Globalization

[IrishEyes]

08/21/2004 09:08 AM - geko

In part i agree with equality. Just look at the benefit of giving women the same power as men has had to human species in the main (increasing the happiness of the other 50% has increased the overall happiness of the whole).

 

geko, I'd like for you to explain what you mean by this, please. I'm not sure that your definition of "giving women the same power as men" is the same as mine is, and I'm also not sure that it means "equality". Also, I'm not sure I agree that giving women equality has resulted in the first 50% having an increased happiness, contributing to the overall increase of happiness of the whole. Do you mean the whole is 'society', or just 'men and women'? Anyhow, not trying to nitpick, and I'm not trying to argue, but I'd like for you to expand your thoughts concerning this particular statement.

 

Also, I agree with Unc that this is a major issue, and I seriously hope that more people will consider responding.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: geko

Politics and technology are the reasons why hunger exists, not because the 1% keep their wealth instead of pursuing equality.

 

This is an interesting statement,...please tell me more.

 

Most scholars and economists agree that there is enough food globally to feed the entire population (6 billion). Many countries produce a surplus.

 

Production has increased significantly due to fertilisers and modification, leading to a decline in the malnourished from 37% in the 70's to 18% today.

 

Of course, this benefit hasnt been felt everywhere. Look at india for example, home to one 3rd of the world's hungry and yet they have tens of millions of tons of stored cereals. They're hungry because they're poor - they dont have the resources to buy it nor the access to get it.

 

'Pro-poor' policies will need to be implimented to get this food out to the people. Furthermore, havent the major producers in north america put an economic curb on the production simply to maintain food prices? Where are the policies stopping this? Maybe im wrong, but this i think is politics.

 

Technology. This is too expensive to warrant the farmers of sub-saharan africa to impliment the strategies needed to produce the quantity of the demand.

 

"Physical redistribution of food in an equitable manner has so far proved impracticable and economically non-viable. It fails to supply the diversity of dietary needs and it does not generate enough income locally for small farmers - key factors for any attack on hunger" Brian Heap - Vice-president and foreign secretary of the royal society, master of st Edmund's College, Cambridge, and special professor, University of Nottingham

[geko]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: geko

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont agree with this unc. The reason being is that the majority of wealthy people are self-made,

 

Are they? GW Bush? Paris Hilton? Prince Charles?(heh-heh), The royal family is really self made?

 

The names you have listed here are part of the minority, not the majority.

 

in which case they deserve everything they have made (the same as everyone else) .

 

I think this is wrong. Most of the very wealthy got where they are by exploiting the work of others, not through their own labors.

 

How rude. This is the lie invented by the poor to feel at ease with their own subsistence. Here's your new conspiracy.

 

Alot have simply inherited their wealth.

 

But where did it come from in the first place?

 

Many have stole it

 

Not many get away though, otherwise this would be a reasonable method of obtaining it, dont you think?

 

 

 

And do you truly think that 6 months work on a movie is actually worth 20 million dollars for an actor? I think some of our sports contracts are approaching the billion dollar mark, is being able to throw a ball very well really worth more than what 1000 average Joe's like myself will make working for 40 years? I agree that those that work harder, or smarter, or have a unique talent or ability are worth more, but not billions more.

 

Value is relative. Society obviously thinks that they are worth this much.

 

For that matter (when i think about it), why are the poor poor? Are we not the sum-total of our past actions?

 

I feel that personally I am the sum-total of my past actions. Many of those actions were based on limited available opportunities though.

 

HUNT.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Originally posted by: geko

 

he and his daddy are being paid by the people on the factory floor making $6.15 per hour. And most of them are on that factory floor because they are too busy working 60 hrs. per week to get the education they need, or start their own company.

 

And why exactly are he and his daddy 'up-stairs' playing video games whilst people 'on the factory floor' are being paid 6.15 and hour? Is it because the daddy decided that he no longer wanted to be on the floor earning 6.15 an hour?

 

 

 

There is also such a thing as bad luck.... Totally my fault for not having insurance.

 

Luck, good and bad, like you've highlighted yourself, can be explained through no mystical force.

 

 

Are most poor nations that way because they messed their own country/economy up through poor budgeting actions and their inability to say no to a short term good deal (such as themselves getting into copious amounts of debt for their whims of the moment)? Just look at the UK at the moment for a downward spiral of economy - the country deserves the crash if/when it comes.

 

Look what dubya did in a very short time to the U S' economy. I don't think anyone deserves a "crash" just because they chose poor leaders.

 

Who keeps the leaders? Have the people in a revolution ever lost? For the record, im not a revolutionary.

 

 

But in the main i dont agree with equality. The reason being is that the idea basically is to "give to the needy", but this says that "the consumers sit back and receive whilst the producers works their ***'s off", which isnt right in my book.

 

If everyone pulled their own weight things could be better

 

Nicely put!

[geko]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

08/21/2004 10:24 AM - Unc

I mean, really... just because a child is born into a very poor family in a third world country, does that child really deserve to go hungry every night because they are the sum-total of their past actions?

 

But who's fault is this? The childs' hunger falls squarely on the parents shoulders, does it not? Likewise in any country. If you decide to have kids, raise a family and what-have-you, good luck to you, and do it on your own.

[geko]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

08/21/2004 09:08 AM - geko

 

geko, I'd like for you to explain what you mean by this, please. I'm not sure that your definition of "giving women the same power as men" is the same as mine is, and I'm also not sure that it means "equality". Also, I'm not sure I agree that giving women equality has resulted in the first 50% having an increased happiness, contributing to the overall increase of happiness of the whole. Do you mean the whole is 'society', or just 'men and women'? Anyhow, not trying to nitpick, and I'm not trying to argue, but I'd like for you to expand your thoughts concerning this particular statement.

 

Giving them the same rights (=power). They are no longer mens' property. They are considered individuals with wants and wishes of their own.

 

Society includes men and women. The 'over-all' happiness has been increased because it's no longer 50% of the population giving input, it's 100% (male and female, yes).

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: geko

 

By Uncle Martin; I think this is wrong. Most of the very wealthy got where they are by exploiting the work of others, not through their own labors.

 

By geko; How rude. This is the lie invented by the poor to feel at ease with their own subsistence. Here's your new conspiracy.

You seem to take my comments very personally. I'm inclined to think you may have a perspective on this subject that only 1% of the population could share. I guess I should say *thank you sir for allowing me my subsistence*, quite generous of you.

[geko]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I think this is wrong. Most of the very wealthy got where they are by exploiting the work of others, not through their own labors.

 

By geko; How rude. This is the lie invented by the poor to feel at ease with their own subsistence. Here's your new conspiracy.

 

You seem to take my comments very personally. I'm inclined to think you may have a perspective on this subject that only 1% of the population could share. I guess I should say *thank you sir for allowing me my subsistence*, quite generous of you.

 

The reason i think it's rude unc is because it's a slap in the face to the wealthy people who got there through their own sweat and hard work. It's like "yeah, you're wealthy, but so what, you only got there because you're immoral and you exploited others - nothing to do with your own determination and virtue".

 

I see it as akin to the moon landing conspiracy theorists. How rude to the actual astronauts who risked their lives doing the feat. A (usually) 'no-body' has decided that they want some lime-light on the issue and has therefore decided to downplay the achievements of others just because they havent done anything of any note in their life.

 

If you want perspective, ill give it to you. I am one of those people 'on the factory floor' that you spoke of, earning, remarkably, the same £6.15 that you gave to these people. But yet i refuse to accept that 'you get wealthy by exploiting others' simply because i have a vested interest in doing so - i can then sit back and relax in the knowledge that ah, what the hell, at least im a moral and good person. This would be akin to thinking that welfare's a good thing simply because i recieve a doll check every 2 weeks for doing nothing except sitting on my backside.

 

I believe that im not rich (or even wealthy) not because im moral and refuse to exploit others, but because i havent done anything good enough to warrant this money being given to me. If society thought that what i do is good enough to warrant itself giving me money, then i would be wealthy, but im not, therefore society thinks that what i do isnt good enough to the tune of paying me money for it.

[Uncle Martin]

Geko,

Thanks for explaining yourself. If I implied that all wealthy people got to where they are in a less than honorable way let me correct that now. When I stated "most of the wealthy",... I was referring to the extremely rich. I mean billions,... U S- billions,... $1,000,000,000.00! I did not intend any slander against those that may have acted on a good idea, worked hard for many years, treated their employees as well as they could, then rested on their laurels. Quite the contrary,...these are working class success stories and deserve respect, and serve as a positive example. I should not have stereotyped all wealthy people in such a negative way, as some of the very rich are not as sinister as I've depicted.

 

Your point is well taken geko. I think you've helped me to see that my own biases and even envy may have clouded my judgement. And stereotypes are a bad idea.

[IrishEyes]

This is a list from Forbes ( Forbes page that gives more info ). this list chronicles the Top Ten richest people in the world. I have added some basic profile info after each name, for reference, also fromt the Forbes site.

 

The Top Ten

 

1. William H Gates III - Microsoft co-founder, from US, $40.7 billion

2. Warren E Buffett - Source: investments, from US, $30.5 billion

3. Karl & Theo Albrecht - Source: retail, from Germany, $25.6 billion

4. Paul G Allen - Source: Microsoft, from US, $20.1 billion

5. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud - Source: investments, from Saudi Arabia, $17.7 billion

6. Lawrence J Ellison - Source: founder of Oracle, from US, $16.6 billionn

7. Alice L Walton - Source: Wal-Mart, $16.5 billion

8. Helen R Walton - Source: Wal-Mart, $16.5 billion

9. Jim C Walton - Source: Wal-Mart, $16.5 billion

10. John T Walton - Source: Wal-Mart, $16.5 billion

 

The list has the top 6 people as 'self-made', with only the Waltons as 'inherited'. Of course, this is only the short list of Top Ten, but it does cover a HUGE chunk of change. I'm left wondering how anyone could ever spend $40 BILLION. Even being very generous to his children, is it still possible to ever spend all of that money? In all fairness, Gates seems to give a lot, as do the Waltons. But seriously, what's a few million when you have $40 billion in the bank???

 

Anyhow, I thought this list would be entertaining, but it really just disgusted me. Yes, geko, I do believe that people should work for their livings. But I also think that some people do not have the same opportunities as others. And while I may agree that it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure that the basic needs of their children are met, WHO needs to ensure that those needs are met if the parents are either unwilling or unable to do so. It is still not the child's fault it was born into a less-than-savory environment. As part of the human race, should we not each be held accountable for ensuring that children are not made to pay for 'the sins of their fathers', for lack of a more descriptive term. I'm not trying to bring religion here, that's just the best phrase I could think of that explains how I feel.

 

More to follow on this topic, as I feel it is the most interesting one going on right now. Thanks to both Unc and geko for bringing up points that I hadn't considered. Hope to read more views on this one. Maybe Gahd could chime in with a Canadian perspective, and tim-lou could share his unique view as well???

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I guess if there were a standard, some kind of formulaic answer (1 car + 3 meals + 8 days of clothing + 1 bed + $30,000 in credit card debt = middle class) then we could go about issuing that to every person.

 

Are they handing out free credit cards again? Where? Did this come with your GMail thingy?

[Tormod]

On a more serious note, here are some of my comments after reading this thread. Sorry for not quoting directly, I hope you get my points (I'm a bit tired...but this is turning into a very interesting thread).

 

1) If "poor is as poor does" (loosely paraphrasing geko) then I assume that all countries which were robbed by the Spanish, Portugues, British, Dutch, Swedish (et al) during the age of colonialism have no blame at all in this. The same goes for the post-colonialist US who robbed Africa of millions of people only to throw them into slavery. The blame would be - I assume - on the part of the country from whom these people were taken? A lot of today's wealth was built on cheap labor - but not all of it in a foreign country.

 

2) Geko: You feel that you have not done enough "good" (or the "right" good) to become rich or even wealthy - what do you mean by this? What kind of good? Who measures it and hands out the riches? (No offense! I am curious!)

 

3) Is every self-made rich person by nature a "good" person? Say, if you build your fortune on chemicals, and those chemicals happen to kill fish every single time someone washes their hair, is it a good - and justifiable - thing? Or say you invest heavily in arms trading and end up making a giant amount of money on a guerrilla war fought between your country's soldier's and a small group of rebels (yes, it happens!). Is the personal goal ("self made and rich") more important than the overall goal (which is what, exactly? Food for all? Freedom for all? Money for all?)

[geko]

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

1) If "poor is as poor does" (loosely paraphrasing geko) then I assume that all countries which were robbed by the Spanish, Portugues, British, Dutch, Swedish (et al) during the age of colonialism have no blame at all in this. The same goes for the post-colonialist US who robbed Africa of millions of people only to throw them into slavery. The blame would be - I assume - on the part of the country from whom these people were taken? A lot of today's wealth was built on cheap labor - but not all of it in a foreign country.

 

I would say that the blame doesnt rest on the countries that were robbed because the countries that were robbed had little say in their exploitation. They were forced. The said countrys' choice was obey, or die.

 

The 'force' of this is the deciding factor for the argument of "free choice" or not, for whatever period being spoke of (including today). Using 'poor is as poor does' as an explanation for these countries poverty is inaccurate because it doesnt take account of this influence. But, if they're not being forced today, their "continued" poverty rests on their own shoulders; harping back to 'the days' would be nothing more than an excuse for their e.g. laziness (<-- for example only).

 

 

2) Geko: You feel that you have not done enough "good" (or the "right" good) to become rich or even wealthy - what do you mean by this? What kind of good? Who measures it and hands out the riches?

 

'Good' and 'right' are ambiguous as we know, the reason they were used is that i was lazy with the vocabulary. Instead of these words i think maybe i should have used "value" or "benefit".

 

Since money is a means of trade in human society, this now becomes:

 

"The value i give to society (whether in 'small packets' or 'consensus's') is seen as not being of great enough benefit for myself to recieve rewards from it". The more benefit society gets the more value it's willing to trade for it.

 

In monetary value, i would say society measures and hands out the riches.

 

 

3) Is every self-made rich person by nature a "good" person? Say, if you build your fortune on chemicals, and those chemicals happen to kill fish every single time someone washes their hair, is it a good - and justifiable - thing? Or say you invest heavily in arms trading and end up making a giant amount of money on a guerrilla war fought between your country's soldier's and a small group of rebels.

 

I feel that 'rich' is not a very good/descriptive term to use here. I think 'successful' would be more useful?

 

This then becomes "is every succesful person by nature a good person?" The answer has to be, from an objective look at the subjective, obviously no. There has been many successful people throughout history that i wouldnt label as being and doing good. Just look at Hitler for example. Hitler was a highly successful person (maybe even rich). Do i think that he done good and was right in his actions? No. Did the passionate Nazi's?

 

I would say that successful is a term that can be used to describe yourself having attained your 'goals' (for lack of a word outside of the self-help dictionary). Some people decide to get rich - if they attain it they are a 'success'. Some people decide to make and raise a family - if they attain it they are a 'success'.

 

Putting 'rich' in the frame of killing the fish and dealing the arms would be arguing with the motives from the wrong direction. E.g. Is every self-made poor person by nature a 'good' person? Say, if you maintain the production of chemicals with your 9 to 5, and those chemicals happen to kill fish every single time someone washes their hair, is it a good - and justifiable - thing? Or say, you maintain the arms production because you're stricken with poverty, live in the ghetto's, and have to defend yourself wi

[sanctus]

So I just read through the whole thread and would like to say what I think about the different ideas and concept.

• first of all I do not agree with the definition of globalization, lindagarette gave the definition of a capitalistic globalization. For me, globalization is simply an economy, a social life, an information exchange that involves all the globe. That is the reason why I'm not against globalisation, but just the way it is now!

 

• Would it be possible to have a standard of living like the middle class all over the world?Yes, for a short period of time and then all nature would have been destroyed as this would involve a pollution we can't even imagine (imagine just 6 miliards/billions cars!). So I believe taht it would be possible to feed all the planet, but that would imply that our standard of living would have to decrease, who wants that?Very few!! That shows again that the human being is selfish (better having a bad conscience and live well)

 

• Can one blame the rich for being rich? That depends to which side of politics you belong. Geko for example, you a it from a right perspective: it's the individual that counts;it's resumed in something like: "you are a self-made rich?" "No problem you worked for it".
  That isn't my point of view I've got the one from the left, even if treated well all your employes you can't be rich and have a good conscience, you have some responsabilities towards the society. You can say that you have taken your responsability in treating well your employes and the environment. For me that's not enough (very good tough), you should also try to change politics, invest your money in good things so that eventually you are no richer than your employees. Imagine for example that B.Gates got the Aids virus, how would it take until there is a cure? Not very long I guess with a budget of 40 billions! So, I have to say I blame all the rich people (or let's say the very rich) for killing the millions of aids infected people, if they wanted they could change it. They don't want to, then I blame them for killing these people! I agree, it's a bit extreme, but even if gates invests some millions he hasn't done enough yet, when he starts investing some billions then we can talk (he can't invest all 40 billions, that would be as well for all the people working for microsoft).

 

 

 

I would have more to say, but i stop here

[IrishEyes]

Sanctus, it's GREAT to see you back. Where have you been???

 

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and would like for you to continue.

 

A few thoughts... I agree that the earth would run out of everything very fast if everyone were to have a typical American middle class lifestyle. But what if that were not the standard? What if the goal were only to make sure that EVERY person had exactly what they needed in order to survive? what if everybody had food on the table for every meal, and everyone had a place to live, and clothes to wear? I'm not suggesting that everyone eat the same food, live in the same style of homes, and wear the same clothing... But that the same standard, food, clothing and shelter, be available to every single person on this planet. I think it's crazy that there are people in my nation's capital that are starving, yet in that same city, thousands of pounds of food are thrown away in restaurants every single night. What sense does that make? People sleep on the streets, in parks, on benches, yet there are stores full of beds and blankets. People donate clothes to Goodwill for the homeless, and Goodwill sells them for a profit, and there are homeless people without coats in the winter.

 

I also agree that people have a responsibility to 'society', but 'society' is made up of people. So basically, PEOPLE have a responsibility to PEOPLE. I don't think Bill Gates should be required to give away his billions. But I agree that a few million to him means very little (unless you are the one receiving that few million, huh?). It's all very relative.

 

I also agree that if Gates or one of his children were to contract AIDS, the amount of money that would be dumped into research would be astounding. I mean, Magic Johnson is one thing, but Bill Gates kid? I don't know that the money would buy a cure, but I'm sure it would help a bit.

[lindagarrette]

It's very discouraging that most of you seem so confused about globalization. The currently accepted definition is a free market economic system without country borders. (Worldwide capitalism.) The inevitable consequece of such a system, unless regulated, is the extreme rift between the poor and the very wealthy, not much or even nothing in between. It is not something to be either in favor of or opposed to. It just is. Others factors such as global communication and transportation facilitate globalization. No one is to blame or be praised for its spread. It is a consequence of progress and the social order of the day

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

The inevitable consequece of such a system, unless regulated, is the extreme rift between the poor and the very wealthy, not much or even nothing in between.

I agree with this.

 

This however.....

It is not something to be either in favor of or opposed to. It just is.

How could anyone possibly be neutral on this? You have used the "it just is" on several other occasions,.... and I must say that ,...YES,... some things are beyond the control of one individual. That does not mean I don't still have a yeay or nay! "it just is " implies there is no cause,... which I don't think is possible. I do not intend to offend here,... but you *appear* to be amazingly apathetic here, considering the eventual effects that you predict.