Turn on thread page Beta

Globalisation, positive and negative effects of watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    It can be extensively debated to what extend India is a democracy. Furthermore, that a country becomes a democracy doesnt mean it will change poverty status over night. The truth is however that close to every country which has been a functional democracy for a longer period of time has better living standards than the dictatorships of the world. Im not saying countries should not help the population in these countries (in ways which do not support a dictaorial government), Im just saying that it is not the case that these countries are poor because of the western worlds market policies. It may be the case in some specific situations, but the main reason people live in poverty today is dictatorial governments. Im not saying that dictatorship and poverty is the same thing, but it sure has a VERY strong conection.

    has it occured to you that poor countries are poor because of dictatorships altho i admit in some specific cases this is a factor, but rather dictatorships can be found in poor countries and are an effect not a cause. since in poor countries in elections due to a percevied lack of progress radical messages are far more meaningfull leading to extreme groups being elected and thus a dictatorship forming soon after. I am not saying this is true everywhere there is a dictatorship just that you are generalising again and wrongly. I can see we could end up just arguing a pointless point here, but the point i am trying to make to clarify is that unfair trade systems contribute more to the state of 3rd countries than dictatorships do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    has it occured to you that poor countries are poor because of dictatorships altho i admit in some specific cases this is a factor, but rather dictatorships can be found in poor countries and are an effect not a cause. since in poor countries in elections due to a percevied lack of progress radical messages are far more meaningfull leading to extreme groups being elected and thus a dictatorship forming soon after. I am not saying this is true everywhere there is a dictatorship just that you are generalising again and wrongly. I can see we could end up just arguing a pointless point here, but the point i am trying to make to clarify is that unfair trade systems contribute more to the state of 3rd countries than dictatorships do.
    Like South Africa for instance. Made me sick, I was reading at my local barbers the 'Independent' newspaper, and it had an article about South Africa. These so called 'starving and require aid' Africans wear shopping in a mall with denim jeans, and where buying uch luxuries like mince pies and teddy bears worth 70$ (equivelent to three months pay - thats if you are lucky!). This was obviously the rich end of the nation. However what made me feel most disgusted was that the actual mayor of that town (I dont recall what is was called) had bought a new car worth over $150,000. To me that is not right nor ethical or morally right. They need a drastic shake up and need to get their priorites right, especially in a country where there is drought, famine, mass poverty and unruly dictatorship.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    What do you mean a fair trade system? Market economics will ALWAYS ensure that a developed country is in better trading condition than a developing country.

    Take European farmers. They're so bloody efficient that we have the CAP to control (normally limit) production. Without the CAP and the US's equivalent the developing world would be producing so much food that we'd have to plough it into the ground.

    What do we do? Get rid of these controls and give/sell the excess to the develping world? How would that help farmer in Bangladesh.

    Do we ban tracters and go back to a horse and plough? Co's that's the only way we'll ever be able to trade fairly with the developing world
    i accept we will never have a total fair trade system but it would make a massive difference to the standard of living of a large majority of the globe if trade was fairer.

    i dont understand your point about CAP totally as i only know abit about it, any clarification on that would greatly intrest me.

    Countires like the US impose large import duties to protect their own industries and farmers in certain groups, this makes it impossible for 3rd world countries to compete since they can not do the same against american imported products since the american would stop trading with them. the 3rd world cant stop trading with the developed world since there is no other market for its products. Surely the US could be a bit more ethical and thing of humanity rather than just its own citizeans.

    and could u please explain the tractor point i dont understand why fair trade would result in a loss of techinal knowledge at all!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Like South Africa for instance. Made me sick, I was reading at my local barbers the 'Independent' newspaper, and it had an article about South Africa. These so called 'starving and require aid' Africans wear shopping in a mall with denim jeans, and where buying uch luxuries like mince pies and teddy bears worth 70$ (equivelent to three months pay - thats if you are lucky!). This was obviously the rich end of the nation. However what made me feel most disgusted was that the actual mayor of that town (I dont recall what is was called) had bought a new car worth over $150,000. To me that is not right nor ethical or morally right. They need a drastic shake up and need to get their priorites right, especially in a country where there is drought, famine, mass poverty and unruly dictatorship.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Like South Africa for instance. Made me sick, I was reading at my local barbers the 'Independent' newspaper, and it had an article about South Africa. These so called 'starving and require aid' Africans wear shopping in a mall with denim jeans, and where buying uch luxuries like mince pies and teddy bears worth 70$ (equivelent to three months pay - thats if you are lucky!). This was obviously the rich end of the nation. However what made me feel most disgusted was that the actual mayor of that town (I dont recall what is was called) had bought a new car worth over $150,000. To me that is not right nor ethical or morally right. They need a drastic shake up and need to get their priorites right, especially in a country where there is drought, famine, mass poverty and unruly dictatorship.
    erm hate to point this out to you but South Africa has a democracy with a president rather than a dictatorship.
    http://www.gov.za/structure/parliament.htm
    so you story sounds like rubbish
    the point i am trying to make is that you wouldnt need to give aid if 3rd world countries could trade in a fairer way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    all of you saying that you dont think free trade is the answer to tackling absoulte poverty and conditions of squalor. are you telling me you dont think we should help people who are starving, who have no running water, who cannot afford medicine because of the prices imposes by multinational companies, who are living in civil war?

    these people cant fight for their rights siince they have no voice not even in this globalised world you are telling me about. which is why we must help them, if you dont think free trade is the answer what your answer to their problems. It is easy to criticise what i say but i would be intrested to hear youir ideas as alternatives
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    i accept we will never have a total fair trade system but it would make a massive difference to the standard of living of a large majority of the globe if trade was fairer.

    i dont understand your point about CAP totally as i only know abit about it, any clarification on that would greatly intrest me.

    Countires like the US impose large import duties to protect their own industries and farmers in certain groups, this makes it impossible for 3rd world countries to compete since they can not do the same against american imported products since the american would stop trading with them. the 3rd world cant stop trading with the developed world since there is no other market for its products. Surely the US could be a bit more ethical and thing of humanity rather than just its own citizeans.

    and could u please explain the tractor point i dont understand why fair trade would result in a loss of techinal knowledge at all!
    I'll try and answer as best I can. I'm going to use two country's to explain CAP. I am not condemning Greek farmers or waxing lyrical about British farmers so to the pedantic readership, give me a break!

    Anyway, let's kick off.

    The CAP is a European policy that serves several purposes, one of which is to limit agricultural production in some EC countries so that others can compete.

    British farmers for example are very efficient and because of this they can produce farm product very much cheaper than can say, Greek farmers who are not as efficient.

    Without the CAP, British produce would swamp Greece and put Greek farmers out of business. This would be the natural order of things if the rule of supply and demand were to prevail.

    The CAP distorts this rule. Under the CAP, British farmers are paid to leave fields fallow, cull beef producing herds etc. With less British produce in the market place but demand remaining constant there is now a demand for Greek produce.

    Get my point? But of course I'm not talking about just two countries here. I'm talking about efficient European farmers dominating the European market and putting out of business less efficient European providers.

    Your question I think was how does CAP affect developing countries?

    Well, if Europe produces X under a policy that effectively curtails production then if you take that policy away it would surely produce more which would be dumped on the world market.

    As Europe can produce very much cheaper than say Africa, some of the increase in production would be sold to Africa. What would African farmers do? They'd go bust!

    You make the point about US trade tariffs. That's a protectionist racket which protects the US's agricultural industries from EC imports. It has no real effect whatever on the developing world.

    The US could remove those tarrifs at any time and it would not result in a flood of African agricultural imports as Africa still couldn't produce cheaply enough to satisfy the American consumer.

    So, what did I mean by banning tractors?

    Why are European and US farmers so efficient? Many reasons but I'd say the main two are technology and economies of scale. There is no way that the 1 acre small holder in Zimbabwe can produce a ton of wheat of the same quality cheaper than a 75,000 acre Kansas mega farm.

    So, the only way to create a level playing field on which fair competition and fair trade could prevail would be for the developed world to start farming like the developing world land argely abandon mechanized farming.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    erm hate to point this out to you but South Africa has a democracy with a president rather than a dictatorship.
    http://www.gov.za/structure/parliament.htm
    so you story sounds like rubbish
    the point i am trying to make is that you wouldnt need to give aid if 3rd world countries could trade in a fairer way.
    http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1045144/posts

    Fair enough, but it wasn't politics that I wanted to elaborate, it was the mentality of its people, and if you care to click on the above article you will see that my story does not 'sound like rubbish', here let me help you:

    (Original post by Printed article in The Independent)
    One little girl with tight braids clutches a giant pink teddy bear. Price: ZWD$101,000 dollars (£71), three times the average monthly wage.

    Welcome to President Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, land of famine and food shortages. Or luxury, depending on where you look. Things have changed little at the venerable Barbours since the 1950s except that now there is barely a white client in sight. Wandering through Harare these days is like taking a stroll through Cloud Cuckooland. On the one hand there is the poverty and desperation. Millions in Zimbabwe are going hungry. The World Food Programme (WFP) has been forced to cut rations for 2.6 million people after donors failed to contribute sufficient funds.

    "It is tragic that these cuts have come at a time when people are normally celebrating the festive season, but if we are not given food or cash by donors, then we are simply unable to meet their food needs," said Mike Sackett, the WFP regional director for southern Africa.

    Inflation has reached 619 per cent: that is the level the government will admit to. Independent analysts say that it is much higher. Unemployment is more than 70 per cent. Last week, reports said a homeless woman in Mbare township sold a four-month-old baby for £3.

    But there is also money. New money. Beverly Hills-style mansions are going up along Crowhill Road, in the exclusive Borrowdale Brooke suburb. Shiny new Pajeros and 4x4s trundle nose-to-nose out of town on Friday nights, despite official fuel shortages. The acting mayor, Sekesai Makwavarara, has just ordered herself a new vehicle worth Z$200m although thousands of Harare residents lack safe drinking water. Her party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has virtually disowned her; many think she is a Mugabe mole
    And if you are wondering, its a printed article in the Independent, here is another link for you to click:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=475682

    Would you like me to do the math for you, as well?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, if Europe produces X under a policy that effectively curtails production then if you take that policy away it would surely produce more which would be dumped on the world market.

    As Europe can produce very much cheaper than say Africa, some of the increase in production would be sold to Africa. What would African farmers do? They'd go bust!

    You make the point about US trade tariffs. That's a protectionist racket which protects the US's agricultural industries from EC imports. It has no real effect whatever on the developing world.

    The US could remove those tarrifs at any time and it would not result in a flood of African agricultural imports as Africa still couldn't produce cheaply enough to satisfy the American consumer.

    So, what did I mean by banning tractors?

    Why are European and US farmers so efficient? Many reasons but I'd say the main two are technology and economies of scale. There is no way that the 1 acre small holder in Zimbabwe can produce a ton of wheat of the same quality cheaper than a 75,000 acre Kansas mega farm.

    So, the only way to create a level playing field on which fair competition and fair trade could prevail would be for the developed world to start farming like the developing world land argely abandon mechanized farming.
    on the last point, or the developed world could get rid of debt allowing 3rd countries to subsides their own farmers so they can can buy the technology to produce more. it wouldnt result in a flood of goods from africa but it would make the situation better than it is and fairer. that doesnt also address the issue of the fact that because at the moment multinational companies can import their good cheaply putting local workers out of business. surely the jobs of the local worker are more important than the profits of the companies
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, if Europe produces X under a policy that effectively curtails production then if you take that policy away it would surely produce more which would be dumped on the world market.

    As Europe can produce very much cheaper than say Africa, some of the increase in production would be sold to Africa. What would African farmers do? They'd go bust!

    You make the point about US trade tariffs. That's a protectionist racket which protects the US's agricultural industries from EC imports. It has no real effect whatever on the developing world.

    The US could remove those tarrifs at any time and it would not result in a flood of African agricultural imports as Africa still couldn't produce cheaply enough to satisfy the American consumer.

    So, what did I mean by banning tractors?

    Why are European and US farmers so efficient? Many reasons but I'd say the main two are technology and economies of scale. There is no way that the 1 acre small holder in Zimbabwe can produce a ton of wheat of the same quality cheaper than a 75,000 acre Kansas mega farm.

    So, the only way to create a level playing field on which fair competition and fair trade could prevail would be for the developed world to start farming like the developing world land argely abandon mechanized farming.
    firstly thanks for explainly about CAP i agree totally with what you said from what you have said

    on the last point, or the developed world could get rid of debt allowing 3rd countries to subsides their own farmers so they can can buy the technology to produce more. it wouldnt result in a flood of goods from africa but it would make the situation better than it is and fairer. that doesnt also address the issue of the fact that because at the moment multinational companies can import their good cheaply putting local workers out of business. surely the jobs of the local worker are more important than the profits of the companies
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, if Europe produces X under a policy that effectively curtails production then if you take that policy away it would surely produce more which would be dumped on the world market.

    As Europe can produce very much cheaper than say Africa, some of the increase in production would be sold to Africa. What would African farmers do? They'd go bust!

    You make the point about US trade tariffs. That's a protectionist racket which protects the US's agricultural industries from EC imports. It has no real effect whatever on the developing world.

    The US could remove those tarrifs at any time and it would not result in a flood of African agricultural imports as Africa still couldn't produce cheaply enough to satisfy the American consumer.

    So, what did I mean by banning tractors?

    Why are European and US farmers so efficient? Many reasons but I'd say the main two are technology and economies of scale. There is no way that the 1 acre small holder in Zimbabwe can produce a ton of wheat of the same quality cheaper than a 75,000 acre Kansas mega farm.

    So, the only way to create a level playing field on which fair competition and fair trade could prevail would be for the developed world to start farming like the developing world land argely abandon mechanized farming.
    firstly thanks for explainly about CAP i agree totally with what you said from what you have said

    on the last point, or the developed world could get rid of debt allowing 3rd countries to subsides their own farmers so they can can buy the technology to produce more. it wouldnt result in a flood of goods from africa but it would make the situation better than it is and fairer. that doesnt also address the issue of the fact that because at the moment multinational companies can import their good cheaply putting local workers out of business. surely the jobs of the local worker are more important than the profits of the companies
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    erm hate to point this out to you but South Africa has a democracy with a president rather than a dictatorship.
    http://www.gov.za/structure/parliament.htm
    so you story sounds like rubbish
    the point i am trying to make is that you wouldnt need to give aid if 3rd world countries could trade in a fairer way.
    http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1045144/posts

    Fair enough, but it wasn't politics that I wanted to elaborate, it was the mentality of its people, and if you care to click on the above article you will see that my story does not 'sound like rubbish', here let me help you:

    (Original post by Printed article in The Independent)
    One little girl with tight braids clutches a giant pink teddy bear. Price: ZWD$101,000 dollars (£71), three times the average monthly wage.

    Welcome to President Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, land of famine and food shortages. Or luxury, depending on where you look. Things have changed little at the venerable Barbours since the 1950s except that now there is barely a white client in sight. Wandering through Harare these days is like taking a stroll through Cloud Cuckooland. On the one hand there is the poverty and desperation. Millions in Zimbabwe are going hungry. The World Food Programme (WFP) has been forced to cut rations for 2.6 million people after donors failed to contribute sufficient funds.

    "It is tragic that these cuts have come at a time when people are normally celebrating the festive season, but if we are not given food or cash by donors, then we are simply unable to meet their food needs," said Mike Sackett, the WFP regional director for southern Africa.

    Inflation has reached 619 per cent: that is the level the government will admit to. Independent analysts say that it is much higher. Unemployment is more than 70 per cent. Last week, reports said a homeless woman in Mbare township sold a four-month-old baby for £3.

    But there is also money. New money. Beverly Hills-style mansions are going up along Crowhill Road, in the exclusive Borrowdale Brooke suburb. Shiny new Pajeros and 4x4s trundle nose-to-nose out of town on Friday nights, despite official fuel shortages. The acting mayor, Sekesai Makwavarara, has just ordered herself a new vehicle worth Z$200m although thousands of Harare residents lack safe drinking water. Her party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has virtually disowned her; many think she is a Mugabe mole
    And if you are wondering, its a printed article in the Independent, here is another link for you to click:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=475682

    Would you like me to do the math for you, as well?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Zimbabwe is abit of a special case before i start even thinking about answering any of your points, it is by no means the standard. Agreed the current regieme isnt allowing any aid in, and that is causing drastic problems however if you look at bangladesh, india, Afganistan ect have democratic government and are poor so your models doesnt stand up there.

    also the fact that the country would be able to manage without the aid shows us that it does have an important role to play.

    distribution of aid is a massive problem but as i have said a fair trade system would negate the need to give so much aid!

    Bhaal85 and Howard are u both happy that people are dying everyday whose deaths could be prevented if the their countries had better medical care, but cant because of debt ect? personally i not which why im suggesting this as an answer
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Zimbabwe is abit of a special case before i start even thinking about answering any of your points, it is by no means the standard. Agreed the current regieme isnt allowing any aid in, and that is causing drastic problems however if you look at bangladesh, india, Afganistan ect have democratic government and are poor so your models doesnt stand up there.

    also the fact that the country would be able to manage without the aid shows us that it does have an important role to play.

    distribution of aid is a massive problem but as i have said a fair trade system would negate the need to give so much aid!

    Bhaal85 and Howard are u both happy that people are dying everyday whose deaths could be prevented if the their countries had better medical care, but cant because of debt ect? personally i not which why im suggesting this as an answer
    That's not the point. You argued that my point was rubbish. Stick to the subject, and stop going off on a tangent.

    In answer to your silly question, of course not. I am not happy with people dying for such pathetic reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    That's not the point. You argued that my point was rubbish. Stick to the subject, and stop going off on a tangent.

    In answer to your silly question, of course not. I am not happy with people dying for such pathetic reasons.
    i answered your point i agree with on Zimbabwe more or less sorry if i didnt make that clear. however its an exception rather than the rule.

    its not a silly question since unless you have a better idea you are in no positiion to criticise my ideas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    i answered your point i agree with on Zimbabwe more or less sorry if i didnt make that clear. however its an exception rather than the rule.

    its not a silly question since unless you have a better idea you are in no positiion to criticise my ideas.
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    erm hate to point this out to you but South Africa has a democracy with a president rather than a dictatorship.
    http://www.gov.za/structure/parliament.htm
    so you story sounds like rubbish
    the point i am trying to make is that you wouldnt need to give aid if 3rd world countries could trade in a fairer way.
    Which I backed up. So I would like an apology, before I engage in more discussion with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    an apology ...... you told me about a problem which you said South Africa is a dictatorship and its not, thats rubbish. i agree with you now you have clarified your views with regards to Zimbabwe i agreee with you. If Zimbabwe had been your example before hand i wouldnt of disagreed with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    an apology ...... you told me about a problem which you said South Africa is a dictatorship and its not, thats rubbish. i agree with you now you have clarified your views with regards to Zimbabwe i agreee with you. If Zimbabwe had been your example before hand i wouldnt of disagreed with you.
    Yes, and like I said, it was a minor oversight, and bears little weight on the remainder of the text.

    (Original post by Speciez99)
    erm hate to point this out to you but South Africa has a democracy with a president rather than a dictatorship.
    http://www.gov.za/structure/parliament.htm
    so you story sounds like rubbish
    the point i am trying to make is that you wouldnt need to give aid if 3rd world countries could trade in a fairer way.
    Which you clearly made out, that my *alledged* 'story' bears no weight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    wow how petty are u! u told me to

    (Original post by Bhaal85)
    Go back to your tree hugging.
    that was personally offensive and unfounded.

    and now want me to apologies to you since when intially given your story which has you have admitted was wrong i criticised. since then having giving more evidence for your story which made it alot clearer i have said i agree with you. if you had had the sense to provide an decent link to start with you wouldnt have this problem.

    get a grip
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    wow how petty are u! u told me to



    that was personally offensive and unfounded.

    and now want me to apologies to you since when intially given your story which has you have admitted was wrong i criticised. since then having giving more evidence for your story which made it alot clearer i have said i agree with you. if you had had the sense to provide an decent link to start with you wouldnt have this problem.

    get a grip
    Erm no. You are the petty one, to actively search for some loose comment is pathetic, a comment which if you look hard enough wasn't even aimed at you, Oh Mr 'Youhurtmyfeelings'.

    If you hadn't called my story stupid then there would be no problems, but since you did, I am somewhat offended by your manner. Gee, its only an apology that I want, any decent gentleman would have made the apology knowing full well that they where wrong and willing to accept that they where wrong. but not you, you had to blow it out of proportions, just because of your ego, and sense of pride.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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.