What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

[coberst]

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

 

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

 

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

 

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

 

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

 

 

 

When I speak of America I should have said American workers. I am confident that America on average gains from Globalization but the workers do not get this net gain. The gain goes to those with capital not those who labor. Those with labor are net losers.

 

In America if one looks at gross numbers I think it will clearly show a net increase. The problem is that this gain goes to those with capital and not to the workers with family incomes below $50,000.

 

Less expensive goods are a gain for workers. I suspect the job insecurity and job loss plus the stagnate wages are not to the workers advantage.

[Phi for All]

I think Americans who fear globalization worry about what they have to offer the world. Any job that involves a computer has the capability of being done by anyone in the world.

 

For a while there will be money to be made in arbitrage between differing economies. Companies that outsource their marketing to call centers in India or China save money so they can expand their operations in the US, purchase competitors or pay key workers more money (the best US companies these days are building performance bonuses into pay structures). Non-essential services like bookkeeping are outsourced to reduce overhead (not always with foreign firms either). New markets and profitability points are recognized (did you know that an architectural firm can make more profit with a new blueprint plotter than they can with a new CAD technician?).

 

On the other side of the world, foreign workers making more money demand more US goods. They go to see US movies and buy clothes and accessories from US companies who've placed their products in those movies.

 

Instead of whining about globalization we should embrace it and lead by example. Don't gripe that another job got outsourced, be glad that a US firm was able to make a profit by using smart, strong strategies that actually created three jobs for the one it outsourced.

[coberst]

What is globalism & globalization?

 

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

 

Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

 

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

[Sisyphus]

I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "moral attitude?" Would another way of asking it be, is globalization good or bad, overall?

[bascule]

When do you define "globalism" as starting, and who should take the blame?

 

Was 19th century imperialism an example of globalism? If so, globalism has been terrible for the world. But that's a composition fallacy.

 

Overall, I think increasing interconnectedness is good. People are starting to achieve a more ecumenical and less race-centric view of humanity as a whole, and realize that everyone shares common problems that we should work on collectively.

[Mr Skeptic]

Free trade of any kind increases efficiency. It is positive, not a zero sum game. The trade (in this case, of labor) should only happen if it benefits both parties. It is (theoretically) possible to rearrange the benefits reaped so that all parties involved benefit. In this case, Americans benefit by having lower costs and higher profits. Some American workers may go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers, but others will be bringing in the profits.

[bascule]

I should provide a counterpoint to my seemingly optimistic post above: globalism also provides a way for first world countries to act exploitatively against the third world nations, particularly through agencies such as the WTO. But of course, that's a position only espoused by those who think that efficient trade should take a backseat to human rights. Otherwise, the WTO is doing a bang-up job.

[coberst]

When do you define "globalism" as starting, and who should take the blame?

 

Was 19th century imperialism an example of globalism? If so, globalism has been terrible for the world. But that's a composition fallacy.

 

Overall, I think increasing interconnectedness is good. People are starting to achieve a more ecumenical and less race-centric view of humanity as a whole, and realize that everyone shares common problems that we should work on collectively.

 

One might say that globalism started with the founding of the silk trade routes when the city states in Italy were emerging.

[ParanoiA]

Free trade of any kind increases efficiency. It is positive, not a zero sum game. The trade (in this case, of labor) should only happen if it benefits both parties. It is (theoretically) possible to rearrange the benefits reaped so that all parties involved benefit. In this case, Americans benefit by having lower costs and higher profits. Some American workers may go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers, but others will be bringing in the profits.

 

But what about not-so-apparent problems...like the country moving from a manufacturer to a consumer? If we lose our skills in manufacturing, doesn't that weaken our sovereignty? Theoretically, if we are merely consumers, then we depend on other nations like an umbilical cord, not just a matter of opportunity and mutual growth.

 

Just throwing this out there, I'm kind of on the fence about globalization.

[Phi for All]

I should provide a counterpoint to my seemingly optimistic post above: globalism also provides a way for first world countries to act exploitatively against the third world nations, particularly through agencies such as the WTO. But of course, that's a position only espoused by those who think that efficient trade should take a backseat to human rights. Otherwise, the WTO is doing a bang-up job.

Vigilance is necessary. There are some cultures that are being exploited. Often, though, we hear about someone being paid $3/hour and we transfer ourselves into that situation without realizing it's more money than the individual has ever made and he supports several family members very well on $3/hour in his culture.

[Fred56]

Part of the problem (IMO) is that no country is a single place or people.

America (the US) has several distinct geographically and culturally separated regions. The NE Atlantic region (Chicago-NY and the industrial states), is quite different say, from the area further south. People living in the mid-west have quite different outlooks and attitudes (and are generally more 'religious'), and so on. I don't think you can find a single 'country' that is a single culture.

So the idea of them all trading on an 'equal footing' has to deal with this fact of life, but it doesn't. Instead the 'rich' people/subculture do well from the schema, but people who are 'disadvantaged' tend to be more so.