Understanding the Players in the Global Economy
Read the article about the 3 Ps of Globalization. Here is the link to WTO and its critics, to the World Bank, the IMF and their critics. The links to WEF and WSF are here.
Browse the websites and reflect on the global economic order. What are the defining characteristics? What are the conflicts and the what are the stakes?
Browse the websites and reflect on the global economic order. What are the defining characteristics? What are the conflicts and the what are the stakes?
11 Comments:
Keith Abrahamson
Organizations such as the WTO and WEF are only in place to help promote corporations. Members consist of wealthy businessmen who want to do everything in their power to make sure that they stay wealthy. With the way that our system works now, money and image are the only concerns. The website of the WEF highlights an article entitled, “WEF assists fair trade in Africa”. One might look at this article and think that the WEF is trying to help Africa. The sad reality is, however, that these rich businessmen just want to make money off of Africa. With systems in place like the International Monetary Fund, poor countries are stuck having to borrow money with high interest rates in order to try and develop. The IMF and World Bank reap the benefits from suffering countries around the world. They help to increase the gap between the privileged and the impoverished. It is nearly impossible for poor countries to develop because they are unable to build a stable economy.
Another big problem with corporations being in charge is that the environment is disposable as long as it is profitable. The WTO is trying to get rid of certain environmental laws because they are “barriers to trade.” Why does no one care about the environment? Because corporations don’t care about the long-term future as long as they are able to reap the benefits of the present. The problem with the system is greed. In a perfect fiscally conservative system, money from corporations would provide jobs and help educate people so that they can in turn help save the environment. The problem is that with money comes power, and those in power want to do everything they can to stay there. So while the WTO may say it is helping the common good, it is really helping those who are already privileged and wealthy.
I agree with many of the points Keith has made. It is sad when one buys a coffee knowing that the people growing the beans in some other nation are probably making at best a few dollars a day. Few people know that you can ask for "fair trade" coffee at places like star bucks. Why are companies like this responsable for making "fair trade" a reality? It is not in their interests to do so. It is certainly true that these institutions which are in place to promote growth in areas which are poor, are actually extracting the natural resources from these areas at the expense of the citizens, who could benefit from such potential business. Special interests such as private corporations taint the potential for processes known as, “globalism,” to provide citizens of the planet opportunities which only the wealthy receive today. We should not allow these interests to take away the potential for this process to end such problems such as world poverty. Major adjustments are needed regarding organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and the World Bank, if these problems are to be resolved. One can only hope that the will of average citizens finds a way of making these corrections, because without it an increase in social economic disparity will lead to further violence around the globe.
As Dr. Khan's article about the 3 P's shows us Globalization has caused an exteremely intricate connection between all of the world. The problems that have arisen from this are extremely evident, there is a disconnect in people across the globe. Some economies are strong while others are weak while some countires have vast resources and some have very few. The leaders in globablizations are members of the countries that have the power. Thats why organizations such as the WTO can take advantage of the countries that had globalization almost forced upon them rather than growing into it themselves.
Globalization is also putting countries in debt. Countries are borrowing money at such high rates from the IMF that they will never be able to pay them back. In addition these countries are forced to allow IMF to use its resources and workers for extremely cheap.
Stopping a machine that is this big and this lurative isnt easy, but there have already been protests around the world trying to stop it. the more we spread information about the curroption in these groups the more opposition there will be. Start by telling a friend, keep an ear out for protests write to a large institutional fund and ask them to stop buying bonds from the World Bank, a process that is commonly done at good rates with a possible US insurance.
Adam Lovitz
I thought that the article Dr. Khan presented as a way to define globalization broke it down in a very formative yet simple manner. The three P’s categorize and define the essense of our capital age. As in the industrial revolution, globalization brings progress at the same time bringing new obstacles that defy human rights. Globalizing our economy, law, and connectivity definately is a new phenomenon. The phenomenon is the absense of our concept of time and space. The philosophy of globalization has more than one side, a corruptive and dominating plague that feeds off our environment and humans, and then a progressive and growing global society. Although a new connection between humans of all cultures through the internet, business, sports, and media, there seems to be a stong disconnect. Through technology, our world is getting faster. This may seem to make the big nations and businesses blind to the consequences of a global market when one only sees the profitable side. But what is progress when water is being sold in bottles, companies are buying significant environmental resources, and the poor will never have a chance to compete in our vastly growing ‘connecting’ world. The websites of the WTO and World Bank seem to be promoting themselves in a very friendly fashion, concerned for the welfare of the world. But in looking at the facts, these organizations are highly biased and creating a split between the world that is getting stronger and wider. It is easy to see that the rich get richer as a result of the poor getting poorer. I realize that there are relative issues to note, yet the condition of our world is downhill when one decides to seek profit instead of actual humane progress.
This article explains the three P's of globalization and how it interconnects the world. Thus with the world becoming more and more conected we see the emrgence of the world economy. The bad part about this economy is the fact of how one aspect is provifing luxuries for one then harmful effects to others, ushually the countries that most citizens within the US don't care about. Also if we look at our clothing almost everything is made somewhere in Asia. So we buy clothes for rediculous prices and it cost them 5 dollars for our 80 dollar jeans. We produce these jeans over in other countries because it's cheaper and there are no restrictions environmentaly. These process are terrible and we care nothing about them because they barely affect us. If this is to change, the WTO will need to step in, but I don't see this happening any time soon.
This post has been removed by the author.
The 3 P’s have made complex links throughout the world which drain most countries while replenishing and adding to the wealth of others because of the institutions currently in place. I agree with Keith and Geoffrey, the organizations of the world such as the WTO and WEF exist only to benefit the corporations as they are currently set up. The organizations make no effort to improve the conditions of the poor countries as they won’t put on restrictions on the items that can be traded, made by slave labor or not, if the government allows it to be made it can be traded. It is also quite shocking that even the smallest purchase that most Americans make on a daily basis from a cup of coffee to a sandwich costs more than what most people in poor nations live off of in one day.
I have to agree with Dr. Khan’s there Ps of globalization, but I feel globalization has some what allowed nations to progress further into this twenty first century. Practically everything in the world has a positive and negative characteristic regardless of what it is. Globalization for instance has had many negative effects on the world such neocolonialism that is taking place within the middle east which has spark a massive surge of ethnic cleansing between Shiits and Sunnis within Iraq borders. Another example could be the exploitation of workers who have been taking on jobs that have been out sourced from the States. Many of these workers work twelve hours a day and end up making two five dollars a day.
The flip side to globalization is that it has allowed the world to be more connected then ever. The ability of being able to see and talk to someone living on the complete opposite side of the world within a matter of seconds has allowed the world to become more knowledgeable of global affairs. For example, today many bias media outlets such as Fox News have been distorting information from the general public, but now there are sites such as Youtube and LiveLeak which allow ordinary people to post raw footage of current events without any type of distortion from political leaders and lobbyists .
In addition, globalization interconnects the world’s economy which is a good thing primarily because war effects economies and if a war is to hurt a economy it will hur the rest of the world’s. This has made the world more aware of global affairs because whatever happens in China can effect the United States economy and vice versa. This concept applies to the rest of other world in general.
Shannon Dougherty
I was shocked most by Dr. Khan’s comment, “Driving SUVs in North America and cutting trees in Brazil can immediately raise the prospects of skin cancer in Australia — or affect the crops in India through climate changes.” Globalization is prevalent all around me, but rarely do I think of the closeness of the world. I know that companies have become world wide corporations, which outsource jobs, that the economies of the world are dependent of one another, and that the internet is bringing the world together. Yet, I live day to day without realizing my connection to this event, and I feel that many other Americans do the same.
I think that globalization has been romanticized in much of the democratic, liberal, and sociological literature. The internet and many other technological advances have enabled worldwide connections to be made. The anonymous nature of such technology promotes a notion of equality by removing race, gender, and age. This cyber world becomes the ideal, where humans are humans first, and judged on the basis of their merits, not their physical characteristics. Democratic idealists promote globalization as the creation of true humanity, where everyone can love one another without bias.
However, such ideals ignore the power that some humans have over others. As Keith commented in the first blog post on this subject, globalization fails to make the world equal. Major corporations continue to control the world, and although technology has allowed for the removal of physical characteristics, it has failed to remove others. For example, nytimes.com attracts different viewers than foxnews.com for political views in America. The internet has failed to remove political, religious, or social bias. Social stratification exists in the world, and controls factors beyond technology. Globalization has merely enabled a few rich men to control many more underprivileged people through their economic influence, such as that described by Keith.
The 3 P's of Glovalization article explains globalization and its complexity. Its true that globalization its a phenomenon that manifests the connectedness
of the world. But unfortunately, it also helps to show the grave difference between the developed and the so called under developed world (third world). Many organizations that supposely help the third world develop, WTO, IMF, and others, only make the matters worst. Having to pay so much interest on an external debt that never ends is causing many of the poor people in need to remain under the poverty lines. Third world countries are tricked to borrow funds to develop. Its more like borrowing from Sam to pay Bill! Never ending story!
If the resources are available in the third world, how come the
people of the third world are not taking advantage of their own resources? Because we still live in an age of colonization. Colonization in terms of American corporations (who own WTO and the IMF), who extract the resouces that belong to other countries to make themselves richer. And free trade, it does not exist!
There can never be free trade when the laws of free trade give a competitive advantage to those who create them.
What stood out in my mind was the extent to how much power the WTO has as an organization. Many governments have seen their economic policies overidden because international economic policies serve to negotiate commerce. This is the price of Globalization, someone needs to do the dirty work. The WTO serves to bring nations together that don't agree on social, cultural, and political norms. Perhaps it is the destiny of the world to unite economically before anything. The policies should be made along the lines of leveling out the playing field to encourage more countries to participate in the WTO as a legitimate economic UN. One might say the real problem is that globilization as a whole is forcing the laggard economies to integrate into the powerful industrialized economies. But the truth is, these problems did not start with no WTO, it started with Americans, Britains, Frenchman, and Germans going into other people's societies and transmitting their culture, expectations, wants and needs to a sealed off society that was content with strong diet of horticulture farming and hunting meat. Tribes of people working together for their survival. Maybe not living past 70 and probably not enjoying a hot summer day, unless they go swimming in their unpolluted rivers, but still content with what they had.
"Exploring the world for the good of christedom they called it"
Now people are enslaved through diamond mining, oil trading, and resource gathering to make a dollar or two to because this is the best way for the nation as a whole to make money. A handful of beneficiaries linked to corrupt governments see more wealth supplying demand to the west. The governments control the country, control the people. The people work for the benefactors. All resources have a price tag on the world market. Their world collides with our world, our world just so happens to be bigger and stronger and so devours their world.
Could it be possible to seal these people off from our world. Spare them the dreadful fate of being the bottom of our shoes? In China, the peasents in the country side are isolated from the wealthy capitalist system because it would create too much turmoil and devour them alive. But places like Africa do not have the same luxuries, they just got aids. Can people go back to their old ways, its hard to say: You don't know what you have until you lose it all. I would say our influence has probably screwed up their natural resources and idea of survival. Rather than focus on economic progress we need to assure they can obtain a standard of living along their lines.
If anything money should be spent to clean up their environment. All of these monetary organizations like the IMF and WEF are just loan sharks pure and simple. The benefactors will benefit from them as Keith said, but the social hierachy is a small triangle on top of a flatbed of skeltons. Nations that require loans are obviously lagging behind nations who don't need loans. If they develop as a result of these loans, they will probably not go anywhere but in debt because they are at a severe disadvantage in the world market. To accomdate these debts many commondities needed for basic survival will just become privatized and tied to the foreign buisness becoming highly unaffordable. Westerners could perhaps move their industries away from places like China and India to bring some money and commerce to the regions but that would cost too much for us, because never before have we been in such a competitive global market in which every dollar counts, or else god forbid American unemployment might go above 4 percent... These days such nations should simply be aided in establishing agriculture... nothing more.
Post a Comment
<< Home