|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why should the left care about reducing poverty in developing nations when there are hungry children here? If we can't equitably distribute resources in our own country there's no reason to be worrying about places thousands of miles away. Why don't we just try not bombing some developing countries, maybe that will help. There's two sides of the coin I suppose. Certainly there is domestic policy which needs to be dealt with, but it shouldn't come at a cost to foreign countries. Pus the raging at globalisation is a bit silly - what the raging should be against is inequality and the rich within their own countries, and perhaps they can help the rest of the world as well. Ultimately it depends on what your goal is regarding the national and global standards of living. As it is both are widely unequal, for all sorts of reasons, both social and historical. I believe that the goal of the left should be to make them as equal to possible. However that doesn't mean that rich countries are necessarily "responsible" (even if they often are), a lot of the inequality is simply caused by archaic social structures , lack of infrastructure, lack of historical inventions, etc. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 14:24 on May 16, 2017 |
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Private Speech posted:There's two sides of the coin I suppose. Certainly there is domestic policy which needs to be dealt with, but it shouldn't come at a cost to foreign countries. Why not? Why shouldn't we care more about the poor citizens of America than say, India?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why not? Why shouldn't we care more about the poor citizens of America than say, India? Because people of one nation shouldn't be put above others? Nationalism is cancer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Because people of one nation shouldn't be put above others? Why not? Why should I care about a hungry african child as much as the homeless children I see here in America every day? Countries should put their own citizenry first. In fact, they do. Unfortunately rich beats citizen at the moment. Private Speech posted:Nationalism is cancer. Yes, attempting to ensure everyone in America has access to medical care, healthy food, and shelter is "nationalism".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why not? Why should I care about a hungry african child as much as the homeless children I see here in America every day? Countries should put their own citizenry first. In fact, they do. Unfortunately rich beats citizen at the moment. What are countries? Why should they? Are we not all humans?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:What are countries? Why should they? Are we not all humans? Why should they what? Care about their citizenry more than the people half way across the world? Because that's the whole point of a country.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why should they what? Care about their citizenry more than the people half way across the world? Because that's the whole point of a country. Then perhaps countries are an evil by themselves, then.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, attempting to ensure everyone in America has access to medical care, healthy food, and shelter is "nationalism". We should do all of those things and it has nothing to do with trade. American workers can and will be exploited with or without stricter trade barriers. The 3rd world will suffer the IMF and coercion with or without them too. What exactly will trading less accomplish when it doesn't address any of the systemic problems that hurt the poor?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Then perhaps countries are an evil by themselves, then. Well that's quite a hot take but I think that's a bit more far out there than "hey maybe we should feed our own people before worrying about those half way across the world" Bates posted:We should do all of those things and it has nothing to do with trade. American workers can and will be exploited with or without stricter trade barriers. The 3rd world will suffer the IMF and coercion with or without them too. What exactly will trading less accomplish when it doesn't address any of the systemic problems that hurt the poor? It has plenty do with trade as long as the establishment insists on using a job as the sole means to provide for yourself in this country. If we're going to build a society where you have to work to live we need to prioritize having jobs be available for anyone and everyone who wants one. If that means reducing global trade, so be it. Billy G can just throw more billions at the developing world while we focus on feeding the hungry children of America. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 14:27 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well that's quite a hot take but I think that's a bit more far out there than "hey maybe we should feed our own people before worrying about those half way across the world" You are taking an explicitly discriminatory position then. Why should an American be worth more than, say, an Indian.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:You are taking an explicitly discriminatory position then. Why should an American be worth more than, say, an Indian. To America? Because they are a citizen, they pay taxes, etc. The entire point of a country is a social contract between a huge group of people for the greater good.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:To America? Because they are a citizen, they pay taxes, etc. The entire point of a country is a social contract between a huge group of people for the greater good. It seems to me that the greater good would be for all humans to be equal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:It seems to me that the greater good would be for all men to be equal. I think before America takes off on that wild journey we should probably have all our citizenry be equal first. Something tells me that Global Trade isn't going to deliver equality. Just inequality on a larger scale.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I think before America takes off on that wild journey we should probably have all our citizenry be equal first. Those are quite the hot takes too.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Those are quite the hot takes too. I think it's telling that domestic economic equality(lol, how about just less than like a 10,000,000,000x between the richest and poorest) seems like a more unrealistic goal than saving the entire world from poverty.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I think it's telling that domestic economic equality seems like a more unrealistic goal than saving the entire world from poverty. In some ways yes, since domestic inequality is less than world inequality, thus I see the latter as a greater evil and easier to address.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:In some ways yes, since domestic inequality is less than world inequality, thus I see the latter as a greater evil and easier to address. It's not though, there are people with literally nothing here. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/10/life-pine-ridge-native-american-reservation-161031113119935.html Like the amount of suffering that happens within our own borders by our own causing is sickening. It seems absurd for us to moralize about the benefits of free trade while our own people starve.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's not though, there are people with literally nothing here. Just because you can't fix your own problems doesn't make not caring about the vastly more humans living in absolute poverty any less of a moral crime. Not to mention, countries may be social contracts, but they are contracts into which only select people are allowed to enter, regardless of their wishes. You could equally say the system of feudal nobility was a form of social contract amongst themselves, but that doesn't make it a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Just because you can't fix your own problems doesn't make not caring about the vastly more humans living in absolute poverty any less of a moral crime. I never said I didn't care, just that we should focus our efforts on alleviating domestic poverty over international poverty and if reducing global trade can help we should pursue it. Quite frankly I'm more in the direct redistribution of wealth but I think reducing global trade is more likely than Americans accepting you don't have to work to live.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:
I'm not talking about rolling back trade. I'm talking about just requiring that US companies only do business with foreign firms that provide reasonable wages and living standards. If a factory does not maintain reasonable safety standards and pays it's employees poorly (for the region in question), US companies should not be able to use it. My point is that requiring more reasonable wages and safety standards (the latter at the very least should be non-negotiable) won't suddenly cause all outsourced labor to return to the US. Currently I believe that we generally let corporations police themselves, and the government should take a bigger role in enforcing these standards. Private Speech posted:Because people of one nation shouldn't be put above others? Nationalism is cancer. I understand and generally agree with you greater point here (about US citizens not being inherently more valuable than any other human), but the problem is that most major countries would have to simultaneously agree to a "raise up the poorer countries" goal in order for this to work (ideally through removing borders altogether). It's sort of like a prisoner's dilemma where if a single country decides to devote itself to the well-being of poorer foreign countries, it fucks itself over economically. The best way to put this moral view into action is to just allow free immigration and an easy path to citizenship. Taken to its extreme conclusion, what you're saying implies that the US should spend most of its tax dollars on raising up poorer countries (which is basically the same as what you're talking about here; reducing the money of domestic citizens to increase the wealth of foreign people). The problem with this is that tax dollars are dependent upon the strength of the US economy, which is largely dependent upon how well off US citizens are. If the US starts to prioritize the well being of people outside of the US, it will quickly find itself with less money to spend towards that goal. Also, your moral motivation here rings hollow, because a disproportionate amount of the money spent outsourcing likely goes towards the 1% in the foreign countries in question, not labor. Requiring better worker standards will just result in a greater portion of that money going to foreign workers, rather than factory owners or whatever. It's not like Western corporations are the only ones that exploit workers. Another reason this argument tends to rub me the wrong way is that I almost always see it coming from liberals who are already relatively well off themselves. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:16 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
no, skilled workers still live like utter poo poo compared to workers in the developed world.
|
Private Speech posted:It seems to me that the greater good would be for all humans to be equal. A nation state is supposedly designed to be responsible for the people under it. In the same way that parents should look after their children first. Companies should look after their workers first. And unions should look after their members first. Etc. They're the people you have the most power to help, and the ones you have the most responsibility to help. Though that you haven't gotten this yet suggests you are arguing in bad faith. That an ardent defender of capitalism can't fathom the idea of looking after yourself/your own first, stretches credulity.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:A nation state is supposedly designed to be responsible for the people under it. In the same way that parents should look after their children first. Companies should look after their workers first. And unions should look after their members first. Etc. They're the people you have the most power to help, and the ones you have the most responsibility to help. I think his argument (which is kind of disturbing in its own way) is that US citizens, including the poor, are already sufficiently "looked after" since there are people outside the US who have it even worse. Like, I think he's saying that we shouldn't focus on improving things for US citizens until we've improved things for non-US citizens who have things even worse. I can actually sorta understand what he means from a strictly moral perspective ("no humans are worth more than others, we should lift up those who are worst off") but there are a ton of pragmatic reasons why nations (as long as they continue to exist, at least) shouldn't focus their efforts on people outside of their borders.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Just because you can't fix your own problems doesn't make not caring about the vastly more humans living in absolute poverty any less of a moral crime. A moral crime? It's not that I don't care, it's that there's nothing I can do to fix it other than implore the US Government to ensure firms operating on foreign soil follow reasonable labor, environmental and safety regulations. This is viewed as an "attack on trade" so I mean, I guess I'm down with attacking trade. Private Speech posted:You could equally say the system of feudal nobility was a form of social contract amongst themselves, but that doesn't make it a good thing. I never said countries are a "good thing" or a "bad thing" but they are a thing that exists and pretending like they shouldn't is about as  as it gets. This is the liberal equivalent of "full communism now"
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
e: nm, but Marxism is explicitly internationalist
Private Speech fucked around with this message at 18:35 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
It's not imperialism (or nationalism for that matter) to enforce environmental and safety regulations on corporations operating overseas. The fact that it would make American labor more competitive globally is just a nice bonus.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's not imperialism (or nationalism for that matter) to enforce environmental and safety regulations on corporations operating overseas. The fact that it would make American labor more competitive globally is just a nice bonus. The first part I agree with, the second part is rather the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:The first part I agree with, the second part is rather the problem. Why is it a problem? What is so bad about American labor being competitive in the global marketplace? People need jobs here, even if you and yours don't. Not everyone in America is a upper middle class white person.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Why is it a problem? What is so bad about American labor being competitive in the global marketplace? People need jobs here, even if you and yours don't. Not everyone in America is a upper middle class white person. People "need" a lot of things, and the things people in the US "need" are heck of a lot more than what people abroad do, or what people "needed" 200 years ago. It's all about what your goal is in terms of quality of life for people. You could instead, say, institute a comprehensive universal benefit system by taking money away from SF and NYC. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 18:41 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:People "need" a lot of things, and the things people in the US "need" are heck of a lot more than what people abroad do, or what people "needed" 200 years ago. This is actually not true, but continue to pretend it is. Like for example, healthcare. Most developing countries have single payer, much of the working poor in America has no access to healthcare whatsoever. Private Speech posted:You could instead, say, institute a comprehensive universal benefit system by taking money away from SF and NYC. You're mixing cause and effect up. We should enforce labor, environmental and safety regulations on overseas firms because it's the right thing to do, not because it will lead to more jobs for Americans. The fact that it will is just a nice bonus. There's no reason to allow firms operating overseas to operate like say, Shell in Nigeria. The idea that forcing Shell to not dump oil into the environment will somehow make Nigerians worse off is just a comedy that could only be told by a white westerner. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:e: nm, but Marxism is explicitly internationalist I don't care. Americans helping the cause of international workers uniting is the most ridiculous idea ever when the working class of the USA can't even unite with each other. The USA is also the strongest force in preventing an internationalist labour movement. They need to sort out their own house before they can be of an use to the rest of the world. If the US became a workers paradise the rest of the world would soon become much better off along those lines. Keeping the American lower classes poor and weak and stupid is not doing anyone's poor any favours. Note that I'm not American. I don't give a gently caress about American workers from any kind of nationalist angle, but American citizens should be able to expect their government to act in their interests. And I think it would be in the world's interests to see an America where the plight of the lower classes are respected. It's not like right is prone to helping the weak and poor just because of nationalism or racism or anything like that. An American government that genuinely cared about and acted in defence of its lowest citizens is just straight up not going to be a terrible right-wing gently caress everybody government. So this bogeyman of a government genuinely acting to the benefit of its poorest citizens somehow being dangerously nationalist is ridiculous. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:I don't care. Americans helping the cause of international workers uniting is the most ridiculous idea ever when the working class of the USA can't even unite with each other. The USA is also the strongest force in preventing an internationalist labour movement. They need to sort out their own house before they can be of an use to the rest of the world. If the US became a workers paradise the rest of the world would soon become much better off along those lines. Keeping the American lower classes poor and weak and stupid is not doing anyone's poor any favours. I'm not disputing 90% of that, but maybe it should be done without making GBS threads up the rest of the world even more through rampant protectionism of American interests. Particularly when the latter is dressed up as somehow helping the less-developed world economies through tough love or something. e: the only bit I have trouble with is: quote:but [XYZ] citizens should be able to expect their government to act in their interests. And I'm not talking about just Americans here. Why is it in any way desirable at all for governments to put their citizens first? Why should it be? And do they in fact really, anyway? Another Marx quote on the topic: Communist Manifesto posted:The Communists are reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. And here is an interesting speech on the topic given by Deutscher at the University College London, particularly as regards the apparent conflict between internationalism and need for protection of workers against foreign competition which has always been a strong urge on the left (in fact moreso in the past than now): Succint Relevant Quote posted:The First International was founded here in London on the initiative of British and French socialists. Their great concern was to establish some cooperation and solidarity between working men in France and Britain in order that they should be able to defend themselves against the import of cheap Belgian, Italian and German labour. They had to protect themselves too against strike-breaking action organised by international capital. Such was the prosaic origin of the Working Men’s Association, that great legendary, almost poetic International, which established the tradition of an internationally organised working-class movement. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 19:34 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Can we put a memorandum on quoting dead philosophers in a thread about contemporary geo-politics? The core philosophies that guide international relations are political realism and institutional liberalism. The first shapes the actions of our superpowers and the second are the ideological basis of our supranational institutions. Idealism about class warfare does not have a place in a geopolitical discussion because while global capitalist might be primary beneficiaries the drivers of this development are nation-states and the supranational institutions which act on their behalf. Private Speech posted:That's all great, but the major real concern of those countries is not to be as poor as they are. If you compare historical rates of development to the ones post-1960 it's easy to see how much they've benefited. This is not true. The WTO, World Bank and IMF are a package. You do not get one without the other. First off, the WTO has since its very beginning (starting with cotton) been biased towards the economical interests of the west. Trade was originally only free in industries where western nations had a competitive advantage. Over time, the WTO started shifting towards something resembling actual free trade but that was immediately cut short in the 90's by a rapid expansion of free trade zones such as NAFTA and the EES which again cut out developing economies from having a shot at anything resembling fair competition. Something the UK is about to learn the hard way if its negotiations fail with the EU. Both the EU and US are huge fans of protectionism but only when it protects their own industries. Now larger economies like China and Russia can fight back if there is the political will, but smaller nation-states have no choice. They either accept what the EU and the US gives them or they see their economy quickly fade into irrelevance. This gets abused harshly through a number of ways, the most disgusting begin the Investor-state Dispute Settlement mechanism, which allows first-world corporations to effectively unilaterally push third world governments into decisions which do not benefit them. Secondly, the IMF and World Bank are sister organizations and they both the same goals, spreading what has been coined in modern academia as free market fundamentalism. Unlike western economies, which are to this day only partly liberalized, third world economies get pushed into extremely liberal policy through World Bank investment deals and IMF Structural Reform Packages. All it takes for a nation to lose its sovereignty is one bad or corrupt government, one small group of people to in-debt the country and then its over. Very few countries ever get out from the thumb of the IMF once they're under because these policy packages are not designed to get these nations out of debt, they are extremely ideological. Privatize everything in sight and de-regulate everything or prepare to have your economy shelved. To some what is happening in Greece might seem incomprehensible but to Africa and South America this has been the reality since the 70's. These institutions are predatory and they are so by design. Austerity is not a side-show, it is the entire point. There is no opt out model to this. If you're not big enough to get the luxury of choice then its everything or nothing. Ignoring this reality is ignoring how geo-politics have worked for the last 70 years. All of this shitshow is globalisation and its being led by the US to protect US interests. If the US does not change then neither does the rest of the world. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 20:05 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Pus the raging at globalisation is a bit silly - what the raging should be against is inequality and the rich within their own countries, and perhaps they can help the rest of the world as well. Private Speech posted:Because people of one nation shouldn't be put above others? Nationalism is cancer. These two statements seem to contradict each other. Many leftists are not against the concept of international trade altogether, but instead against the way it manifests itself when powerful countries politically favor capitalists over the rights of citizens. One of the biggest issues in the globalization debate is that current "free trade" laws actually are protectionist for established countries* and capitalists by setting up international legal mechanisms that cut the effectiveness of local economic ordinances (which may have been organized by local workers/citizens/activists to deal with the excesses of powerful individuals who had too much unaccountable control over people's wellbeing). In short, the kind of "free trade" being opposed is a system where capital has free mobility that normal citizens do not. (Normal people don't have the saved up money to just up and move whenever they don't like the laws or economy where they are, or free time and resources to influence the political process.) The asymmetry between capital's level of mobility and labor's allows for lots of unaccountable political influence, and causes inequality when one side can exploit many sets of laws while the other is mostly stuck in one place. e: *also the deals for which commodities a nation should specialize in will have developed countries exporting highly skilled, specialized labor that relies on heavy capitalization and training (see israel with IT), while poorer countries are set up to export low margin, labor-intensive commodities (haiti with textiles). High amounts of training in developed countries means an investment in their people and the institutions that allow a highly skilled workforce to exist; labor-intensive industries treat its total labor pool as interchangeable and disposable in the process of reaching low margin profits. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:21 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:These two statements seem to contradict each other. It wasn't intended as a contradiction; people, particularly in developed nations, should ignore the distraction of blaming their issues at foreigners and recognise that many are domestic. Yet at the same time they have a lot of power to help the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
You said "the raging at globalization is a bit silly." Globalization, however, in its current form, results in draining wealth from foreign countries since the profit/gains from land and labor exploitation largely flow out of those foreign countries to rich private individuals who live in the developed world (but just rent the land and labor in foreign places because lax laws allow for better profits there). The flow of wealth to private individuals is wealth that doesn't go toward the development of both a robust public sphere that allows people in developing nations to rise out of poverty, and it also means a lack of development of domestic-owned capital in those developing countries who at least have incentive to make their community somewhat inhabitable since they live there). Do you mean the raging at "globalism?" Globalism is the right wing term about raging against foreigners as spreading their cultural problems to the first world and the shadowy elite who facilitate this spread in order to... i dunno destabilize it and enact new world order or some other conspiracy poo poo. Globalism and globalization are two separate things Rodatose fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:You said "the raging at globalization is a bit silly." Globalization, however, in its current form, results in draining wealth from foreign countries since the profit/gains from land and labor exploitation largely flow out of those foreign countries to rich private individuals who live in the developed world (but just rent the land and labor in foreign places because lax laws allow for better profits there). The flow of wealth to private individuals is wealth that doesn't go toward the development of both a robust public sphere that allows people in developing nations to rise out of poverty, and it also means a lack of development of domestic-owned capital in those developing countries who at least have incentive to make their community somewhat inhabitable since they live there). That depends on which definition you use. I see globalisation as a process of increased interconnection of the world which leads to unprecedented association and collaboration of people who live in different countries. There are many benefits of such a process, and narrowly defining it as negative is ignoring those benefits in favour of, uhh, nationalism I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Cool, always wanted an alt-left vs Internet Communism thread. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
That definition might more be "multiculturalism" or "transculturation". I define globalization as the seeking to consolidate as many logistics networks into a single, comprehensive global trade network with an emphasis on establishing the legal/political mobility of capital in order to increase individuals' access to resources (including the resource of labor) and ultimately cut costs. It's been around for a while, including the british empire's efforts at establishing a global supply and production chain for things like cotton (involving labor in the west indies and british raj and textile production in britain) It's proposed in theory that this sort of supply side approach will increase people's welfare. It could, in the same way any system that consolidates power for efficiency of service could if its gains were properly distributed. However, its current implementation lacks the kind of political restraints against consolidation of power to those who act the most exploitative or corrupt. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 21:08 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:That definition might more be "multiculturalism" or "transculturation". Well, yes, there are issues with how it currently functions, but arguably it helps the economies of many poorer nations too - certainly the ones developing at the most rapid speed appear to be those which are derisively called the sweatshops of the world. And yes I agree it has been around a long time - in fact, if you read the Deutscher quote earlier he directly addresses it much before the current iteration of "globalisation" took place. On the topic of the definition, it's wikipedia but it's a definition along the lines of which I've read other many times. Though yes it should be fair to say that economics has it's own more narrow definition of globalisation (the economic globalisation as written below) quote:Globalization (or globalisation; see spelling differences) is the action or procedure of international integration of countries arising from the conversion of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.[1] Advances in transportation (such as the steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships) and in telecommunications infrastructure (including the rise of the telegraph and its modern offspring, the Internet and mobile phones) have been major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[2][3][4] Though many scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its history long before the European Age of Discovery and voyages to the New World, some even to the third millennium BC.[5][6] Large-scale globalization began in the 1820s.[7] In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the connectivity of the world's economies and cultures grew very quickly. The term globalization is recent, only establishing its current meaning in the 1970s.[8] In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.[9] Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.[10] Globalizing processes affect and are affected by business and work organization, economics, socio-cultural resources, and the natural environment. Academic literature commonly subdivides globalization into three major areas: economic globalization, cultural globalization, and political globalization.[11] This caused shifts in population for third world countries, it took away their healthy men and unmarried women leaving wives, children, and the elderly to struggle which in return, lowered their health dramatically.[12] The people that had left these countries also soon found out that the factory owners they started working for cut corners and worked the people extra hard, and did not care about health or safety.[12]
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
You're using Wikipedia as your definitive source when approaching a multi-levered complex phenomenon that is to this day heavily contested in academia, business and politics....?  Guys, I'm out.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 21:21
|
|