Turn on thread page Beta

Is globalisation good or bad? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evilcitizen)
    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.
    I agree. I have travelled throughout East Asia and if you actually talk to the people they do not feel Americanised at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evilcitizen)
    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.
    I think i answered that in my post, well at least, i said that in my opinion, as long as it wasnt allowed to continue to a bigger extent then its a good thing. Extra choice is always a good thing. we should just guard against loss of individual culture, such as the near dissapearrance of the traditional british pub in this country. (although this probably has been influenced by the shift away from drinking culture)

    There was certainly no evidence of them being part of a monoculture yet, but i was surprised by the insurgence of these american brands.

    china is the least infiltrated of all the places i visited. singapore, hong kong and some parts of kuala lumpur could be mistaken for parts of london or an american town.

    i was still surprised that china had these brands at all given its political history. i did vote that 'globalisation' depending on your definition was a good thing.

    i'm being a boring politician and calling for moderation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    I think i answered that in my post, well at least, i said that in my opinion, as long as it wasnt allowed to continue to a bigger extent then its a good thing. Extra choice is always a good thing. we should just guard against loss of individual culture, such as the near dissapearrance of the traditional british pub in this country. (although this probably has been influenced by the shift away from drinking culture)

    If there is demand for it, it should continue, if not it should not continue. The government should not intervene to keep pubs going.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    If there is demand for it, it should continue, if not it should not continue. The government should not intervene to keep pubs going.
    I never said they should, its just its a shame to see part of our heritage dissappearing.

    from an objective point of view, if there isnt demand then they can close. fine, but do you also think we should demolish all high streets in market towns and replace them with shopping centres as it would be more efficient way to shop?

    equally we could demolish the houses of parliament and replace them with new ones with extra in built security etc but we're not going to do that are we?

    we need some sense of history and heritage, life cannot always be looked at in a dispassionate, objective manner.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    from an objective point of view, if there isnt demand then they can close. fine, but do you also think we should demolish all high streets in market towns and replace them with shopping centres as it would be more efficient way to shop?
    I think if someone wanted to buy all those stores and the land and build a shopping centre on it they should be allowed. People want to sell, someone wants to buy. Its up to them, no one else.

    we need some sense of history and heritage, life cannot always be looked at in a dispassionate, objective manner.
    Fighting for individualism is not dispassionate. People should be allowed to choose which culture they prefer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I think if someone wanted to buy all those stores and the land and build a shopping centre on it they should be allowed. People want to sell, someone wants to buy. Its up to them, no one else.

    So you think that planning permission is a bad concept?

    You think we shouldnt protect our national identity and heritage because some people want to make some money?

    There may not be money in heritage, but we can give it a monetary value from a theoretical point of view, (although how do we put a monetary value on culture?), and in my opinion this can often outwiegh financial gain.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Fighting for individualism is not dispassionate. People should be allowed to choose which culture they prefer.
    So if a psychotic axe murderer wants a culture of slaughtering everyone they see then thats ok?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you think that planning permission is a bad concept?
    Yes. I am a pure capitalist. The govenment should not interfere on someone else land as long as they are not infringing on the rights of another.

    You think we shouldnt protect our national identity and heritage because some people want to make some money?
    Its not about money, its about freedom. Money is merely the badge. Money gives freedom.

    There may not be money in heritage, but we can give it a monetary value from a theoretical point of view, (although how do we put a monetary value on culture?), and in my opinion this can often outwiegh financial gain.
    So? Does this mean that your view of culture overides someone's opporunity to use their abilties in the markeplace. Why hold them back just because you like pubs? You thought is atavistic in nature, looking back to a golden age. This is the thought of socialists who bring destruction.

    On your logic should we return to the polices of the Elizabethan era after all it was a very 'English' era?



    So if a psychotic axe murderer wants a culture of slaughtering everyone they see then thats ok?
    Of course not. I advocate a liberal culture where no one may infringe the eqaul rights of another.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Yes. I am a pure capitalist. The govenment should not interfere on someone else land as long as they are not infringing on the rights of another.
    Well that makes you a supporter of the free market at least.

    But how can anyone do anything they like as long as they are not interfering with the rights of another as you put it? What if people didnt want a new shoppign centre? do they have no right to object as the developers hold the land rights?

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Its not about money, its about freedom. Money is merely the badge. Money gives freedom.
    You do realise this is a paradox? its not about money but freedom, tho money gives freedom. clearly it must be about money if money gives freedom?


    (Original post by objectivism)
    So? Does this mean that your view of culture overides someone's opporunity to use their abilties in the markeplace. Why hold them back just because you like pubs? You thought is atavistic in nature, looking back to a golden age. This is the thought of socialists who bring destruction.
    As i clearly explained it can mean that yes. you might want to hold them back because you want to keep your heritage. that was the whole point of the post!
    for the record i didnt say that i wanted to keep pubs i was using them as an example of a part of british culture that has declined.
    big words arent impressive alongside typing like that.
    nice anti-socialist ******** though, good slogan. you sound like the karl marx of capitalism. (loud noise with little substance).
    i'm still waiting for my conservative party membership to come through btw.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    On your logic should we return to the polices of the Elizabethan era after all it was a very 'English' era?
    No. That cannot be followed from my logic. I am attempting to clearly demonstrate that we may want to retain some aspects of our national heritage. our history. ostensibly this is the case, as we do protect our old buildings and try to remind people of former ways of life with our museums etc.

    just because you dont have a sense of history (and although you are entitled to that mindset absolutely), doesnt mean that others don't.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Of course not. I advocate a liberal culture where no one may infringe the eqaul rights of another.
    so you advocate liberalism but also extreme pure capitalism? does it not occur to you that the two ideologies are not compatible? by persuing ruthless capitalism you will infringe on peoples rights by destroying economically inefficient processes, which people have a right to do if they want.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But how can anyone do anything they like as long as they are not interfering with the rights of another as you put it? What if people didnt want a new shoppign centre? do they have no right to object as the developers hold the land rights?
    If they did not want a new shopping centre, they would not go there. No one forces them to go and buy. They can object as they rightly have freedom of speech but that does not mean they have the right to impose their views.

    You do realise this is a paradox? its not about money but freedom, tho money gives freedom. clearly it must be about money if money gives freedom?
    No. You are wrong. Its not about money as money is the means not the end. Freedom is the end. The right to make money gives freedom but if money did not give freedom than money would be rejected, but its not. This shows that its not about money intrinsically.


    As i clearly explained it can mean that yes. you might want to hold them back because you want to keep your heritage. that was the whole point of the post!
    But you have failed to argue why.


    for the record i didnt say that i wanted to keep pubs i was using them as an example of a part of british culture that has declined
    .

    So what do you propose? I don;t see where you are going with this. You say we are losing culture etc and than what? Also if you bother to read my posts in this thread you will see that we are not losing our culture, rather we are being given more choice of what culture to choose.

    big words arent impressive alongside typing like that.

    What big words?


    nice anti-socialist ******** though, good slogan. you sound like the karl marx of capitalism. (loud noise with little substance).
    Im the one who is providing the reasoning, the ideolgical grounding. You are just ranting on about nothing. You are very unclear and have failed to get any point you had over, if indeed you have a point.



    No. That cannot be followed from my logic.
    Why? You like English culture, so why not go the full hog?

    I am attempting to clearly demonstrate that we may want to retain some aspects of our national heritage. our history.
    Who are 'we'? The majority? Should the majorty be allowed to stop the minority because they are the majority?

    Also is our national heritage going? If you travel you will find culture is alot stronger than you think. Look at Estonia after decades and decades of Soviet occupation. The Estonian language was banned but it was still used and is dominant today as you will soon realise if you go.



    just because you dont have a sense of history (and although you are entitled to that mindset absolutely), doesnt mean that others don't.

    I do have a sense of history. I merely beleive people should not be forced to pay for that culture e.g public museums. If you know anything about British culture you will know that Britian was the birthplace of liberalism.

    Have your sense of history, just don't expect others to foot the bill.


    so you advocate liberalism but also extreme pure capitalism? does it not occur to you that the two ideologies are not compatible? by persuing ruthless capitalism you will infringe on peoples rights by destroying economically inefficient processes, which people have a right to do if they want.
    Of course they have a right to do that, but they would not if they were capitalists. There is a difference between being able to do something and choosing to employ that right. I think you need to read up on capitalism and liberalism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I think if someone wanted to buy all those stores and the land and build a shopping centre on it they should be allowed. People want to sell, someone wants to buy. Its up to them, no one else.
    So, hypothetical situation - if the state wished to sell the Houses of Parliament and a developer wished to buy them to knock it down and build flats there, that would be all right with you? Despite the fact that it has played a critical part in our history.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    So, hypothetical situation - if the state wished to sell the Houses of Parliament and a developer wished to buy them to knock it down and build flats there, that would be all right with you? Despite the fact that it has played a critical part in our history.

    I expect these ludicrous situations from socialists, not so called conservatives. Persoanally i would oppose the selling off of parliament however i support the right to sell it if they wish. I disagree with the action but defend their right to do it, similar to Voltaire's position. For example if someone refsued to hire someone because they are black, i would condemn this, but support their liberty to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I expect these ludicrous situations from socialists, not so called conservatives.
    Fine talk coming from someone who is a liberal, not a so-called conservative. The Conservatives have never supported the free market to its full extent. They realise that there has to be sensible limits. Conservatism is not about unbridled capitalism, while capitalism is of course much better than socialism, we have to realise that it is not perfect. Conservatism should be about perserving traditional values and holding to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' only fixing when needed, as well as supporting private property and enterprise, with sensible limits. Margaret Thatcher's reforms were clearly needed to prevent Britain's economy imploding, same as we clearly need today lower taxes and less regulation on business.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fine talk coming from someone who is a liberal, not a so-called conservative.
    Classical liberlaims and modern conservatism do not exclude one another.


    The Conservatives have never supported the free market to its full extent. They realise that there has to be sensible limits. Conservatism is not about unbridled capitalism, while capitalism is of course much better than socialism, we have to realise that it is not perfect. Conservatism should be about perserving traditional values and holding to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' only fixing when needed, as well as supporting private property and enterprise, with sensible limits. Margaret Thatcher's reforms were clearly needed to prevent Britain's economy imploding, same as we clearly need today lower taxes and less regulation on business.
    The conservatives have been a party of free trade much more than you say. You should read Gamble who notes that in the 1880s and 1890s 'the conserative party was strongly identified with the belief that the role of government was to maintain law and order rather than to interfere with the morals and activities of the people. The party was strongly against intervention'. Gamble argues that the period of Butskellism was in fact an anomaliy wiithin Conservatism, not real conservatism.

    You also do not answer my points in reference to culture and globalisation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion globalisation is a good thing with some bad side affects. Overall an expansion in world trade obviously creates prosperity and therefore has a domino affect on other factors in the economy for those who can exploit the situation. Like Britain.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarnhamBoy)
    In my opinion globalisation is a good thing with some bad side affects. Overall an expansion in world trade obviously creates prosperity and therefore has a domino affect on other factors in the economy for those who can exploit the situation. Like Britain.

    Like what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is one specific case where I think governments should intervene: protection of heritage residential architecture, and sometimes commercial buildings.

    In the city where I spent most of my life growing up, I lived in a fancy neighbourhood that had alot of old Edwardian houses (I think that was the period). Anyway, a few nouveau riche types moved into the area and started demolishing these places to build ugly grey houses that were basically squares that tried to maximise square footage. Luckily the local council came in and made really strict new laws and now if you want to knock down or renovate in that area, the final house look has to fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood.

    I know these kinds of laws exist in most major cities in industralized countries and I personally think they're a good thing in 90% of cases.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I expect these ludicrous situations from socialists, not so called conservatives.
    I think the example was perfectly valid to illustrate the ridiculous nature of your arguments.

    I love the way you brand anyone who doesnt agree with you a 'socialist'. You sound like some right wing american from the 1970's banging on about how the 'commies' are gonna take over the world and are destroying everyone's freedom.

    Calling everyone else a socialist will not take away the fact that your arguments are flawed and you ideology is inconsistent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    The conservatives have been a party of free trade much more than you say. You should read Gamble who notes that in the 1880s and 1890s 'the conserative party was strongly identified with the belief that the role of government was to maintain law and order rather than to interfere with the morals and activities of the people. The party was strongly against intervention'. Gamble argues that the period of Butskellism was in fact an anomaliy wiithin Conservatism, not real conservatism.
    I don't think examples from the 1890's are all that relevant as a position to defend the free market stance of the conservative party.

    If we look more recently, we can see that the Thatcher government was heavily into market intervention, as was the Major government (eg black whatever that day was when we left the ERM).

    In fact the dreaded 'socialists' that are New Labour have been the most free market orientated government we have ever had in this country, evidenced by their release of the Bank of England to become an independant entity, as well as their stance on a number of other issues, not least the EU's trade policy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    If they did not want a new shopping centre, they would not go there. No one forces them to go and buy. They can object as they rightly have freedom of speech but that does not mean they have the right to impose their views.
    So what about the old high street that has been lost forever? Its all very well saying that they dont have to use the new one, but they are being prevented from using the old one, which surely infringges on their rights?


    (Original post by objectivism)
    But you have failed to argue why.
    Aside from the fairly self-evdient nature of the argument in favour of heritage, I believe I already have done in more than one of my above posts. Perhaps you don't feel that a national identity is of any importance, but many people would (see below) and this can be safeguarded by the retention of physical parts of our culture.


    (Original post by objectivism)
    So what do you propose? I don;t see where you are going with this. You say we are losing culture etc and than what? Also if you bother to read my posts in this thread you will see that we are not losing our culture, rather we are being given more choice of what culture to choose.
    i think you have missed my point. I welcome greater choice in the market place, but decry the loss of heritage and culture. I am happy for some parts to go but it is a shame (this is a word associated with something called nostalgia which you would probably think is and inefficient emotion and thus should be ruthlessly expunged) that others may be lost forever. I do not think that it can be demonstrated that we are not losing our culture.


    (Original post by objectivism)
    What big words?
    Atavistic, amongst others, is a word that the vast majority of people would not have in their vocabulary, and I would suggest that it might be used in a pretentious manner. Of course someone of your particular linguistic capacity would not use it in this manner, I was merely having a dig at the juxtaposition of your excellent vocabulary and poor typing skills. Sorry


    (Original post by objectivism)
    Im the one who is providing the reasoning, the ideolgical grounding. You are just ranting on about nothing. You are very unclear and have failed to get any point you had over, if indeed you have a point.
    I assue you i am not ranting. I did in fact start out agreeing with you; for some reason we have entered a debate over some fine point of language that has turned into a clash of your ideology against the world at large. My original point, which i have repeated numerous times for you benefit is that whilst 'globalisation' is a good thing in principle (if defined as the spread of ideas between cultures), we should be careful not lose national identity and culture in the process.


    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why? You like English culture, so why not go the full hog?
    your point is clearly facetious.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    Who are 'we'? The majority? Should the majorty be allowed to stop the minority because they are the majority?
    THATS DEMOCRACY!


    (Original post by objectivism)
    Also is our national heritage going? If you travel you will find culture is alot stronger than you think. Look at Estonia after decades and decades of Soviet occupation. The Estonian language was banned but it was still used and is dominant today as you will soon realise if you go.
    I have travelled to Asia, but that is besides the point, I never said our national heritage (which i would define as our history, whether written, spoken or architectural) is going. I merely warned that it is possible to erode ones national identity and culture, particulary if we allow our heritage to be lost.

    (Original post by objectivism)
    I do have a sense of history. I merely beleive people should not be forced to pay for that culture e.g public museums. If you know anything about British culture you will know that Britian was the birthplace of liberalism.

    Have your sense of history, just don't expect others to foot the bill.
    I do know that Britian was the birthplace of liberal culture, (Locke and Hume etc), but that is besides the point, who will safeguard our heritage if not the state?

    On a further point, your name 'objectivism' presumably refers to the fact that you object to everything everyone else says, or is it that you are incapable of a realistic view of human nature? This where Marx's theories fall down, i would suggest that some of your do too.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So what about the old high street that has been lost forever? Its all very well saying that they dont have to use the new one, but they are being prevented from using the old one, which surely infringges on their rights?

    No one has a right to go to a high street shop. Such a suggestion makes a mockery of the idea of rights. Why do you put the shop owners and the shopping centre developers rights below some people who may have a problem with more choice? What makes them so special? After all it is not their land or their investment. People have a right to life and liberty not to a shop. What you advocate is a positie right, which as everyone who has read Berlin knows, is a slippery slope. For example do you think people should not be allowed to go in the gardens and make noise because a neighbour may want silence in his street, just like some want high street shops.




    Aside from the fairly self-evdient nature of the argument in favour of heritage,

    That's your mistake. If you don't know why you believe something i.e can't explain it, you should not advocate it.

    Perhaps you don't feel that a national identity is of any importance, but many people would (see below) and this can be safeguarded by the retention of physical parts of our culture.
    Again you have ignored my point. If peeople want a national identidy let them, but don;t make me foot the bill just so they can feel part of a collective. Why should you be proud of the achievements of another? After all you were not at Waterloo etc. This collective is one of a group of people many years ago. You would not say you were proud of the achievements of the white man (i hope) so why be proud of someone who happened to be born on the same island as you)



    i think you have missed my point. I welcome greater choice in the market place, but decry the loss of heritage and culture. I am happy for some parts to go but it is a shame (this is a word associated with something called nostalgia which you would probably think is and inefficient emotion and thus should be ruthlessly expunged) that others may be lost forever. I do not think that it can be demonstrated that we are not losing our culture.
    Culture is not static by nature. Our culutre has changed throughout time for that is its nature. Globalisation simply adds to our culture. Our culture has been one of choice, we now have that. For example there are thousands of Indian restuaurants, 50 years ago they were not part of Britians culture, now many would say they are. I think you fail to realise the nature of culture itself.


    I assue you i am not ranting. I did in fact start out agreeing with you; for some reason we have entered a debate over some fine point of language that has turned into a clash of your ideology against the world at large.
    I support what is happening in the world i.e. globalisation. You are the one who warns against it.


    My original point, which i have repeated numerous times for you benefit is that whilst 'globalisation' is a good thing in principle (if defined as the spread of ideas between cultures), we should be careful not lose national identity and culture in the process.
    Again you don't understand the nature of culture.





    THATS DEMOCRACY!
    No. You are wrong. This is a mistake which many make. What it is is the tyranny of the majority. If 99% want to kll the other 1% than thats ok on your logic after all as i said it is the fact that they are the majority that makes them right. This thought is dangerous because we are ALL individuals but not all members of the majority, thus propetecton should be given to the individual as Mill argues. For example constitutional restraints on what the majority may do to the minority. That is true democracy, what you advocate is the lynch mob.





    I do know that Britian was the birthplace of liberal culture, (Locke and Hume etc), but that is besides the point, who will safeguard our heritage if not the state?
    You have answered your own question. You say 'who will safeguard our heritage'? Allow the people to safeguard it if they want. If they like trad pubs, let them go, if they don't, do not subsidise them. What is the point of a culture if no one supports it. Culture is meant to keep a nation together, but if i does not have the support of the people, it will not do this. Thus the people must decide. You may point out that the people do this through the state but the state has no right to take money from Peter and give to Paul so he may enjoy a museum. That is theft as the people who made our liberal culture of individual rights, tolerance etc would argue e.g mill, locke, adam smith etc. You fail to see that THAT is our political culture and so to go agains that by say reducing say the chances of startng a new business is opposed to culture. You claim to respect our culture, but you don't know what it is and so what your words really mean is a doing away with our culture.

    further point, your name 'objectivism' presumably refers to the fact that you object to everything everyone else says, or is it that you are incapable of a realistic view of human nature?
    No. Objectivism is a philosophy as many people know.


    This where Marx's theories fall down, i would suggest that some of your do too.
    I support individual rights, the events of the 19th century suggest that people flourish when given freedom. I am arguing for the most practical situation whereas you arguing from a very statist view. You don't trust people to preserve what they like, so why trust the government, after all they are merely people as Jefferson pointed out.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.