Globalism

[Neo-Logic]

If you can't find out what proportion of all factory workers that is, let it go. Who cares, anyway? 12.3 million! That's a heck of a lot of kids - more than the entire population of 45 out of 50 states.

Playing the devil's advocate:

12.3 million is a lot of children and child labor is an abhorrent thing (other than in Hollywood of course, we know how great child stars turn out). Looking at numbers: there are 264 million children in China. Even if all 12.3 million children of child labor (and that seems like a conservative number) were localized in China, that's still less than 5% of its entire population of children. CIA world factbook

The interesting thing I consider though, is what the lives of those 12.3 million children will be were it not for globalization - the economic and fiscal impact it would have on the respective countries where that 12.3 million number is being derived from. I wonder if this 12.3 million number will be larger as a result of lack of trade and other positive externalities of globalism.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Playing the devil's advocate:

The Devil has no need of an advocate. He has all the help he needs from the large multi national corporations

Child labor is just a very small part of the pain forced on poor children.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 1.5 million infants die every year because they are not adequately breast-fed. This is due to large companies making money and lying to poor mothers. Read this and tell me how great globalization helps the poor.

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Use my picture if it will help," said this mother at the Childrens Hosptial, Islamabad, Pakistan. Photo: UNICEF.[/FONT]​

Ibfan


Groups like Save the Children claim that the companies like Nestle promotion of infant formula over breast-feeding has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries. There are three problems that are said to arise when poor mothers in Third World countries switch to formula. It is this practice kills over a million children a year.

Formula must normally be mixed with water, which is often contaminated in poor countries. UNICEF estimates that a non-breast fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia than a breast-fed child. All to help the profits of large companies.

Many Advocacy groups have accused companies like Nestle of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries. IBFAN has made the claim that Nestle provides free powdered formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards; after the mothers milk drys up the formula is no longer free the poor family has to buy the milk to feed the baby. IBFAN also has found that Nestle uses "humanitarian aid" to create markets to promote its products. This is just some of the price the poor must pay for globalization.

 

[Alceste]

Playing the devil's advocate:

Oh, no - not again! :thud: I prefer talking about people's real opinions.

12.3 million is a lot of children and child labor is an abhorrent thing (other than in Hollywood of course, we know how great child stars turn out). Looking at numbers: there are 264 million children in China. Even if all 12.3 million children of child labor (and that seems like a conservative number) were localized in China, that's still less than 5% of its entire population of children. CIA world factbook

What is it with "5 %"? What's wrong with 12.3 million? If you can't make a point regardless of whether you use a big-looking number or a little-looking number to express it, it isn't much of a point.

IMO, ONE child labourer sleeping under her sewing machine and working 16 hour days is one too many, whether she represents 5 % or 100 % of the entire population of children in whatever arbitrary boundary you'd like to draw around her.

The interesting thing I consider though, is what the lives of those 12.3 million children will be were it not for globalization - the economic and fiscal impact it would have on the respective countries where that 12.3 million number is being derived from. I wonder if this 12.3 million number will be larger as a result of lack of trade and other positive externalities of globalism.

Here's where I whip out my own cute naivete - I don't compare how things are to how they hypothetically could have been in order to decide whether or not a situation is acceptable. I compare how things are to how I feel they should be.

Plus, I don't idealize how things are - while it would foolish to argue there's NOTHING good about trade globalization (for example, the green revolution doubled crop yields in Asia) the impact of the industrial, capitalist, free trade economic model on third world countries overall has been more bad than good: the negative externalities outweigh the positive. Also, it IS achievable to pare off most of the negatives (for example, exploitative use of child labour, environmental degradation) while preserving the positives. Unfortunately, though, we in the West are much too fond of our plastic pumpkins at this time to motivate any serious effort in this direction.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Plus, I don't idealize how things are - while it would foolish to argue there's NOTHING good about trade globalization (for example, the green revolution doubled crop yields in Asia) the impact of the industrial, capitalist, free trade economic model on third world countries overall has been more bad than good: the negative externalities outweigh the positive. Also, it IS achievable to pare off most of the negatives (for example, exploitative use of child labour, environmental degradation) while preserving the positives. Unfortunately, though, we in the West are much too fond of our plastic pumpkins at this time to motivate any serious effort in this direction.

What sort of indicators and measurements are you looking at, or would you look at, when you say that the economic effects of globalization has been worse for developing countries? What who do you measure them against - themselves prior to globalized trade participation, or with others who, presumably, do not participate?

Do you think that the children are better off working in crappy conditions, as opposed to having no opportunity to work at all? Let's fact it, these are some of the worst off countries that are being exploited left and right - but it's not like we're talking about jobs that were before globalization, giving children 2 hour work days and after globalization, giving 16 hour days. These jobs did not exist.

The existence of the jobs are the supply of labor force with the sufficient demand present in those areas. The job markets opened - whether or not they're good or bad is up to debate.

But, where would the children be without these jobs in the first place? I mean, they do earn some money that they otherwise can't earn. Hell the job wouldn't have even existed otherwise. Aren't they better off having the opportunity rather than not having the choice to work? Albeit, really crappy conditions?

Can we all work towards better conditions for children? I think we can and ought to and through consumer education and choice in spending, we will. But to say that child labor of 12.5 million as byproduct of globalization and that it's the reason why globalization should be dismissed or the good that it can do be diminished would be indigenous.

 

[Yerda]

The interesting thing I consider though, is what the lives of those 12.3 million children will be were it not for globalization - the economic and fiscal impact it would have on the respective countries where that 12.3 million number is being derived from.

In the absence of global institutions actively encouraging the opening of economies to global firms there might not be a need for children to go out and seek full-time paid employment.

When I read about the IMF and World Bank in Africa, Latin America, and East Asia I frequently encounter the scenario where governments are coerced into cutting public funding (for schools, health etc) and "liberalising" (you have to admire the brazen approach to terminology adopted by economists) markets in order to recieve aid. The result is kids dropping out of school either because their parents cannot afford the introduced fees, or because their families have lost work because of "restructuring".

These are the kind of effects the developing world endures in the name of globalisation, and I reckon its children would be better off without it (and much better off if it was less ideological and fairer). What do you think?

 

[Alceste]

What sort of indicators and measurements are you looking at, or would you look at, when you say that the economic effects of globalization has been worse for developing countries? What who do you measure them against - themselves prior to globalized trade participation, or with others who, presumably, do not participate?

Like I said, I measure against what would be best for them. At the moment, I'm reading the End of Food, which details the impact (good and bad) of trading food globally as a commodity, knocking down trade barriers to do it. It outlines the arguments for and against, and I think the arguments against are more compelling.

My typical measures are sustainability, autonomy, food security and standards of living. While the industrial model has brought some increase in yeilds in some countries (China, for example, has been pretty successful), it's often at the expense of severe environmental degradation and conditions that invite outbreaks of disease. The story of third world markets being flooded with below-cost surplus grain from the west is an common one too - this puts domestic farmers out of business because they can't possibly compete - making entire countries dependent on imported food they can hardly afford.

Do you think that the children are better off working in crappy conditions, as opposed to having no opportunity to work at all?

Like I said, I measure against how things should be, not how they might have been if some small thing was changed. I think children are better off in school, with food in their bellies.

Can we all work towards better conditions for children? I think we can and ought to and through consumer education and choice in spending, we will. But to say that child labor of 12.5 million as byproduct of globalization and that it's the reason why globalization should be dismissed or the good that it can do be diminished would be indigenous.

I never said that. Child labour exploitation is only one of the thousands of reasons industrial capitalism and free trade are shabby principles to build our global relationships on. A globalisation built on the principles of enhancing autonomy, sustainability, food security, access to education and quality of life would be better.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

These are the kind of effects the developing world endures in the name of globalisation, and I reckon its children would be better off without it (and much better off if it was less ideological and fairer). What do you think?

Nelson Mandela has talked about how if a third world nation really tried to develop an economy that treats the poor without the usual exploitation. All the capital will be pulled out of that country. Poor countries are left with no choice if they want to be a part of the international community.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It still makes no sense. Why would a seller refuse to accept a higher price for his goods?

Do you mean, why would a buyer offer more than "the absolute bare minimum he can get away with paying?" Charity. Compassion. Fraternity. Generosity. A sense of fairness. A healthy interest in long term economic planning. I can think of a lot of good reasons why a buyer might offer a price that takes the best interests of the seller into account. There's a whole Fair Trade movement based on these principles.

Why would a buyer insist on buying goods for the lowest possible price and selling them for the highest? Are there any reasons that don't amount to naked greed and selfishness? I don't think so. What about you?

A seller offers what they think is reasonable to cover costs develop new products and make a profit. A buyer offers what is acceptable for their own purchasing perameters. What can be more fair than that? If a seller is asking more than the buyer is willing to pay then there is no sale. A free market has inherit checks and balances within the system.

Now that labor is recognized as a product then the free market regfulates that as well. If an employer will not pay a reasonable wage then don't take the job.

As far as charity, compassion, fraternity and generosity, I agree, any system without morality is a seriously flawed system.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here's where I whip out my own cute naivete - I don't compare how things are to how they hypothetically could have been in order to decide whether or not a situation is acceptable. I compare how things are to how I feel they should be.

Yet in practical application idealism is untenable. Economic change is an evolutionary process.

Let's take an person whose daily activity entails searching for food and water and finding firewood. Every day. How ameniable is that person going to be to, tomorrow, sitting down at a wigit press for 8 hours a day, taking union mandated breaks, etc, etc. History show that this does not work very well, whether it be the Native American or blacks in South Africa. Social change is gradual.

I think the question will be, in an increasing global economic participation, who will guide these changes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I would like to see a strengthening of local economies. Diversification of skills within each community, local, organic, sustainable farming of indigenous crops, local, grassroots bartering systems, reduced fossil fuel dependency, food, water and energy self-sufficiency in every community. I'd also like to see access to education and health care and a minimum standard of living (food, shelter, clean water, clean air) in every community. Only when all these needs are met should any community consider trading any surplus they have produced on the global market - first to neighbouring communities, then farther afield. Under no circumstances would I be able to eat an avocado grown in a country where people are starving and flown to a Western supermarket shelf overnight.

It seems that on first glance that you wish to send the world economy back to the late 1800's.

 

[Alceste]

A seller offers what they think is reasonable to cover costs develop new products and make a profit. A buyer offers what is acceptable for their own purchasing perameters. What can be more fair than that? If a seller is asking more than the buyer is willing to pay then there is no sale. A free market has inherit checks and balances within the system.

The above is proof you haven't been paying any attention to how this actually plays out in the real world. American farmers are put third world farmers out of business because the US government subsidizes US crops so heavily they can be sold below the cost of production.

Meanwhile, the IMF prohibits third world governments from subsidizing local farmers. The point of this policy is to intentionally stack the deck in favour of US producers and investors, to the detriment of the third world.

As far as charity, compassion, fraternity and generosity, I agree, any system without morality is a seriously flawed system.

And yet that is exactly the system we have imposed. Time for a change, perhaps?

 

[Alceste]

It seems that on first glance that you wish to send the world economy back to the late 1800's.

No, the economy in the late 1800s was no more sustainable than it is now - it was just toward the beginning of the story of industrialized global capitalism rather than the end.

 

[Alceste]

Yet in practical application idealism is untenable.

And yet you are supportive of free market idealism as opposed to sustainability-related idealism, despite the evidence the IMF policies have a disastrous impact on the third world?

Let's take an person whose daily activity entails searching for food and water and finding firewood. Every day. How ameniable is that person going to be to, tomorrow, sitting down at a wigit press for 8 hours a day, taking union mandated breaks, etc, etc. History show that this does not work very well, whether it be the Native American or blacks in South Africa. Social change is gradual.

I think the question will be, in an increasing global economic participation, who will guide these changes.

Yes, that is the question. I would prefer that the local population of any given community decides for itself whether and how much it wants to participate in a global economy, and on what terms.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The above is proof you haven't been paying any attention to how this actually plays out in the real world. American farmers are put third world farmers out of business because the US government subsidizes US crops so heavily they can be sold below the cost of production.

Meanwhile, the IMF prohibits third world governments from subsidizing local farmers. The point of this policy is to intentionally stack the deck in favour of US producers and investors, to the detriment of the third world.

That is governmental problem and not a free-market problem.

And yet that is exactly the system we have imposed. Time for a change, perhaps?

Yes. Immorality has to go.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And yet you are supportive of free market idealism as opposed to sustainability-related idealism, despite the evidence the IMF policies have a disastrous impact on the third world?

Actually I understand that absolutes are not condusive to good policy. Free Markets regulated by labor rather than governments is more workable. Perhaps we need to send labor union organizers to 3rd world countries.

Yes, that is the question. I would prefer that the local population of any given community decides for itself whether and how much it wants to participate in a global economy, and on what terms.

The problem is that without outside insight how is a peasant in backwoods China going to know how to sell his rice to someone in Peoria Illinois?

 

[Alceste]

Actually I understand that absolutes are not condusive to good policy. Free Markets regulated by labor rather than governments is more workable. Perhaps we need to send labor union organizers to 3rd world countries.

They have their own labour union organizers - that's the sort of thing the IMF goes out of its way to destroy on behalf of global corporations.

The problem is that without outside insight how is a peasant in backwoods China going to know how to sell his rice to someone in Peoria Illinois?

That's not really how it works - western supermarket chains seek out producers pretty aggressively and dictate their standards and prices to local producers (no negotiation happens). They tend to deal with larger producers and don't bother nickel-and-dime operations. A "Chinese peasant" needs to be pretty wealthy, educated and business savvy to get in on the Western feeding frenzy to begin with. Poor farmers do not benefit from this arrangement at all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

They have their own labour union organizers - that's the sort of thing the IMF goes out of its way to destroy on behalf of global corporations.

Many union organizers are have been killed all over the world. I had a friend who had to leave Cental America because he was told leave or die.

 

[Alceste]

That is governmental problem and not a free-market problem.

If your government did not subsidize American farmers, they go out of business en masse because they would not be able to compete. Because the US provides a substantial portion of the world's grain, (which in turn feeds the world's meat) the price of food would increase substantially across the board, all around the world.

Is that what you want?

In the end, "the free market" is a fantasy no more realistic than the concept of a just and peaceful world where everyone is fed. The difference is that egalitarianism is based on moral principles, while free market idealism is based on greed.

 

[Neo-Logic]

If your government did not subsidize American farmers, they go out of business en masse because they would not be able to compete. Because the US provides a substantial portion of the world's grain, (which in turn feeds the world's meat) the price of food would increase substantially across the board, all around the world.

Is that what you want?

In the end, "the free market" is a fantasy no more realistic than the concept of a just and peaceful world where everyone is fed. The difference is that egalitarianism is based on moral principles, while free market idealism is based on greed.

Equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people is a pipe dream.

Subsidies do not disprove the idea of free market in capitalism. It's not absolute capitalism, but this is already known. It's regulated to certain extents and certain domestic industries that are sensitive are protected with both subsidies and production caps to stop ruinous production that destroys prices. It's not government owned and operated industries. They're still private, but subsidized and this is not true for everything across the board - only certain industries.

 

[Alceste]

Equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people is a pipe dream.

A self-correcting, unregulated global free market improving living standards in the poorest countries is a pipe dream.

So there.

Subsidies do not disprove the idea of free market in capitalism. It's not absolute capitalism, but this is already known. It's regulated to certain extents and certain domestic industries that are sensitive are protected with both subsidies and production caps to stop ruinous production that destroys prices. It's not government owned and operated industries. They're still private, but subsidized and this is not true for everything across the board - only certain industries.

So what? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to anything I said. My point bringing up grain commodities is that when it comes to subsidies, the deck is often stacked. Disadvantaged countries aren't allowed to legislate to protect domestic markets, while Western countries are free to use market protectionism as needed - all the while hypocritically preaching to poor countries about the glory and promise of "free trade".