To provide a counter-
counterpoint:
Allow me to restate one of the basic lessons of Economics. Trades occur between two informed, consenting parties because it is beneficial to both parties. Which part of this is difficult to understand? The nations involved want to make those trades so they can advance.
In the context of
globalization, this is factually incorrect. The nations concerned do not conduct
trade themselves; rather,
international trade occurs between two
corporations in two different countries (or, just as frequently, between two
subsidiaries of a single international corporation.) The role of national
governments in international trade is the same as the role of the governments with respect to their own
economic sector: It is the government's job to
institute and
enforce laws that protect the rights of all parties concerned. In a democratic system, the people affected by the government's decisions are the same people who elect the government, which (in theory) ensures that the people who make up a nation are consenting to the rules instated by the government of that nation. However, when
democratically elected governments can have their decisions
overturned by an
entity that represents a tiny percentage of the total population, there is no
consent involved whatsoever.
I agree that the problem is one of distribution. Since we agree on this point, I would seriously like to hear how scrapping free trade would help this issue. If the excess food produced in one country is not allowed to flow to countries that need it, how the hell can an isolationist policy possibly be any better?
People often assume (incorrectly) that opposing
globalization is
equivalent to opposing
trade itself. In fact, the common rallying cry heard amongst
anti-globalization activists is "
Fair Trade, not
free trade." The explanation is simple:
Fair trade is considered to mean trade agreements that give appropriate attention to issues of
basic needs,
human rights,
environmental policy, and so on. "Free trade" contains none of these
provisions, since, for example, a company can make more money
exporting a high-priced
commodity to a
first-world nation than it can by selling a
staple commodity in an
impoverished nation, and free trade agreements inevitably act to the benefit of corporations (a perfect example is that
NAFTA, an agreement entered into by the
United States and
Canada among others, contains a provision whereby private corporations can
sue governments that enact policies that
inhibit their ability to make money.)
I submit that the world has "more poor and more hungry than ever before", not because of globalization, but rather because of improved healthcare and sanitation causing such a rapid increase in population that the economies of the poor countries could not grow at a sufficient pace to support them.
I would submit that such assumptions about the quality of
health care in developing countries is extremely optimistic.
Ask anybody from one of the Asian Economic Tigers whether or not they would prefer global trade to be a reality or not.
Right... somebody working in a
sweatshop in
Malaysia is going to be happy when there are even less restrictions on imports?
The costs (economic and environmental) of buying goods from overseas and transporting to your home country MUST be less than the cost (economic and environmental) of producing those exact same goods in your own country. If not, market forces would dictate that someone in your own country would produce those goods in your country. It makes sense. Why is this point so difficult to understand?
It's not actually true. An "
environmental cost" is real enough in terms of the
consequences, but it is not a
prohibitive cost; i.e. it doesn't make things any harder to do.
As to saving the environment, an often forgotten point is that only wealthier (as in not poor) countries would have the educated populace to understand the benefits of saving the environment.
Unfortunately, the
repercussions are usually
indiscriminate in nature.
As for protectionism protecting public health, cultural diversity and natural resources? Hah. The most culturally diverse nations in the world today are those that have the most vibrant economies
Having people from all over the world become desperate to abandon their own homes in favour of less exploited countries does not constitute an overall improvement of
cultural diversity.
(hint: they also tend to be pro-globalization).
Naturally. They can afford it.
Public health? The public health system will be fine as long as the economy can support paying for it. I suspect this will happen better in a healthy economy.
Here, i think, we get to crux of the matter. Those who fall on the pro-
capitalism side of things hold that it is of paramount importance that "
the system" be preserved; i.e. that someone can,
in potentia, obtain for themselves a thriving business, excellent
health care,
education for their 2.4
kids, etc. These people also tend to be the people who have little to no difficulty in obtaining these things. People in the
anti-capitalism camp hold that people should always, regardless of any other considerations, be given access to a minimum standard of needs; i.e. adequate food, water, shelter, health care, and education. If these are all reduced to the status of commodities (and those that aren't now will be if the FTAA is implemented - I'm specifically referring to education,) then this minimum standard not only will not be met, but, by the laws outlined by the trade organizations, will be illegal to implement, as government funding is seen as a
trade barrier. I believe that it is in fact imperative that these standards be protected.
Natural resources? Far more resources are consumed by inefficient practices than by moving goods around the world.
In and of itself, this could be said to be true; however, it is not a point in favour of globalization. Since
consumerism itself is predicated on the production of disposable products that produce high amounts of waste, this can hardly be considered to be
efficient.
-- uhuh, right. Ask any resident of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan ... ask them how much being involved in the global market has helped their economies.
There are other examples of poor countries, of course, but figures are always left out of these claims because these neo-nazi-protectionist-environmentalists-anti-globalization pundits will not bring up concrete examples to prove their case as there are none.
Okay... now, being a bit lucid about this:
I assume that the assertion here is that globalization will actually improve the quality of life for people working in the above countries. However, there is certainly no reason to infer this from the texts of proposed trade agreements. In fact, the trend that can be observed (indeed, the stated purpose of these agreements) is that these agreements aim to make it easier for corporations to move commodities between countries. When you take into account that the inhibitions currently in place are laws instated by individual nations, this means that trade agreements mean less national laws. Since these laws would be the only conceivable barrier to importing the output of
sweatshop labour, how then can globalization be said to help
third-world workers?
I agree - there should be more local interest in the economy, self-reliance and preservation of the environment. However, I fail to see how this has anything to do with globalization.
Local interest in the economy is not the same as
local political and economic control. As for what it has to do with globalization - simple: It is more profitable to produce goods with no regard for the environment, the economic stability of underdeveloped nations, or
employment standards. Corporations can't reasonably be expected to police themselves with regard to these issues; that's what governments are for. By reducing the authority of democratically-elected governments in favour of allowing corporations to take more liberties with respect to the common interests of the global community (deep breath,)
globalization is ultimately shafting most of the planet.
Whew. Okay, I'm done.