Globalization and Sovereignty

[Live-Wire]

His he a superstar at the gay bar too?  

 

j/k

 

 

If by superstar, you mean mega giant superstar, and by gay, you mean straight, and by bar, you mean orgy-room, then yes.

 

I'm studying right now for another class, but tommorow I'll respond seriously to this thread.

[MonteZuma]

It is immoral that someone in an asian sweatshop works harder than I do and yet he lives in squalor and I live in comfort. Immoral.

 

No. That is your opinion.

And everything that you have written here is your opinion. Your point?

 

What? You mean the most successful political and economic tools that have been developed in the history of the world? What tools do you have to replace them with?

I don't think there are replacement 'tools' at the moment. But your economic tools are seriously flawed. I suggest replacing them with real life experience (of poverty) and/or empathy and compassion. It isn't as trendy or sexy as most of what is dished up for a business or economics degree, but there certainly is a place for it.

 

Any economist should know the basic accounting principle that it is easier to make money if you have a large amount of capital to start with.

 

Is this a the "fancy jargon" you've been debunking?

There is no jargon contained in that sentence. Don't dodge the issue. Do you deny that it is easier to make money if you have a large amount of capital to start with?

 

All nations start poor. Japan at the end of World War II had, almost literally, no economy. After the creation of the 1947 Cons!@#$%^&*ution, written by the United States,  it managed to undergo the greatest period of economic and social growth the world has ever seen. And Japan's recent economic failures are to be blamed on its differences from the American free market political system.

Japan's growth was partly the result of sustained US support. Not piecemeal support like dumping subsidised wheat. Japan's failures cannot be blamed on 'differences from the American free market political system'. Bad monetary policy and bad loans coupled with a reliance on the manufacture of 'old economy' consumer goods for export income when there is a downturn in global consumption. Then the IT bubble burst hitting the 'new' economy. I'm not gonna pretend to understand all of the reasons for Japan's downturn, but it is nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. Free market policies were not the reason.

 

You mean the creation of the World Trade Organization? Interdependence is a concern when talking about a country's sovereignty or maybe their cultural output, but it is, in general, one of the most necessary parts of an effecient and equitable international arena. What about industry in South Korea and Singapore?

What about South America and Africa?

 

Please, if you have better methods, share them. You can't beat something with nothing.

The first step towards changing a system is to point out the flaws. The flaws in the free market, global economy that wealthy groups are pushing for is that despite claims that it creates a level playing field it in fact does not. Do we want a level playing field anyway? I prefer the idea of tilting the playing field so that the disadvantaged have greater opportunity. I don't know how this should be done, but I know that accepting the innevitability of sweatshops and 3rd world poverty is not the solution. That is selfishness and blind ignorance.

 

Monte.

[Aileron]

You call globalization "blind ignorance", but you do not compare it to anything else.

 

There are three basic possibilities here, globalization, mercantilism, or a combination of the two.

 

So if globalization is so horrible, lets compare it to the alternative. Lets take the example of two countries one 3rd world with no resources at all other than people and one 1st world with enough resources to fulfill all the worlds wants (an economic non possibility) ten times over.

 

Suppose then, that there were no trade between them. The business of the first world country would be forced to hire employees from the 1st world country. However, since the 1st world workers already have their wants fulfilled twenty times over, it requires a huge salary to hire them. The 3rd world country would like nothing more than to have a job, but can't due to them not having resources. In the long term, the 1st world citizens live in bliss while the 3rd world citizens starve.

 

Suppose then, that they could trade freely, without even problems of transport. The 1st world businesses would then hire 3rd world workers. While the third world workers would demand less than the 1st world worker, they would be making more than they would in the other situation. Over the long term, the wealth would gradually transfer to the 3rd world country, giving them more resources, and eventually they would start fullfilling their needs, then their wants. The 1st world citizens would be out of a job, and would have to accept lower standards until eventually their requests would be the same as the 3rd world workers. In this case the worldwide number of used resources increase because the third world citizens added to the workforce would increase the efficiency of the resources utilized. Suppose in this case it went from the worlds wants x 10 to the worlds wants x 11.

 

However, note what happened to the 1st world country. They went from having their wants x 20 reached to their wants x 11 reached. They LOST money. It was the third world who went from x0 to x11.

 

Thus, there are two cases in which a 1st world country will go along with globalization. The first case is that they are incredibly generous. Since according to the two 'M's, all first world countries and their citizens are evil, this can never happen. The other possibility is that the increase in the worlds production goes up proportionally, from x10 to at least x20. Then, they are getting more out of it than they are putting in. However, it must be noted in this case than the 3rd world country gets a x20 increase, where the 1st world gets x10.

 

To sum it up, Globalization always helps the third world countries out more than the first world countries!!!!!

[Bacchus]

Globalization always helps the third world countries out more than the first world countries!!!!!

 

I don't mean to be rude but i think you need a reality check about that. A whole lot of 3rd world country are being culturally, economically and spiritually destroyued by globalization which amount to an economical consensus based on an unilateral view of how economy works. Since it's showing a will to "globalize" the market to an entire world it is rather invasive inregards to smaller countries and/or cultures.

 

There are multiple instances where it's been shown that globalization was destructive; New Zealand's Maori, native americans, etc...

 

Ancestral culture are disapearing, minorities are marginalized into submission, self-sustaining economy gives way to m!@#$%^&*-production which is destroying land and ecological systems, etc.

 

It is not helping. Or it benefits only 1/3 of the world.

[Live-Wire]

In 1900, the wage of an industrial laborer in england was 5 pounds annually, where as the wage of a skilled specialist (doctor, professor, etc) was 5,000 pounds anually, 10000% the wage of the industrial laborer.

 

In the United states in 2003, the wage of an industrial laboror is somewhere approximately in the $30,000-$50,000 annual range. And an educated worker (a professor or doctor), does NOT make 10000% of this - or $3,000,000 - $5,000,000 annually.

 

Suppose the average ANNUAL wage of a chinese sweat-shop worker is $600, as the average hourly rate in China is $0.23. That would mean the 10000% increase of a skilled worker's income would equate making $60,000 a year, quite common for University Professors.

 

The situation in labor vs. capitol from 1900 in England, which today is no longer apparent, as England has grown out of that period of worker exploitation, is what is apparent in 2003 in China. In 100 years, China will grow out of it.

[Bacchus]

there's i think quite a difference between 19th century England and present China. Firstly, finance and economics have changed greatly as transportation and comms techs have also mutated. Secondly, 19th century england was living on its colonies, it had, so to speak, no predators. Whereas China still have to "grow" or developped a fairer economy, i don't think (i very much doubt so in fact) that present day investors will accept changes which would mean a decrease in production. I think they will ride the wave and "automate" m!@#$%^&* production, laborers abound and frankly there's nothing showing any improvement in the labor forces. Same as anywhere in fact.

 

Lastly, are you saying it's morally and economically sound to exploit human work force because in a 100 years from now, they'll "grow" out of it?

 

kinda saying; It was ok to use slaves to build ourselves a nice and strong economy because they "grew" out of it in the end??

 

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded quite demagogic and well...imperialistic and expansionist.

 

please explain.

[MonteZuma]

You call globalization "blind ignorance", but you do not compare it to anything else.

Well let me put it this way. There should be a focus on building strong, healthy communities, especially in the poorest nations. In many cases this will mean reducing dependence on foreign trade. In many cases it will mean shifting away from the modern, western economic system altogether and going back to basics. This is what the poorest of the poor need. They won't be saved by making Nikes.

 

There are three basic possibilities here, globalization, mercantilism, or a combination of the two.

No. There are many more alternatives. There are many ways to live without engaging wholeheartedly in global economics. Even in modern times there are communities that have reduced reliance on outsiders and survived quite well (even in the US). Their per capita incomes aren't high, but their quality of life is often much higher than that of a sweatshop worker.

 

So if globalization is so horrible, lets compare it to the alternative.  Lets take the example of two countries one 3rd world with no resources at all other than people and one 1st world with enough resources to fulfill all the worlds wants (an economic non possibility) ten times over.

The basics are food, water and shelter. Lets give everyone in the world those essentials and then see where we can go from there. It is criminal that society does not give people those basic essentials. Don't just ship in containers full of bottled water, dump bags of GM wheat, and put up canvas tents. Build infrastructure so that these people are self sustaining. We need to do these things even if there isn't a buck in it. We need to do these things because it is the right thing to do.

 

Suppose then, that there were no trade between them.  The business of the first world country would be forced to hire employees from the 1st world country.  However, since the 1st world workers already have their wants fulfilled twenty times over, it requires a huge salary to hire them.

Yes. The fact is that if we pay a fair price for the labour that we use then prices will go up - and wages too. Inflation would be huge. That alone should tell you that the system is flawed. We rely on cheap labour to keep the economy going. Poverty is essential to the system.

 

The 3rd world country would like nothing more than to have a job, but can't due to them not having resources.  In the long term, the 1st world citizens live in bliss while the 3rd world citizens starve.

They starve because they aren't self sufficient. A feature of globalisation is less self sufficiency in essential areas and reliance on trade. As you said, many of these nations have few resources, so when the international economy gets shaky, they suffer more than robust, resource rich, nations. Most nations do have sufficient natural resources to supply food, water and shelter. What they usually lack is the infrastructure to tap these resources continually and sustainably. By infrastructure I mean capital, political and social infrastructure. Lets give them that infrastructure out of the kindness of our hearts.

 

Suppose then, that they could trade freely, without even problems of transport.  The 1st world businesses would then hire 3rd world workers.  While the third world workers would demand less than the 1st world worker, they would be making more than they would in the other situation.  Over the long term, the wealth would gradually transfer to the 3rd world country, giving them more resources, and eventually they would start fullfilling their needs, then their wants.

In theory. But what will happen when they start to demand the same wages as 1st world countries? Nike will move out and look for a poorer country to exploit. It doesn't always work like this idea economic model suggests. In any case, who says that earning more dollars as a sweatshop worker is better than earning nothing as a self-sufficient farmer or tradesperson. The almighty dollar is not the way to measure success, especially in the poorest of 3rd world countries.

 

 

The 1st world citizens would be out of a job, and would have to accept lower standards until eventually their requests would be the same as the 3rd world workers.  In this case the worldwide number of used resources increase because the third world citizens added to the workforce would increase the efficiency of the resources utilized.  Suppose in this case it went from the worlds wants x 10 to the worlds wants x 11.

There are a few big !@#$%^&*umptions there. My !@#$%^&*umption is this - Consumption in the 1st world is way too high and is unsustainable. We need to consume less. Less water, less electricity, less oil, less land, etc, etc. What will happen to your trade dempendent 3rd world country when the 1st world finally develops resource-saving technologies. Answer: They are screwed. My solution: In addition to giving 3rd world countries food, water and shelter, lets also give them education. Lets give them this out of the kindness of our heart. Won't happen. But it should.

 

However, note what happened to the 1st world country.  They went from having their wants x 20 reached to their wants x 11 reached.  They LOST money.  It was the third world who went from x0 to x11.

Do you really think the American public will let that happen. Political suicide. The rich will want to hold on to what they have at the expense of the poor. It almost always works that way.

 

Thus, there are two cases in which a 1st world country will go along with globalization.  The first case is that they are incredibly generous.  Since according to the two 'M's, all first world countries and their citizens are evil, this can never happen.

Not evil. Just selfish.

 

The other possibility is that the increase in the worlds production goes up proportionally, from x10 to at least x20.  Then, they are getting more out of it than they are putting in.  However, it must be noted in this case than the 3rd world country gets a x20 increase, where the 1st world gets x10.

No. What I say is screw production. Production and consumption is the cause of the poverty trap. Lets get self sufficiency happening first and then think about trade. That will hurt the first world, but it will alleviate suffering in the third world. But as some writers have said, most of the first world are resource rich. Self sufficiency should be easy for them. Some countries will need help. Singapore, Hong Kong, Israel, etc. But self sufficient regions are probably more important than self sufficient nations. Cooperation is important. Trade isn't necessarilly.

 

To sum it up, Globalization always helps the third world countries out more than the first world countries!!!!!

Well that sums up your views, but not reality. This is complicated stuff. We need investment to fund advances in technology that should benefit everyone. The current system is pretty good at encouraging R&D. But to suggest the only way to move forward is to increase reliance on international trade is wrong and dangerous. We need to think outside the square and leave the text books behind.

[MonteZuma]

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded quite demagogic and well...imperialistic and expansionist.

 

please explain.

 

Good point.

[madhaha]

*looks at long line of quotes*

*looks at the tiny second post*

 

You really need to learn about impulse control... The less you quote the more interesting the read. Brevity is good.

[Aileron]

Wait a minute, you first start out by saying that we should promote self sufficiency in poor nations. Then, you say that we should give them infrastructure "out of the kindness of our hearts".

 

That is a direct contradiction. Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations build capital, political, and social infrastructure for them. Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations give them food and shelter. Gifts, particularly, persistant gifts, increase dependence. Either go one way or the other.

 

You make the distiction between giving a usable gift and giving something that last longer that can be sustained. However, if they cannot afford to build it on their own, they probably cannot afford to maintain and/or sustain it. Take for example the Indian Railroad built by the British. It has been declining since World War I. Now, customers pay to sit on top of a boxcar which btw is falling apart. Basically, there is a reason other than selfishness to demand repayment. If a country cannot offer the world something of value, they would not be able to compete with it.

 

Also, you are forgetting who makes these decisions. Government leaders have a responsabilty to their country alone. The people of Ethiopia did not put the US President in power. Those in the did not elect the British Prime Minister. Government officials have a responsability to their country first and others second. It would be irresponsable for them to ransack their own country for the benefit of another for this reason. They have a duty to seek a buck out of it.

 

All in all though, you must understand two things. The first is that while the present plight of third world nations is sad, it is still better than what they had before. The second is that the current situation is merely a stepping stone to a better one. As third world workers make their money off of factories, money flows into their country. The workers will spend money on things in their country, and the wealth will be distributed throughout. The new wealth will bring more stability, and soon, the workers will be able to ask for a higher wage. Provided that there is no other compe!@#$%^&*ion, such as a poorer nation, the 1st world countries will have to accept. Eventually, when they have enough money, they will begin to build the schools, and the hospitals and such.

 

 

Put it this way, take all of the major empires in history, no matter whereever they were. Then, see how many made money off of trade. See how many cities happened to spring up near major trade routes. Then see if there was any power that grew by being isolationist, and see how many cities sprung up in the boondocks. Face it, trade build economies.

[MonteZuma]

*looks at long line of quotes*

*looks at the tiny second post*

 

You really need to learn about impulse control... The less you quote the more interesting the read. Brevity is good.

Brevity at the expense of cogency is a false economy. If someone writes a post that addresses many complicated issues then any thoughtful reply is likely to be reasonably long.

 

Monte.

[MonteZuma]

Mad. If you want the reader's digest version of this, read the last quote/reply only.....

 

Wait a minute, you first start out by saying that we should promote self sufficiency in poor nations.  Then, you say that we should give them infrastructure "out of the kindness of our hearts".

 

That is a direct contradiction.  Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations build capital, political, and social infrastructure for them.  Self sufficient nations don't require that other nations give them food and shelter.  Gifts, particularly, persistant gifts, increase dependence.  Either go one way or the other....

Wrong. They can't become self sufficient on their own. They don't have the resource - and they are indentured by loans and other restrictions/limitations/controls, partly resulting from their involvement in the global economic system. Infrastructure need not be a 'persistant gift'. A bag of subsidised wheat is. Capacity-building will reduce dependence.

 

...if they cannot afford to build it on their own, they probably cannot afford to maintain and/or sustain it.  Take for example the Indian Railroad built by the British.  It has been declining since World War I.  Now, customers pay to sit on top of a boxcar which btw is falling apart.  Basically, there is a reason other than selfishness to demand repayment.  If a country cannot offer the world something of value, they would not be able to compete with it.

The rail system in India is a success story. They are the biggest public sector employer and provide important social services, including the transport of relief supplies after natural disasters. India is a poor country and their rail system won't have the same level of service and maintainence that we have, but they manage one of the largest rail systems in the world very well under the cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. In any case I'm thinking of infrastructure that allows nations to grow their own food, be self sufficient in water, and to build adequate shelter. That type of infrastructure need not be expensive to maintain. Railways and other things are less important.

 

Also, you are forgetting who makes these decisions.  Government leaders have a responsabilty to their country alone.

No they don't. Some people have learned nothing from September 11. If your governement wants national security it will need to win hearts and minds in other nations.

 

....  Government officials have a responsability to their country first and others second.  It would be irresponsable for them to ransack their own country for the benefit of another for this reason.  They have a duty to seek a buck out of it.

They have a duty to their people. If their people weren't selfish then their people would also want to see that extreme poverty was eliminated everywhere. But I agree that we live in a selfish world and that is why nothing is liklely to change in the forseeable future.

 

All in all though, you must understand two things.  The first is that while the present plight of third world nations is sad, it is still better than what they had before.

I used to think that. But the older that I get, the more I realise that this just isn't true. There are some nasty, intractable problems and things for some Peoples are getting worse. What most people misunderstand is how complex the causes and solutions are. Some people call for simplistic and shortsighted solutions to complex and chaotic problems.

 

 

The second is that the current situation is merely a stepping stone to a better one....

That is easy for you to say. You aren't the one being trodden on. In any case, I disagree with the right wing rhetoric.

 

Put it this way, take all of the major empires in history, no matter whereever they were.  Then, see how many made money off of trade.  See how many cities happened to spring up near major trade routes.  Then see if there was any power that grew by being isolationist, and see how many cities sprung up in the boondocks.  Face it, trade build economies.

What you fail to see is that all of the major empires in history earned their wealth by exploiting poorer, weaker nations and regions. We are seeing this trend continue today.

[Aileron]

Quote:  

Put it this way, take all of the major empires in history, no matter whereever they were. Then, see how many made money off of trade. See how many cities happened to spring up near major trade routes. Then see if there was any power that grew by being isolationist, and see how many cities sprung up in the boondocks. Face it, trade build economies.  

What you fail to see is that all of the major empires in history earned their wealth by exploiting poorer, weaker nations and regions. We are seeing this trend continue today.

 

True, but that is after they got power in the first place. They needed to make money off of trade to get the power. It was after they got the power that they exploited lesser nations. Yes, during their peak, most empires were mercantilists who exploited lesser nations. However, during their rise they had to make money off of trade.

 

 

All in all, it seems that trade between two nations averages their economies. For the empires example, they start as a weak nation which traded with stronger nations. Then, as they became strong, they stopped trading with weaker nations. Generally, trade between a rich and a poor nation usually benefits the poor nation.

 

Also, this situation is only exploitation when looked at it a certain way. In the view of third world nations, this is not exploitation at all. In taking the US-Mexico example, while a Maquiladora may pay piddly by our standards, it pays great by Mexican. Most Mexicans prefer to go to Maquiladora than to cross the border.

 

If an American goes to a foreign country and pays a twenty five cents for a pineapple, the American feels he is exploiting the farmer. However, the farmer feels this is a great deal, especially since he or she most likely doubled their price for the American.

 

Overall, you got to realize that the third world cost of living is so much lower than ours. Christian Childrens Fund advertises that they can feed, shelter, school, and give medical care to a kid for cents a day. In the US, that is the cost of a soda.

 

Your view of this as 1st world exploiting 3rd world is an ethnocentristic view from the top, quite similar to the at!@#$%^&*ude held by movie stars that they won't get out of bed for less than $100,000. If someone offered you or me $100,000 dollars for a day's work, we would jump on it. Note only that, but we probably would not really care if some person in a far off country was making $1,000,000 a day. Yes, we would consider that better, but $100,000 a day would be enough to make us rich by our standards in our environment.

 

Yes, maybe it would be even nicer to distort the situation towards the 3rd world nations. However, first off note that it is already distorted in their favor. Secondly, note that it is only viewed as exploitation from our point of view. In their opinion, they are exploiting the first world nations. Couple that with the fact that they will eventually catch up economically because of this, and you would see that the current situation isn't exploitation at all.

[Bacchus]

All in all, it seems that trade between two nations averages their economies. For the empires example, they start as a weak nation which traded with stronger nations. Then, as they became strong, they stopped trading with weaker nations. Generally, trade between a rich and a poor nation usually benefits the poor nation.

 

Again, i don't mean to sound rude but please get your facts straight, or have a reality check...that's not how it works. Or you're living in an altruistic world whereas i'm living in a capitalist world. In either cases, demand/offer law contradict what you're saying. A poor nation is poor because it has nothing to trade atm of the trade or in a relatively near future. Thus, there's no demand for what it has to offer, hence it sells its stocks for nothing. consequently, the richer nation will make good business. Don't tell me the poorer is making cash, it isn't.

 

this situation is only exploitation when looked at it a certain way. In the view of third world nations, this is not exploitation at all. In taking the US-Mexico example, while a aMquiladora may pay piddly by our standards, it pays great by Mexican. Most Mexicans prefer to go to Maquiladora than to cross the border.

 

Maquiladoras are amongt the worst type of factories in the whole world. Wages are "slave-wages", women and children (starting at 4, ending at death) are being abused. Health care isn't adressed, body parts are litteraly flying off the work stations. And a lot of Mexicans just can't afford to cross the borders.

 

you got to realize that the third world cost of living is so much lower than ours. Christian Childrens Fund advertises that they can feed, shelter, school, and give medical care to a kid for cents a day. In the US, that is the cost of a soda.

Once again, i beg to differ. Here's an exemple: In western Africa (as in a lot of countries) a liter of drinkable water costs 500 CFA (which is basically 1 US $), average daily wage is 0.18 US$, which is more or less 200CFA. Average Monthly income is 35 000 CFA or so (70 US$). Don't go thinking that costs of living being lower means you have "occidental or standard level" accomodations.

 

Yes, maybe it would be even nicer to distort the situation towards the 3rd world nations. However, first off note that it is already distorted in their favor. Secondly, note that it is only viewed as exploitation from our point of view. In their opinion, they are exploiting the first world nations. Couple that with the fact that they will eventually catch up economically because of this, and you would see that the current situation isn't exploitation at all.

 

You really should open up your horizons a little, go backpacking somewhere back country, you could see things very differently in a very short while. In their opinion, we're a cancer. In their opinion we're rich and avaricious, in their opinion we deserve being screwed, in their opinion..well...it's only justice to fly a plane in a tower...Ok, that was extreme, but i just want you to notice how wrong this statement of yours is considering the recent events and the War US is waging on terrorists.

[Aileron]

All in all, it seems that trade between two nations averages their economies. For the empires example, they start as a weak nation which traded with stronger nations. Then, as they became strong, they stopped trading with weaker nations. Generally, trade between a rich and a poor nation usually benefits the poor nation.

 

Again, i don't mean to sound rude but please get your facts straight, or have a reality check...that's not how it works. Or you're living in an altruistic world whereas i'm living in a capitalist world. In either cases, demand/offer law contradict what you're saying. A poor nation is poor because it has nothing to trade atm of the trade or in a relatively near future. Thus, there's no demand for what it has to offer, hence it sells its stocks for nothing. consequently, the richer nation will make good business. Don't tell me the poorer is making cash, it isn't.

 

Actually, you proved my point quite nicely. If a nation has nothing to offer, no one in their right mind wants to trade with it. Thus, if a nation as such were put in trade with a nation that has something to offer, it cannot lose on the macro scale.

 

Besides, your example is flawed. Companies INCREASE their holdings by selling stock. Yes, 1st world countries can buy stock for cheap. However, that itself increases the value of the stock. Thus, the company is profiting.

 

this situation is only exploitation when looked at it a certain way. In the view of third world nations, this is not exploitation at all. In taking the US-Mexico example, while a Maquiladora may pay piddly by our standards, it pays great by Mexican. Most Mexicans prefer to go to Maquiladora than to cross the border.

 

Maquiladoras are amongt the worst type of factories in the whole world. Wages are "slave-wages", women and children (starting at 4, ending at death) are being abused. Health care isn't adressed, body parts are litteraly flying off the work stations. And a lot of Mexicans just can't afford to cross the borders.

 

If the situation is so bad, then why is there currently a migration towards these factories? People are moving towards this situation. It is unlikely that that many people could be misinformed or "forced out of their farms". Face it, demographic movements says that the Maquiladoras are an improvement of the previous situation, otherwise people wouldn't be moving towards them.

 

Besides, these conditions are appaling only by first world standards. In third world standards, where the factory is mind you, this is acceptable.

 

Yes, maybe it would be even nicer to distort the situation towards the 3rd world nations. However, first off note that it is already distorted in their favor. Secondly, note that it is only viewed as exploitation from our point of view. In their opinion, they are exploiting the first world nations. Couple that with the fact that they will eventually catch up economically because of this, and you would see that the current situation isn't exploitation at all.

 

You really should open up your horizons a little, go backpacking somewhere back country, you could see things very differently in a very short while. In their opinion, we're a cancer. In their opinion we're rich and avaricious, in their opinion we deserve being screwed, in their opinion..well...it's only justice to fly a plane in a tower...Ok, that was extreme, but i just want you to notice how wrong this statement of yours is considering the recent events and the War US is waging on terrorists.

 

First off note that terrorists are religious fanatics. They aren't motivated by reason. While the US is oppressive in some people's opinions, to get a rational person to have that much hatred would require us to gangrape their mother or something like that.

 

As for the first part, you really don't understand poor people. Somebody who is truly poor does not care about people richer than them. They don't care about how much money someone else has, the poor only care about how much money they have. Basically, somebody who is truly poor will exert more energy towards getting what they want or need before worrying about what someone else has.

 

It is the near-rich who show envy. The poor are not ticked off that the rich exist. They really don't want to overthrow the world's social structure. They just want to make what they can for themselves.

 

Yes, often times they may like the idea of taking the rich down a peg. However, they do so provided that in the end they move up a peg. They only care about what happens to them, not the rich.

 

You are wrong, it is YOU who need to go backpacking in the back country for a while. You claim to advocate for the poor, yet you clearly do not know what motivates them.

[Bacchus]

uhuh

 

you're stuck up in an unreal world, Aileron...

 

I did go packpacking in very backwater countries...and believe me (even if its a leap of faith), we , as 1st world countires as you'Re putting it, aren't helping...we're forcing a march toward an economy which we perceive as correct and civilized, we are forcing 3rd world (which is only 3rd world because we're thinking it as 3rd worldish...those countries inhabitants doesn't see themselves as 3rd world..., not necessarily anyway) into behavior. It's economical !@#$%^&*imilation.

 

I didn't meant to lecture you about the backpacking line, but i gathered you haven't spent much time outside your country, am i wrong? maybe but then again most people don't travel very far. My point is our analysis of other countries economics and/or inhabitants can be very different than that of its native. In fact, it's almost always the case. Some economy were working just fine; finely balanced, no loss of stock, no overstock. There was enough for everyone, politics were as we know them, more rituals maybe and more ancestral but still, it worked...until we arrived and began to sell land. It happened in US, in New Zealand, in Canada, in Africa, etc.

 

Anyway, i'm 1/2 drunk and very tired...i'll finish it later. ciao.

[MonteZuma]

...All in all, it seems that trade between two nations averages their economies.  For the empires example, they start as a weak nation which traded with stronger nations.  Then, as they became strong, they stopped trading with weaker nations.  Generally, trade between a rich and a poor nation usually benefits the poor nation.

I have not seen any evidence of this anywhere.

 

Also, this situation is only exploitation when looked at it a certain way.  In the view of third world nations, this is not exploitation at all.  In taking the US-Mexico example, while a Maquiladora may pay piddly by our standards, it pays great by Mexican.  Most Mexicans prefer to go to Maquiladora than to cross the border....

The fact that some nations and people in the 3rd world "benefit" (financially anyway) from contact with people in the 1st world is obvious. But it doesn't mean that the system is fair or ethical. There are millions of people in Mexico who don't benefit from first world wealth - and never will. The plight of illegal immigrants in the US is sad even though they probably have better lives than many of their counterparts back home.

 

Overall, you got to realize that the third world cost of living is so much lower than ours.  Christian Childrens Fund advertises that they can feed, shelter, school, and give medical care to a kid for cents a day.  In the US, that is the cost of a soda.

The cost of living is so much cheaper because workers are paid a pittance for their labour. CCF exaggerates. They need to to encourage wealthy westerners to hand over their cash. I don't support charities like CCF for reasons that I might go into in another post. But I acknowledge that they probably do some good work.

 

Your view of this as 1st world exploiting 3rd world is an ethnocentristic view from the top

Perhaps, but I think yours are more so.

 

they won't get out of bed for less than $100,000.  If someone offered you or me $100,000 dollars for a day's work

I think that it is obscene that people in those kinds of professions make so much money. Why should an aged care nurse whose job is to wipe crap from the back sides of demented patients make $10/hour while a fashion model makes $1,000. Who does the most for society? Obscene.

 

However, first off note that it is already distorted in their favor.

Very little is skewed towards the 3rd world. They are disadvantaged. By definition.

[»nintendo64]

Yet another Capitalism Economic System Flaw, Survival of the fittest. Fashion models and those non-productive professions make so much money than others because we allow them to, in fact we whould dismantle thorse "enterprises" and concentrate that capital to other places that need them.

 

Capitalism should focused on the humans not on the profit, we live in a world where profit it's the ultimate goal, we need to change this to humans, (Better Quality of Life that is).

 

About the view of 3rd world countries to 1st world countries, well that's very hard to get, we got corrupted politicians that wants to get richer and richer and might love the 1st world countries for support or not, we got people with revolutionaries idea or social ideas who might hate 1st world countries, etc..

 

Now if we focus on the Globalization part of the viewpoint, i can honestly say, we hate and love 1st World Countries, we love the money they give us, we hate to have more competence back at home, now we have to be as good as anybody from other part of the world, and i tell you it's not easy if you doesn't have the money, and most third world country citizens lack the money.

 

We don't care for the most part about the conditions of the work, because we are used to those (national jobs), you might think otherwise but that's not the problem, the problem is what i said above the competence, we can get displaced from our jobs by capitalist fat cats from another country (High Places Job).

 

Like Aileron said Poor people don't care, i know i live in a 3rd world country we only care about the money, without education how you expect us to see that problem? we haven't tasted 1st World Countries conditions and we only migrate because people tell us it's better or the situation back at home for us it's badly (Like No Home, No Food, No Job).

 

-nintendo64

[MonteZuma]

Nintendo. Your views are always a breath of fresh air because you live in a society that is very different to most of us....But how typical are you of the average person in the street in the '3rd World'? My guess would be, because you have Internet access and enough spare time to play SS, you probably have a lifestyle that is more like a typical westerner than a typical sweatshop worker.

 

For the poorest of the poor, migration is not an option. If I was a sweatshop worker, I'd be angry at the west - like the angry kid at Burger King who spits in the burgers of arrogant customers - that kind of angry. I suspect that most aren't angry because they are apathetic. They are apathetic because they are powerless.

 

Monte.

[»nintendo64]

Nintendo.  Your views are always a breath of fresh air because you live in a society that is very different to most of us....But how typical are you of the average person in the street in the '3rd World'?  My guess would be, because you have Internet access and enough spare time to play SS, you probably have a lifestyle that is more like a typical westerner than a typical sweatshop worker. 

 

For the poorest of the poor, migration is not an option.  If I was a sweatshop worker, I'd be angry at the west - like the angry kid at Burger King who spits in the burgers of arrogant customers - that kind of angry.  I suspect that most aren't angry because they are apathetic.  They are apathetic because they are powerless.

 

Monte.

 

You're right monte, i merely focused on my place in a third world society, which is very much alike a western one. Yes you might be right about sweatshop workers, but the problem is they don't seem to complain, maybe it's because i am still a University student and i haven;t been a lot in contact with them, but from what i've observed they don't seem to care, but they dislike being productive, they work like 6 hours and then start doing nothing only talking, in most jobs they don't get told to do otherwise because their supervisors are also like sweatshop workers working 14 hours a day.

 

-nintendo64

[MonteZuma]

...you might be right about sweatshop workers, but the problem is they don't seem to complain, maybe it's because i am still a University student and i haven;t been a lot in contact with them, but from what i've observed they don't seem to care, but they dislike being productive, they work like 6 hours and then start doing nothing only talking, in most jobs they don't get told to do otherwise because their supervisors are also like sweatshop workers working 14 hours a day.

 

-nintendo64

Yes. Laziness isn't just a 1st world problem. I guess workers in the Dominican Republic are probably a little better off than in some countries - Haiti for example.

 

Monte.

[madhaha]

Very few people are unhappy all their life. You just grow used to your situation however crap it is. Its how a majority of the human race stay sane. This is especially the case if the conditions can be rationalised and if there is no direct/obvious way of improving your situation.

 

For this reason, people can endure imprisonment, enslavement, "conditioning", ritual abuse/humuliation/mutilation, crap/dangerous jobs. compulsary schooling etc

 

At the end of the day we are just herd animals after all.