Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Hang on a minute...
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.
RSS
RE: Hang on a minute...
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.
View Full Discussion