Globalism has got to me the most puzzling international economic concepts to me, because there is just so much about it that feels good and progressive, advocation of further international integration and understanding blah blah blah neoliberal trading rising tide raises all boats through freedom of trade etc blah blah.
But on the other hand since so much of the world is composed of "have nots" globalism has seemed to have a very negative aspect to it, the fleeing of enterprise and manufacturing from the developed world to the developing world, often seemingly much faster then the economies of more laissez faire countries can adapt to it through advancing 'upwards' in terms of quality relying on finance and services for gdp.
The developing world develops faster sure, but at a very uneven rate, often times resembling neocolonial exploitation, bedridden by corruption, exploitation, graft, poor or non existent regulations and rampant ecological pollution and devastation from lumber harvesting, cash crops like cocao. Then there's the massive political instability from these regions increasingly the only ones with good quality resource reserves that the developed world requires and so there is constant interference, intervention and manipulation by the first world of the third world.
Many are also perpetually destined to this role, developing countries upon gaining independence don't have the infrastructure to trade with each other, but back to their former colonial masters. The WTO, GATT, the world Bank and the IMF are all SUPPOSED to help, but it tends to operate on an glove for all situations basis on the washington consensus, helpful for some, not very helpful for most as we see with i think it was argentina? Or was it Peru that had stagflation for a while and had to default.
So on one hand, globalism should be immensely benefitial, talent and expertise should be able to freely flow all over the place, people who need expertise get expertise, people who need labour should get labour. Scarity is lessened from easy access to emerging markets and constant booming technological progress helping the world develop and become smaller at a faster pace.
But on the other hand, globalism occured at a time when the wealth disparity between the haves and have nots were at their worse, and there seems to be many self perpetuating problems with it, if the disparity was smaller, I feel it would be more equitable but right now what equitability there is seems to constantly be beset by awful side effects.
Is globalism happening too soon? Should it have happened even sooner? Or should it be delayed say through tarrifs and protectionism until things balance out more?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Believe it or not, I think what is holding back Globalism is technology.
Now, the more advanced and cheaper technology gets, the easier it will be to have a global economy. People often forget that computers haven't been around for long, and the internet is still "new".
I think you will see that the more technology advances the easier Globalism will be.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Honestly I think the biggest problem is transportation, the ability to get millions of people ot migrate around to where the work is at isn't feasible except in places with massive investment in bullet trains. I think in Avatar using the room temperature superconductors they could have a transportation network to let people from Ghana travel to the united states, work for a shift and come back home in a single day. If you had transportation that easy and cheap plus wider information access I think things would progress much faster and stabilize.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Honestly I think the biggest problem is transportation, the ability to get millions of people ot migrate around to where the work is at isn't feasible except in places with massive investment in bullet trains. I think in Avatar using the room temperature superconductors they could have a transportation network to let people from Ghana travel to the united states, work for a shift and come back home in a single day. If you had transportation that easy and cheap plus wider information access I think things would progress much faster and stabilize.
Right, but think about it Blayne. To build a high speed transportation system like you suggest we would need technology to do it. Without technology and advancements in physics, we can't have fast travel.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I find myself a bit uncomfortable with just coping it out to technology when there are so many economical, sociological and financial issues at work here. I think the biggest problem is that our economic theory on a global level hasn't come to grips with the globalization that has occured.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Nope.
Technology.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So nothing to do with first world exploitation and neocolonialism, neoimperialism?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Nope.
Technology.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Right, but think about it Blayne. To build a high speed transportation system like you suggest we would need technology to do it. Without technology and advancements in physics, we can't have fast travel.
Not really. The technology to build higher speed transportation systems exists and is even being used in some places. The primary barriers to building high speed rail, for example, are cultural, economic and political -- not technological.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Eh, sort of. The gravity of economic, political, and cultural problems is relative to the perceived technological challenge, and supposed benefit. For instance, if high speed rail could be built that would transport people and goods across America at 500 miles per hour, making the trip between New York and California in around 9 hours, and if it would cost the same as what high speed rail currently costs, the political, cultural and economic arguments would be a lot easier.
Such an alternative would drive the costs of transcontinental travel far lower than current levels, and provide enormous economic benefits. Just think: no need for baggage allowances, orders of magnitude higher shipping capacities, higher energy efficiency, increased comfort, no weather restrictions, and vastly easier connectivity with local transit systems. You can show up at Waterloo, or Gare Du Nord, Atocha, or Sants and be on board a train that gets you between these destinations at nearly the same speed as an airline, but you show up 30 minutes before departure, and they leave from the centers of their respective cities, cutting travel times by an hour more on each end, not to mention the waiting time.
[ November 28, 2011, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Not really. The distance between New York and San Francisco (along the great circle route) is only 2563 miles which would be possible in 10 hours using the same technology as the French TGV. And that isn't the best existing technology. Its the best technology that has actually be implement on a large scale. It isn't even very new technology. Japan demonstrated Mag. Lev. Trains that operated at over 300 mph over 30 years ago.
Furthermore, there are fundamental physical limits to the cost of transportation. No technology is going to change the fact that high speed rail requires a lot of land. No technology will make it so that High speed transportation uses as little energy as lower speed transportation.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Economic barriers are technological barriers.
PS Threads I love you.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Eh, the barriers are political and a first world sense of entitlement.
Do you believe that you have the right to a job making minimum wage? Why do you feel that it's more important that you work, rather than someone in China.
I'd wager that a good forward step toward globalization would be to annex Mexico and get rid of federal minimum wage laws (local laws could still apply). Ultimately education and skillsets would determine wage and job candidacy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And destroy the middle class.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm down with annexing Mexico.
Not so much with killing the minimum wage. Annexing Mexico AND killing the minimum wage would throw millions into poverty. Unless you're going to simultaneously find a way lower cost of living expenses, and find a way to replace billions pulled out of an economy based on the service industry, I don't see how it works. Slashing wages would mean billions of fewer dollars spent in the economy since the middle and lower tiers of income would have dramatically less disposable income.
It's not like the price of goods is going to come down all that much, all the stuff that is already cheap comes from places without wage laws. Killing our wage protections means it'll be made for the same wage here, but that means the price of goods stays the same.