Much has been said over the past couple of decades about Globalization being a good thing that is inevitable. Why is it a "good thing"? Is it inevitable?
Globalisation describes how, as a result of communication and trade, the world is adopting a single culture. The Globalizing Tendency hold that this is good thing because once the world has a single culture then everyone will understand everyone else and, according to the theory, we will all become richer and less subject to war and conflict. Perhaps, before accepting these claims we should ask who it is who benefits directly from Globalization and then turn to whether or not the predicted utopia will occur.
Globalization begins with trade. As the national economies of Europe and America evolved during the nineteenth century larger and larger corporations were created until the trade in each market area became dominated by a handful of companies. These companies were then able to embark on a new way of selling goods, they set fashions. The housewife in 1910 who was using a brush to do her cleaning felt inferior to the housewife who had one of the new electric vacuum cleaners and so on. Fashion meant that there was a continuous turnover of products and hence continuous sales. Although the fads in foods, architecture and clothing were simply fads the changes in electrical goods and transport often involved real advances in utility so continuous change became a "good thing". It was the sheer scale of corporations that allowed whole societies to be manipulated so that Western cultures became deeply intertwined with commercial sales.
In the early twentieth century the Anglo-American market place stretched across the whole British Empire and provided an easy conduit for Globalized culture. Cables had been laid under the world's oceans from the 1860s onwards so there were easy communications to all parts of the world. The Americans, who wanted to use the resources of the British Empire, were particularly upset about trade tariffs that disadvantaged them in this market as were British companies who had problems selling to the Americans so the corporations agitated for free trade. After World War I the Anglo-American axis was globally dominant and could sell to the whole world. In the 1920s the easing of regulations led to a massive boom in the movement of goods, money and labour. The gold standard allowed easy financial transactions (like a single currency), the global banking system became interconnected and large corporations bestrode the world. This was the first Globalized economy. The stock in corporations became ever more valuable and the volume of trade rocketed. Large corporations ruled the world.
The system was so interconnected that once one part of this system got into trouble all the rest collapsed.
(See Globalisation and Great Depressions )
The collapse of the First World Order, the globalized economy of the 1920s was followed by the introduction of tariffs, the limitation of labour movements and tight bank regulations. Globalization was wound back. The new Communist Empires in Russia and China and the end of the European trading empires also reduced the scope for global culture and trading.
Western corporations and economists had not forgotten the heady days of the early twentieth century. The economics of the Second World War meant that American corporations now became dominant in Europe and they pressed for a New World Order, a second chance at Globalizing the world's economy. It was not until the communist empires had fallen that a truly global repeat of the early twentieth century was possible because Soviet influence and money kept producing relatively protectionist governments and political views all around the world. After the fall of communism in 1989 the world's corporations seized the opportunity. Giant globalized media corporations led the way, sending a continuous barrage of propaganda across the globe to reassure everyone that Globalization was not only a "good thing" but inevitable. This was the second Globalized economy. The stock in corporations became ever more valuable and the volume of trade rocketed. Large corporations ruled the world.
The system was so interconnected that once one part of this system got into trouble all the rest collapsed.
Anyone who has read an economics textbook or even "The Economist" magazine can see immediately the nature of the problem that leads to collapse. Economists and corporate bosses think solely in terms of economics and short term gain. Corporations are not concerned about using up the world's resources or creating climate change or destroying cultures or, by the free movement of labour undermining social provision. Trading volumes and share prices are the beginning and the end of their concern. Worse still, they act in the short term. No-one can predict more than a couple of years into the future so corporate bosses go for the immediate pay out, the giant bonus now, the short term lift in share prices etc. They work together to create a giant, global system to provide these short term rewards without any thought about the stability of such a device.
It is obvious that a fully interconnected global economy is a disaster waiting to happen and strong national economies with a sensible amount of international interconnectedness are the proper way to run a world economy, not Globalization. This is probably obvious to senior corporate employees but company law destroys their concern for wider issues. As for economists, the people only hear from those who interpret the world according to the desires of media bosses so they are largely organs of propaganda. And what of politicians? They should represent the people against the corporations but, sadly, they seem to be corrupted by promises of jobs as directors and even direct payments.
Globalization benefits senior corporate staff such as directors of large companies and the workers in these companies during the boom period. When the boom is over there is poverty, unrest and a serious risk of international conflict.
The "utopia" of a uniform world full of coffee-coloured people living lives in peace is a nightmare, another dystopia like Marxism. It is racist because black people and white people can also be beautiful, it is shockingly ignorant because the beauty of culture is diversity not corporate uniformity and it is a lie because corporate booms and busts cause war.
See also:
Globalisation and Great Depressions
Globalization and global warmingSource URL: https://indahrahmadewi.blogspot.com/2011/11/advantages-of-globalization.html
Visit Indah Rahma Dewi for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
Globalisation describes how, as a result of communication and trade, the world is adopting a single culture. The Globalizing Tendency hold that this is good thing because once the world has a single culture then everyone will understand everyone else and, according to the theory, we will all become richer and less subject to war and conflict. Perhaps, before accepting these claims we should ask who it is who benefits directly from Globalization and then turn to whether or not the predicted utopia will occur.
Globalization begins with trade. As the national economies of Europe and America evolved during the nineteenth century larger and larger corporations were created until the trade in each market area became dominated by a handful of companies. These companies were then able to embark on a new way of selling goods, they set fashions. The housewife in 1910 who was using a brush to do her cleaning felt inferior to the housewife who had one of the new electric vacuum cleaners and so on. Fashion meant that there was a continuous turnover of products and hence continuous sales. Although the fads in foods, architecture and clothing were simply fads the changes in electrical goods and transport often involved real advances in utility so continuous change became a "good thing". It was the sheer scale of corporations that allowed whole societies to be manipulated so that Western cultures became deeply intertwined with commercial sales.
In the early twentieth century the Anglo-American market place stretched across the whole British Empire and provided an easy conduit for Globalized culture. Cables had been laid under the world's oceans from the 1860s onwards so there were easy communications to all parts of the world. The Americans, who wanted to use the resources of the British Empire, were particularly upset about trade tariffs that disadvantaged them in this market as were British companies who had problems selling to the Americans so the corporations agitated for free trade. After World War I the Anglo-American axis was globally dominant and could sell to the whole world. In the 1920s the easing of regulations led to a massive boom in the movement of goods, money and labour. The gold standard allowed easy financial transactions (like a single currency), the global banking system became interconnected and large corporations bestrode the world. This was the first Globalized economy. The stock in corporations became ever more valuable and the volume of trade rocketed. Large corporations ruled the world.
The system was so interconnected that once one part of this system got into trouble all the rest collapsed.
(See Globalisation and Great Depressions )
The collapse of the First World Order, the globalized economy of the 1920s was followed by the introduction of tariffs, the limitation of labour movements and tight bank regulations. Globalization was wound back. The new Communist Empires in Russia and China and the end of the European trading empires also reduced the scope for global culture and trading.
Western corporations and economists had not forgotten the heady days of the early twentieth century. The economics of the Second World War meant that American corporations now became dominant in Europe and they pressed for a New World Order, a second chance at Globalizing the world's economy. It was not until the communist empires had fallen that a truly global repeat of the early twentieth century was possible because Soviet influence and money kept producing relatively protectionist governments and political views all around the world. After the fall of communism in 1989 the world's corporations seized the opportunity. Giant globalized media corporations led the way, sending a continuous barrage of propaganda across the globe to reassure everyone that Globalization was not only a "good thing" but inevitable. This was the second Globalized economy. The stock in corporations became ever more valuable and the volume of trade rocketed. Large corporations ruled the world.
The system was so interconnected that once one part of this system got into trouble all the rest collapsed.
Anyone who has read an economics textbook or even "The Economist" magazine can see immediately the nature of the problem that leads to collapse. Economists and corporate bosses think solely in terms of economics and short term gain. Corporations are not concerned about using up the world's resources or creating climate change or destroying cultures or, by the free movement of labour undermining social provision. Trading volumes and share prices are the beginning and the end of their concern. Worse still, they act in the short term. No-one can predict more than a couple of years into the future so corporate bosses go for the immediate pay out, the giant bonus now, the short term lift in share prices etc. They work together to create a giant, global system to provide these short term rewards without any thought about the stability of such a device.
It is obvious that a fully interconnected global economy is a disaster waiting to happen and strong national economies with a sensible amount of international interconnectedness are the proper way to run a world economy, not Globalization. This is probably obvious to senior corporate employees but company law destroys their concern for wider issues. As for economists, the people only hear from those who interpret the world according to the desires of media bosses so they are largely organs of propaganda. And what of politicians? They should represent the people against the corporations but, sadly, they seem to be corrupted by promises of jobs as directors and even direct payments.
Globalization benefits senior corporate staff such as directors of large companies and the workers in these companies during the boom period. When the boom is over there is poverty, unrest and a serious risk of international conflict.
The "utopia" of a uniform world full of coffee-coloured people living lives in peace is a nightmare, another dystopia like Marxism. It is racist because black people and white people can also be beautiful, it is shockingly ignorant because the beauty of culture is diversity not corporate uniformity and it is a lie because corporate booms and busts cause war.
See also:
Globalisation and Great Depressions
Globalization and global warmingSource URL: https://indahrahmadewi.blogspot.com/2011/11/advantages-of-globalization.html
Visit Indah Rahma Dewi for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
