Why is globalization a bad thing?

[teacher]

Good book. Regardless. I'm not believing it on your word. The Brazilian economy sucked once they globalized. Prove that it can help a country.

American influence in their country helps them.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

American influence in their country helps them.

As would mutual unregulated free trade benefit ours. It's a win win situation quid pro quo cooperation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Compared to the 13% drop after they deregulated, that's pretty good.

That's the info from 1992

 

[Kelzie]

How do you mean look at the first figures I gave you on Brazil the real growth GDP in 2004 was 5.1% as opposed to -4.6% in 1992 which was before the deregulation of Cardossa in 1993-4.

And it also dropped 4% in 2003. What's your point?

 

[Kelzie]

That's the info from 1992

I realize. They dropped 4.6% in 92, they deregulized in 93 and dropped 13% in 95. Not building a strong case in your defense.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I realize. They dropped 4.6% in 92, they deregulized in 93 and dropped 13% in 95. Not building a strong case in your defense.

Yes but since 95 they are up to a 5.1% growth rate as of 2004 with deregulation, the 13% drop was due to the shock all that inflation caused on the economy it would have happened even if they hadn't deregulated and probably would have been worse, that's why they deregulated because they saw the writing on the wall.

I'm making a great case like you said numbers don't lie:

1992 pre deregulation real GDP growth -4.6% 2004 post deregulation real GDP growth +5.1% any questions?

 

[Kelzie]

Yes but since 95 they are up to a 5.1% growth rate as of 2004 with deregulation, the 13% drop was due to the shock all that inflation caused on the economy it would have happened even if they hadn't deregulated and probably would have been worse, that's why they deregulated because they saw what was to come.

I'm making a great case like you said numbers don't lie:

1992 pre deregulation real GDP growth -4.6% 2004 post deregulation real GDP growth +5.1% any questions?

Oh hun. Let's try a little math. Now you have $100. Someone takes $4...then they take $13...and then give you back $5. Now, are you better off? If an economy is slowly declining, then takes a sharp drop, a small increase won't make the situation better than it was before the deregulation, oops I mean sharp drop.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh hun. Let's try a little math. Now you have $100. Someone takes $4...then they take $13...and then give you back $5. Now, are you better off? If an economy is slowly declining, then takes a sharp drop, a small increase won't make the situation better than it was before the deregulation, oops I mean sharp drop.

Ya but the economy started to go down in 1992 then after deregulation it shot back up and in 1995 dropped yet again but is now back on the upturn.

I can't find any comparative GDPs from 1992-1995 they all start at 94 or up post deregulation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Read this article here's a taste:

From 1964 through 1994, the accumulated inflation rate in Brazil fetched 1,000,000,000,000,000 % (that´s one quatrillion percent) !! This fantastic figure is not an estimative; it was calculated by Joelmir Beting, a well respected Brazilian journalist, based on the official inflation numbers.

http://www.v-brazil.com/business/Real-Plan.html

 

[nkgupta80]

hmm look at india when u wanna see positive effects of globalization. Even better, china. Its growing faster than when japan went through its economic boom. Globalization is inevitable. South America would be at a loss were it not for the global market and opening up of the markets.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

hmm look at india when u wanna see positive effects of globalization. Even better, china. Its growing faster than when japan went through its economic boom. Globalization is inevitable. South America would be at a loss were it not for the global market and opening up of the markets.

Ya check out my first post I think I should have labeled it differently I should have put why it's a good thing HAY KELZ Ms. Mod can you fix that for me pleaaaaasssseeee?:lol:

 

[Herophant]

Personally I believe there are benefits for free trade. Nevertheless I deny that’s it is universally good.

First off all I believe humanity will lose something if we are going to specialise to the degree that one nation only makes a few products. This is a personal belief basted on how I conceive intelligence to be rather divided around the world. How dark this place would be if the next JS Mill grew up in a primary goods country with no real options other than being a manual labourer (Not to look down on manual labour I had it myself and I think I would be good for everyone to get their hands dirty once in a while, change your perspective a bit on the distribution of wealth.…)

Then there is the moving of work in to areas without workers rights. The companies pay the government, the workers get barely enough to sustain themselves, and if you speak about safety issues or a day off you’re in a world of pain….

There is the infant-industry argument. Were by a nation can protect its infant industries to gain more benefits on a long term basis, compared with just sticking with its own surplus countries. The protection works on a short term basis only, and when the new industries are developed they should compete on the market. Prime examples of countries who used this strategy to their advantage is the USA and Germany.
(O`brien Robert & Williams Marc, ”Global Political Economy” 2004:142-143)

Lastly I have fears about how globalisation might shift the power balance even more in the favour of the “elite” and leave workers undefended. Local unions cant fight global struggles.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Personally I believe there are benefits for free trade. Nevertheless I deny that’s it is universally good.

First off all I believe humanity will lose something if we are going to specialise to the degree that one nation only makes a few products. This is a personal belief basted on how I conceive intelligence to be rather divided around the world. How dark this place would be if the next JS Mill grew up in a primary goods country with no real options other than being a manual labourer (Not to look down on manual labour I had it myself and I think I would be good for everyone to get their hands dirty once in a while, change your perspective a bit on the distribution of wealth.…)

Then there is the moving of work in to areas without workers rights. The companies pay the government, the workers get barely enough to sustain themselves, and if you speak about safety issues or a day off you’re in a world of pain….

There is the infant-industry argument. Were by a nation can protect its infant industries to gain more benefits on a long term basis, compared with just sticking with its own surplus countries. The protection works on a short term basis only, and when the new industries are developed they should compete on the market. Prime examples of countries who used this strategy to their advantage is the USA and Germany.
(O`brien Robert & Williams Marc, ”Global Political Economy” 2004:142-143)

Lastly I have fears about how globalisation might shift the power balance even more in the favour of the “elite” and leave workers undefended. Local unions cant fight global struggles.[/QUOTE]

That's why it would be a bad idea to only specialize in only a few goods, who's to say that countries still can't diversify?

You're going to have to explain this one to me.

This shouldn't be a problem do to the socialist history in the majority of these countries in which labor has a good representation, also, there of course would still have to be labor law.

 

[128shot]

Didn't China go through the same thing? (still is sorta)



its part of the global process. I'll admit right NOW its not helping too much.



harvard press has a nice business book on these subjects, business and politics go hand in hand...one thing leads to another you got some good information on your hands




Anyway. yeah, Brazil is turbulent, but many of these places would have just tanked without any way of getting back without it IMO.



I think we're going to have to wait before we can make a concrete decision.


China has been steadily growing since 1978, thats a sign globalization is working.



Not to mention the standard of living has improved every year since, you guessed it, 1978


Only time will tell, I guess.

 

[oldreliable67]

Globalization is not a bad thing. Quite the contrary, globalization is the inevitable result of free and open societys.

A study by Harvard economist Richard Freeman in 2004 concluded that in 1985, 'the global economic world' comprised North America, Western Europe,, Japan, and chunks of Latin America, Africa, and the countries of East Asia.. The total population of this global economic world, taking part in international trade and commerce, said Freeman, was about 2.5 billion people.

By 2000, as a result of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, India's turn from autarky, China's shift to market capitalism, and population growth all over, the global economic world expanded to encompass 6 billion people.

Of these 6 billion, roughly 1.5 billion new workers entered the global economic labor force, Freeman said, which is almost exactly double the number we would have had in 2000 had China, India and the Soviet Union not joined.

These people are not only members of the labor force, they are also consumers, consumers with the same 'scarce resources and unlimited wants' of all consumers around the globe. So while some jobs may be lost in the offshoring of manufacturing from one region to another, the vast new base of consumers offers huge new markets for other companies to service.

The hard part is providing the safety net of re-training and education that will assist those displaced by the globalization process in finding a replacement job. That process of finding something new is made easier by the sheer size of the newly opened markets.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Alright, I'm not positive where this line of discussion came from, or what exactly is going on. And I don't intend to read this whole thing, I am far to lazy and important to do such things
But I'm assuming from this one post that I've read that some country had a fixed currency, and they transitioned to a floating currency, and you two are now discussing the pros and cons of doing this.

If I am right, which is probable (HA! Not bloody likely!), then your metaphor is incorrect. It would be moreso if you have a hundred dollars, and you could go through the scenario you presented, or you could run a high risk of that hundred dollars becoming worthless.

But to the topic of globalization.
Ideally, globalization would be fantastic. There are a few issues I have with the current situation we have now. If we completely open the levees of globalization, then we'll have to do business with many (most) countries that do MANY anti-free trade practices. For example, many nations do not allow labor unions. This is an anti-free trade stance, because it is the government setting how labor, which is a commodity like any other, can be sold. This cannot be tolerated. Many nations also have a number of isolationist policies, such as HUGE tarrifs on imports and little to no tarrifs on exports. We cannot do business with these people either (I'm looking at you Japan). And some nations do not have floating currencies, and this way the competition is just unfair, either way, either they undervalue their currency (I'm looking at you China) or they bloat their currency, and someone ends up unjustifiably ****ed.

That being said, teacher is right, we can't base our trade policies on the fact that many of our citizens are too lazy to become skilled. Christ, you can buy a book at Walmart and become certified as skilled at something.
This world is a competitive place, and we can't just roll over for people that lose on this competition. As a christian I believe we should help them, but setting the trade policies to help them and screw someone else who would do their job just as well is just ridiculous.

What we need to do is work through the WTO, and start calling them out on their pro-business stance. They are supposed to promote free trade, and that involves the laborers, and nations who have anti-union measures should be banished from the WTO and have embargos placed on them by all remaining members of the WTO till these ****ers straighten up and fly right.

Actually we were discussing the deregulation of the Brazilian economy following the abandonment of the tripartite system which brought together the forces of labor capital and state in the socialist style economy through the sequotor forum and then when Cardossa deregulated it to get inflation under control by introducing competitition in to the system and I'm saying that if they had not deregulated the economy that it would have been far worse off and now in 2004 the real growth gdp is at 5.6%. But she being a socialist disagrees so we need a take from an econ major such as yourself.

But my entire argument was based upon this case study of the free market being the catalyst for democracy and that the south American countries are actually doing pretty good under Mercosur (common market of the south) and that an FTAA (free trade of the americas agreement) and maybe even a global trade agreement with the pacific rim including south east asian countries, Japan, and Australia would benefit all parties involved. You need to read the first post that I wrote.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Alright, I'm not positive where this line of discussion came from, or what exactly is going on. And I don't intend to read this whole thing, I am far to lazy and important to do such things
But I'm assuming from this one post that I've read that some country had a fixed currency, and they transitioned to a floating currency, and you two are now discussing the pros and cons of doing this.

If I am right, which is probable (HA! Not bloody likely!), then your metaphor is incorrect. It would be moreso if you have a hundred dollars, and you could go through the scenario you presented, or you could run a high risk of that hundred dollars becoming worthless.

But to the topic of globalization.
Ideally, globalization would be fantastic. There are a few issues I have with the current situation we have now. If we completely open the levees of globalization, then we'll have to do business with many (most) countries that do MANY anti-free trade practices. For example, many nations do not allow labor unions. This is an anti-free trade stance, because it is the government setting how labor, which is a commodity like any other, can be sold. This cannot be tolerated. Many nations also have a number of isolationist policies, such as HUGE tarrifs on imports and little to no tarrifs on exports. We cannot do business with these people either (I'm looking at you Japan). And some nations do not have floating currencies, and this way the competition is just unfair, either way, either they undervalue their currency (I'm looking at you China) or they bloat their currency, and someone ends up unjustifiably ****ed.

That being said, teacher is right, we can't base our trade policies on the fact that many of our citizens are too lazy to become skilled. Christ, you can buy a book at Walmart and become certified as skilled at something.
This world is a competitive place, and we can't just roll over for people that lose on this competition. As a christian I believe we should help them, but setting the trade policies to help them and screw someone else who would do their job just as well is just ridiculous.

What we need to do is work through the WTO, and start calling them out on their pro-business stance. They are supposed to promote free trade, and that involves the laborers, and nations who have anti-union measures should be banished from the WTO and have embargos placed on them by all remaining members of the WTO till these ****ers straighten up and fly right.

Actually we were discussing the deregulation of the Brazilian economy following the abandonment of the tripartite system which brought together the forces of labor capital and state in the socialist style economy through the sequotor forum and then when Cardossa deregulated it to get inflation under control by introducing competitition in to the system and I'm saying that if they had not deregulated the economy that it would have been far worse off and now in 2004 the real growth gdp is at 5.6%. But she being a socialist disagrees so we need a take from an econ major such as yourself.

But my entire argument was based upon this case study of the free market being the catalyst for democracy and that the south American countries are actually doing pretty good under Mercosur (common market of the south) and that an FTAA (free trade of the americas agreement) and maybe even a global trade agreement with the pacific rim including south east asian countries, Japan, and Australia would benefit all parties involved.

Basically this argument for the pros of globalization has turned into a debate over socialism vs. laissez faire economies (is that how you spell that aww **** it?)

You need to read the first post that I wrote.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Globalization is inevitable. That’s a fact. If a country can provide a good or service better than we can or for less money, assuming it is not with slave or child labor, then that country ought to be able to do so. There is not a single valid economic argument against free trade.

That said, what we as a country should be focused on is what Gene Sperling, Clinton’s National Economic Advisor (we all remember the prosperity of the nineties), refers to as “Progressive Growth”. By that he means that globalization is inevitable and this will result in our nation loosing jobs in certain industries. However, we should as a nation invest in the areas where we are better than other nations so that we can remain the economic leader of the world. For example, he says that a lot of technology jobs are outsourced to India not because doing so is less expensive than bringing those jobs to rural areas or small towns, but because our rural areas and small towns don’t have the necessary technology infrastructure to support them. Therefore, if we invest more in bringing the necessary technology to smaller towns and educating our workforce, those high paying IT jobs that are moving from places like Seattle and the Silicon Valley to India in order for companies to save money could go to areas with far lower costs of living and wage requirements here in the USA.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

GALEN! Why don't you know about the economies of S. America? They have been the focus of U.S. economic policy since the Monroe Doctrine. You need to learn about it they have alot of resources are democratic and have the most potential for growth. South America is on the verge of becoming another EU with or without us this is going to happen, we need to get in on the ground floor. All we have to do as a nation to ensure their support and willingness to trade is to provide them with bail-ins (debt restructuring) as opposed to bail-outs on the outrageous interest rates that they have had to pay on the world bank and IMF loans on which they have payed the principles off and now are paying the interest on the interest.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

that makes sense.
Sounds a little too simple though, and one thing I've found is that if the solution can be well articulated briefly, as you have here, than something's being ignored.

Well I'm not an econ major I'm a poli sci major so I don't know all of the ins and outs quite yet I've just begun to study in depth the capitalistic economic system and the positive and negative effects of globalization on a similar note in the recent South American meetings with Bush the Mercosur trading block of the south influenced by the fevered rhetoric of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has inserted a last minute change to the wording of a draft of the summit decleration showing their concerns about joining a U.S. led FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas: "We recognize that the necessary conditions are not in place to reach a balanced and equitable hemispheric free trade agreement." One of the major grievances was from U.S. farm subsidies given to domestic farmers. (Galen you're an econ major right? What is a farm subsidy?) Anyways the draft was scheduled to be signed that day and this is from the Saturdays newspaper so I'm not sure how it turned out because I've heard very little about it on the top three 24 hour news networks, I'm gonna have to catch the Neil Kavuto show tommorow.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Farm subsidies are essentially the government setting a rate that a certain amount of crops should earn, and I'm a little hazy on the exact practice, but I know it was put in place because an independent farmer's life year to year is unpredictable, and this was making sure they could guarantee that they'll make enough, but it led to a grain surplus, leading to the government paying people to not farm their land, leading to an artificial shortage, it's basically just an example of a goodhearted idea going horribly horribly wrong.

Let me know what happens.

ok here's what happened:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113133375437389789.html?mod=home_page_one_us

 

[Kelzie]

Farm subsidies are essentially the government setting a rate that a certain amount of crops should earn, and I'm a little hazy on the exact practice, but I know it was put in place because an independent farmer's life year to year is unpredictable, and this was making sure they could guarantee that they'll make enough, but it led to a grain surplus, leading to the government paying people to not farm their land, leading to an artificial shortage, it's basically just an example of a goodhearted idea going horribly horribly wrong.

Let me know what happens.

Not here. I'm sure there's all different kinds of farm subsidies, but in the US, the gov pays the farmers for how much grain they produce, regardless of how much the market demands. So once the domestic market is saturated, they can sell it to foreign markets for really cheap, or give it to poor countries for a tax right off.

Both are really bad. Domestic farmers in foreign countries can't compete with the government paying for some of our farmer's costs. That's why so many countries won't open up to trade with us in agriculture unless we stop the subsidies.

 

[Kelzie]

ok here's what happened:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113133375437389789.html?mod=home_page_one_us

Didn't work.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Didn't work.

Ya maybe Pat Robertson was right about Chavez J.K. but seriously that guys a prick.

 

[Kelzie]

Ya maybe Pat Robertson was right about Chavez J.K. but seriously that guys a prick.

:rofl Your freakin site didn't work you wackjob. :lol:


I like Chavez. He's a funny guy.