gap between rich and poor countries. This is an incorrect interpretation. In a true global economy each country will provide those goods and services in which it has a competitive advantage, and import those where it does not. Underdeveloped countries will export natural resources and provide cheap product manufacturing due to wage advantage. Developed countries will export high tech products and services. Note that if poor countries cannot export their advantaged goods they will not have the resources to purchase the higher goods.

As the poorer countries export cheaper goods to the richer countries the richer countries will lose jobs in that sector. As the poorer countries earn more from these exports they will purchase more higher goods and create more jobs in those sectors in the more developed countries.

It can be argued, and I lean to this interpretation, that the best chance for an eventual peaceful and prosperous world lies in this form of globalization.

Movement towards globalization must progress slowly to oprovide opportunity to smooth adjustments, and because of special interest politics it moves by fits and starts with numerous setbacks.

It is helpful in understanding this argument to consider recent globalization history. Japan now a leader in the developed world was totally devastated by world war 2. In post war years Japan used its wage advantage to produce cheap manufactured goods which were exported heavily to the US. At that time there was great outcry that this was taking away jobs from american workers and hence bad for America. In fact Japan was very successful and became a major trading partner of the US importing high tech and services from US. In 60 years Japan has lost its wage advantage, with Japanese workers paid at or more than americans. they now provide fine cars and electronics for the world. While manufacturing jobs were lost in the US, the Us also grew economically and today has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates, with Japn a major trading partner.

We hear the same arguments today about low wages in China damaging manufacturing jobs in US. It is the Japanese story over again. China in another 50 years will be a major developed country ][and incidentally a free economy eventually brings a free political system and a peaceful partner]

As others have pointed out technology has far more impact on manufacturing jobs than global trade, with china actually losing manufacturing jobs while developing and using its cheap labor advantage for exports.

When economies are closely interdependent [globalization] it becomes increasingly difficult to engage in war as it would destroy ones own economy. The EU, one of the world's most daunting projects to achieve, had that as one of its goals. For centuries European countries engaged in constant bloody wars. Today they have not only free trade but free immigration across all national borders. It is an excellent example of globalization at work. It works and the standard of living of all Europeans has advanced under the system.

Globalization is far from perfect and far from being a fact, but the historical evidence is convincing that progress in that direction is not evil, but perhaps the world's best hope for the future.

Answer 3

Not necessarily.

India (outsourcing) and China (manufacturing) are profiting from globalization at the expense of the western countries.

Globalization is about sending jobs where they are the cheapest.

That doesn't sound really good for many jobs in the western countries but it does sound good for the people who owns the western companies.

Answer 4

It would work if we had free markey economies everywhere, but the only true one is Hong Kong, that I know of. The rest have government protections to varying degrees at least on certain items. If our (US) business wasn't protected by a tarriff on incoming goods, they would be cheap enough to compensate for our lower wages brought about by the loss of manufacturing. Plus we have so many tax loopholes, that our remaining businesses have little incentive to change their practices of high pay to CEO's and no raises for the working class.

Answer 5

Well we could all hide in our shell and only buy things from our mother since buying from our neighbor is only the beginning of globalization. Besides Kumquats don't grow well in the states, present company excluded of course.

Answer 6

Absolutely.

Answer 7

It means strangulating the weaker economies and creating latitude for the G8