Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radical Dreamer)
    I completely agree with what you’re saying. The CAP does cause significant failure in the global agricultural markets and should be abolished. However the fact that such failure does exist means that there is a case for foreign countries to protect their local agricultural industries (in which they have a comparative advantage) against European farmers while they are being excessively subsidised.
    I do believe that if all markets were perfect and distortions (such as the lack of factor mobility and imperfect competition) were non-existent, the case for globalisation would be infallible one.
    The only problem is, these powerful interest groups in first world countries aren't going to give up their subsidies without a serious fight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evilcitizen)
    The only problem is, these powerful interest groups in first world countries aren't going to give up their subsidies without a serious fight.
    Yeah that is true. In France apparently farmers are a particularly powerful group. Which is why Jacques Chirac wants nothing to do with any reforms on the EUs current agricultural policy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radical Dreamer)
    I completely agree with what you’re saying. The CAP does cause significant failure in the global agricultural markets and should be abolished. However the fact that such failure does exist means that there is a case for foreign countries to protect their local agricultural industries (in which they have a comparative advantage) against European farmers while they are being excessively subsidised.
    I do believe that if all markets were perfect and distortions (such as the lack of factor mobility and imperfect competition) were non-existent, the case for globalisation would be infallible one.
    Nothing is perfect. As things stand, there is nothing better than free trade.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Globalisation is neither overtly bad nor especially good. It just is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evilcitizen)
    Globalisation is great.

    Reduction of trade barriers and other forms of protectionism.

    Increased communication and hopefully less ignorance about other cultures.

    More interconnectedness leads to more shared interests, and that hopefully means less chance of wars that would jeopardize everything.
    Spot on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radical Dreamer)
    I completely agree with what you’re saying. The CAP does cause significant failure in the global agricultural markets and should be abolished. However the fact that such failure does exist means that there is a case for foreign countries to protect their local agricultural industries (in which they have a comparative advantage) against European farmers while they are being excessively subsidised.
    I do believe that if all markets were perfect and distortions (such as the lack of factor mobility and imperfect competition) were non-existent, the case for globalisation would be infallible one.

    This does not work. Open countries develop faster e.g East Asia tygers, whereas India did what you advocate leading to increased poverty in the 1970s. Instead of imprving their industries due to competition they simply bribe the gov to keep tarrifs. Thus their products don't improve but the people still have to buy from them as there is no alternative. Thus what your advocate leads to the rich getting richer whereas the poor have no choice. The market knows best not some government officials. Governemtns fail for example Brazils' attempt to create an IT industry. Tarrifs don't give temporary protection rather permanent protection for inefficient industries.

    Also you ignore an important fact - developing coutries most often trade with other developing countries. More than 70 percent of the custom dues which developing coutries are foced to pay are levied by other developing countries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Greater integration between nations is good, as is the spread of a better standard of life through the exchange of ideals.

    The loss of cultural identity that, for instance the french fear at the moment as their children become more (shock horror) anglisised by american televisual influences, is a regretable side effect that should be fought against, but there is no reason why the spread of ideas beneficial to all shoudln't happen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radical Dreamer)
    I completely agree with what you’re saying. The CAP does cause significant failure in the global agricultural markets and should be abolished. However the fact that such failure does exist means that there is a case for foreign countries to protect their local agricultural industries (in which they have a comparative advantage) against European farmers while they are being excessively subsidised.
    I do believe that if all markets were perfect and distortions (such as the lack of factor mobility and imperfect competition) were non-existent, the case for globalisation would be infallible one.
    CAP is dead from the crop dumping point of view.

    As of last year farmers have been trading at world prices within the EU, unfortunately economics text books, teachers and tony blair havent bothered to read the CAP reform papers (bloody boring) and discover this.

    As from very soon indeed (not sure exactly) farmers will no longer be paid by ton of production and instead are going to be paid a flatrate fee per acre for the maintenaince of their land to agreed standards.

    This will basically mean that only the farmers able to produce to meet world prices will produce crops (so african farmers cannot be dumped on as there should be no surplus, as there is no longer an artificially high supply within the eu due to the subsidy), and those who cannot will put their fields down to grass and cut the lawn mower out.

    In 20 years time when labour rates are too high to sustain farming in britain at all, the whole countryside will be one enormous country park where farmers spend their days trimming hedges, planting trees, cutting grass and generally landscape gardening the whole country.

    On the other hand, if his lord high tonyness completely removes the subsidies when the current cap deal expires (2013 i think) then large swathes of the countryside will be derelict wasteland full of weeds and impassable to humanity an eyesore on the world, much as it was between the wars when there was no labour (they all got killed in WW1) and little demand for food as our population was something less than half what it is today.

    Guess what, i come from a farming background.

    Basically, objectively I see all the arguments against the cap and agree totally, but i dont want to see british agriculture die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    Hav you guys ever travelled beyond wales? The world is quite simply not losing its diversity!
    agreed, what is the evidence of a global monoculture developing?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    agreed, what is the evidence of a global monoculture developing?
    Surely you don't deny the trend toward?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    agreed, what is the evidence of a global monoculture developing?
    When i was out in thailand, malaysia, singapore and china for 3 months, it was fairly obvious to me that the american way of life as portrayed in films and tv particularly is slowly filtering into all societies of the world. even china has now been colonised by great fast food chains such as macdonalds, pizza hut and first of all KFC.

    This in itself is not bad, what is bad is the loss of traditionaly local restaurants that occurs as a direct result of this. if the spread of such cultural integration can be noticed before the old stuff has gone then great, otherwise in a number of years there will not be much left of typically chinese, say, restaurants in beijing for example.

    If it can be pionted out to people that this process is happening and they can work to safeguard some of their culture then great everyone benefits, otherwise part of global culture could be lost forever before we realise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Surely you don't deny the trend toward?
    i do, but it may depend on how one defines culture, globalisation and a host of other variables. what are the arguments you propose for a trend towards it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    When i was out in thailand, malaysia, singapore and china for 3 months, it was fairly obvious to me that the american way of life as portrayed in films and tv particularly is slowly filtering into all societies of the world. even china has now been colonised by great fast food chains such as macdonalds, pizza hut and first of all KFC.
    but this seems a very impoversihed view of culture in my view.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Gexko]When i was out in thailand, malaysia, singapore and china for 3 months, it was fairly obvious to me that the american way of life as portrayed in films and tv particularly is slowly filtering into all societies of the world. even china has now been colonised by great fast food chains such as macdonalds, pizza hut and first of all KFC.[QUOTE]
    Equally, are there not hundreds of Indian and other east asian restaurants in the UK? This is doubtless similar and yet not many complain because they like to taste food from other cultures. It just so happens that the 'western' food that east asians eat appears in the form of mcdonalds, kfc etc. rather than traditional restaurants, which are sadly not popular. (shrug) what can you do?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Radical Dreamer)
    Yeah that is true. In France apparently farmers are a particularly powerful group. Which is why Jacques Chirac wants nothing to do with any reforms on the EUs current agricultural policy.
    I just realised that this is the major weakness of democracies!!! What can Chirac do even if he wants to? If he does allow CAP reforms or ( :eek: ) abolishment of the CAP, his party will not make it through the next election and the new party in power (i have no idea about French politics) will simply try and make another CAP (so to speak).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This ide that culture is becoming Americanised is exaggerated. American exports are often tailored to local tastes e.g MTV in Asia devotes a fifth of its airtime to local programming and promoting Thai and Chinese groups. McDonalds sells beer in France, lamb in India and chilli in Mexico.

    American's influce is exagerrated, just look at the difference in religion in Europe and US and different units of measurement. Look at its sports. In the UK there are 6 Indian restaurants for every McDonalds. Pizzas are more popular than burgers woldwide. Susi is spreading fast. In fasion there is Gucci, Armani, Versace etc. In music true there are chart toppers like Madonna but there are also the likes of Elton John and U2. Newspapers are still overwhelmingly domestic e.g Wall Street Journal Europe had sales of just 100,000 per day in its first 6 months. Look at tv soaps - Russians are addicated to a mexican soap whereas Eastenders still dominates the UK.

    All this shows is that globalisation has brought more choice. People choose coke for a reason - it tastes nice. No one is forcing them. What is wrong with having more choice?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    This ide that culture is becoming Americanised is exaggerated. American exports are often tailored to local tastes e.g MTV in Asia devotes a fifth of its airtime to local programming and promoting Thai and Chinese groups. McDonalds sells beer in France, lamb in India and chilli in Mexico.
    an excellent point. much of the american or western (or whatever) 'culture'/consumer goods that are deterritorialized and consumed elsewhere are also subject to a process of re-territorialization in the sense of being filtered through other cultures. a process of natavization often takes place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Let me sum up some negative facts about globalisation.

    As the countries of the world become more integrated, corporations, not goverments will hold sway in the media, the economy, and even your way of life. The bare necessities will be privatised, like air and water.

    The western world's standard of living will fall.

    Diversity would eventually disapear over time.

    The gap between the rich and poor would continue to increase.


    Globalisation only benifits the corporations. It's funny how companies like Nike hunt out 3rd world countries to exploit.

    Dont trust corporations, they arent people, even though they are granted the same rights as people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let me sum up some negative facts about globalisation.

    As the countries of the world become more integrated, corporations, not goverments will hold sway in the media, the economy, and even your way of life.

    This is nonsence and is a common myth. For example foreigners own $1.5 trillion of US shares out of a stockmaknet worth £13.6 trillion. If anything governments are becoming more powerful, they take more tax (on avaerge 11.5% more of GDP), and now have the technolgy to monitor us more for example id cards and cctv. Companies need them as they offer defence and property rights. Companies benefit from the infrastructure they provide. Environmental laws are now generally tougher and petrol taxes are higher. Globalisation has given people more power as shown by the rise in democracies (40% live in them - the biggest propotion ever).

    The western world's standard of living will fall.

    Why do you say that? Because jobs will be exported to the Third world for cheap labour? 100 yrs ago 80% of jobs were in the agriculture industry in Sweden, now its not even in double figures, are 80% of the population unemployed? Of course not. New industries emerge.

    Diversity would eventually disapear over time.

    Why do you say that? The opposite is happening. Places are becoming more diverse as we get more globalisation. People wear Italin clothes, eat Indian food, watch British soaps all the while livin in Russia for example. Globalisation brings choice.

    The gap between the rich and poor would continue to increase.
    Overall wealth is increasing. From 1965-1998 the average world citizens salary doubled. UNDP notes that world poverty has fallen more inthe past 50 years than in the past 500. Coutries which embrace globalisation catch up very fast as shown by S. Korea, Singapore etc. What does eqaulty matter? As long as people are increasing wealth from their own starting points. People who rant on about eqauality hate wealth when they should hate poverty.


    Globalisation only benifits the corporations. It's funny how companies like Nike hunt out 3rd world countries to exploit.

    You are very ill educated on this issue. Only benefits the corporations? How do you explain the increased wealth for those citizens whose country attracts these corporations. Also on the point of Nike, they have very good conditions. For example in Vietnam they pay double the average wage, have 8 hr days 9as opposed to 12 in state factories), safety equipment, air conditioning, the support of the unions, bonsues, education opportunites and two third of empoyees have been there more than 3 years. Would you prefer for them to be in their rice paddy fields doing back breaking work? It may be fasionable to attack corporations but is is very stupid.

    Dont trust corporations, they arent people, even though they are granted the same rights as people.
    Than why trust governments? After all they arn't people are they?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    When i was out in thailand, malaysia, singapore and china for 3 months, it was fairly obvious to me that the american way of life as portrayed in films and tv particularly is slowly filtering into all societies of the world. even china has now been colonised by great fast food chains such as macdonalds, pizza hut and first of all KFC.

    This in itself is not bad, what is bad is the loss of traditionaly local restaurants that occurs as a direct result of this. if the spread of such cultural integration can be noticed before the old stuff has gone then great, otherwise in a number of years there will not be much left of typically chinese, say, restaurants in beijing for example.
    I can't comment on the first few countries you mentioned, but I've lived in China for several years recently and I can tell you American culture will never take hold in the way you suggest. Just because there are lots of KFC, Starbucks and McDonalds, that will never be more than like 5% or 10% of the market. There are still more than 50,000 Chinese restaurants in a big city like Beijing.

    I think it's a classic mistake Westerners make that they travel to other countries and think they're becoming part of a monoculture just because they have Starbucks, etc.
 
 
 

1,137

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.