• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is globalization a good thing?

Is globalization a good thing?

  • Yes, it is generally good

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • Roughly half good, half bad

    Votes: 11 30.6%

  • No, it is generally bad

    Votes: 13 36.1%
  • Total voters
    36
The thing is that when we allow free trade, our economy becomes more specialized toward what it's best at.
Click to expand...

that is not nessacarily true.

And some manufacturing will stay with us as well. Such as electroics and car manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Why should some stay? We need to protect our economic base against unfair practices by outside competitors. While our manufacturibg has to deal with economic and enviromental restrictions, Chinese and other 3rd world places do not follow such rules. Thus we put our companies and jobs at a serious disadvantage, crippiling their ability to compete. We are basically stealing from our own mouths to feed International corporations ,and China like nations.
 
OxymoronP said:
It is bad for us because manufacturing creates long term jobs and security. Service jobs are outsourced to india or insourced from Mexico. Service jobs depend on cheap products from other nations, and thus will be severly hurt by any price fluctutions. I am not saying we should be China, but we should make sure our economy is multiversed (No Eggs in one basket). The US policy should be one that protects our workers, and our business's. free global economy does not help us at all, it helps large international corporations and 3rd world countries.
Click to expand...

Quote from Naked Economics by economist Charles Wheelan:

In the long run, trade facilitates growth and a growing economy can absorb displaced workers. Exports rise and consumers are made richer by cheap imports; both of those things create demand for new workers elsewhere in the economy. Trade-related job losses in America tend to be small relative to the economy's capacity to produce new jobs. One post-NAFTA study concluded that an average of 37,000 jobs per year were lost from 1990 to 1997 because of free trade with Mexico, while over the same period the economy was creating 200,000 jobs per month.
Click to expand...

(Wheelan 192)

He got this piece of information from "The Impact of NAFTA on the United States" which was an article in The Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Yes, it causes outsourcing in some cases, but the job loss is absorbed by the booming economy.
 
OxymoronP said:
that is not nessacarily true.
Click to expand...

Not always, but it more often than not is

OxymoronP said:
Why should some stay? We need to protect our economic base against unfair practices by outside competitors. While our manufacturibg has to deal with economic and enviromental restrictions, Chinese and other 3rd world places do not follow such rules. Thus we put our companies and jobs at a serious disadvantage, crippiling their ability to compete. We are basically stealing from our own mouths to feed International corporations ,and China like nations.
Click to expand...

Our economic base is changing, expanding, and merging with other ones. Just because they start from a lower base doesn't mean that it's unfair. You're taking the ultra-leftie approach, "because someone is taking, the other must be losing."
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Our economic base is changing, expanding, and merging with other ones. Just because they start from a lower base doesn't mean that it's unfair. You're taking the ultra-leftie approach, "because someone is taking, the other must be losing."
Click to expand...

What do tou mean they are starting from a lower base?
Our manufacturing companies cannot compete because of overregulation, and lack of regulation on imports. I have no problem with fair trade, where our economy and jobs arent soldout for the interests of the few. We are not merging with China and India, we are basically doing wealth redistribution from the low and middle class to those nations and the ultra wealthy oligarchs.



One post-NAFTA study concluded that an average of 37,000 jobs per year were lost from 1990 to 1997 because of free trade with Mexico, while over the same period the economy was creating 200,000 jobs per month.
Click to expand...

What kind of jobs were lost, and what kind were gained? If 37000 skilled jobs were lost and 200000 low skill jobs gained that is a overall loss in long term prosperity

Again I dont mind fair trade, where both sides benefit. I understand the idea that certain things should be imported, that it doesnt make sense to make here when its better and cheaper somewhere else. Yet what is happening thanks to overregulation inside country and lack of regulation on imports creates unfair market conditions for our companies. Thus what could and should be made here, isnt made here. We are selling ourselves out to the interests of the few.
 
Last edited:
Sanitas said:
Do you think globalization is a good thing?

Please vote before reading my post.










(Wheelan 201)

Wheelan, Charles. Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science. Boston: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003.

I wrote the following for a school assignment, and felt it would apply:

The antiglobalization argument certainly has merit, though it is terribly misinformed. The belief is, gargantuan corporations with overseas interests are merely taking advantage of the poverty stricken people, by forcing them to work in horrid sweatshops, and allowing child labor, and somehow making them worse off. Indeed, the corporations are taking advantage of cheap labor in countries such as China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. The corporations are also paying their workers generous wages compared to standards of pay at domestic manufacturing firms. Sure it isn't $8.00 an hour, but it's much more than what they would be getting paid otherwise.

The most ironic part is the antiglobalization protesters actually believe they would be doing the peasants of Vietnam some sort of favor by shutting down the Nike shoes plant, and forcing them out of their only means of income. Sounds like some favor!

In his book, Wheelan clearly wanted to signify his stance on globalization - that it is merely human capital(human capital) on a global scale. When trade restrictions are lifted, some people may lose their jobs…a company may shut its doors due to foreign competition. But this is just another example of a point Wheelan made early in the book - creative destruction (Creative destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). To move forward on a global (or national) economic scale, we must realize that the benefits by far outweigh the costs. In lifting tariffs we would inherently cause a few problems, but solve many!

Protesters of globalization would argue otherwise, that somehow putting a KFC in Bali, or sending jobs to Honduras is detrimental to the world. The opposite is true, however. In exporting economic interests we also export economic hope and prosperity. This can only hope to have a great positive effect on the world economy.
Click to expand...

Your are learning well grass hopper. :2razz:

Seriously though, what you wrote is exactly why globalization is good and I congratulate you on researching it beyond talking points.
 
Generally I'd say it was a bad thing. It gives a lot of power to large corporations and moves the control of our local and regional economies and societies even further away and it breaks down traditional cultures and societies.
 
Cephus said:
Of course we have, where have you been? The U.S. auto industry has been in the dumper since the 70s, Detroit, once Motor City, is a virtual ghost town. Ford, GM and Chrysler have all bought into the "build crappy cars that fall apart so that people buy new cars more often" model and that's what allowed foreign builders like Toyota and Honda to make such massive inroads into the marketplace. We sold out, they didn't, now that we're finally figuring out our lesson, it's too late and most people won't buy American cars no matter what they do.

The same is true of most other industries. There's virtually nothing where we lead the world in quality anymore. We sold our proverbial soul for cheap Chinese crap and low-paying overseas jobs.
Click to expand...

I am almost surrounded by new car manufacturers and parts manufacturers.

The U.S. still has a lot of industry and more that is moving to us.
My company is closing production in California and expanding production in my home state.

Honda, Suzuki, Toyota, VW, Kia in Middle Georgia, and on and on.
A lot of these guys have just opened shop on top of that.
 
The antiglobalization argument certainly has merit, though it is terribly misinformed. The belief is, gargantuan corporations with overseas interests are merely taking advantage of the poverty stricken people, by forcing them to work in horrid sweatshops, and allowing child labor, and somehow making them worse off. Indeed, the corporations are taking advantage of cheap labor in countries such as China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. The corporations are also paying their workers generous wages compared to standards of pay at domestic manufacturing firms. Sure it isn't $8.00 an hour, but it's much more than what they would be getting paid otherwise.

The most ironic part is the antiglobalization protesters actually believe they would be doing the peasants of Vietnam some sort of favor by shutting down the Nike shoes plant, and forcing them out of their only means of income. Sounds like some favor!
Click to expand...
This does have a very early 19th century British utilitarian ring to it. Sort of like the factories may be bad but it is better than the alternative. The enclosures, laws of settlement and other such things are conveniently left out of the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Generally I'd say it was a bad thing. It gives a lot of power to large corporations and moves the control of our local and regional economies and societies even further away and it breaks down traditional cultures and societies.
Click to expand...

I agree that large corporations are a problem but being anti globalism doesn't address the deficiencies in a local or regional economy.

It does provide a value added service and uses labor more efficiently than if we were to remain closed to that kind of trade.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree that large corporations are a problem but being anti globalism doesn't address the deficiencies in a local or regional economy.
Click to expand...
I believe it does. I believe the deficiencies are very much over stated and that the pluses of globalisation are only achievable thanks to massive state intervention.

It does provide a value added service and uses labor more efficiently than if we were to remain closed to that kind of trade.
Click to expand...
That depends, it is hardly an organic thing, it took the state to create and maintain it. You couldn't even have a large corporation if the state had not set it up by state fiat, giving it personhood, splitting ownership from control in a perversion of common law ideals of property and giving it other privileges and welfare.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I believe it does. I believe the deficiencies are very much over stated and that the pluses of globalisation are only achievable thanks to massive state intervention.

That depends, it is hardly an organic thing, it took the state to create and maintain it. You couldn't even have a large corporation if the state had not set it up by state fiat, giving it personhood, splitting ownership from control in a perversion of common law ideals of property and giving it other privileges and welfare.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a state to facilitate trade, it takes the state to restrict trade.
After all it is really just two or more individuals exchanging money for goods, goods for money, or goods for goods.

In the end though, most wage labor manufacturing jobs will be outsourced to automation.

For the record, I disagree with those kinds of "rights" for corporations but I see no reason to restrict trade between individuals.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
It doesn't take a state to facilitate trade, it takes the state to restrict trade.
After all it is really just two or more individuals exchanging money for goods, goods for money, or goods for goods.
Click to expand...
That is hypothetical, we are talking about reality mate. As I said in that post after you'd begun replying:

You couldn't even have a large corporation if the state had not set it up by state fiat, giving it personhood, splitting ownership from control in a perversion of common law ideals of property and giving it other privileges and welfare.

Plus obviously globalisation runs on transportation which is massively subsidised. For instance in the US heavy trucking does about 100% of roadbed damage and yet pays about 50% of upkeep costs. As Kevin Carson says in his Organisation theory: A Libertarian perspective:

Not until 1971 did the federal government begin collecting user fees from airline passengers and freight shippers to recoup this investment. In 1988 the Congressional Budget Office found that in spite of user fees paid into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, the taxpayers still had to transfer $3 billion in subsidies per year to the FAA to maintain its network of more than 400 control towers, 22 air traffic control centers, 1,000 radar-navigation aids, 250 long-range and terminal radar systems and its staff of 55,000 traffic controllers, technicians and bureaucrats.55.....To fully grasp how dependent the corporate economy is on socializing transportation costs, imagine what would happen if truck and aircraft fuel were taxed enough to pay the full cost of maintenance and new building costs on highways and airports; and if fossil fuels depletion allowances were removed. The result would be a massive increase in shipping costs. Does anyone seriously believe that Wal-Mart's national "warehouses on wheels" distribution system would be feasible, or corporate agribusiness could outcompete the family farm?

In the end though, most wage labor manufacturing jobs will be outsourced to automation.
Click to expand...
I hope not. Work has an important place in human individuality and community.
 
Last edited:
For the record, I disagree with those kinds of "rights" for corporations but I see no reason to restrict trade between individuals.
Click to expand...
In many ways neither do I but the system we are discussing is not built around such, it is built around these rights and numerous other interventions.
 
Wessexman said:
That is hypothetical, we are talking about reality mate. As I said in that post after you'd begun replying:

You couldn't even have a large corporation if the state had not set it up by state fiat, giving it personhood, splitting ownership from control in a perversion of common law ideals of property and giving it other privileges and welfare.

Plus obviously globalisation runs on transportation which is massively subsidised. For instance in the US heavy trucking does about 100% of roadbed damage and yet pays about 50% of upkeep costs. As Kevin Carson says in his Organisation theory: A Libertarian perspective:

Not until 1971 did the federal government begin collecting user fees from airline passengers and freight shippers to recoup this investment. In 1988 the Congressional Budget Office found that in spite of user fees paid into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund, the taxpayers still had to transfer $3 billion in subsidies per year to the FAA to maintain its network of more than 400 control towers, 22 air traffic control centers, 1,000 radar-navigation aids, 250 long-range and terminal radar systems and its staff of 55,000 traffic controllers, technicians and bureaucrats.55.....To fully grasp how dependent the corporate economy is on socializing transportation costs, imagine what would happen if truck and aircraft fuel were taxed enough to pay the full cost of maintenance and new building costs on highways and airports; and if fossil fuels depletion allowances were removed. The result would be a massive increase in shipping costs. Does anyone seriously believe that Wal-Mart's national "warehouses on wheels" distribution system would be feasible, or corporate agribusiness could outcompete the family farm?
Click to expand...

I understand, nearly everything I believe in is left to the hypothetical world. :(

I was referring to goods and services not easily reproducible in ones local as being fine for trade.

I heavily dislike large corporations as there is a huge disconnect between the managers and the laborers.
I'm working the best way I can with what I have though.

Wessexman said:
I hope not. Work has an important place in human individuality and community.
Click to expand...

Not all work will be outsourced that way but a lot of it will particularly assembly lines. I'm a witness to this at my current employer.
Seeing a job that required 3 being reduced to 1.

Factory labor is not helpful, at least in my opinion, in making a happy person.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand, nearly everything I believe in is left to the hypothetical world. :(

I was referring to goods and services not easily reproducible in ones local as being fine for trade.

I heavily dislike large corporations as there is a huge disconnect between the managers and the laborers.
I'm working the best way I can with what I have though.
Click to expand...
You join us distributists. I mean we're fighting a loosing battle most likely but we do our best.


Not all work will be outsourced that way but a lot of it will particularly assembly lines. I'm a witness to this at my current employer.
Seeing a job that required 3 being reduced to 1.

Factory labor is not helpful, at least in my opinion, in making a happy person.
Click to expand...
I largely agree if we are talking about modern, taylorist style factories and assembly lines.
 
OxymoronP said:
What kind of jobs were lost, and what kind were gained? If 37000 skilled jobs were lost and 200000 low skill jobs gained that is a overall loss in long term prosperity

Again I dont mind fair trade, where both sides benefit. I understand the idea that certain things should be imported, that it doesnt make sense to make here when its better and cheaper somewhere else. Yet what is happening thanks to overregulation inside country and lack of regulation on imports creates unfair market conditions for our companies. Thus what could and should be made here, isnt made here. We are selling ourselves out to the interests of the few.
Click to expand...

Since the jobs were mainly exported to Mexico, I believe they were largely low skilled jobs that. Also, generally when new jobs are created in a growing economy, they are in higher skilled sectors (a job you may need a college degree for).
 
Wessexman said:
You join us distributists. I mean we're fighting a loosing battle most likely but we do our best.
Click to expand...

The main reason the battle is being lost is because one has to actively pursue and accept that particular belief.
It sucks but most of what you or I believe isn't always simple and it rarely taught.

I think we usually are in the same boat on things, your usually a lot more specific than I am though.

Wessexman said:
I largely agree if we are talking about modern, taylorist style factories and assembly lines.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by taylorist?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The main reason the battle is being lost is because one has to actively pursue and accept that particular belief.
It sucks but most of what you or I believe isn't always simple and it rarely taught.

I think we usually are in the same boat on things, your usually a lot more specific than I am though.
Click to expand...
We all do our bit I suppose. I'm quite lazy though. I see the massive posts of say CC or Agna and I think I could never be bothered to write such.

What do you mean by taylorist?
Click to expand...
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management]Scientific management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In political and sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen as the division of labour pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workplace, see 3D.
 
Look at how the votes are split...
 
Wessexman said:
We all do our bit I suppose. I'm quite lazy though. I see the massive posts of say CC or Agna and I think I could never be bothered to write such.
Click to expand...

Simplifying an answer can be a powerful tool of spreading information.

Wessexman said:
Scientific management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political and sociological terms, Taylorism can be seen as the division of labour pushed to its logical extreme, with a consequent de-skilling of the worker and dehumanisation of the workplace, see 3D.
Click to expand...

I have seen this a lot and even when they include worker incentives to increase production, it still doesn't work like they want it to.

I have seen employees specifically damage machinery to get time off and a lot of times working for over time pay isn't enough incentive compared with time off.
 
I voted no for purely selfish reasons.

I don't want the decrease in the standard of living I see happening as we globalize.

Just being honest.
 
OxymoronP said:
What do tou mean they are starting from a lower base?
Our manufacturing companies cannot compete because of overregulation, and lack of regulation on imports. I have no problem with fair trade, where our economy and jobs arent soldout for the interests of the few. We are not merging with China and India, we are basically doing wealth redistribution from the low and middle class to those nations and the ultra wealthy oligarchs.
Click to expand...


Again, you're looking at this like a socialist. Just because the Indians and Chinese are gaining, that doesn't mean that we're losing. Americans are moving toward jobs that suit our economy better. This doesn't mean McJobs. Many firms are able to hire more Americans because they outsource.

OxymoronP said:
What kind of jobs were lost, and what kind were gained? If 37000 skilled jobs were lost and 200000 low skill jobs gained that is a overall loss in long term prosperity
Click to expand...

I've adressed this point enough

OxymoronP said:
Again I dont mind fair trade, where both sides benefit. I understand the idea that certain things should be imported, that it doesnt make sense to make here when its better and cheaper somewhere else. Yet what is happening thanks to overregulation inside country and lack of regulation on imports creates unfair market conditions for our companies. Thus what could and should be made here, isnt made here. We are selling ourselves out to the interests of the few.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that our manufacturing sector is way too tied up with regulations. The free market should determine the fate of American industry Free trade has helped us in almost every case that it's been implemented, and tarrifs have hurt us economically. Look at the results of NAFTA, the liberaliztion of British trade in the 1840s, Jefferson's tarrifs on Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars, and the Smoot-Hawely Tarrif that Hoover passed in 1930s.
 
Again, you're looking at this like a socialist. Just because the Indians and Chinese are gaining, that doesn't mean that we're losing. Americans are moving toward jobs that suit our economy better. This doesn't mean McJobs. Many firms are able to hire more Americans because they outsource.
Click to expand...
Again dont call me a damn socialist, I am a nationalist. We are losing jobs, every single day, you ignore that at your and our risk. We are losing highly skilled jobs, and gaining low skill jobs filled by illegals and insourced work forces.


I've adressed this point enough
Click to expand...

Not to my satisfaction, not gona force you but it would be nice if you could elaborate with more detail.

I certainly agree that our manufacturing sector is way too tied up with regulations. The free market should determine the fate of American industry Free trade has helped us in almost every case that it's been implemented, and tarrifs have hurt us economically. Look at the results of NAFTA, the liberaliztion of British trade in the 1840s, Jefferson's tarrifs on Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars, and the Smoot-Hawely Tarrif that Hoover passed in 1930s
Click to expand...

Same measures do not always have the same results. To have a long term stabile economy you have to realise what is working and what isnt. Right now the wholesale of the united states is going on, with one hand opening our borders and the other clamping down on our manufacturing and light industry especially. We are allowing the insourcing of huge numbers of IT people, who are driving down wages and stealing American jobs( I am in this field and have seen the devastation this is causing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom