Globalization Trotters! An Essay.

[The Postman]

Recently finished this essay for my international politics class. The topic was globalization. Enjoy!

Globalization is a force that has the power to substantially benefit and unite mankind. However, it needs emphasis on maintaining local communities and minimizing the gap between rich and poor before it can be truly successful. Currently the nations and multinational corporations that seek commerce beyond domestic markets are moving at too quickly as new markets open up. Such quick progress carries with it both benefits and detriments. The spread of globalization hasn't been completely smooth, and many nations or trade organizations still have sizable tariffs and laws that inhibit foreign trade. Lack of infrastructure as well as lack of trust by developing nations have also hindered the development of new markets.

The movement of businesses and funds toward an interconnected set of markets is at the core of globalization (Rourke). By moving beyond domestic markets, businesses can expand their operations. New markets provide multinational corporations with cheaper workforces and allow for lower production costs and higher profit margins.

There is great potential within these new markets for beneficial change. Modernization, reformation, and new construction are all beneficial side effects of opening up the markets in developing nations. Reduced trade barriers and tariffs allow for improved production and ease of distribution (Rourke). Better living conditions and increased life expectancy in developing nations are just some of the ways in which a growing economy benefits everyone within a country (Rourke).

These benefits seem largely one-sided, however, as problems arise in the process of globalization. Layoffs in industrialized nations as multinational corporations move overseas, inability for low-tech farmers to compete with mechanized farmers, and a less tangible, but no less valid, argument against the changing of regional cultures are all problems that emerge during the spread of globalization (Rourke).

While these problems are certainly short term, still they are considerable hurdles to leap in an effort to succeed in the long term. It is a difficult thing to convince someone that the loss of their job will be a national benefit in twenty years (Rourke). Also, to suggest that low-tech farmers can compete with subsidized and mechanized farmers from industrialized nations is simply laughable (Rourke).

America, as the largest exporter of culture worldwide tends to run into opposition from regional cultures wherever its multinational corporations set up shop. The cultural changes perceived by those in other countries becomes a precarious situation. While globalization spreads cultural influences around the world, it seems to spread only the cultural paraphernelia that are pop culture fads, tasty food or otherwise economically useful (Rourke). A lot of the finer aspects of cultures get lost in chic repackaging. The saturation of American brand names into new countries is not so shocking or appalling as the lifestyles many of those brands inevitably lead to. Rampant materialism, obesity, and other characteristically Western problems are slowly creeping into the new markets that welcomed corporations like McDonalds and Coca-Cola (Rourke).

With the myriad of short term problems, it is little wonder that certain factors that have limited the spread and lasting impact of globalization. It is these issues that must be addressed so that the benefits of globalization can be fully realized. A more functional approach to trade tariffs and barriers must be taken so that they are more impartial, especially between developing nations themselves. Improvements to infrastructure - not only in the immediate areas where multinational corporations set up their facilities, but around the regions they inhabit as well - will improve the spread and speed of trade as well ensure a symbiotic future (Rourke). These improvements also help to advance the health and education of the workers within the area. Smarter and healthier workers are, in essence, better workers on the whole (Rourke).

Multinational corporations have to promote an image of philanthropic concern for the areas they inhabit. Doing so will help reduce illogical fears about unfair practices and corporations that cheat the system for short term gain (Chua). There is little reason to argue against a multinational corporation entering a developing nation when that corporation is building roads and health facilities and improving the lives of the people around it.

Through working more closely with regional groups agencies of globalization can better achieve long term goals while taking care of short term problems. Solutions to problems in industrialized as well as developing nations must be brought to the forefront so that they do not severely hinder the spread of globalization in the the future. A more reasonable approach must be taken in regard to free trade amongst developed and developing nations. Multinational corporations must work at a level sensitive to cultural and economic needs of specific regions while also maintaining positive profit margins. With these changes taken into consideration, the march of globalization can continue with a healthy future ahead of it.

Rourke, John T, et al. “Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics” McGraw Hill, 2006.

Chua, Amy. “World on Fire” Anchor Books, 2003, 2004

[mawibse]

All in all ok but a bit short, I had some thoughts about some parts of it:

"and minimizing the gap between rich and poor before it can be truly successful"

And how do we do that?

I thought the "simply laughable" bit felt unprofessional and should be rephrased.

"Smarter and healthier workers are, in essence, better workers on the whole"

Most assembly line kind of jobs does not need their workers to be smart nor healthy, cheap is a good thing though.

"There is little reason to argue against a multinational corporation entering a developing nation when that corporation is building roads and health facilities and improving the lives of the people around it."

Your trust in the multinational corporations will to help the people around it is a bit too high, do better research and I think you will find it "illogical".

[The Postman]

Actually that bit about MNCs helping out around them shocked me when i found out about it. I underestimated them as well. Companies like Hewlett Packard and another tech company I can't remember the name of both helped build infrastructure around them for their workers' benefit.

[Kosmo]

Actually that bit about MNCs helping out around them shocked me when i found out about it. I underestimated them as well. Companies like Hewlett Packard and another tech company I can't remember the name of both helped build infrastructure around them for their workers' benefit.

But you have to understand that what corporation giveth it taketh away, and a great example of this is many steel mills that create just poverty gaps in areas that were prospering before.

Sure the corporations are happy to build shit around them when they are there, but when they leave, they have no remorse on pulling the plug on everything they built. Cashflow just stops no matter what the circumstances.

[Tequila]

I'd kill to have a 800-word essay these days.

[The Postman]

But you have to understand that what corporation giveth it taketh away, and a great example of this is many steel mills that create just poverty gaps in areas that were prospering before.

Actually, most MNCs pay 40% to 100% higher than local wages.

Sure the corporations are happy to build shit around them when they are there, but when they leave, they have no remorse on pulling the plug on everything they built. Cashflow just stops no matter what the circumstances.

I'm curious about this. Kosmo do you have an article or source?

[Kosmo]

But you have to understand that what corporation giveth it taketh away, and a great example of this is many steel mills that create just poverty gaps in areas that were prospering before.

Actually, most MNCs pay 40% to 100% higher than local wages.

Sure the corporations are happy to build shit around them when they are there, but when they leave, they have no remorse on pulling the plug on everything they built. Cashflow just stops no matter what the circumstances.

I'm curious about this. Kosmo do you have an article or source?

You have to be living in the moon if you don't know that large employees moving create large areas with almost no infrastructure and large groups of unemployed people that have no chance on re-employing since there are no other employees in the area.

There are tons and tons of greate examples, one of the biggest is UK, when few big mines were stripmined and there were no more coal to mine the mines just closed down leaving tens of thousands of people without a job and the surrounding infrastructure crumbled because service is useless without people to serve.

80kilometers from Oulu (that is where I live) is Raahe, it is basically supported by a steelmill called Rauta Ruukki, it laid out hundreds of employees few years back and it had very widespread effects in the local economy. Many of the schools and such were funded by Ruukki, if they left, they would create a town with absolutely nothing at all.

[mawibse]

40% to 100% higher than local wages

BS, you give me a credible source of that because I've seen nothing of the sort, ever. Well except for top management....

Hewlett Packard and another tech company I can't remember the name of both helped build infrastructure around them for their workers' benefit.

You meant GlobalSight? ..Tech companies... ahhh, I thought you ment infrastructures as in roads and such but you meant data related infrastructures.

Wee wipdy dooo! You put access to google in an African village and, zwoosh, you improved their infrastructure... that sickens me..

Where do you get you're information, the company websites?

[The Postman]

BS, you give me a credible source of that because I've seen nothing of the sort, ever. Well except for top management....

I gave my sources at the end of the essay. They were books given to me by my International Politics professor who used to work at the Brookings Institute. You can't really get more credible.

You meant GlobalSight? ..Tech companies... ahhh, I thought you ment infrastructures as in roads and such but you meant data related infrastructures.

Wee wipdy dooo! You put access to google in an African village and, zwoosh, you improved their infrastructure... that sickens me..

Where do you get you're information, the company websites?

No, they specifically mentioned improved infrastructure in the traditional sense. The companies need roads and they need electricity, sewage, and water. By getting these themselves they also provide for the area around them.

Both of these factoids were from the book by Amy Chua who is a widely accredited proponent of globalization reform. I'm found her book a very interesting read, it was also very accessible (not too hard to read). I suggest giving it a look over.

[mawibse]

I gave my sources at the end of the essay.

You didn't write those silly numbers in your essay now did you?

They were books given to me by my International Politics professor who used to work at the Brookings Institute. You can't really get more credible.

Let us be clear, and I don't give a flying fish who handed you the books, ONLY in developing countries are salaries from MC's usually higher then local wages, but no where near as much as above 40%.

No, they specifically mentioned improved infrastructure in the traditional sense. The companies need roads and they need electricity, sewage, and water. By getting these themselves they also provide for the area around them.

I thought you said they "helped build infrastructure around them for their workers' benefit", not that the possible benefit was a side effect for something built for the cooperation?

Is someone setting out to be a lobbyist because that smelled like intention warping BS 101 to me?

Both of these factoids were from the book by Amy Chua who is a widely accredited proponent of globalization reform.

Interestingly the author does not agree with your conclusion that global companies are the road to world peace and global prosperity, and especially that there is "little argue against a multinational corporation entering a developing nation", in fact plenty are mentioned and one of the most important is the increasing gap between poor and rich due to Global Corporations investing in developing countries. [Chua]

Something you have mentioned as a major reason for the existence of riots and terrorism if I'm not mistaken?

I suggest giving it a look over.

Indeed. You seem to have missed the Yale law professors point and just took what suited the well established American theory that capitalism and democracy goes hand in hand and that globalization is the magical elixir for the developing countries.

Too me it seemed biased, has your professor commented on it yet?

[The Postman]

You didn't write those silly numbers in your essay now did you?

They're from the book.

Let us be clear, and I don't give a flying fish who handed you the books, ONLY in developing countries are salaries from MC's usually higher then local wages, but no where near as much as above 40%.

Alright, where's your source then?

I thought you said they "helped build infrastructure around them for their workers' benefit", not that the possible benefit was a side effect for something built for the cooperation?

Is someone setting out to be a lobbyist because that smelled like intention warping BS 101 to me?

I have a fancy notion, howabout you cut out the ad hom attacks and go for some actual intellectual merit in your posts? Building something for the corporation can mean making sure the area around the place where they build is properly supported with infrastructure of various types.

Interestingly the author does not agree with your conclusion that global companies are the road to world peace and global prosperity, and especially that there is "little argue against a multinational corporation entering a developing nation", in fact plenty are mentioned and one of the most important is the increasing gap between poor and rich due to Global Corporations investing in developing countries. [Chua]

Something you have mentioned as a major reason for the existence of riots and terrorism if I'm not mistaken?

Chua never states that all MNCs are doing good around the world, but she does list several examples of where MNCs have benefited the areas around them.

Indeed. You seem to have missed the Yale law professors point and just took what suited the well established American theory that capitalism and democracy goes hand in hand and that globalization is the magical elixir for the developing countries.

Too me it seemed biased, has your professor commented on it yet?

I took the opinion that while globalization can be good it needs extensive reform. What the hell are you getting at here?

[mawibse]

What I'm getting at is that the essay make it sound like Globalization is the best thing ever for prosperity but the natives are just too dumb to understand it.

And I disagree with that view.

If I can take the time I will post a more intelligent reponse.

[-Stratesiz-]

I don't really see anything special in it, an overly simplistic, brief, naive, and uncritical summary of globalization using only two tertiary sources.

[The Postman]

What I'm getting at is that the essay make it sound like Globalization is the best thing ever for prosperity but the natives are just too dumb to understand it.

And I disagree with that view.

If I can take the time I will post a more intelligent reponse.

Again, I'm confused here. I say that globalization destroys local cultures, imports from those cultures only what Western society considers appealing or marketable. I never suggest that the native populations are "too dumb" to understand it. I do realize however that there are many factors to overcome in these areas, largely low infrastructure and, to a greater degree, corrupt local government. Those two factors alone make the modernization of any developing country a difficult one.

I even go so far as to suggest that the benefits of globalization so far have been greatly one-sided. That MNCs have reaped more profit and benefit than the areas they've gone into.

Mawibse, did you even read this piece or did you just assume what it was about?

[mawibse]

That was the feeling that came across for me, if that wasn't your intention then either it's poorly written or I suck at interpreting what you wrote, probably more of the latter then the former so my apologies.