Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    Ya I know... it was all caused by rage against the machine... they made it cool to be against norm........the only argument i have heard is about the exploitation of the poor and the possible harm to the environment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    Yes, its a trend all right. Most people like that here wear Converse trainers, drink Starbucks coffee, eat at McDonalds, wear Gap clothes and their parents have nice big cars (often SUV's) that they drive them to school in.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MuniE)
    Ya I know... it was all caused by rage against the machine... they made it cool to be against norm........the only argument i have heard is about the exploitation of the poor and the possible harm to the environment
    The one about teh environment I think is quite ironic actually. Typically it is teh US that is blamed for global warming etc. People seem to forget that it is thanks to US scientist that we are aware of the problem in the first place. US scientist are also likely to be the ones who solve the problem given the vast amount of money the US push into all kinds of research.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    is it not ironic how free trade leads an overall increase in economic welfare through specialisation (comparative adavantage), increased output=increased jobs etc etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The one about teh environment I think is quite ironic actually. Typically it is teh US that is blamed for global warming etc. People seem to forget that it is thanks to US scientist that we are aware of the problem in the first place. US scientist are also likely to be the ones who solve the problem given the vast amount of money the US push into all kinds of research.
    That just makes it even worse, the US found out about this massive problem for the future, yet still fails to take any measures to deal with it as it may damage their economy. They are placing short run economic gain above the longer term issue for future generations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    That just makes it even worse, the US found out about this massive problem for the future, yet still fails to take any measures to deal with it as it may damage their economy. They are placing short run economic gain above the longer term issue for future generations.
    Of course. Its all about re election for Bush. Clinton only signed Kyoto in the last couple of years of his Presidency.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    Just for arguments sake....Globalisation has led to political and economic decisions being taken away from individual states they are so intertwined within each other that individual states are in part losing some sovereignty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Just for arguments sake....Globalisation has led to political and economic decisions being taken away from individuals nations they are so intertwined within each other that individual nations are in part losing some sovereignty.
    Nations do not have sovereignty, do you mean States?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammyd)
    Nations do not have sovereignty, do you mean States?
    Misuse of language, as you in your immense intelligence most likely realised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    is it not ironic how free trade leads an overall increase in economic welfare through specialisation (comparative adavantage), increased output=increased jobs etc etc.
    So why the hell has the 3rd world not developed? What about the infinite array of barriers they face, savings gaps, debt, unfair terms of trade, dependency, protectionism in the 1st world, corruption in world organisations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Misuse of language, as you in your immense intelligence most likely realised.
    I'm not immensely intelligent, but I study International Relations, and have had the difference between Nations and States drilled into me. Sorry. At least you'll know next time!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Question:

    What is the truest definition of Globalization?

    Answer:

    Princess Diana's death.

    Question:

    How come?

    Answer:

    An English princess

    with an Egyptian boyfriend

    crashes in a French tunnel,

    driving a German car

    with a Dutch engine,

    driven by a Belgian who was drunk

    on Scottish whiskey,

    followed closely by Italian Paparazzi,

    on Japanese motorcycles,

    treated by an American doctor,

    using Brazilian medicines!

    And this is sent to you by an American, (not me)

    using Bill Gates' technology,

    and you're probably reading this on one of the IBM clones,

    that use Taiwanese-made chips,

    and a Korean-made monitor,

    assembled by Bangladeshi workers

    in a Singapore plant,

    transported by lorries driven by Indians,

    hijacked by Indonesians,

    unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen,

    trucked by Mexican illegals,

    and finally sold to you by Jews.

    That, my friend, is Globalization

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who have gotn the impression that most peopel who have something serious against globaisation is more like it because it is "hip"? I sort of feel that many people at my school like to critisize big firms, the US, the EU, etc merely because they try to be rebellious or politically correct. Verry few of the people I have met who are against globalisation seem to have any real justification of it, but insist on basingtheir views on some clishe claims which are quite often nothing more than a pseudo argument. It also appears to me that many of the political parties who are against a market based approach seem to base their arguments on idealistic goals rather than realistic arguments.
    Maybe the unfair world where we live?
    Have you ever thought about how many people are dying right now in Africa of AIDS?
    How many people are dying in Korea without food?

    And a large, large, large, etc, of reasons that could lead you to been not happy with the way that the world works.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes - this is the classic ad hominem approach largely used to discredit the global justice movement.

    Of course, the first fallacy is that it falls for the spin that all anti-globalisation protesters are rich white kids "indulging in protest", who couldn't possibly actually care about the world's poor. The only minor problem here is that it disregards the millions of anti-globalisers among the world's poor. This does unfortunately seem to add to the impression that in the opinions of many, they just don't matter.

    I can't vouch for the motivation or standard of argument of every person who largely shares my political opinions, but then I doubt there are many people on this planet who can. What I can vouch for is my own motivations and coherence of justification. It's getting quite saddening, I do wish other people would engage in a higher standard of debate than blanket stereotyping that avoids the issues.

    The whole "oh look they're doing xxx and yyy, isn't that hypocritical" is a difficult one. Should those with radical views detach themselves completely from society, making it even less likely that they can make a difference? Personally, I think it should be possible for protesters to fall short of that and still not deserve to be the subject of the barbs of armchair capitalists. Of course, living within society has its own problems - nearly all clothes, branded or not, are the product of sweatshops, for example. So, yes, perhaps living within this society and holding radical views is necessarily a contradiction. However, if the chances of change are increased because of the extra influence that results, then perhaps it is justified.

    Sums it up for me..

    and yes, i recognize the irony that the very system i oppose affords me the luxury of biting the hand that feeds.

    but that's exactly why privileged ****s like me should feel obliged to whine and kick and scream until everyone has what they need.

    - propagandhi
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Maybe the unfair world where we live?
    Have you ever thought about how many people are dying right now in Africa of AIDS?
    How many people are dying in Korea without food?

    And a large, large, large, etc, of reasons that could lead you to been not happy with the way that the world works.
    It is an unfair world. But how is globalization (big firms) to blame for people dying of aids in Africa?

    Sure, people are dying in N.Korea but that's more because they have a complete whacko in power than because I enjoy drinking Starbucks coffee. Isn't it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aurorascopic)
    Question:

    What is the truest definition of Globalization?

    Answer:

    Princess Diana's death.

    Question:

    How come?

    Answer:

    An English princess

    with an Egyptian boyfriend

    crashes in a French tunnel,

    driving a German car

    with a Dutch engine,

    driven by a Belgian who was drunk

    on Scottish whiskey,

    followed closely by Italian Paparazzi,

    on Japanese motorcycles,

    treated by an American doctor,

    using Brazilian medicines!

    And this is sent to you by an American, (not me)

    using Bill Gates' technology,

    and you're probably reading this on one of the IBM clones,

    that use Taiwanese-made chips,

    and a Korean-made monitor,

    assembled by Bangladeshi workers

    in a Singapore plant,

    transported by lorries driven by Indians,

    hijacked by Indonesians,

    unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen,

    trucked by Mexican illegals,

    and finally sold to you by Jews.

    That, my friend, is Globalization

    Very good!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are legitmate reasons for supporting globalisation, there are also legitimate reasons for opposing it (see Stiglitiz's 'Globalisation and its dictontents' ).

    What we achieve be just making sweeping generalisations about 'the type of people who tend to oppose globalisation' however, I don't know.

    I personally, in an idealogical sense at least, am an 'ultra-globalist' in that I don't believe in what is my view, the artifical concept of the 'nation-state'.

    However, when I get back to living in the real world I have to deal with things as they are, not how they 'should be' in my own little utopia and, in this respect I have strong reservations about the manner in which what we consider to be 'globalism' is carried out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    They're are legitmate reasons for supporting globalisation, they're are legitimate reasons for opposing it (see Stiglitiz's 'Globalisation and its dictontents for perhaps the most well known examples of this). What we achieve be just making sweeping generalisations about 'the type of people who tend to oppose globalisation', I don't know. I personally am in an idealogical sense at least am an 'ultra-globalist' in that I don't believe in what is my view, the artifical concept of the 'nation-state'. However, when I get back to living in the real world I have to deal with things as they are, not how they should be in my own little utopia and, in this respect I have strong reservations about the manner in which what we consider 'globalism' is being carried out.
    Once again please Kildare. This time in digestable English if you please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    It is an unfair world. But how is globalization (big firms) to blame for people dying of aids in Africa?

    Sure, people are dying in N.Korea but that's more because they have a complete whacko in power than because I enjoy drinking Starbucks coffee. Isn't it?
    Can I talk about something slightly different. Fair Trade.

    It is ridiculous how western nations overproduce so much. There are so many foodstuffs being sold to third world countries by us. infact, these poor countries' primary souce of income can be agriculture, if the West allowed them develop properly. How ironic is it that rice grown in America is sold in Gambia?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 13, 2004
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.