Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Calling everyone else a socialist will not take away the fact that your arguments are flawed and you ideology is inconsistent.
    I'd love to know why you think this. Claims without argument are meanginless to me. What is flawed and inconsistent?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    I used that example because when people use the example fo Thathcer they merely counter that she hijacked the party with an alien ideology. My point, if you actually knew what i was talking about with LW, was that Butskellism was the alien ideogy and this is why ie 1890s. Thus it is relavant as it shows that thie free market is one of key beliefs of conservatism.


    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).

    Wednesday. Market intervention? She contracted out many public services, privatised many industries, allowed 3 million to buy their homes....

    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.[/QUOTE]

    NL are not socialists as anyone who knows anything about politics knows. I assure you they have not been the most free market in power for the last 100 years as shown by their 66 tax rises, their rising taking of the GDP, and increasing red tape and regulations for business.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OMG I give up. Its like banging your head against a wall made of unyielding ********.

    I think globalisation is good, leave it at that.

    If you're the future of the conservative party then we're all ****ed.

    Bye
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OMG I give up.
    I accept your surrender.
    Its like banging your head against a wall made of unyielding ********.
    Why? Is your head hurting? Did i use too many big words?

    If you're the future of the conservative party then we're all ****ed.

    Someone who keep's debating - nothing wrong with that. Much better than a quitter. After all winners never quit and quitters never win.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You gloat like a conservative too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gexko)
    You gloat like a conservative too.

    There's a reason why conservatives attract the most succesful people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is the most ridiculous poll I've seen in a while and I occasionally look in GC. Casting a contested abstraction in terms of an antithesis was always going to produce a nonsensical debate. I think Joseph Stiglitz illustrates the correct approach to take in assessing the impact and potential of globalization:

    "Globalization itself is neither good nor bad. It has the power to do enormous good, and for the countries of East Asia, who have embraced globalization under their own terms, at their own pace, it has been an enormous benefit, in spite of the setback of the 1997 crisis. But in much of the world it has not brought comparable benefits. For many, it seems closer to an unmitigated disaster."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    This is the most ridiculous poll I've seen in a while and I occasionally look in GC. Casting a contested abstraction in terms of an antithesis was always going to produce a nonsensical debate. I think Joseph Stiglitz illustrates the correct approach to take in assessing the impact and potential of globalization:

    "Globalization itself is neither good nor bad. It has the power to do enormous good, and for the countries of East Asia, who have embraced globalization under their own terms, at their own pace, it has been an enormous benefit, in spite of the setback of the 1997 crisis. But in much of the world it has not brought comparable benefits. For many, it seems closer to an unmitigated disaster."

    Many people disagree with you as shown by the many who have voted.


    Dosen't the fact that globalisation allows itself to change to suit a country suggest how wonderful it it?

    Those who have found it a disaster are generally those who have not embraced it e.g N Korea, many African states such as Ghana, the India pre 1991. Whereas those that have emrbraced it i.e opened their economies have benefited immensely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "Imagine a wondrous new machine, stong and supple, a machine that reaps as it destroys. It is huge and mobile, something like the machines of modern agriculture but vastly more complicated and powerful. Think of this awesome machine running over open terrain and ignoring familiar boundaries. It plows across fields and fencerows with a fierce momentum that is exhailarating to behold and also frightening. As it goes, the machine throws off enormous mows of wealth and bounty while it lelaves behind great furrows of wreckage..."

    Intro to the book One World Ready or Not- The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism by William Greider
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    "Imagine a wondrous new machine, stong and supple, a machine that reaps as it destroys. It is huge and mobile, something like the machines of modern agriculture but vastly more complicated and powerful. Think of this awesome machine running over open terrain and ignoring familiar boundaries. It plows across fields and fencerows with a fierce momentum that is exhailarating to behold and also frightening. As it goes, the machine throws off enormous mows of wealth and bounty while it lelaves behind great furrows of wreckage..."

    Intro to the book One World Ready or Not- The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism by William Greider

    What rot. All who embrace it gain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    What rot. All who embrace it gain.
    I completely agree with your first sentence. I completely disagree with your second. Just as anti-globalization protestors ignore the facts in their hatred of an unfashionable idea, you ignore the facts in religious adherence to a capitalist ideology. To cast globalization in terms of good and bad and to speak of its benefits in absolute terms is as misguided, in your words as much "rot", as to denounce it absolutely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    I completely agree with your first sentence. I completely disagree with your second. Just as anti-globalization protestors ignore the facts in their hatred of an unfashionable idea, you ignore the facts in religious adherence to a capitalist ideology. To cast globalization in terms of good and bad and to speak of its benefits in absolute terms is as misguided, in your words as much "rot", as to denounce it absolutely.

    You still have not said why
    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.
    Hear, hear! I can't agree more, evilcitizen. In Singapore, we have the typical boring fastfood outlets like KFC. Interestingly though, as a Singaporean, I've never stepped into a fastfood outlet since 2002. Neither do my friends frequent any fastfood outlets regularly. But you can't blame us when our food is far better in quality than the crappy fastfood. Living in a food paradise, why should I settle for expensive and inferior fastfood when there're dozens of cheap local delicacies round the corner that the Western foreigners themselves rave non-stop about? I suspect most Westerners, despite having travelled to parts of Asia particularly East Asia and Southeast Asia, have very little knowledge of the real culture beneath the modern (and ignorantly believed to be wholly Western) facade because they hardly even mix with the locals and don't even venture beyond the city centres. Modernisation doesn't have take place Western style. May I also note that the richest countries in the world do not consist only of Western countries and it's fallacious and inherently chauvinistic to equate 'developed countries' with 'Western countries'. Things are also changing rapidly as we speak. The Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, will become the fastest growing economic block for the period of 2003-2007, according to a new report from the well-regarded Economist Intelligence Unit. It will certainly be an exciting era to look forward to.
    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.
    Can you explain what's the 'American way of life' in concrete terms, and how is it stupendously different from others? For one, the so-called great American work ethic doesn't appear to be a trait that other cultures have not embraced long before the United States even existed in the world. It's just that the Western literature has grossly mispresented other cultures ('the Other') for centuries, often to the point of denying their contributions and heritage. 'The West' is always civilised, superior, and whole host of positive traits, whilst 'the East' (or 'the Orient') is often portrayed to be uncivilised, regressive, backward, savage, barbarous, uncultured, violent, crafty, and what-not. Even in Chinese literature, I've not encountered such blatant racism and prejudice towards other cultures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You still have not said why
    Why?
    Because globalisation has had positive and negative effects across the world. This has been because it is itself neither positive nor negative. For the East Asia tygers, globalisation has produced enormous growth but it was globalisation, that is the liberalisation of their capital markets, that was largely responsible for the devastating East Asia Crisis. Likewise, their gradual approach to embracing globalisation has ensured that they benefit from it, where in other countries the IMF's forced immediate embrace has been devastating, as in Russia's "shock treatment" and Bolivia's economic disaster.

    It's plainly false to suggest that globalisation has been a force for good - it has been a force for globalisation, which has benefitted some and destroyed others. Primarily responsible for the negative effects it has had is the assumption that globalisation, through trade and capital market liberalisation, is always of benefit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I used that example because when people use the example fo Thathcer they merely counter that she hijacked the party with an alien ideology. My point, if you actually knew what i was talking about with LW, was that Butskellism was the alien ideogy and this is why ie 1890s. Thus it is relavant as it shows that thie free market is one of key beliefs of conservatism.
    The Conservative Party was protectionist for most of its history - from the Corn Laws to Imperial Preference. In fact the free market beliefs of the Conservative Party are fairly recent, although they believed in a minimum of state intervention in the internal economy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    'Globalisation' I feel is an inaccurate term, it creates the false impression that cultures and countries are homogenising and 'things' such as companies, products, ideas, fashion, music, money, etc etc have no specific national or cultural heritage or attachments which again is very untrue. I prefer something like 'multi-nationalisation'.

    Many people on this thread seem to think that globalisation can be a force for good, the implication of course is that it is not good right now but needs bending in a specific direction. I am convinced that globalisation now is a force for good and will continue to be. It always makes me chuckle that the morons who smash up McDonalds and other such stores in the name of anti-globalisation movements are the probably the very people who most passionately support universal human rights declarations, UN activity to solve wars, 'multiculturalism' (or the ability of people to migrate for economic purposes), and disputes and global environmental targets yet they seem unable to realise that these things are a very prominent part of the globalisation process!!!

    It is the companies of the world, not governments, who are mostly feeding, clothing and housing those in poverty. I remember reading an article in the Tomes a while back showing that since the early 1980's over 100 million people have been taking out of poverty despite rises in population, largely due to companies relocating and providing infastructure and jobs. One statistic I remember is that since 1983 the percentage of people in the world in absolute poverty has fallen by 11%, from 32% to 21%. Of course there is a long way to go, but through greater multi-national action we are getting there.

    Anti-globalisation protesters seem to think that globalised business means the same (usually low) standards in product quality worldwide, yet this is not true. No business, be it large or small will make a profit if it enforces its ideas on its potential customers without adapting its products to the needs of customers in every given location. I remember a few years ago in Quebec I went to a McDonalds and most of the menu was completely different to a British and even American McDonalds, they tailored to the menu of the local people.
 
 
 

2,531

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.