Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

  1. #1 What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

    From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

    From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

    From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

    What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

    I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    One has to take into account what the true motivation behind globalism is. Bigger profits? I think so. Global development? The companies will say so, but no. If their motivation truely was global development, they would use their increased profits to up their local workers' salaries. There should be some legal framework to optimize the situation in a global development direction. Good public relations for a country.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    Globalization is the cancer that will kill us all. diseases can easily spread from one country to another. If one major country suffers some small weakness, the world quakes. Prices are so high, and worker pay so low, that it's profitable to send fuel-consuming BARGES over the ocean, ship them all across the country, and distribute them to individual stores.

    There are metric fucktons of things wrong with globalization. Yet everyone has welcomed our destruction with open arms. Yes. Thank you majority.

    I am not blind to the "benefits" of globalization. But the risk signifigantly outweighs the benefits. Well, for us non-profiting people of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Globalization means Toyota builds cars in the USA instead of shipping them across oceans, and provides extremely well paying jobs for workers who might otherwise be unemployed. It means American car manufacturers are finally being forced by the global market to look at fuel efficiency.

    It also means US engineering firms can get engineering work done in Romania and India that enables them to remain competitive on the global market. Otherwise all the work would go to Korea. No engineering jobs have been exported – in fact engineering firms are trying, largely without success, to hire thousands of engineers in the US. The jobs are there but the people are not.

    The effects of globalization will reshape the economy and people will have to adapt, but overall the average standard of living is not going to decline.

    A far more serious threat to living standards is climate change. The moral stance would be free trade coupled with a carbon tax to show the consumer the true global cost of having the luxury of buying oriental fruits, or French wines in an American supermarket.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Globalization means Toyota builds cars in the USA instead of shipping them across oceans, and provides extremely well paying jobs for workers who might otherwise be unemployed. It means American car manufacturers are finally being forced by the global market to look at fuel efficiency.
    Globalization means they can make 90% of our produce in china and make a profit by shipping it to the other side of the planet.

    Most of our produce we use isn't made in the United States. If you explore your kitchen right now, you'll find at least half of it says "made in china". If something is electronic it's probably "made in Taiwan".

    Furthermore, the American car manufacturers are being forced to be more fuel-efficient by the president himself. Not the global market. EDIT actually, make that CONGRESS, not the president.

    Lastly, most of our well-paying jobs are being outsourced so companies can pay less for a larger profit. Why do you think most IT jobs are being outsourced to India? The claim that globalization GIVES the USA jobs is kind of a laugh, since, especially in recent years, it has been taking them away.

    The effects of globalization will reshape the economy and people will have to adapt, but overall the average standard of living is not going to decline.
    Well. To that I have to say: Orly? It hasn't really improved living standards in other countries, since they don't exactly get paid as much as they would in the USA. A company is out for profit when they outsource, not for the betterment of a country.

    The claim that they create jobs is equally unfair, since it doesn't look at what would have happened if companies remained localized.

    Globalization, essentially, lets a country like china ignore all of its problems and stay afloat merely on the profit from other countries.

    A far more serious threat to living standards is climate change. The moral stance would be free trade coupled with a carbon tax to show the consumer the true global cost of having the luxury of buying oriental fruits, or French wines in an American supermarket.
    I call bullshit. If you were worried about climate change, you would demand that large cities be dispersed. Doesn't anyone understand the effect those heat-emitting-super massive cities create on global environment?

    And already there is a "credit" system that is reaping quite the profits for green peace related parties. And politicians like Al Gore probably share in those profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

    Punishing the average American because globalization damages everything, including our environment, is missing the point. It's minds like yours that think it's a good idea that we use ethanol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Let me see if I can interpret your argument.
    Globalisation means that there will be a more equable distribution of wealth on the planet.
    As a consequence the wealth of Americans will not rise as fast as it has for the past century.
    Regardless, wealth overall will continue to rise.

    Seems like a win-win situation to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Yes, if instituted properly, which I for one don’t think is happening. Globalization is more geared towards profits than spreading of wealth.

    Edit: Sweatshops being a good example. Neither American workers nor 3rd world peoples are getting any money.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    What is globalism & globalization?

    http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

    Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

    There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Let me see if I can interpret your argument.
    Globalisation means that there will be a more equable distribution of wealth on the planet.
    As a consequence the wealth of Americans will not rise as fast as it has for the past century.
    Regardless, wealth overall will continue to rise.

    Seems like a win-win situation to me.
    No. America needs and deserves what wealth it can get. It means plenty more jobs and such for the country. Currently, the USA is having a severe shortage on jobs. Along with that, the USA is in severe debt thanks to a president certain idiots voted in twice.

    The "wealth" of the USA is about to come crashing down. Globalization was probably the beginning of this crash. And, as I said, this "equable distribution" only hides the problems of other countries like China. If, for one day, the entire process were stopped...well, guess how many shitty countries would collapse? The USA is probably one of them, I know China is.

    Your interpretation of my argument is somewhat accurate, but it misses the problems. Wealth overall will not rise, and I'll go so far as to say it has in fact fallen. The continuing plummet of the US dollar is evidence enough of that. As are current economic states.

    If you are unhappy with these listed opinions, I can (with some difficulty) gather a large amount of proof.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Jeremyhfht:

    Your statements are largely incorrect, and your tone is unpleasant so I don’t think I’ll waste my time on a point-by-point rebuttal. I’ll just repeat that in the engineering business that I’m in, there is huge skills shortage in the USA and Europe. Positions cannot be filled from the domestic pools. I believe the same situation exists in IT, but I'm prepared to be corrected if wrong.

    Globalization is fraught with environmental challenges. We know that. There are also opportunities for global scale mitigation that would not arise if all countries operated in isolation. You can do your own research on this if you’re genuinely interested.

    It's minds like yours that think it's a good idea that we use ethanol.
    That’s a rather feeble ad hominem. Surely you can do better? Besides, there are no minds like mine and you have zero knowledge of what I know or think about ethanol so don’t presume that you do. I'll give you a clue: ethanol is good in moderation, especially when flavored with grape or barley.

    http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...-it-skills.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    What IS it with people and excessively mislabeling statements as ad-hominems? Good god.

    And, honestly, I'm not sure what to make of your very singled-out IT skills shortage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. America needs and deserves what wealth it can get. .
    You imply there is only so much wealth to go around. You really need to revisit Adam Smith.
    And on what possible basis does the US, aping the larcenous methods of the British Empire, deserve the wealth it can get. The wealth of the westernworld is to a signifcant degree supported by protectionist measures and self serving control of the global banking system. About all the west, and in particular the US, deserve is a sharp kick in the fundament.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Along with that, the USA is in severe debt thanks to a president certain idiots voted in twice.
    Agreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    And, honestly, I'm not sure what to make of your very singled-out IT skills shortage.
    I would think it's partly the result of the pathetic state of technical and scientific education in the US. We're falling farther and farther behind other countries in this respect, and it's not singled out in IT. Over here in biomedical research, a great many of the people I work with are from other countries. Places like India and China, from their vast population size if nothing else, have a wealth of skilled specialists - when I was first applying for jobs here in DC, I tried to get some at NIH and didn't have much luck. A doctor I know who worked there said that a lot of the hires at NIH are foreign postdocs that specialize in the exact area that a given researcher needs. That's hard to compete with. The plus side (as far as American benefit is concerned) is that at least we're still importing the talent, and not exporting all of our talent to other countries. Yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Along with that, the USA is in severe debt thanks to a president certain idiots voted in twice.
    Also agreed. The first time was bad enough, but the despair that settled in after the second time - *shudder.* He's also bad for science and research. The sooner he's gone, the better.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I would think it's partly the result of the pathetic state of technical and scientific education in the US. We're falling farther and farther behind other countries in this respect, and it's not singled out in IT.
    When we can hire new engineering grads from American universities the quality is usually excellent. We just can't find enough of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •