a few questions on globalization from an economic illiterate

Post Reply New Topic

1. Would poorer countries be just a bit better off if their currency was not devalued by hegemons such as the IMF (most likely so western companies could buy the land and resources of others and exploit cheap labor) and is global regulation of currency value rather than just customs regulated by nations tyranny? If two nations engaging in trade can not even define their monetary policies with each other without interference from the transnational market, then maybe we should just have one currency.

2. Considering that expense is becoming less related to production and demand and its fate has become tied to malinvestments (and at the same time everything becomes for sale) what is the involvement of states in setting prices? Should those involved in their adjustment let their citizens print their own currency or end inheritance laws and would such changes require less centralization and taxes?

3. Since neoliberalism is eroding nations, even those based on more cohesion and history than America and obliterating all the regulations they imposed for cultural reasons and occupational and environmental protection; are national economies just vehicles for globalization and should we therefore decrease taxes and separate business and state? If so, should prices be set by the private sector? Should we still maintain some centralized industries like nuclear energy production and medicine while giving up on regulating banks?

Note: I do not think that all corporations are immoral or those who own them, most likely answers about the intentions of those in charge of companies vary according to which industry they belong to. I just wish to learn more about increasingly elusive and esoteric economic ideas because the fact that I am ignorant about a global force which could become more dictatorial than certain regional regulations (often coming from those with time tested knowledge about how things work), bothers me.

Also, it seems wrong for us to whinge about immigration (although I still think opposition to muslim immigration is necessary) without learning about how the sordid people we elect condone or even enforce the treatment of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America ( a reason why they come here). Our foreign policy towards them clearly does not stem poverty.

Last edited by petitesouris on 26 Mar 2012, 11:56 pm, edited 10 times in total.

No answers? I must express myself terribly. I should not waste so much time writing single posts on here.

What is the difference between "globalization" and international trade? International trade is almost always beneficial to both parties involved in the trade. Do you see anything wrong with that?

ruveyn

To answer your question, I think limiting trade would be a terrible idea considering its importance to technology and our advancement for millenia. In my opinion, only malignant countries should be excluded from trade.

It appears that in the future the most relevant questions on globalization will have little if anything to do with trade and more with mass accumulation of non financial capital. The concrete complexity of industrial operations and large population of people in these times may cause ownership to be just as important as laws.

It is easy to visualize some unfavorable scenarios such as massive ownership of land by foreign companies subverting democracy and therefore sovereignty or even human rights. Or the inability of individuals and entrepreneurs to purchase more property for conservationist reasons or to increase self sufficiency of production because everything has already been bought by monopolies. I often wonder who decides the prices of the most finite capital and for which reasons, considering how property is more often lost or sold to prevent destitution by ordinary people than the most established companies.

Also, it seems important to define, in operational terms, the difference between internationalism and transnationalism, the idea that prices, the value of currency, trade relations, and terms of production should be regulated by unaccountable agencies.

Because of growing interconnectivity resulting from inevitable globalization, it seems necessary that states distance themselves from industry so its citizens still have a chance to preserve self reliance lest a company fails or some disaster occurs and so western military policies do not become altered anymore. Many countries outside of America are begginning this transition and I hope it evolves gracefully and that nonutilitarian goods could compete internationally in a time where production en masse is the norm. Or maybe property owners or countries could still keep regulations despite letting companies use their land or merely rent it if any concerns arise? Does anyone have better solutions?

Last edited by petitesouris on 27 Mar 2012, 3:47 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Exchange rates have to be rationalized to avoid abuses by currency traders who game the system.

Two nations can exchange goods for currency or goods for goods without fear of IMF intervention so i don't see why currency valuation has to enter into it. They can just request payment in euros or dollars or yuan. Or shiny rocks if that's your bag.

My estimation is that poorer countries are often run by scoundrels who have their own motivations when dealing with other nations.



I think you should define "actual production" if your position is that the value of money is less related to it.

I work in software quality. What i "produce" is doubly ethereal because software is just math and information and these are not really things at all, and on top of that i don't actually produce the math or information at all - I just provide a system and method for increasing confidence that the math and data are correct. And the punchline? My job is never done and my results are never 100%. Not even close. Not more than half way depending on how you look at it.

And yet it has value. Quite a bit of value. actually. Do i actually produce?

Here's the thing. All basis for valuation is essentially sentimental.



The United States of America has pretty limited history as nations go, and what history it does have is marked by it's lack of cohesion between the states.

I'm not even sure what you're saying about deregulation.

Economies serve whatever purposes they are used for.

Occasionally the private sector needs a hand on the rudder.



Really? I think all corporations are amoral profit-seeking entities to some extent or other.



The hardest working people i know are immigrants. Why shouldn't they play for our team?

Another thing is, countries that are exploited for cheap labor ultimately benefit from it in the long-run. China, for example, was exploited for a long time for cheap industrial labor, but what this ended up doing was to provide them with an educated, urbanized workforce that could then educate its own offspring to flow up the ranks and fill in more technical positions in the machine. Although "sweatshop" labor can be deplorable, it puts the machinery of industry on their shores.

Eventually, the Chinese will get tired of being dumped on, and they will become every bit as much of a prissy-ass liberal consumerist state as the USA. Actually, they are already headed there. Now the Chinese are becoming energy hogs like the USA, and this will contribute to driving up oil prices in the USA.

However, this resource strain foments innovation: nothing has driven nanotech research lately as much as the looming energy crisis. With gas prices going up, we've been dumping a lot more funding into nanotech research than we ever would have without that strain. This natural stressor is driving us to advance and hone our technology more than ever could have been done artificially. As we lay the foundation bricks for a solar powered economy, we are getting a lot of run-off innovation that could be invested in life-saving medicine for elderly patients. Run-off from the energy race is giving us material that could be used to create better artificial heart valves. Essentially, the energy race is turning out to be a lot like the old space race: it is changing the very dynamic of our society.

So I see nothing wrong with global competition. I see mostly benefit.

in the whole i agree but there is a marked difference between countries exploited for their cheap labour and countries exploited for their natural wealth.
in the latter case there is usually only short benefits, sometimes with disastrous consequences once the resource runs low or dries out.

there is also the minimum requirement needed for a "workforce" to be exploitable (it irks me to no ennd how we try to justify something where we know we reap a disiproportionate ammount of the value created)

I think the main challenge presented by globalization is that countries need to evolve but a lot of them have not. Europe and the US in general have moved towards being "knowledge based" economies and production countries. However, the US especially has failed in creating the workforce needed. What are needed are low-skilled jobs for the people who can barely tie their shoelaces and make up a very large part of the population since IQ seems to be inversely proportional to how much you breed. Many children have their futures murdered by having parents that from a cold-hearted and somewhat fascistic point of view should not be having kids. This due to socialization having a major impact on a child's future.

[quote="TM"] However, the US especially has failed in creating the workforce needed. What are needed are low-skilled jobs for the people who can barely tie their shoelaces and make up a very large part of the population since IQ seems to be inversely proportional to how much you breed.

You are showing your Aspie arrogance and bigotry, which I admit is sometimes hard to hide. That said, the US workforce is just what the corporate titans want -- simple minded robots that can be plugged in anywhere in an bureaucratic organization that wants to accumulate more power to create more simple minded robots

The corporate titans seem to be doing a fairly good job.

Really? Then my knowledge about economics and law is worse than I thought.

Look at the statistics regarding number of children and level of education.

Your exchange rate is still something that exists but do you think iran gets paid for all of their oil in rials? They mostly get paid in euros.

You feel this way because you are a moral, civic-minded human being. This is a good thing.

The perspective I take on it is that of an engineer. Our global economy does lend to those with the most resources reaping the greatest profit, but the fact of the matter is that a pre-industrial economy has two options: it can be exploited for natural resources, or it can be exploited for labor. One has a future. The other doesn't. Those are the options available to a pre-industrial economy. Neither is especially just. I agree. There aren't many realistic alternatives.

At a more human level, I agree that exploiting a poor country for cheap labor is filthy.

You do have to consider that in quite a few cases the "slave wages" paid at 3rd world factories are often pretty good in comparison with the rest of the country. Take China, they are keeping their currency artificially low as to not mess up their manufacturing dominance at the moment.

i agree it is the only realistic option today, one of the reasons why i said we.
unfortunately as long as we accept the current situation there is less of an incentive to progress further.

the google water relieve efforts are a commendable move in the right direction, still a long way away from a true change but every little bit helps.
basically i think that we have some needs as human beings that should be removed from the normal economic system,
many countries that have a high social mobility and high degree of personal and economic freedom do just that, this in turn allows equal oppertunity for all but the most desperate cases (children growing up with abuse and other issues where economy isnt the primary actor, leaving the individual personally scarred and it impacts his or her use of said oppertunities)

unfortunately doing this on a global scale requires more coorperation and goodwill than anything we have seen so far, probably more than we ever will see.
not to mention diplomatic and cultural relations as well as the inherent difference in how people think and interact.

i

Thats exaclty right Corperations often make billions and expolit latin american countries for their workers and pay them less for doing a job anyone could do.

Corperate business will continue to profit from expoliting people for maniual labor and paying them less money for working for them like Wal Mart does with their workers.