[CillianL]

Originally Posted by andrew

I think I'd broadly agree with your definition of globalisation.

I think we disagree on two points then. Firstly, I don't think globalisaiton has made the problems that you've mentioned possible, not to the extent that you believe it has anyway. I think that globalisation intersects with these problems, but that fundamentally many of them are functions of factors inherent to that country anyway.

Secondly, where globalisation has contributed directly to some problems (such as structural unemployment in the west), I'd say that in general the outcome has still been positive on net. Greater labour mobility, freer trade, cheaper goods for consumers; the list of positives i think vastly outweighs the negatives.

So its the effects of globalisation that's the contentious issue.
In the arguments I've made so far I don't mean to suggest that there was once an economic Eden before globalisation that we should long for or that basic human nature has had no role in this mess we're in now.

Furthermore when I said globalisation hasn't been questioned enough I never said that globalisation hasn't had any benefits, of course it has benefited us, ( I wouldn't be typing this right now if we lived in an insular world), but I also believe its had nasty kickbacks as its given the grounds for many of weeds plaguing our society space to put down roots, which I don't think a lot of its cheerleaders will admit., which makes it into a religion rather than a model open to criticism

[ScissorPaperRoc]

Originally Posted by CillianL

To Andrew.

To reduce confusion maybe we need a digression to define what we mean when we say 'globalization' before we continue the sparring match!

To me globalization means that the world has become a giant network where ideas, information, technology, raw materials, people and trade can move around quickly and relatively unrestricted. This is what has made the world small and like a chessboard for corporations and governments.

For me because it represents all of this, I think 'globalization' has made the problems I'm concerned with possible because in world where resources, labour and information could not move around quick it simply wouldn't be feasible or profitable to create those problems.

Furthermore I see globalization as a narrative that didn't come about by magic, it is very much a deliberate opening up of the world that came about through technological advances and the desire of organisations to access markets and influence more people that were formerly inaccessible.

I think that definition of globalisation lacks consideration of the political-economic dimension of globalisation, which might be more important in terms of identifying a driver for some of the problems you're talking about. Globalisation has seen an intensified push for the spread of neoliberal free market economics emanating from the West. The restructuring of macroeconomic policy in developing countries has been hugely important in creating the incentives for FDI.

[CillianL]

Originally Posted by ScissorPaperRoc

I think that definition of globalisation lacks consideration of the political-economic dimension of globalisation, which might be more important in terms of identifying a driver for some of the problems you're talking about. Globalisation has seen an intensified push for the spread of neoliberal free market economics emanating from the West. The restructuring of macroeconomic policy in developing countries has been hugely important in creating the incentives for FDI.

How have I neglected the political and economic aspects of globalization? information, transportation & trade are key foundations of political and economic activity in the first place.

FDI is a double edged sword. It has created jobs across the west but it has also allowed manufacturing jobs to be offshored into export processing zones.
Consider also why the previous and current government were and are spineless in dealing with the Irish banking sector. Ireland is so dependent on Foreign credit to pay for inefficiencies in the economy that they were terrified of a loss of confidence in the Irish Governments credit worthiness, so their logic was nationalize private banking debt so that the markets would be calmed, which shows how they've became too powerful, which a globalized world has allowed to happen. All I'm saying is that there is a kickback from globalization just as much as a benefit. My problem is that its seldom discussed in a constructive manner and too often idolized without question

[CillianL]

http://kylebassblog.blogspot.ie/ (video posted October 3rd)

A condensed version of the original video posted

[krd]

Originally Posted by andrew

It's not that China will never get into high end manufacturing of some sort.

China are already into high end manufacturing. And India are already into high end services like IT, and also customer services.

But to assert that China or other countries will overtake the west, you need to explain why the West will lose it's incredibly huge relative advantage,

Making stuff is actually important. It takes decades to develop the skills, to learn how to make the stuff. This is why developing world countries couldn't just suddenly overnight start producing high end goods. There had to be a technology and skills transfer.

They are making all the high-end stuff already. Those broadband usb sticks - they're made by Huawei - Chinese company. Not just assembled. All the R&D was done between China and India.

We've lost the skills to do things here. Even the people who've trained as IT and electronic engineers, are doing things like customer service websites, or even worse, they're doing customer service.

The service industry is horrible. Watching a documentary on financial services in the UK recently. And every floor they had seemed to be just guys talking on phones.......They're call centres. And it's the same awful ingratiating wankiness for a living as the minimum wage ones.

and explain how China will gain relative to the west even while the west (which China depends upon) goes into relative decline.

China are not as dependent on exports as they were. They have a huge internal economy. They had the skills and technology transfer. They have capital goods. Soon they'll have no need for western products or services. Huawei is a really good example. They're pushing heavily into other non-western markets. Supplying high end telecommunications equipment. They need nothing from the west. While our telecommunications equipment industry is absolutely dependent on chips from China.

In a rush to make a fast buck, the west gutted it's manufacturing capability. We are very heavily dependent on their skills. On their products. Asia is the centre of electronics know how and production.

Our capabilities have degenerated. During the building boom, we built the most low cost (terms of materials and space) housing in the developed world - all this to put more profit in the pockets of the useless. And now they're trying to encourage us to cycle bicycles around. Give up the dream of living in a reasonable sized house, and owing a car. And live like the Chinese used to........All cycling to work on our bicycles.

And even if this were to happen, it's not so much that it's globalisation's 'fault' it's more that globalisation is the framework under which this takes place.

Oh, it's nobody's fault. No one is too blame.

[CillianL]

Finally a bit of support!

http://www.trueeconomics.blogspot.ie...ty-bubble.html

I find this worrying however. Property should have an auxiliary role in driving economic growth rather than being the biggest vector in the system. That property values in China are starting to deviate significantly from mean incomes will fuel credit demand but could create a ponzi banking scheme like what we had here but obviously on a leviathan scale.

Western commentators often note how China boasts few companies in the Fortune 500 however the fact that Huawei exists as an example shows that China has reached a manufacturing and technological threshold such that it now longer wholly dependent on Western R&D, the one thing the cheerleaders said would help drive western growth after manufacturing. Couple this with lower incomes in China for the educated than in the west, this will pressurize service industry jobs in the west that have became outsourcable due these developments