This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why do people believe globalisation is a good thing?

OP

so how did britain manage when it manufactured its own goods? are you saying no one brought them?

if britain still had its industries, then people would be in work, and the country would be a lot wealthier, thus people would be able to afford slightly more expensive goods.

you have a very naive view of why big companies really send their jobs oversees. it happened because of greed and short term profits for their shareholders and the easiest way to do this was by shipping industry abroad to slave labour economies.

long term, britain has been impoverished by globalisation. our economy now depends on personal debt and the buying of these cheap foreign goods with that debt.

its been a disaster.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Reply 21

natchina

Original post by Nick100

The cost of living at those times several times higher than it is now. We did not have mass consumption on the scale we do now. In 1912 Britain may have been the richest country that had ever existed, but compared to Britain today it would be considered poverty stricken.

Britain does still have its industries; they have been badly affected by the recession but they will recover. If you actually look ata graph of the UK manufacturing index it reached its highest point in history just before the recession. The decrease in manufacturing employment is due to mechanisation - not outsourcing.

Actually its for long term profits; building a factory is not a short term investment. And without those companies investing in India and China billions of people would be much poorer than they are now.

No it hasn't; it has been "impoverished" (if that can be applied to a nation as wealthy as ours) by the gigantic government which consumes half of the nation's production and interferes with all business here.

in the past 30 years alone britain has de industrialised more than any other nation-- but the de industrialising has been going on a lot longer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing

sure, mechanisation improves production. but gross production would be higher if britain had managed to hold on to its industries.

setting up a factory in ( what used to be ) an undeveloped country like china is small change for large companies -- the chinese state also subsidised some of these companies so the state could increase their manufacturing base- thus their power base.

of course, now that its becoming a little bit more expensive to set up shop in china, the globalist parasites are looking for even cheaper places.

britain has been deeply impoverished. if britain was not gutted from the inside by the globalist parasites then i suspect the british economy would still be a major player and not languishing in 7th place and destined to fall even further as the years roll by.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 22

RowingGoose

12

Socially and morally globalisation is wrong (I think) but as OP said, MONEY. If the government saves money, it can spend it on healthcare, education, transport etc (it probably won't do though). Also, it worked back in the olden days because there were less people. They didn't need or use as much, they learned to 'make do' and so demand was reduced. Now people want 4 seasons of fashion, everything is disposable, and so everything is made for the mass market.

Reply 23

Brandmon

2

Original post by RowingGoose

Socially and morally globalisation is wrong (I think)

Why?

Reply 24

RowingGoose

12

Original post by Brandmon

Why?

Because towns and cities lose their culture and heritage. I'm studying in Sunderland at the moment which I think years ago would have been a fantastic town to live in (It's not that bad now tbh lol). It was once the largest shipbuilding town in the world! (Some pics for you below) That's why they got the name Mackem - they said "we mack [make] 'em, you tack [take] 'em". But then the shipyards and coal mines closed, and it destroyed the community. There is quite a bit of unemployment and mental health problems here because of this lack of community. 1 in 5 are said to be desperately lonely :frown:

Just take a look at how other coal mine closure because of cost affected the communities.

Also living conditions are terrible for the places where we outsource too, especially in sweatshops. And all the money that is gained from globalisation primarily goes to the rich and put into the big cities to make more business. And it's all because of this demand and 'me' culture that Maggie Thatcher so delightfully encouraged :dry:

.

I just think towns and cities should stay true to what they are, or what they used to be. That's just what I think anyway :P

(edited 12 years ago)

sunderland - wear 3.jpg41.9KB

sunderland - shipyard workers.jpg75.6KB

Reply 25

Nick100

5

Original post by MTR_10

Better trades for whom exactly? Is that what we should be prioritising as a culture? Good trade and profit over human well being and sustainability?

It allows better trades for everyone; that has been known since the Wealth of Nations was published. Good trade does lead to human well being and globalisation has not undermined our sustainability - without it we would have access to less resources and less technology; with it resources are used more efficiently.

Redundant jobs only come about when the sole focus is profit.

That's utter BS; a job is a means to an end, if that end can be achieved using some other means then the job is redundant. Profit has nothing to do with it; someone who works for a charity by manually copying out flyers is doing a redundant job because they could be replaced by a photocopier.

We need to transfer the attitude and philosophy towards society and business in the west. Perhaps we should value duty, integrity and responsibility over short term profit?

If we value short term profit over long term profit, why do so many go to University? Why do mortgages exist; they take decades to make a profit? And in what way is it irresponsible to make a short term profit; such profit can obviously be a reinvested?

The problem isn't with individuals thinking of "short term profit"; it's with politicians who have no incentive to plan beyond each election cycle. This is where the problem is with pensions; there is no state pension fund because it doesn't help win the pensioner vote; that vote can be won by raising taxes on the young and just transferring the money to pensioners.

It's not about prevention as much as it is about self discipline and education in the value of society and culture (something the UK is lacking).

But if free trade isn't prevented then globalisation is inevitable because it is so economically favourable.

Reply 26

Brandmon

2

Original post by RowingGoose

Because towns and cities lose their culture and heritage. I'm studying in Sunderland at the moment which I think years ago would have been a fantastic town to live in (It's not that bad now tbh lol). It was once the largest shipbuilding town in the world! (Some pics for you below) That's why they got the name Mackem - they said "we mack [make] 'em, you tack [take] 'em". But then the shipyards and coal mines closed, and it destroyed the community. There is quite a bit of unemployment and mental health problems here because of this lack of community. 1 in 5 are said to be desperately lonely :frown:

Just take a look at how other coal mine closure because of cost affected the communities.

Also living conditions are terrible for the places where we outsource too, especially in sweatshops. And all the money that is gained from globalisation primarily goes to the rich and put into the big cities to make more business. And it's all because of this demand and 'me' culture that Maggie Thatcher so delightfully encouraged :dry:

.

I just think towns and cities should stay true to what they are, or what they used to be. That's just what I think anyway :P

There is a difference between a loss of cultural heritage and a change of cultural heritage. That said what you went on to describe is an economical collapse rather than a mainly cultural one.

Mind you, your points are completely valid and a solid concern that should ahve been tackled properly. That said my view is that it was not caused mainly by globalisation. First of all I don't believe that globalisation is the cause of inequality as one case doesn't prove this. One needs to bring up another case to back this claim further and one need not look further than North Korea. They are likely the most that rejected globalisation, yet inequality is different, yet still bad; even Feudal. And furthermore one must not forget that while many cities suffered in recent years, others have thrived. And this was even the case in the distant past when an early form was embraced during the then Islamic Golden Age a good 1000 years ago that allowed both an increase of exotic trade and even a significant sharing of ideas between cultures which lead to significant scientific discoveries at that time.

So I think it is clear that Globalisation is not the direct cause of the problems. What one must understand is that with Globalisation, compared to the past, the rules change. The demands change. Therefore the potential for employment changes for better or worse. Then the need arises to cut jobs that are not needed. Yet on the other hand there is an increased potential for jobs in many other sectors. Remember that society is an ever changing and dynamic system. You can't expect a town to fulfil a specific role. Is there a place today for Switchboard operators or even Lamp lighters? Their role, along with social changes, diminishes and it would be counter productive to maintain their employment.

So overall in my opinion, the way to tackle the problems of globalisation is not by ignoring it and thus a policy of isolation. But instead, one has to implement the economic and social policies to match. That is what Thatcher did wrong. While she embraced Globalisation, she thought little of what happens afterwards. But she can take comfort in the fact that she wasn't along in this mistake. I think employment is actually a good measure of how a country adapted to to modern area of globalisation and we can compare between European nations that embraced globalisation in a roughly equal measure.
First you have the nations which clearly didn't adapt well to the changing situation. You have Greece and Spain, whose economic systems have hardly adapted at all to the conditions of the 21st Century. Greece is playing the price for that and Spain is in a hurry to salvage the situation, with little hope. Unemployment in both nations sits at about 20%. Then you have the average European Unemployment - the UK with about 8% unemployment, France with about 10% and Finland with about 7%. What all these countries have in common is that they tackled Globalisation during the 1980s in a wrong manner. In both the UK and France, unemployment was a good 2% higher in the 1980s that it is now. In Finland, flawed policy during the 1980s (not to different from what Greece was doing ironically), lead to an economic crisis during the 1990s and unemployment of about 17%. Yet all recovered successfully, not by rejecting globalisation, but adapting properly to it. Unemployment is all the mentioned countries fell, before rising again recently because of the economic crisis.
Then you have countries which did a superb job of adapting to Globalisation and have a good level of unemployment today despite the economic crisis. You have Germany with about 5% unemployment. The Netherlands with 5% unemployment. And then you have Switzerland, considered one of the most globalised nations, with just 3.5% unemployment. So it is clear that society can benefit from Globalisation as much as it can suffer from it.

So therefore my point is that Globalisation is not an inevitable cause for economic problems but just a potential cause for economic problems. Simultaneously, globalisation is not an inevitable cause for economic benefits
but it is only a potential cause for economic benefits. We can't go around, blindingly accepting Globalisation like how Tatcher did with her earlier policies. Sure, some jobs are becoming redundant and there was an increasing need to lay them off. But the mistake was to lay of the jobs without asking the question - then what? It is eventually government policy, or even a lack of, that causes problems related with globalisation. Remember, it is not Globalisation per se that caused the economic crisis, lack of financial regulation did so. It is not globalisation that causes environmental problems, but a lack of environmental regulations.

So sorry for the long post and the possible clumsiness (in a hurry) with regards on that topic. I still agree that Thatcher's policies where flawed at the time but pinning the blame on globalisation would be incorrect.

Finally, with regard with a loss of cultural identity: it is inevitable. Didn't Scotland lose its cultural identity gradually by being in the Union? And what about all the regions around the world? They had their identity watered down due to Nationalism before Globalisation even emerged. So again globalisation is not directly to blame and again government policy is what one should take note of. If we wish regional identities to be preserves, that we should encourage policies of regional autonomy. That is what what nations such as Germany and Spain are already doing and regional culture is rich in spite of globalisation.

Reply 27

Nick100

5

Original post by natchina

in the past 30 years alone britain has de industrialised more than any other nation-- but the de industrialising has been going on a lot longer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/16/why-britain-doesnt-make-things-manufacturing

For a start, his opening claim about UK manufacturing shrinking is based on employment - not production. Secondly his claims about the government's economic policy (that it should get it out of the way) are just wrong; the government spends half of the country's production.

sure, mechanisation improves production. but gross production would be higher if britain had managed to hold on to its industries.

It would be higher if the government didn't waste so much labour.

setting up a factory in ( what used to be ) an undeveloped country like china is small change for large companies -- the chinese state also subsidised some of these companies so the state could increase their manufacturing base- thus their power base.

of course, now that its becoming a little bit more expensive to set up shop in china, the globalist parasites are looking for even cheaper places.

If that were true most of subsaharan Africa, and India would have developed at the same pace as China. What you are saying is incorrect though; its cheaper for companies to set up in areas where the government has a business friendly attitude, where taxes are low or can be waived, where there is stability, and where government regulations are lax. Botswana was once just as poor as Zimbabwe, but because it has better economic policies it is now one of the wealthiest nations in Africa, and is one of the fastest growing economies. If your claims were accurate, it would not be growing faster than its poorer neighbours.

Another example of why you are wrong is Hong Kong. It maintains high economic growth rates despite being just as wealthy as the UK. It has a flat tax rate of 17%, and setting up a business there takes a matter of hours.

britain has been deeply impoverished. if britain was not gutted from the inside by the globalist parasites then i suspect the british economy would still be a major player and not languishing in 7th place and destined to fall even further as the years roll by.

Actually if all nations were performing perfectly in the global economy then the UK would be ranked 22nd; the same as its population. I certainly do believe the UK could be higher in the rankings though, but cutting off trade would break our economy; not empower it. What we should do is cut the government down to size, and make it easier to set up business and industry here. How much investment do you think would be attracted to this country by a tax rate of 17%?

Reply 28

Nick100

5

Original post by RowingGoose

Just take a look at how other coal mine closure because of cost affected the communities.

Take a look at a graph of UK coal mining production; the decline started with nationalisation in the '40s and by the '80s production was at a small fraction of its peak. The decline in coal happened because it is a finite resource; it was inevitable (although nationalisation surely exacerbated the problem).

Reply 29

cl_steele

2

because half of the things we use in society we cant make if it was just us? we couldnt make any steal, iron, electronics etc.. we couldnt even feed ourselves. we need the rest of the world.

Reply 30

FDR

10

Original post by MTR_10

Why exactly is it a good thing to go to a shop (inside an Australian shopping mall chain) in the uk and buy an italian fashion brand tshirt made in China from Indian cotton? If it is cheaper shouldn't we ask ourselves why and what the hell is wrong with the world?

There is increasing unemployment across Europe as less and less real jobs are created, instead being replaced by worthless spreadsheet data input assistants and other pretentious bull**** work.

Why not reverse the impact of globalisation which has effectively done more damage than good and create local societies where everyone can contribute? Have everything made locally? and utilise the skills of everyone?

Globalisation means that countries can concentrate on producing what they are best at, (specialisation), and they can import the items that they aren't so good at, or can't, produce - for example, in the UK we import bananas and other tropical fruits simply because we don't have the conditions to grow them ourselves, but thanks to trade, we have more choice. You say we should have everything made locally, but this simply isn't possible.

You say that we should utilise the skills of everyone, but that is essentially what globalisation does on a global scale - utilising the skills of different countries.

Reply 31

Milos1989

I'll give you a 4 reasons why is globalization is a good thing:

1. Because you can buy a warm hat with a Swedish flag of the Indian on the street in Stockholm.
2. Because you can buy a souvenir from the Eifel Tower in Paris Pakistanis.
3. Because you can buy a picture of Muhammad Ali and the Chinese in New York
4. Because in Frankfurt you can buy, Palestinians and Israelis.

:biggrin:

Reply 32

Heeck

13

The OP obviously has never been to an economics class in his or her lifetime and its ignorant people such as the OP who bringing the UK down.

Reply 33

marianadiasotero

Globalization does more good than bad. We are helping the LEDCs get economically better. Think about the overall picture. Do not become ego-centerd

Reply 34

Justpin

10

People who benefit from globalisation think it is a great thing.

I.e. those who get to get primark t-shirts for £1 and cheap TVs.

People who do not benefit from globalisation think it is a bad thing.

I.e. those former factory workers in the UK, or those who had their jobs outsourced away.

People in the UK by and large think globalisation is a great thing because they have been beneficiaries of it for quite sometime and it has been working in their favour for quite a while.

Except the tide is changing and it is starting to eat into middle class jobs and professions therefore people are turning against it.

Some of the beneficiaries over time change, but the corporates who are always the beneficiaries win each time.

Reply 35

Rakas21

21

Original post by MTR_10

Why exactly is it a good thing to go to a shop (inside an Australian shopping mall chain) in the uk and buy an italian fashion brand tshirt made in China from Indian cotton? If it is cheaper shouldn't we ask ourselves why and what the hell is wrong with the world?

There is increasing unemployment across Europe as less and less real jobs are created, instead being replaced by worthless spreadsheet data input assistants and other pretentious bull**** work.

Why not reverse the impact of globalisation which has effectively done more damage than good and create local societies where everyone can contribute? Have everything made locally? and utilise the skills of everyone?

One could argue that the shopping center could have been created by a UK company however in your example the materials for those t-shirts can be produced for $1, the t-shirts themselves can be constructed for another $1 finally they can be transported on a ship for about $1 each. If were to do this locally then the materials would have to be produced for minimum wage and the clothes would have to be made themselves for minimum wage, this makes them cost more.

Not everybody has skills that are needed locally, their may be surplus or deficit.

Globalisation overall has been beneficial to the consumer and in the long run has a minimal effect on the labour market as people re-skill or retire.

Reply 36

lucaf

13

because a single factory in china can produce millions of t-shirts and send them to societies all over the world at a fraction of the cost and labour of having each of those societies producing their own t-shirts.

having countries excel in specialised areas and trading with each other is more productive than having every country just mediocre at doing everything. it works for the same reason that having a fraction of the population working solely as farmers and a fraction working as builders produces more food and and better buildings than having the entire population growing their own food and building their own hovels.

Reply 37

username91207

16

Jesus, talk about reviving an old thread...

Reply 38

username402722

19

Some people like cheap food, other products etc over everything else, or think the average consumer will.

Reply 39

anarchism101

17

Globalisation in some form is the inevitable result of technological advancement. I do however disapprove of the current neoliberal brand of globalisation.

Why do people believe globalisation is a good thing?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you