Globalisation increases the poverty gap between the rich of the world and the poor. [...] Today the top fifth get 89 per cent of the total output; the poorest, 1.2 per cent."
On the surface, this is a very powerful argument indeed,[...]. However, there is a very simple flaw with this - it is talking about relative poverty. It doesn't take into account the 5-fold increase in the world's wealth over the same period. It doesn't sound quite so good when one says that the world's poor have seen their wealth triple in the last 40 years.
Your views do have major flaws. You are missing some VERY important points.
- population growth - the riches of the poor have indeed grown, - but also have their numbers
- while the world food production would allow supplying more than enough food for everyone, 800 million people are currently suffering from malnutrition
- the wealth of the industrial countries is only sustainable as long people in underdevloped countries are denied sufficient health care, education (etc pp)
- Globalization as the WTO understands it (for them it just means free trade) makes it easier for large companies to exploit the natural resources of poor countries because they have to give up protectionism.
Don't get me wrong I'm neither a socialist nor am I one of those anti-globalization fanatics, but I believe multi-national companies are nothing but the product of human selfishness and greed and the more we are able control them, the more people will benefit from their existence.
The Irrational Nature of the Global Marketplace. The case here is that the marketplace and capitalism are irrational and chaotic, and are damaging as a result. [...] Firstly, if one criticises the mechanisms on which the global marketplace are based, and wish to tear the edifice down, one must have a reasonable replacement. Of course, noone does.
I do and some other people do, too. The main reason for that is that you (thank god) do not decide what's reasonable and what is not.
Our economic systems have always been object to changes and developments and they will always be. It's not like the system ever was simply replaced by another and it will not for the forseeable future, so we don't need a replacement yet, to criticize the mechanisms. There are many slight improvements, that can be made. Some of them even you might recognize as reasonable.
If one is against the marketplace and capitalism, then presumably one is for some sort of planned economy, or perhaps (and these people actually exist) some sort of primitive state with no economy at all.
your argumentation is flawed. You simply state that everyone who is against capitalism is for planned economy (=socialism - you don't say that, but you mean it) or for no economy (=anarchism).
- there is no way for 'no economy at all' to exist, for that would mean there is 'no trade at all' and humans will always trade, even if they are just trading a stick for a stone or a stone for a bone.
- I can imagine a society were companies aren't just working for profit but for the benefit of all and were there are no world market prices, but only regional market prices according to what people of a certain region can afford to pay for a product, so there is at least one other alternative
Personally, I am not against the planned economy on principle. In principle I think that it is our ultimate destination. The problem with any planned economy is that the planner of it all must be of incredible intelligence, fairness and so on, well beyond our present capacities.
It might be beyond your present capacities but it's certainly not beyound our capacities. Speak for yourself! We could do it if we only wanted to do it. It's just a matter of all people agreeing to one system.
[...]Those third world countries that embrace capitalism invariably perform better than those that don't. A brief perusal of global economic indices will show this.
Sorry, - it did not. I took a look at the global economic indices and it only showed that those 3rd world countries performed better which had certain natural resources or at least fertile soil... Others performed worse because some richer countries found it necessary to punish them by blocking them from free trade or because those countries have nothing but the people living there.
Cultural reasons. The argument here is that globalisation is destroying indigenous cultures, and spreading the Anglo Saxon worldview to all corners of the globe. [...] I would argue that it is entirely up to these native people what they do in this regard. [...]
That is wrong. If you try to sell a product you will notice, that this particular product with a particular design will sell differently in some regions according to which cultural background they have. For the companies it would be most profitable if there was for example one car that sold all around the world and not just in the US or in western europe.
A hypothetical situation: Let's say Ford designs a new car for the US market and than decides to bring this car to western europe and to china.
In western europe this car won't sell very good. It has its own ideas of design and its own car producers, that can build exactly those cars the average buyer in western europe wants.
In china there is no company producing cars with a 'chinese' design so the chinese have to buy that car with the 'american' design and the chinese will adopt the ideas of 'american' design once they get used to it.
You might say there is no point of it, but I tell you, there is another piece of our cultural wealth lost. It won't stop with chinese driving 'american' cars. They buy washing machines, compact disc players, television sets, radios, computers, operating systems with 'american' design. They will start listening to their music, watching their movies etc as a consequence of globalization without ever coming to a point where they could say 'stop! here I'm giving up my own culture and I adopt an alien culture'. In the end - without efforts to preserve their culture the chinese would be the perfect americans.
I'm not saying: 'Don't sell cars to china'. It was just meant to counter your argument it would be 'entirely up to these native people' which cultural backgrounds they keep and what they adopt.
[...]And why should a corporation be worse because it makes money? Is the profit motive immoral?
yes, it is. The profit motive is solely a product of greed and selfishness. Although this motive proved to be beneficial at some occasions and for some people, the motive itself is immoral. And you will find that many founders of companies (except for Bill Gates, of course ;-) had more than just the profit motive because as a person they felt it was there duty to do more than just make profit.
A corporation making money is no more led by a person but by a manager. A manager has to make profit or he is fired. There is no more one owner that says: 'in the name of charity and good will I will do something for third world countries, now' - they are owned by investment fonds which are led by managers. - At the end of the chain there are some people owning little piece of a company but without any direct influence on that company. Although these owners might feel the urge to do something good each for himself, the manager of the company is still fired if he doesn't make the maximum profit.
You see, there are more motives than just the profit but only the profit motives survive if a company is incorporated.
I'm not saying: 'Abolish all corporations that make money'. But 'money-making corporations try to do that with maximum efficiency leaving not much place for charity or good will'
[...]But this is just liberal western meddling - the simple fact is that it is much better to be working for Nike for $3 a day (a lot of money in a country like India) than to be a street urchin in Calcutta.
This is a very cynical way of seeing it. And it is not even true. If people weren't working for Nike for $3 a day (which is even in countries like India not very much) Nike would have to pay them more money to work for them because Nike has to produce it's shoes somewhere and it's only producing in India because Indians do work for $3 a day.
If the children thought it was too little money, or had somewhere better to go, then they would not do the work.
Well, if the question was work for $3 or starve, - even you would work for $3 a day. It's not as if they had any choice, even though you try to make it seem that way.
Nonetheless, companies are now unwilling to employ children under any circumstances, even part time (the vast majority of children are employed part time), which has led to an increase in suffering for these children. And all because Western protestors, who know nothing, feel the need to meddle.
This isn't correct either. As Nike IS producing shoes and it's not like they don't need ANY employees at all. If they don't employ the children, they have to employ the parents (who were formerly often unemployed) which is much better, if you ask me. It doesn't increase the suffering of a child if it hasn't got to contribute to the family income, any more.
I think that seeking wealth is to be greatly encouraged. The reason that Bangladeshis don't give money to charity is that they don't have any money to give. Meanwhile, in America, people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner are giving 10 figure sums to charity. The profit motive, combined with a fair environment, results in wealth, and has many trickle down effects.
First of all, I want you to acknowledge that it's not corporations giving money to charity, but persons. Second, it is not the profit motive that makes them spend money for charity. Third, if someone has more money than he could spend in his life reasonably and gives one or two percent of it to charity, - you would call THAT an achievement? It wouldn't hurt Bill Gates to spend 60 billion $ to charity tomorrow and you call 2 or 3 billion $ a trickle down effect? The only reason he doesn't spend more money for charity is the profit motive. Which other motive could make him keep so much money although he knows he's not going to spend it anyway?
There is a very simple reason that America is the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation. It is because it is the most business friendly.
Oh, I though it was because of its imperialism and militarism. - You're right! They don't need atomic bombs, sub marines, etc. or preventing others from gaining advantage from their own technical advances. - Just being business friendly makes you wealthy and powerful. You know, you should print this on flyers and give them out to the people of Somalia.
It was even discovered by companies - Columbus didn't come to the Americas in the spirit of exploration, after all. He came to make a quick buck.
Which has yet to be proven.
The only way we as a civilisation will move forward is if we realise both our own nature and the nature of others.
Here you are say being against globalization is against our nature? If so, you ARE even MORE stupid than I thought.
I find the antiglobalisation protestors to be extremely misguided in this regard, and more damningly, they appear to have a core of racism and western patronage in their attitude towards the rest of the world.
You didn't really have any compelling arguments for the racism-part and I remain unsure if what you mean by western patronage is that bad at all. Trying to protect others is not misguided, and it is in the nature of at least some humans to do so.
We should let the people of the world decide for themselves, through the aggregate of their everyday actions of taking jobs, working, buying and selling. Through the ultimate democracy that will decide this issue - the global marketplace.
As I showed you, people aren't really free to choose for which company and under which conditions to work, they aren't free to buy what they want (they can only buy what they can afford and they can't always take into consideration how it was produced, nor do they always know) and they certainly can't sell what they want (many people have nothing to sell, than themselves. They have no chance to gain the knowledge nor the tools to produce anything by themselves)
You let it seem as if it was the people that decided in a capitalistic world. But you are wrong and you didn't even prove your thesis. The world's companies do have a strong influence on any decision taken by the people. Those companies, as I said above, are not led by people, but by managers who are fired if they don't make enough profit. Those managers as leaders of a company are no real persons (they may be persons when they come home), they are the incorporated profit motive. Therefore those companies must be controlled.
Sumed up, my point is globalization cannot only mean free trade or the whole world being business friendly. It has also to mean global control of the global market. The WTO does not sufficiently control the market. And as long we have no means to control a global market, we should delay the process of globalization until we do have.
Moreover YOU are a cynic. Your views are dangerous and immoral. Most important: YOU do NOT speak for the silent majority. The ONLY reason you are led to believe you did, is that the majority chose to remain silent.