Globalization

Globalization-

  • Great- it makes the world a more friendly place

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • What the F---- is that?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Its a strange conspiracy meant to enslave us

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    193
Globalization == Rape of Third World countries

I don't know who got the idea that non-developed countries can compete with mammoth countries that have the best technology. Or maybe I am wrong and using us third-world country as low class worker bees is how the world is suppossed to progress, it's not like I'm an Economist or something.
 
GLobalisation is a good, and necessary thing. IF countries and companies are FORCED to handle it responsibly, thus also helping the poorer countries. Meh
 
I don't mind globalization, but not the kind Trilateral Commission is enforcing. Their intention is to exploit third-world countries and keep them poor, while powerful conglomerates, owned and managed by a selected minority of stinkingly rich individuals have absolute control of the world.
 
I agree with Skynet, globalization is nothing but a pile of crap that keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer. C'mon, the World Bank is a perfect example of this. Are any of the countries that it has "helped" doing any better temporarily or in the long run? Hell no.
 
This is for the guys that criticize Globalization- so you blame the fault of poverity in developing countries on the international system and especially the world bank system and international corporations?

But many of the economists and people who work for the world bank system did not have any experience in international business but are academics or regional experts.

Don't the countries themselves have a share of the blame? WHy have some countries of the developing world done well while others have done so poorly, if there is a conspiracy to keep them all enslaved?
 
Because some countries are not ready for globalization yet. This is just like giving a credit card to every single teenager out there. There will be lots of smart and successful users who benefit from the credit card, but there are also many who will not be able to handle the responsibility. We are partially to blame because we're the one's who are making this available to them and if they do poorly the World Bank benefits.
 
Because some countries are not ready for globalization yet
Now who sounds racist.
"O, Mali? No way, to many niggers there. Lets give money to Romania!"

Who decides, "who is ready for globalization"? You? Who really knows which country will turn into the next Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, India or Chile, and which will end up Iran, Azerbaijan or Libya? Are you going to say to an Ethiopian businessman that your nation is not *ready* to take loans from the white man? Try explaining why your nation cannot do well in business to a businessman in the area "sorry, we do not believe your nation can accomplish anything at the moment, you’ll have to modernize twice as hard in 50 years!"

No one can make that decision

Christ, Avishai Margalit was right about you "anti-globalists" being nothing more then "morally racist".

Godwin’s law in fewer than 2 pages!
 
Uh, what?

I'm refering to the political, economic and civil state that a country may be in, not the color of their skin. If there is an enormous gap of differences between the lifestyle of the businessman and the lifestyle of the laborer in a country, you can bet that whatever deal the World Bank will get comes from the businessman's point of view. The "commoners" are the ones who usally get screwed in this situation.

For somebody who claims not to be racist, you sure are fast to attatch the title to somebody else.

Interesting thought. Why should a developing nation conform to the standards set by a more powerful country? Don't they have their own cultures and their own rate of change? Who says they need to become an industrial nation? Are you saying that a country isn't worth anything until it is "Westernized"?
 
I'm refering to the political, economic and civil state that a country may be in
I apologize, but it was open to interpertation, but still....who makes that descision?
Who says they need to become an industrial nation?
Because until one can concive how to get a nation off the face of the earth, one will have to compete with your neighbors.....and who wins in that situation, India, an industrialized nation, or Pakistan?
Am I saying that all nations must become Lichenstien? No. But maintining a modern economy is crucial.
 
True but not all of the countries' "structure" (social, economical, etc) are ready for such a bloody competition. I am not discriminating against any countries, I am talking about the country I know the most about...MINE.
Our first democratic government after 20 years of military dictatorships (with the blessing of US (the dictatorships)) formed in 1990 after the US invasion to remove Manuel "Pineapple Face" Antonio "I am the lowest excrement to ever stain this country" Noriega.
My country is just beginning to learn how to compete in a modern environment. That "don't be an employee, be an employer" line of thinking that has made so many countries rise and shine, is on diapers down here. The rich men in the country think we still have a feudal system that they control (which they do for all effects). The laboral code is trampled on by your employer as he sees fit. You either get paid minimum wage or less than it. Why? Because there is every dirt licker willing to work for less than minimum wage which FUCKS UP the entire sindical system. It isn't unusual that your employers don't pay the Social Security Vault the social security quotas they HACK OFF your salary...they just POCKET THEM. Don't think for a moment you are played fair down here: it's common practice to disregard the ability of a job applicant to do a job. What's important for those bloated bastards is that you have 2 or 3 University diplomas and a few Master degrees for a measly $600.00 (I should say Balboas, but we use dollars in practice) job. The minimum wage has been frozen since 1970 at $275 while the cost of life has risen and risen. We are to blame too, since whenever we have a few dollars saved...we spend them in a good ol' drinking party instead of saving. We are so unused to have savings money in bank accounts that you won't see too many fortunes from the hardworking class. On top of that shit cake, the governments are SO immature that it is common practice to just fire EVERY employee in the ministries just because there is a change of government. There is no stability. So immature, that our President (I hope that the idiots who voted for her, die slow painful deaths) just had the director (the directive council are all member of her political party) of the Social Security Vault removed since he refused her proposed budget (that would remove as much as $500 mill from the funds (which would render the retirements funds and disability pensions NULL AND VOID since the SSV has an enormous deficit (too much money is getting "lost"))) for the next year so she goes and pressured to have him removed. We are making some riots and protest to get her to listen to some demands but things don't look bright.
This post isn't about pointing fingers at anyone but an acrid remark on how could someone be so clueless as to claim that we are ready for that next step (none of you guys, the guys that run the country and earn too much money are).
 
Skynet- I totally agree with what you are saying but that leaves open the question-

Is the problem of Panama the fact that, like it or not, its caught in a globalized economy?

Or is it that the governmental and economic institutions of Panama have fucked up and the country is in economic trouble?

And if the answer really is a little bit of both, then what's the proper mix?

I'd really like to hear your views on this.
 
Well this is my take...

If international law & Bretton Woods organizations stipulated that corporations should be held accountable to their orgin countries labor laws or in essence eliminate the concept of "capital flight".

If Disney/Nike/etc had to pay their workers as much as an American, they would not set up assembly factories in third world countires because the labor costs were cheaper.

This would redistribute wealth also since it would be somewhat foolish to completely remove existing infrastructure from the third world and "flight back" to the States or the 1st world countries.

This would also aid in eliminating "brain drain" which is the great thinkers of the third world leave for better pay & living conditions in the modern world.

I'm not saying this is a silver bullet though, it would take a great deal of time for these things to all correct themselves...

Really the two core issues of fault here lie in policy on both sides, and the suspect ethics of several of the multinational corporations that abuse loopholes.

A great example is the United States grows genetically manipulated food and several African nations, under some pressure from European nations, will not take food donations from the US. There are warehouses full of corn and rice in africa right now that are labeled POISON.

The people of the country would eat the food, it is a policy issue of the African nations government and the European nations who are also claiming GM food is poison.

Great question welsh, I love talking about these sort of things, and just now started looking outisde of the Fallout 3 suggestion board...
 
Well, I don't think globalization per se is to fault. In that, we can both agree.

What I meant is that a gradual introduction is what I think should be done. The problems Panama is having are common in all countries after passing from Autocratic to Democratic governments. I think the answer is that both the Panamanian government and some of the better developed countries are to blame.

Let me explain: The Panamanian economy began to SHIT ITSELF back in the 70s when the military governments asked the Interamerican Bank of Development for a LOT of money (does the fact that a third world country SMALLER than Florida has a national debt of $7 Billion, make any sense?) and the bank gave it to them, thinking probably that the military were humanitarians and social-inclined (as opposed to socialists in which case, they would have probably told them off since the IBD isn't very fond of the Left). What happened is that sure, part of the money was expended in social work (they made the Transisthmic (sp?) Highway that crosses from the border with Costa Rica to almost the border of Colombia (NO ONE goes through the proverbial Darien's Plug (a patch of jungle that is equivalent to the Amazon in a small scale and which is also responsible for a good deal of the clean air of the Caribbean together with Costa Rica's and Colombia's jungles) since Colombian paramilitaries and guerrillas are known to operate in the area (we need to get a National Guard (which was disassembled after the invasion since they got corrupted and became the dictators in the first place) to deal with that kind of problems because the police aren't trained on these matters). Also they made some hospitals and schools in the countryside but that only amounts to about $2 Bill. Where is the rest of the money? The friends of the militiamen got nice houses and whores and all the luxuries of a rich life from thin air. To make that long story short: roughly $5 Bill dissapeared and no one can account for them.

After the invasion, the government had to deal with a truckload of problems (most of which were underfunding of services). After Guillermo Endara's (Pichulo to the vox populi) government, the country had a nice superavit with which the following government could use.

Ernesto Perez betrayed most of the country's trust when he sold the IRHEE and INTEL (National Electric and Telephone companies respectively) to foreign companies (privatization *sigh*) which SKYROCKETED the prices of these service but didn't improve the services themselves by a great deal. Why? Because the President (who had a pending scandal about a bridge that never got built over a river that didn't need it called the "Vandam Scandal") and the Legislative Assembly (which are a bunch of dishonest crooks (some members have been re-elected for more than five periods (most poor families sell their votes to the legislator that gives them the most food or money or promises them a job) and also are exempted from getting the days that they skip work (at the ASSEMBLY) discounted (all of them have side businesses that have to be run), make +$7500 and are also immune to legal action during their term)) in which his party had a majority of votes exchanged contracts that gave the foreign companies, advantages (the Consumer Protection Agency couldn't act against them due to faults in service (serious ones, mind you) until at least 10 years pass and the companies can't be tried for unreasonable rises in the prices of the service until 10 years later (so that legal actions will be frozen and forgotten)) in exchange for an undercover, undisclosed sum of cash (a large sum since the bastard bought a $2 mill yacht with money whose procedence was dubious) and why would he privatice the National companies? Because the IBD holds our debt and one of the conditions that the bank put on the future goodwill of the bank was just that (couldn't those developed countries know that the Panamanian populace was unready for such gravures on their budget?) but the privaticings did have a small good effect (we got about $1 bill in the 49% of the stocks of both companies which was stored in a fund called the Social Emergency Fund).

Then comes the worst President ever. Mireya Moscoso is a farmer-oriented President (being from a farming and herding region herself) which isn't a bad thing per se since a country's food is the basis of the economy. The problem is that SHE IS INTERIOR DECORATOR! She is an uncultured, STUPID, power monger aristocrat gold digger (her money came from her now defunct husbands personal fortunes). Why did she get elected? Because her first husband Arnulfo Arias Madrid (a two sided man: he made great things for the country such as creating the Social Security Vault (which also provides with public medical assistance sorry for not posting this earlier), giving women vote and reformed most institutions to reduce bureaucracy; on the other hand, he was an Axis lover (yes, THAT Axis) and a racist power monger to boot (he tried to pass a law to remove all businesses from foreign born hands, he gave orders at the SSV to perform secret sterilizing surgery on blacks, jews, chinese, turk, etc; he tried to re-elect 5 times at different decades and he was always either deposed or robbed the elections)) had charm, ideals and intelligence to match. She posseses none of these traits. Her party is so corrupted that a lot of money has dissapeared (the secretary of the Presidency was found with over $30,000 inside of an unused fridge (where did she get that money when she doesn't earn nearly $2000 monthly)) and she went as far as draining the Social Emergency Fund (she bought some legislator's votes (one even declared it publicly) because she didn't have majority on the Assembly for the passing of this project) for some bullshit projects. The biggest offenders? A new highway which could be built around a National Environmental Reserve (The Friendship National Park in Chiriqui) is going through it. Why? Because if it went around, it wouldn't pass near the chalets some of the close friends of the government party (when you are a close friend of an official party (any party which has the power in that presidential term) you belong to a group called the potato (don't ask)). A new mall is being constructed near the most scenic boulevard in the capital. The Balboa Boulevard. No problem there. Now the businessman that is getting this built (Pedro Gomez of Colombian origin and according to some non very reliable rumors has Narcomoney) asked the municipality for permission to build a high pass so that the cars can get into his mall. The high pass will ruin the view of the boulevard so most people have voiced a nasty opposition to that project. Some money must have exchanged hands since the pass is now getting landfilled (it comes from the water) and it is now public fact that the municipality instead of charging the $1000/m^2 that they should have charged (the boulevard is in the most expensive area of the capital)...they charged him $20/m^2. Also she is responsible for destituting the director of the SSV, something I think I mentioned in an earlier post.

I think Chucky Cuervos and her are related in some way. j/k

The point of my argument is: due to the confusion after the invasion, the few rich and powerful have transformed what was a democracy into an oligarchy. We need an international commission direct the country until an efficient, alternative form of government is offered. Failure to do that, will lead to general discontent and social unrest that will then lead into the formation of guerrillas and paramilitary forces and shall dye this country red.

Again, sorry for the lengthy post but I feel that Panama's problems are better understood in a context.
 
Shouldn't appologize Skynet, that was a fascinating post.
Least I was fascinated...

Going back to my post points, and incorpoating Skynets commentary on leadership in panama,

I think the concept I was illustrating fits right in with some of what Skynet was pointing out.

I said my idea wasn't a silver bullet and a lot of these policies that are used to spread "globalization" are intended to "help" but are not incorpoated by the governments they are intended to help.

That's one of the reason I think the burden should be placed on the wallets of the 1st world, if they stopped loaning money and in essence forced the corpoations to increase the wages of the working class employees, that would be a major step forward, in my humble opinion.

The working class tends to be more interested in the improvement of their commmunity than the elite also.

I'll shut my trap for now...
 
skynet that first "should" ought to be a "shouldn't"

amazing how a "n't" can change the whole tone of what you are trying to say...
 
Ok, Erasermark, I fixed your message (just use the edit function and you should be ok).

I also agree, Skynet gave an interesting post on Panama.

But again, here we have the problem of internal corruption causing problems for both democratization and economic reform.

If we have a group of elite who run the country and control the political process, shouldn't we almost expect that they will be corrupt?

I think that we need to think about these things a bit more carefully and not assume that politicians will do the right thing, but rather the wrong thing. By controlling their power, perhaps by setting up checks against their abuses through the types of institutions that are created, you might be able to stop a politician from abusing their power.

I think we also need to remember that as corrupt as politicians are in developing countries like Panama, they are also pretty corrupt in developed countries. The US has gone through very corrupt periods in its political and economic history as has much of Europe.

But I am also not sure if I agree with Erasermark. I will agree that corporations go abroad because its usually cheaper to do so. In some cases though it has to do with tarriff barriers. It might be cheaper to make the goods on site than to export them to a country with high barriers to trade.

Also foreign companies may not pay the same salaries as they do in their home countries, but they usually pay better than local companies. Human rights records for MNCs are usually better than local companies. Furthermore there are arguments that MNCs also create competition, encouraging local companies to make better products and allowing more consumer preference, provide more skills and training to the population, and in many (though though not all) put pressure on the government to protect property rights (which furthers both rule of law and lower corruption).

As for capital flight, I agree that this is a problem. However, a lot of countries have rules in which majority shares of an MNC must be owned by locals or where money needs to be reinvested in that locale. Take China for instance. Much of the money made in China needs to be reinvested in new opportunities in China. Finally, there is an argument that only MNCs can bring the early industrialization that many of these countries need to get past primary products.

We also should consider that a number of countries have done well by attracting Foreign Direct Investment (essentially). Most of the Asian Tigers made their money by exports, and many with substantial ties with MNCs (Hong KOng and Singapore).

However, here again, we may need to look at type of government and its effectiveness.
 
Back
Top