blog (coffee shop)
by Conspiracy theorists see free trade agreements as a diabolical plot to take their liberty. What an American classic this YouTube post is!
Currently in the news: Mexican trucks are crossing our borders freely and this has consequences for jobs, road safety the economy, etc.
Free trade agreements make many developments like the Mexican truckers possible without any further specific action by government. This may look like a conspiracy because there was no political discussion or consultation before it started happening, but how exactly are free trade agreements supposed to work?
Is a FTA with Mexico a good idea? What about Canada? Must there be a loss of independence, freedom, sovereignty? Has this horse already bolted?
Economic unions are proving themselves to be highly successful in making some countries prosperous that would otherwise be non-viable. The future of the world is probably one of major economic unions developing, not only in Europe, but also Africa, Arabia, Asia (N, S and SE), South America and the Pacific. An economic union need not mean political union and a new nation of federated states, but it is the first step in that direction. Americans see any movement in that direction as threatening their liberty and national independence. Well, there is no doubt it does to some (quite large) degree affect economic independence. However, economic unity does not have to mean a significant loss of political freedom or control over international relations. Or does it?
Look at what being in the European economic community has done for Ireland.
Consider also the apparent worst case situation: The South Pacific is full of small island micro-states that cannot afford the cost of being a modern independent nation. There are virtually no natural (mineral or agricultural) resources in the Pacific. Although many of the peoples have a nearly common Polynesian culture, they also have a history of wars and tribal hatreds. Some are failed states that have only the prospect of being a major drain on any larger economic community. An economic union may be the only hope for them.
So what? The U.S. does not need to combine economically with any country in order to remain a strong competitor on the world market - but what will happen if we ignore this trend?
If Mexico cannot have a satisfactory FTA with the U.S., it will probably join a South American economic union. Then the U.S.'s relationship will not be with a weak, friendly, dependent neighbor but with a much stronger independent union. Would that be good for the U.S. political or economic security?
What about Canada? We tend to assume it has little choice but to join with us or miss out, but is it true geography must play such a crucial role in economic unions? The ability to trade over a land border is obviously significant, but in the modern world it is not a critical factor. More important is that the new member should compliment the larger economy it is joining by bringing in resources and other strengths not already in large supply. Culture and history are other important bonding agents. Canada has many attributes that would nicely complement the European economy and society. Incidentally, so do Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
So America's future may be less that of a large, resource rich, better-educated industrial superpower dominating world trade, and more that of one union among several of equal or greater economic strength.
Perhaps it is time the U.S. started thinking more laterally about NAFTA.
Add a Comment (19)
Email This
Message Author
The present Presidential candidates and the general tenor of a lot of the press lately really concerns me that Americans just don't get it. You cannot go to Ohio and promise a dude you are going to protect his job from foreigners, at least unless you are lying through your teeth or unless you are completely inept. This article from the Economist about the recent debate in Ohio puts it pretty eloquently.
Let's summarize what free trade does for us:
Positives:
1) less expensive consumer goods
2) puts upward pressure on jobs to what many consider more fulfilling jobs
3) Improves the standard of living around the world
4) Stabilizes and moderates international relations (China is not about to nuke us when they own 33% of our debt)
5) Arguably leads to greater democratization and freedom in other countries (skilled labor means the government has to treat you better)
6) Free trade and greater prosperity abroad means less desperate migrants coming here. Don't like Mexicans coming to the US? Would they come here if they could provide for their family in Mexico? Will locking them out and putting up trade barriers lead to more or less migration? (Note: I am very favorable toward legal migration)
7) Globalization and our economic position is key to our leadership of the world. Trying to back out of the system will lead to big problems for us.
Negatives:
1) regional disruption of employment as some jobs move overseas and ones replacing them don't appear in the same distribution (you can't really say that we are losing jobs overseas when the unemployment figures nation wide are at all time lows)
2) Potential adversaries and rivals are gaining technologically (we need to turn our education system around to reverse this!) We should rejoice that many people across the planet are being uplifted from poverty
3) Environmental damage-some countries are in such a race to prosperity that they are willing to tear up their ecosystems to do it.
The bottom line is that globalization has done great things for us and the rest of the world. It's not perfect, but it's not China's or Mexico's fault, and in some cases it's not even the government's fault. It's people failing to Cowboy-up and put an effort into their education and competitiveness (in some cases). Politicians aren't going to tell you that. Trying to pull out of NAFTA or putting together some kind of crazy protective tariff regime would be absolutely insane and would do untold damage to this country. You would see MORE (not less) illegal immigration, higher prices for just about everything (which would hurt a whole lot more working class people a whole lot more than you have now with some losing jobs temporarily), and our exports would plummet as other countries also erect tariffs in a trade war. People's retirement funds would drop, especially if you invested in any emerging market we encouraged into free trade, only to pull the rug out from under them and leave them hanging. Oh, and kiss international peace and stability goodbye as the "Functioning Core" splinters and the "Non-Integrated Gap" widens.
I have commented in the past about the woes of the manufacturing sector faltering under the more or less sudden rush of cheap labor that caused much job loss and plant closings. At the time the thought was; "If this continues at this rate, we'll all be out of a job soon." In the plastics industry, our main competitor was China with its seemingly endless supply of cheap labor and industrial capacity. The hope of their people becoming equal consumers of our goods seemed very far away up until fairly recently, despite past hopes. Suddenly because of a number of factors, mainly inflation and product safety issues, the pendulum is swinging the other way a little, hopefully giving us a chance to recoup. As Bortnyk already hinted, it's the McDonalds, Starbucks, and mankind's inherent need for fashion that may be driving this change faster than I've ever imagined.
Lateral trade unions may ultimately work out economically in the end; if we're able to sustain the initial blows and loss of skilled people in the meantime.
We've been through this before. The vast majority of people used to be farmers, now fewer than 2% of Americans are. We used to pretty much supply raw materials to Britain, and eventually our own manufacturing capacity blossomed and was able to compete against the Anglo juggernaut.
I think our manufacturing economy is another phase of this process and that we will move on to greener pastures, even as the Chinese, Indonesians, Malaysians, Vietnamese, and many African nations go through it too. The real trick of it I think is managing the pace so that we don't terminally leave anyone behind. I also think you are correct in that now with the falling dollar, the Chinese cheap products aren't looking quite as competitive. Their people are going to start evolving up the chain as well as their wages and standard of living goes up. And remember, there are always jobs you can't outsource, and you can't sell things to people who are destitute.
It's hard for me to know where to begin, this is such a large topic; but this whole discussion so far disturbs me.
While I found the YouTube video extreme, it was not entirely off the mark. The world is largely run by bankers and businessmen. I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy to take over the world per se, but it's definitely a pattern of behaviour which leads to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
But the thing that really bothers me about this is the underlying assumption of globalization & FTA's--that the market can decide what works best.
I mean, no offense guys, but what makes you think the whole world wants or needs "blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes"? Or that Walmart & McDonald's will, in serving their own self-interest, make the world a better place? (Do you really want to live in a world run by McDonald's or Starbucks?) And embedded in this is the assumption that the rest of the world can and should adopt Western (particularly American) cultural patterns.
I'm no communist--Marx made many mistakes--but I'm no fan of capitalism or globalization either. Marx did have one thing right--globalization has increasingly led to the ownership of the means of production by small numbers of people; and frequently foreign people--especially if you happen to live in the outside of Europe and North America (and in some cases even there).
Sure, globalization appears to increase democracy, according to one particular notion of what democracy looks like, but that doesn't make it the only, or the best system for ensuring human prosperity and happiness. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there will never be a "best" way--that there will always be good solutions for particular situations, but no one-size-fits-all social system. And with that in mind, I think people must be very cautious in exporting culture, even if only economically.
But the thing that really bothers me about this is the underlying assumption of globalization & FTA's--that the market can decide what works best. I mean, no offense guys, but what makes you think the whole world wants or needs "blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes"? Or that Walmart & McDonald's will, in serving their own self-interest, make the world a better place? (Do you really want to live in a world run by McDonald's or Starbucks?)
That's just it, dude. The market deciding means that people decide what they want to buy. That means if you, of some guy in Bangladesh decides they would rather not have blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes, then buy what you want. Contrast this with the central economic planning model employed by the Soviet Union. They decide what you will buy because that's all there is. In a market economy, the guy who makes what you want stays in business, and the guy who isn't responsive to the consumer goes away.
And embedded in this is the assumption that the rest of the world can and should adopt Western (particularly American) cultural patterns.
Yes and no. Certainly there is the concept of "inalienable rights" that are "self-evident" and all that in our Constitution that we believe applies to everyone. That said, democracy is a reflection of the will of the people, and different people and cultures have various values reflected in their practice of democracy. For example, many European societies are culturally put a higher priority on law and order, while Americans tend to focus more on individual liberties. So yeah, generally speaking I think the most Americans, Europeans, etc. DO think that the rest of the world should adopt democracy, but that democracy could and probably will have its own character reflecting the culture.
globalization has increasingly led to the ownership of the means of production by small numbers of people
Um, I wouldn't be so sure of that. The most nimble competitors have been small businesses and entrepreneurs. There's also a lot of evidence that globalization has vastly improved the standard of living for a lot of people around the world and spread prosperity. The Economist has two great articles laying this out. The first tackles BS politicians are spreading about NAFTA, the second deals with the myth of globalization and the alleged loss of prosperity at home. The same is true outside Europe and the US--it's a great time to be an entrepreneur, and frankly, in many places you could make a case that a small number own the means of production, but that's because there previously WAS NO PRODUCTION. The way theory works, and in a small way, Marx was partly right, even with centrally owned means of production the government must treat its workers well because of the need for their skills, versus a commodity market where I don't need you at all.
That's just it, dude. The market deciding means that people decide what they want to buy.
And there would be nothing wrong with that, if businesses were limited to a certain size. A market economy is more responsive to people's desires, but it also means they must put up with the constant onslaught of consumer culture--the advertising that attempts to convince them how they should live and what they should buy. That advertising is controlled by the powerful businesses who already have the advantage. Small entrepreneurs don't have the same access to culture that the big guys do.
So yeah, generally speaking I think the most Americans, Europeans, etc. DO think that the rest of the world should adopt democracy, but that democracy could and probably will have its own character reflecting the culture.
And I don't disagree in a lot of cases, but I do object to the notion that we can export democracy or force it on people. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but try to force him to drink and he'll likely kick you--and that's a source of a lot of violence in this world. I think we can do a lot to encourage peace and freedom, but I think we have to encourage home-grown solutions rather than trying to force our way in economically--which is exactly what happens when Western corporations and governments try to open up new markets in foreign countries, in pursuit of profit.
Even the idea of democracy itself might not be right for everyone--the people of Bhutan are not entirely convinced. Granted, they have their problems like anybody else, but they evidently have a very different way of looking at things; even though they still value peace, freedom, and happiness.
There's also a lot of evidence that globalization has vastly improved the standard of living for a lot of people around the world and spread prosperity.
I'm sure there is--but globalization is a very much a mixed bag. I have no doubt it has brought prosperity to some, and presents one workable solution for eliminating poverty through microloans and other initiatives. I can also say that I enjoy the flow of ideas--I lived for many years in a city where I could learn Chinese martial arts and Indian meditation, listen to the poems of Rumi recited by Turkish Sufis, eat Sushi and chicken Shawarmas, and study Irish Gaelic--all within walking distance of my house. (Man, I miss that)
But globalization has not been very good for others, perhaps despite good intentions (although I'm not convinced the intentions always are good).
frankly, in many places you could make a case that a small number own the means of production, but that's because there previously WAS NO PRODUCTION.
That's exactly what I mean--our measure of "production" is skewed toward a particular ideal. We see production almost exclusively in terms of economic growth and material wealth. Now, I'm not saying there isn't terrible poverty in many parts of the world. There is, and it must be addressed. But much of that poverty and strife is the fall-out of colonialism, which destroyed indigenous ways of life in favour of European ones. Globalization is certainly friendlier, but it is still eroding other ways of life in pursuit of certain economic and political ideals at the expense of others. Those ideals are certainly attractive, but they come with a lot of problems too--questionable labour practices, biopiracy, and so forth--all essentially colonialist activities.
That advertising is controlled by the powerful businesses who already have the advantage. Small entrepreneurs don't have the same access to culture that the big guys do.
Flipped around, the smaller companies are far more agile, culturally aware of their customers needs, and much quicker and ready to respond to them than the big guys. That's been repeatedly demonstrated over the years as big companies come and go. I read somewhere once that there are very, very few companies that exist beyond 50 years, percentage-wise anyway. The few that have you can probably name off the top of your head. Small companies and entrepreneurs are far more likely to be willing and able to respond to what people really want, and they will beat advertising and focus groups every time. I see what you mean about materialism and consumer culture, but I think people do this of their own accord and advertising merely accelerates the process. Case in point-the iPhone. You see a friend playing with one, and you want one. The TV ad just sped up the process.
I think we can do a lot to encourage peace and freedom, but I think we have to encourage home-grown solutions rather than trying to force our way in economically
I think that they do that now, the successful ones anyway. I'm not a big business maven, but I do know that the most successful companies operating internationally leverage local talent and local managers to the greatest extent possible. Some of the reasons include the expense of sending an American over there with their family and supporting their expectations of a standard of living. Others include more ready acceptance and long term sustainability in the other country, getting over local xenophobia of the "foreign company", and tapping into the cultural savvy of the area you want to work in. People also have to make money to spend money--the Henry Ford principle--you can't just go in and vacuum out the pockets of a country where everyone is already broke.
Even the idea of democracy itself might not be right for everyone--the people of Bhutan are not entirely convinced. Granted, they have their problems like anybody else, but they evidently have a very different way of looking at things; even though they still value peace, freedom, and happiness.
One of the lessons of Iraq is that there are a number of pre-conditions which must be met before democracy can succeed, including civil society, rule of law, security, and economic development. I'm not sure what the deal is with Bhutan, but even that example shows that it's the choice of the people.
But globalization has not been very good for others, perhaps despite good intentions (although I'm not convinced the intentions always are good).
You should read the World is Flat by Thomas Friedman, or better yet, read The Lexus and the Olive Tree first, then the former. In the former, he talks about all the benefits, opportunities, threats, challenges, etc. from globalization, and also discusses the "half-flat", those who are being left behind by globalization. One of the challenges is to keep the opportunity distributed. He uses the example of the huge booms and prosperity in Bangalore existing just yards from abject poverty in many of the surrounding villages and even within the city. Got it. But without it, the whole place would look like those villages.
That's exactly what I mean--our measure of "production" is skewed toward a particular ideal.
I mean in a lot of those places, the only "means of production" was subsistence farming, or worse, tribal warfare.
We see production almost exclusively in terms of economic growth and material wealth.
Well, if you look at the UN Human Development Index (UNHDI) it also counts things like the % of children who die before age 5, life expectancy, literacy rate, demographic bulges, etc. Not merely how much money people make, but their quality of life or misery, death, starvation, disease, etc. There are a number of other metrics other than GDP/capita.
But much of that poverty and strife is the fall-out of colonialism, which destroyed indigenous ways of life in favour of European ones.
Far be I from one to defend colonialism, but in some places, colonial rule was a huge improvement over the way things were, and some of the conventional wisdom about colonialism being bad leaves out the secondary effects of the sudden independence of former colonies, where the leaders of these places got "my turn" syndrome and victimized their own people, settled old scores, ethnic cleansing, etc. as you saw in Rwanda. In some cases, colonialism mixed blood enemies geographically for the first time in centuries, and suddenly the moderating element (the colonial power) was gone, reverting things to the way they were, but without the clean battle lines. Pakistan is another good example in a different way, where you have arbitrary borders and Pashtuns that have a stronger identity with each other than to their respective countries. The same with Kosovo and Serbia.
In short, maybe some of those old ways really do need to die out.
questionable labour practices, biopiracy, and so forth
All of that must be stamped out, and I think will intrinsically to the design of the system. Free, open communications are allowing North Koreas to see past government censorship to what things are really like in the rest of the world. You can't keep people enslaved. Gradually people will begin to gain prosperity and freedom, and governments that nurture their people to be competitive will thrive. Ones who pulls stunts like you mention will get stomped on by their own people.
Case in point-the iPhone. You see a friend playing with one, and you want one. The TV ad just sped up the process.
Perhaps--but I think the lesson there is that advertising offers us interesting toys, but that's effectively all they are. An iPhone won't really make anybody more satisfied with their life (though it may be a source of joy for a short time). Advertising, as you say, speeds things up, but that speed is a large part of the problem--we get so distracted chasing these toys so we can keep up with the our neighbours that we can no longer see what the rat race is doing to us, or to the environment.
I do know that the most successful companies operating internationally leverage local talent and local managers to the greatest extent possible
That's exactly my point--they may use local talent, but they are still using a particular social structure to accomplish their goals; such as the idea that we need a hierarchy to be prosperous or that wealth must be measured in money. The corporate structure, large or small, still carries with it a variety of cultural assumptions that supplant other ways of looking at the world.
I'm not sure what the deal is with Bhutan, but even that example shows that it's the choice of the people.
The example demonstrates that even though the Bhutanese monarchy is pushing for democratic elections; the people of the country are very skeptical. At this point in time, they prefer their traditional monarchy. Bhutan is also interesting for the priority of a social measure (Gross National Happiness) over the economic measure of GDP.
He uses the example of the huge booms and prosperity in Bangalore existing just yards from abject poverty in many of the surrounding villages and even within the city. Got it. But without it, the whole place would look like those villages.
Large economic differences have existed in India for a long time, so in that case, I'd say globalization is probably a good thing if it improves the general prosperity.
I mean in a lot of those places, the only "means of production" was subsistence farming, or worse, tribal warfare.
But there's nothing wrong with subsistence farming if it gives you what you need to live. It may appear impoverished to us, but it's quite often a meaningful and self-sufficient way of living. When Western economic models are implented, suddenly you have to start either farming commodities you can sell--usually meaning you have to find a way to expand your farm; or you have to give up farming and seek employment (probably in a city somewhere). When this occured in the West, it meant a huge shift in family structure from extended families or clans to a more mobile nuclear family, and even that is fragmenting. Western methods are very good for producing a lot of material things, but the price is a breakdown of relationships that in the long-term may not be worth it. At least, it's enough to make us wonder whether we should be exporting our methods until we address those problems in our own culture.
As for tribal warfare--that's definitely a problem that I would like to see solved. But we do have to be careful how we do it. A lot of the violence we see is inflamed when weapons from developed nations become available--this has increased steadily since WWII (See John Raulston Saul's The Unconscious Civilization). On the other hand, encouraging other forms of trade does seem like a good way to reduce violence.
I guess what I'm saying is that globalization has some positives, but too often it supplants more locally oriented ways of doing things that may have been peaceful. In places where there is a lot of violence, globalization is a good thing. But in places where there isn't a lot of violence, I don't see the benefit of adopting Western values--or at best, I see those benefits as coming with a high price tag.
Well, if you look at the UN Human Development Index (UNHDI)...
The UNHDI does measure things beyond money, but it still measures them from a particularly Western frame of reference. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it has to be examined critically. Schooled education and literacy rate may not be relevant to a hunter-gatherer population living in a desert or a jungle somewhere, whose way of life is no less intelligent--just not measurable in Western terms.
Far be I from one to defend colonialism... In short, maybe some of those old ways really do need to die out.
I agree, but we cannot lose benign ways of life at the same time. The problem with colonialism is that it wiped out a lot of indigenous ways of life and/or encouraged a certain kind of orientation toward political power which may or may not have existed there before.
governments that nurture their people to be competitive will thrive.
That's where I disagree. The idea of competitiveness is another huge part of the problem. Monsanto would claim it was only being competitive when it tried to patent ancient Indian grain products--and they'd be right, they were just so good at it that they behaved like criminals. A little competition is a good thing, but more than a little is destructive and wasteful. It eventually leads to violence or theft of one form or another. Western economic and social systems happen to be founded on it--companies always seek an advantage over others. But there are other, more cooperative ways of doing things as well--and that's what globalization is often missing.
Ones who pulls stunts like you mention will get stomped on by their own people.
That may or may not be true. It was certainly, and thankfully, true in Bolivia. The linked video is an excerpt from the film The Corporation.
but what makes you think the whole world wants or needs "blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes"? Or that Wal-Mart & McDonald's will, in serving their own self-interest, make the world a better place? (Do you really want to live in a world run by McDonald's or Starbucks?)
But we already do. I acknowledge this fact with some chagrin, but then again, I wouldn't trade places with someone living in a country where the thought of these things is only something seen in a tattered magazine, either (or at best a spotty internet connection.) What I don't like about the Wal-Mart's of the world (I only use that store as an icon), is the complete homogenization of the entire populace. For example, Joe in Arkansas is wearing the same shirt as me right now and probably has the same sneakers also. Soon Delgerbayar from Outer Mongolia will be joining us. But, regardless of this possible dilution of culture, I'll take it if it turns out to be a means to stop the violence in so many places. If the trade off is to move from poverty, dismay and wretched desperation to just simple quiet desperation sipping Starbucks and Sam's Club soda; isn't that a lot better?
I'm not sure that it is. Western nations have very high (and rising) rates of depression, not to mention other health problems, energy consumption, and environmental damage. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to stop violence and poverty--I'm just very skeptical that big business is the answer.
Also, the homogenization of culture is a huge issue; anything that reduces our diversity reduces our survivability. If we lose other ways of looking at the world in favour of a global monoculture run by large corporations, we will collapse into a culture based on the satisfaction of fleeting material desires and little else; and we'll be doomed if that way of doing things no longer fits environmental conditions.
Trade is certainly preferable to violence and poverty, but I am concerned by who controls that trade--I am not convinced that our only choices are state-run or corporate-run economies.
I'm just very skeptical that big business is the answer.
I think the problem is that the big businesses are the only ones with the combination of resources, organization and sheer will to actually foray into many of these places and make the changes they make in the daily lives of people. I'm not really arguing that this is for the best, but in many cases it's all there is, which is sort of why I said, "I'll take it" if it helps to reduce the violence. Any other means are perfectly welcome also. (What would they be?)
I think as far as the issue of depression goes, it is probably just as bad or worse in a different way in many of these countries, but they don't even have the means or desire to tally up the numbers unless a journalist from the outside decides to report on it. It's despair, really.
Depression is an interesting thing, as someone can have all the money or means of comfort in the world and still be depressed.
I'm not really arguing that this is for the best, but in many cases it's all there is, which is sort of why I said, "I'll take it" if it helps to reduce the violence. Any other means are perfectly welcome also. (What would they be?)
Well, I'm not sure exactly, but I think it would have to be something very hands-off. Efforts which support communication but not necessarily trade for a profit. Especially, I'd like to see an end to the IMF and world bank only loaning countries money if they agree to run their economies a particular way. That, and to make very sure developed nations (or companies in those nations) are not selling weapons to them. The thing that concerns me is not only that the violence stop, but that we don't inflict some other form of violence on people in an effort to make it stop. We have to find and encourage the best in each other. I suppose consumerism is preferable to physical violence, but there's many more things preferable to consumerism--things like solid relationships, family, spirituality, balance with nature, creativity, etc. (I know consumerism is creative in a certain way, but it's not the only path to creativity).
Depression is an interesting thing, as someone can have all the money or means of comfort in the world and still be depressed.
Absolutely--and happiness is not generally related to income (after basic needs have been met, more money does not guarantee more happiness)--which is why we need to be cautious about promoting a way of life that focuses so much on material wealth.
I think it was Freidman again in The World is Flat, or maybe the UBerkeley History of Information course available on iTunes that made the following argument: Everyone thought the internet would homogenize the world, culture, and language, but instead, you saw a resurgence of a plethora of fringe communities pop up because of their ability to form virtual communities. For example, let's say you speak Welsh. Now you can chat with lots of Welsh speakers worldwide, whereas it would probably die out if you tried speaking Welsh to your American neighbors.
I think I heard the same phenomenon is happening in the music industry. Big commercial bands are dropping in favor of more local/Indie or whatever because I can download it.
The same is true of cosmopolitan vs. provincial fashions, especially with the ability to rapidly respond to local demand.
While it's true there is a lot of mediocre cheap commoditized crap on the market, consumers also look for a way to differentiate themselves and are more empowered to do that now too.
Yes, I don't see why anyone would think that the internet would cause any sort of homogenization effect; after all, if a person doesn't speak the language or relate to the culture, they will turn elsewhere and therefore have little impact on another culture. The internet is about connections, and just because we're all wired together doesn't mean we actually connect. If you were to physically place people from many different languages and cultures together in a room, everyone would gravitate towards who they were most comfortable with, separating into groups just like you mentioned.
As far as big-box stores are concerned you can bet they are trying their darndest to flood these emerging markets with their wares. What will more than likely happen is a sort of mix with each culture keeping hopefully a good portion of it's identity in each product.
As far as big-box stores are concerned you can bet they are trying their darndest to flood these emerging markets with their wares. What will more than likely happen is a sort of mix with each culture keeping hopefully a good portion of it's identity in each product.
Completely true. Take Wal-Mart in Korea as an example. When we learned there was one in Dague, my friends and I piled in the car and went on a journey hoping for a "taste of home." In reality, while the Wal-Mart ambience was clearly a Wal-Mart, the products were not a gross Americanization effort on Korea but completely geared towards what Koreans were buying from the beds that rolled on the floor, to short little tables to sit on the floor around to an athletic department that sold kendo swords and martial arts gear but none of the typical American sports stuff that Koreans don't play.
With regards to fast food/drink chains, McDonalds in India sells the McMaharaja and has an all salad and chicken menu. Their presence is not some global conspiracy. Its the drive to make money, make markets and provide a service to a demand. Doing anything OTHER than that does not make money and makes CEO's and directors lose their jobs. Capitalism is a good thing because for it to survive, it must cater to the needs/wants of the target buyer's market which meets the goals of everything previously mentioned in the thread.
Capitalism is a good thing because for it to survive, it must cater to the needs/wants of the target buyer's market which meets the goals of everything previously mentioned in the thread.
But it doesn't. Values such as relationships, spirituality, balance with nature, cooperation, courage, wisdom... these are things that can't be marketed. The market tries, but it generally fails miserably. Capitalism is founded on the ideal of self-interested gain, almost to the exclusion of everything else. If you happen to give people what they want in the process, that's great, but the driving goal is gain. It's not a conspiracy--it's not like anybody sat down with the intention to be evil, but the end result is that anything that can't be commodified is trampled underfoot; either in the competitive world of the rat race, or in the hyper-reality of mass advertising and entertainment.
People did because of the total dominance and worldwide penetration of the English language and American culture. Most of the initial internet users knew English. It was believed by many that the critical mass of English would make it a lingua franca and that uses of all other languages would rapidly diminish. But as you said, internet connections can be individual and provincial.
Congratulations Omninerds on a constructive and informative discussion of a topic that could easily have degenerated to a xenophobic and selfish diatribe in a less intelligent forum. However, we seem to have drifted off the topic defined in the You Tube video somewhat.
Are we agreed that NAFTA is good for the USA? What about Canada and Mexico. Would they do better in another union?
RSS
An Economic Wall by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 27 February 2008
The first time I heard the President talking about building a wall on the border, I had assumed it was a metaphor for economics. Sadly, I was wrong.
I see the FTAs as a way of curbing a huge immigration problem by making the country that the immigrants are from easier to live in, economically. If there was industry, jobs to be had, etc in Mexico I doubt there would be waves of people walking North. This probably should have been the answer to communism in South America for the last 50 years or so. Democracy may not be able to defeat communism, but certainly Walmart and McDonalds can! How long would Cuba be communist if it were flooded with US dollars and jobs?
We shouldn't be trying to shield ourselves from these countries, we should be trying to make them economically viable, raise their standard of living, and create new markets for 'blue jeans and Bill Cosby tapes'.