Recommended reading/viewing on anti-globalisation? (1 Viewer)

[Scientician 0.8]

He means, I presume, that globalisation, the process by which the local has increased interaction with the local isn't in and of itself a bad thing, the form of economic globalisation that the protestors rally against is. Top down, instead of bottom up or something like that.

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

Globalisation relies on a free market.
So being anti-free market and pro-globalisation is a bit of an
oxymoron.
Is there a viable alternative globalisation paradigm that takes
global justice into account while doing away with a free market
framework?

Well the market isn't exactly free is it?

 

[the strange guy]

What I meant was whether or not import/export transactions
with countries around the world can still exist without using a
currency which is valued by the market.
When I said 'free market' I meant trade unimpeded by
government bureaucracy, so yeh the market isn't exactly free;
there is still regulations. But if I want to buy a ton of soya sauce
bottles from Beijing I don't need to talk to anyone in the Chinese
government, I just pay my money to the supplier and sort out
the tax here. It's different for fresh meat or medicine, so it's
not completely free market.
Importing stuff from most countries in the world is a lot easier
because of globalisation than places like Burma and North Korea
which haven't opened themselves up for openly trading goods.

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

What I meant was whether or not import/export transactions
with countries around the world can still exist without using a
currency which is valued by the market.
When I said 'free market' I meant trade unimpeded by
government bureaucracy, so yeh the market isn't exactly free;
there is still regulations. But if I want to buy a ton of soya sauce
bottles from Beijing I don't need to talk to anyone in the Chinese
government, I just pay my money to the supplier and sort out
the tax here. It's different for fresh meat or medicine, so it's
not completely free market.
Importing stuff from most countries in the world is a lot easier
because of globalisation than places like Burma and North Korea
which haven't opened themselves up for openly trading goods.

Not sure what you're after here, but the problem is that the rules of the global market are suited for sustaining current market hierarchies. EU countries can subsidise their agricultural exports while developing countries are pressured into opening their markets unconditionally and concentrating their production on as few goods as possible. Damned if they do, damned if they don't - the market will keep their export prices too low for producers to gain reasonable living and the whole economies become vulnerable for global market instabilities. Protectionism is always contested unless it protects the maintenance of first world consuming patterns.

 

[the strange guy]

We can all agree that the current market hierarchy of the first
world dictating the price of a commodity and the rest of the
world scrambling to meet that has a negative effect is the people
at the arse end. What I'm getting at is whether or not there's an
alternative that can keep everyone happy. Is the first world
wrong in demanding these goods or just the quantity? Should a
banana cost €5? Should bananas be banned because of the
negative effect of its consumption on the communities forced to
grow it for a miniscule price? I'm not trying to be a bollocks, I'm
genuinely interested because while I understand the devastation
that globalisation has on the world, I can also see the positive
effects it can have, though these are available to less people and
always the same people.

 

[Gambra]

Not sure what you're after here

 

[the strange guy]

Haha! No, I'm just asking questions! You can't learn if you don't ask.

 

[Dktr. Faustus]

We can all agree that the current market hierarchy of the first
world dictating the price of a commodity and the rest of the
world scrambling to meet that has a negative effect is the people
at the arse end. What I'm getting at is whether or not there's an
alternative that can keep everyone happy. Is the first world
wrong in demanding these goods or just the quantity? Should a
banana cost €5? Should bananas be banned because of the
negative effect of its consumption on the communities forced to
grow it for a miniscule price? I'm not trying to be a bollocks, I'm
genuinely interested because while I understand the devastation
that globalisation has on the world, I can also see the positive
effects it can have, though these are available to less people and
always the same people.

But $5 might be next to nothing within a year!
It seems a bit arbitrary to say balancing the global markets would end in something like that. Or other, I don't know. Obviously some changes would have to happen in the consuming patterns of first world countries, but then again We shouldn't consider the developing countries as our material reserve...
As for the alternative that would keep everyone happy, how about globally subsidized supply of yokes?

 

[the strange guy]

As for the alternative that would keep everyone happy, how about globally subsidized supply of yokes?

You're on to something there, buddy!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies