Benefits of Globalism are many or few?

Question

Already been flooded with all of the "problems" of Globalism, so what are the benefits?

Is there even an agreed-upon-definition for the "globalism" term? - Excerpts from Bill Clinton speech at
Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor 6/1/07 USA Today "What is the fundamental nature of your world, the 21st century world?
Most people say globalization. I far prefer 'interdependence,' because this is about more than economics...This is about the increasing web that binds us together... We should move from interdependence to integrated communities..."

Answer 1

Globalism is good for trade between countries to lower tariffs resulting to less prices of goods. Security between countries will also be established through direct cooperation.

Answer 2

It depends on which part of the world you ask. For America initially the benefit would send our economy soaring (as we currently see). But in the end the third world would drag the USA to it's economic knees allowing some crackpot to make a move to change everything.

Answer 3

This will force 'cells' of people to disengage from society. Going underground or more 'cattle' type mentality as in China. It has worked for China and has helped them but it seems like it will crush creative thinking. However, sometimes that crush can force breakthroughs. I do not believe it will cause so many to florish as we have too much miltary types. I'm more tibetian and toltec thinking. We fade away too.

Answer 4

There are none, it,s just a way to reward the corrupt, poorly managed and lazy nations that won't take care of their own people.

Answer 5

Many benefits such as cheaper commodities for all, better distribution of wealth, ease of travel, breakdown of barriers to communication between countries, etc.

Answer 6

Who Benefits from the Free Trade Agreements?



By John W. Warnock




All our political leaders, our business organizations, and most of our university academics proclaim that the free trade agreements benefit Canada, the United States and Mexico, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) will benefit the less developed countries in Latin America. I spent the month of March touring Mexico, looking for information on the impact of the new free market free trade regime on Mexican development. In Canada this new political economy system is called globalization; in Latin America it is called neoliberalism.

First, it should be remembered that these agreements have very little to do with trade. Even before they were signed we had almost complete free trade. The new agreements are primarily about private investment rights.



How does one judge whether a political economy regime is a success? Mainstream economists usually cite figures on economic growth. In Mexico the period 1945 to 1974 was the period of state-led Keynesian political economy. During that period real annual growth averaged 6.4% and inflation 3.1%. Manufacturing grew at a rate of 7.6%, and many jobs were created. This period was called "the economic miracle." Between 1973 and 1983 real economic growth averaged 4.8%, and inflation rose to 16.5%.



In the period of neoliberalism, from 1982 to the present, the real rate of growth has averaged 2.8%.The average annual inflation was 45.7%. These basic figures alone explain why there is such skepticism of neoliberal policies in Mexico.



Mexico has always been characterized by inequality, but this has risen under the neoliberal regime. The World Bank reported in March that the bottom 10% of the population earned only 1.5% of total income whereas the top 10% earned 42.8%. The distribution of wealth, which would be very hard to measure, is believed to be much worse.



The poverty line set by the Mexican government is two daily minimum wages for a family of five. Today this is 80 pesos or around $13 Canadian. The World Bank argues that since the inauguration of NAFTA (1994-2000) the number of working people living below the poverty line has risen to 36 million persons or 62% of the economically active population. Over this period the real minimum wage has fallen by 40.7%.



In the latter part of March the Mexican government sponsored a national symposium on poverty. Julio Bolvitnik, an economist from El Colegio de Mexico, argued that 71 million people or 73% of the population live in poverty and 45 million in extreme poverty. James Foster, an economist from Vanderbilt University who works for the World Bank, argued that economic growth does not solve poverty and that rising poverty and inequality were a "time bomb" in Mexico.



Labour's position in the economy has steadily declined during the period of neoliberalism. Mexican government figures (INEGI) report that between 1993 and 2000 the gap in wages in manufacturing between Mexico and the United States rose from $9.6 to $12.1 per hour. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that since 1995 real wages in Mexico have declined by 10%. But over this period labour productivity increased by 45%. This is due almost exclusively to the fact that many workers have increased their hours of work from eight to twelve hours per day. The number of Mexicans working more than 48 hours per week rose from 2.3 million in 1988 to 9.3 million in 2000.



A study by economists at the National University in Mexico City shows that over the last three years labour's share of the Gross Domestic Product has declined from 34.16% to 30.66%. In 2000 13.3 million workers earned less than the minimum wage (40 pesos per day, or $6.55 Canadian), which is roughly one-third of all workers. UNICEF reports that there are five million children under 14 working in Mexico. The Constitution prohibits children under 14 from working.



In 1980 the average automotive worker in Mexico earned about one-third of the wage of an American automotive worker. By the year 2000 this average worker earned only one-twelfth of his American counterpart.



The Bank for International Development, Latin America reported in March that employment in the formal sector of the economy (jobs which pay a wage or a salary) are in decline in Mexico and throughout Latin America. The percentage of people working self-employed in the informal economy, with very long hours, usually seven days a week, low income, and no social security benefits, is rising steadily. In Mexico this was 40% of the economically active population in 1990 and is now over 50%.



Mexico has no unemployment insurance and no social assistance. Medicare does not exist. Only those who work for the government or a private company which is registered with the national system (IMSS) have any pension, about one-third of the economically active population. The ability to provide social programs has been limited by the structural adjustment programs imposed on Mexico by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and supported by the Mexican political and economic elite. Today total government expenditures are only 19% of Gross Domestic Product. That compares to an average of 40% in the industrialized countries of the OECD.



Neoliberalism and NAFTA have been good for the rich in Mexico and the large corporations. The banks, privately owned and robbed by the Mexican rich, have been bailed out of bankruptcy twice by taxpayers. The illicit drug industry flourishes and is now more important than the oil industry, and free trade and cross-border trucking have made marketing much easier.



Mexicans know that their country is falling behind the United States and Canada in every area. Aside from incomes, spending is very low on education, health, agriculture and rural development, and research. It is not surprising to find that most people, including academics, do not believe that so-called "free trade² has been good for their country.