Sep 14 2009
The Lord of the Ring of Free Trade: Is globalization really a force of evil in the world?
Published by Jason Welker at 10:49 am under Free Trade,Globalization,Trade
YouTube – Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring of Free Trade
Free trade: one of the most contentious issues in economics. The consensus seems to be in among economists: specialization and trade among nations based on the principle of comparative advantage leads to improvements in access to goods and services, as well as increased wealth and welfare among all countries involved. But that does not mean it’s easy to convince everyone in society to adopt free trade.
In his book “Bound Together”, Yale University Economic Historian Nayan Chanda has this to say about the word “globalization”:
Since the word globalization appeared in the dictionary, its meaning has undergone a massive transformation. Just two of the dozens of definitions of globalization illustrate the problem in grappling with this phenomenon. Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Jeffrey L. Watson defines globalization in cultural terms-as “the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, can foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.”
The official World Bank definition of globalization is stated, not surprisingly, in purely economic terms, as the “freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries.”
Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the “werewolfsh hunger” of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
Looking at globalization through the prism of business and economics helps one to understand the Internet, the mobile phone, and the cable TV-connected world we inhabit, but it does not explain how human life was globalized long before capitalism was formulated or electricity invented.
According to Chanda, globalization and the internationalization of our markets has been going on for thousands of years throughout human history. The anti-globalization views expressed in the video below portray the phenomenon as a recent, oppressive, capitalistic phenomenon. Watch the video and discuss the questions below.
Discussion Questions:
- Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
- Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
- What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
About the author: Jason Welker teaches International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement Economics at Zurich International School in Switzerland. In addition to publishing various online resources for economics students and teachers, Jason developed the online version of the Economics course for the IB and is has authored two Economics textbooks: Pearson Baccalaureate’s Economics for the IB Diploma and REA’s AP Macroeconomics Crash Course.
Jason is a native of the Pacific Northwest of the United States, and is a passionate adventurer, who considers himself a skier / mountain biker who teaches Economics in his free time. He and his wife keep a ski chalet in the mountains of Northern Idaho, which now that they live in the Swiss Alps gets far too little use. Read more posts by this authorRelated posts:
- Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?
- Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”
- Mankiw on free trade in politics
- McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
- Intro to International Economics – “Making Globalization Work”
hah i love the video!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video definitely views the concept of free trade and unregulated capitalism as negative. Capitalism is cast as the overarching enemy in the movie, aligning with the left-wing critic definition of "expansionist and exploitative capitalism". Free trade is accused of plundering the resources of the minorities and less fortunate parties in order to benefit rich nations and corporations – who care little for anything else but profit.
I would say that the fight against free trade unites groups that essentially represent minorities precisely because it is the minorities who suffer from free trades ill effects. Labour unions may dislike it because it results in lower wages for domestic workers, as jobs can be moved to cheaper centers of production. Liberals may not like free trade as it is perceived as being a highly conservative ideal that values profits and laissez-faire ideologies over individual rights or equality. Lastly conservationists main issue with free trade would probably have to do with human encroachment onto pristine natural areas and the subsequent destruction of those areas that result from a shift of jobs to new cheaper, more efficient, etc. places, or an increase in the use of fossil fuels as goods are transported across the world.
Free trade seems to homogenize once very different locations, for example traditional restaurants are replaced by generic fast food chains. This could come with a cost to culture, as many major cities now seem very similar, but if looked at from a non-sociological/anthropological perspective the erosion of cultural uniqueness may not necessary be all bad. If people begin to accept the same societal norms as everyone else the world over communication and business interactions may be made easier. Personally I prefer the retention of cultural differences, even if only because it makes everything more interesting. I think that free trade with some imposed regulations would be the best option, for example some protectionism might be a good thing – possibly holding on to small industries of historical significance or allowing for a residual amount of self-sufficiency in case trade with a major supplier is cut off – however it would pay to be careful in this case as subsidizing a huge and inefficient industry could cost the economy a significant sum of money and possibly damage less rich but more efficient centers of production, instead of protecting unwieldy industries the government could support the retraining and movement of workers into new industries that are efficient, resulting in an overall gain for the world economy. Another thing that probably should be regulated are the environmental outcomes of free trade, if moving to a new production center means a huge rise in pollution levels then this should probably be discouraged; as climate change is already proceeding at an alarming rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do not think there is a point in commenting on the video after Alex has done so extensively, although I would like to just bring forward my personal opinion opon free trade. As Alex argued free trade with some regulations is the best option, and I agree with this idea. Why? Free trade is suposed to allow countries and so consumers to purchase imports which are cheapers and of a better quality since they have been produced in country which has a lower opporunity cost in producing a certain good. If this basic principle and idea is followed then this would allow everyone to benefit from trade. But unfortunatly there have been countries, like the Unites states, which have been largly subsidizing certain industries, such as agriculture, in order to help their farmers to remain in the market even when they would naturally fall out of it. This of course allows American farmes to produce goods at much lower prices that they would normally be able to (without subsidies), but so causing poorer countries which cannot afford subsidies but which would naturally be able to produce a cheaper good in that area, to fall out of business.
Free trade is important and it can be very beneficial for countries as long as some regulations are placed in order to avoid events like the one above to keep on accourring. In fact if they do, like they a right now, free trade will simply cause richer countries to keep on gettin richer and at the same time pushing poor countries even more into debt and so in even worst economical social and political conditions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Matteo,
You are soooo right about subsidies screw up the benefits of free trade. The U.S. like all other countries, speak highly of free trade but often refute it by reverting to subsidies or tariffs. The best case in America right now is with Ethanol. The average American doesn't understand how the U.S. government is subsidizing the American farmer, raising the price of gasoline (10% ethanol from corn), corn and other related foods, all by putting large tariffs on imported ethanol.
That is why economics should be taught to all. If you survey Americans most of them ignorantly think that it is GOOD for our economy that we are buying our corn/ethanol from U.S. farmers….they are 180 degrees incorrect!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex, Matteo… great insights! Alex, your argument FOR some protectionism really gets at the core of some of the very topics we'll study in our new unit on International Economics. In fact, here in Switzerland, from what I can tell, barriers to trade exist for the precise reasons you indicate, namely to protect the "pastoral" culture of the Swiss countryside… Expensive cows grazing on expensive real estate being milked by rich farmers (compared to farmers in most countries, that is). Surely the system of tariffs and subsidies here in Switzerland offers farmers some of the same support as the agricultural subsidies in the US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am personally quite surprised to find this video against capitalism. I was aware that not all people support it but had very little experience in seeing other views expressed. I am also shocked to find this P.O.W. being displayed through this particular medium, as The Lord of the Rings was a western movie made in a capitalist environment for purposes of profit. Perhaps this irony was intended by the author but i find it hard to take him seriously when he shows very little evidence to argue his case and instead tries desperately to portray Communism as the side of good. Or so i see it. It almost seems that, with the lack of evidence, the author is brainwashed. Or so it seems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Free markets vs. command that is the question! No economies today are purely market economies or command (communism) economies. They are all "mixed" economies, with each economy having a different weighting of market vs. command. Closer to the command continuum you have North Korea and Cuba, closer to the free market continuum you have countries like Singapore and Switzerland.
Economist cannot agree on the perfect mix, but I think it is fair to say that the predominant thinking is more market than command, which can be evidenced by China' and Russia's march over towards the free market side.
In fact, many have said, especially over the last 6 months, that the United States should move slightly more towards the command side as the economy has slowed down partially blamed on the government not regulating banks and credits as much as they should. Others have contended that a more "command" (government approach) style can help deliver a more equitable distribution of income.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that the film, though brilliant ( it made my day) was very one sided towards a command, communist system. fighting for socialism and all of its beleifs and slandering capitalism. A mixed economy is of course the solution, lessez fair, yet government intervention to save the economy once in a while and investment in infrastructure as well as other services to help the quality of life of the citizens. The point that the film is completely missing, is that Socialism, portrayed as functional and just beaten down by the capitalist, doesent acctually work in its most extreme forms. A command economy is without incentives and renders the economy useless. I'm glad for the protectionism which alex mentioned, but its a far cry from the communist words of the movie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video is an obvious anti-capitalist message, bordering on the extreme. Its continuous repetition of the evils of the free market and capitalism become redundant after the first few minutes, yet it also portrays a truth about the free market: capitalism is an economy driven by greed, with little regard for the fellow man, except for the benefit he/she can bring you. In a perfect world, everyone would co-operate and help those in need with little or no reward for their effort. Further, I agree with Chanda: globalization and capitalism have been going on for millennia. People have traded goods between tribes for different prices, basing their prices on how bad the other tribe needed their products. And for obvious reasons: why sell a jacket, for example, to a tribe which will in turn give you just a few dishes, when another tribe will offer a live goat, considering their urgent need. Idealists assume that people are by nature caring and will act accordingly, giving for the simple pleasure of giving. Unfortunately, human beings are not by nature social creatures and self-preservation ranks way above altruism on our list of priorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That video was verry anti free trade, i agree that there are many losers with free trade however i would not agree to the extent that the video depicts, i have a question about what the ring depicts it seems to change thoughout the movie, i also agree with Nick B.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When watching the clip, it is really obvious to see that is a really anti- free trade, which is very strange, as Nick B said: the lord of the rings is a western capitalist movie, but it is used to speak out against free trade and so on. But what these people failed to see is that free trade increase a countries output, income and standard of living. Free trade and globalization allows consumers to buy good which as cheaper and better quality, as free trade increase competition, driving cost down to minimum. It decrease inflation, as AS shifts out and leads to a decrease in unemployment. However, in the short run, there will be an increase in unemployment, as unskilled labor jobs get moved to other countries which have a lower minimum wage. Therefore a lot of unemployment will occur, but this can be solved by implementing supply side polices (removing labor market rigidities). But in the long run, if labor gets an increase in skill they can produce good s of higher quality and thus receive more revenue. And yes, there are negative sides to free trade and globalization: pollution, los of culture, exploitation and fair terms of free trade. However, more people are willing to take these negative aspects into account, so that they can enjoy the benefits of free trade. What the clip states is that countries a better off without free trade and in a more socialistic environment, but when has this been true in history? Russia/ the USSR fell apart because their economy collapsed and did not trade. China in the 1400 (I think it was then) was a world power. It was the equivalent to the USA and Europe today, but it too fell apart after it stopped trading with other countries. To support the point that free trade is good: when China opened its boarders to trade in 1990, it economy increase exponentially (GDP increased from 150 billion to 18 trillion in 1978). I think that in the long run, free trade is a very good idea and concept. However the trade we have today is not very free trade, as the advocates of free trade put restrictions, tariffs, quotas, and subsidize production of some goods. When free trade come problems, but one has to deal and solve them so that one can benefit fully from free trade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
In the video posted free trade is portrayed as an evil force to be fought at all costs. Implementing a policy of international free trade is implied to be equivalent to capitalism, which cannot be controlled. Left wing critics of free trade have also defined globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Because globalization can be defined as "expansion and exploitation" and extensive globalization could very likely ruin certain aspects of the environment, it is only natural that environmentalists would be anti-globalization. Liberals feel that utilizing free trade in a well educated and thought out manner will level the playing field in regards to economic wealth; however, because capitalism is controllable by the ruling upper classes only, free trade would not fulfill its potential. Concerning labor unions, if free trade were to be opened up in a worldwide market it would create incredible competition among workers. Due to the differences in labor prices between many countries, those with the lowest labor prices would be the best off, while those with the highest labor prices would have severe difficulties.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
In my opinion, globalization and free trade can be seen as both a positive advancement in the name of humanity and a negative result of the greedy and destructive nature of mankind. Opening free trade to nations worldwide, if carried out correctly and carefully, could level the playing field of the economic world. Such an action could lessen the gap between LEDCs and MEDCs. However, it also must be remembered that, as the quote in the question so aptly states, free trade could also “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” I feel that this would be an unfortunate event, and the fun and exciting aspect of humanity could be lost with the standardization of the differing cultures present around the world. Due to the greedy and destructive nature of mankind often manifest in capitalism, the world could truly become “flat”. [See http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-worl... ]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Dimitri Da Ponte:
I really liked what you had to say, especially your example! What I feel is perhaps the most important part of your comment is the way that "human beings are not by nature social creatures and self-preservation ranks way above altruism on our list of priorities." Like many economic theories, free trade would be ideal in the 'perfect world'. Unfortunately, human beings generally are short term and short range creatures. Often we live with a thought process not dissimilar to the following: "If it doesn't influence me, my friends, or my family then why should I care? It doesn't exist for me." Along with this comes the problem of greed – capitalism is governed by the wealthy elite, no matter the technical definition…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The concept of free trade in this video somehow is not normalized as “capitalism” as adverse. Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production is privately controlled; according to the video. This “capitalism” was been compared to “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”. Free trade is blamed of looting the resources. This is not reasonable, I think because it just benefits the rich people.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Free trade and globalization lets consumers to buy good which are cheaper and better quality, this leads to the cost down to the very least. In contrast, there could be an increase in unemployment as untalented labor jobs are moved to other places which have a very least wage. Thus, a lot of employment will occur, this however can be solved by implementing supply side policies such as removing labor market rigidities. On the other hand in the long run, if labor gets an increase in abilities which they can produce goods of higher quality and therefore obtain more revenue.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Well, in my opinion I think there is some points which are negative. For instance, I found the negative sides to free trade and globalization which are exploitation, loose of culture, and environmental pollution. Though, there are many people who tend to consider these aspects so that they can appreciate and get the point into the benefits of free trade. But I still consider that the free trade is important and it can be very beneficial for countries unless they no more push LEDCs even more into debt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alison.ecslb.f09,
Alison, I think you’ve stated your answer quite clearly, and I would like to bring up my opinion little bit about your answer.
First of all I liked the fact that you even researched for answering the question. Secondly, I also liked the fact that you have considered the answer for #3 in both positive and also somehow in negative ways. I compared my answer for #3 in negative way. I now see yours which is contrasting to mine; it is actually interesting to read about. The phrase you wrote: ‘humanity and a negative result of the greedy and destructive nature of mankind.’ Here you referred to humanity which I personally liked it and thought of it seriously back to it, in positive knowledge, I think it is true that the world could possibly become “flat” due to the greedy and destructive nature of mankind. I have visited the site you’ve included. It was very helpful.
JiYoon
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video describes free trade as an evil movement, bent on taking advantage of those who can not stand against it to add to the power of those in the circle of wealth. The video seems to align itself with the equivalent of the definition of capitalism.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unites so many different groups because it is seen a far reaching problem which is seen to “make possible the exploitation of the environment” as well as leading to “the domination of all life”. These groups see this as wrong and wish to take a stand against this for various reasons that each group has closest to heart.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is a system of trade that occurs between countries without any barriers or hindrances. It can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”, only in an ideal world where no one country or group used this to get ahead or to be greedy. In my opinion, it is a good thing only in theory. In all practicality it is just wishful thinking that is used for corruption and greed. If people have the opportunity, they will try to do what they can to pull forward and break out of the pack, regardless of where it puts others in the race.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Jiyoon.ecslb.f09,
I really enjoyed your insight into the second question, "Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?" I really liked the way that you focused on one group for the most part, the labor unions, and how you showed both the pros and cons in relation to their point of view. I believe that anything is good in moderation and that there is always two sides to every story and you seemed to really grasp the idea that what is good for some people may hurt others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
1. The video is representing free trade being generally bad but especially for developing countries. Like in Chandas book the video says that globalization and free trade or benefiting only the rich and firms. Also Chanda and the video say that even individuals have to fight against globalisation and capitalisation. And Lastly both say that capitalsim is going to expand more and more.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
2. It unites such groups because they are the ones that do not profit from globalisation, capitalsim and free trade. SO it is clear that they are the most likely to fight against something damaging them.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
3. Free trade is the ability for a firm or individual to trade freely without obstacle with another country. I think it cannot do that because it will need a very significant change to do that and it is not going to just be by free trade that it is going to happen. I think this is good that it will not change because then if you go to other countries it is still special, but at the same time it could help for example with communication.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Madison.ecslb.f09
I agree with the answers of question one and three but I do not really understand the second one. You said that it is a big problem so many groups try to fight against it but if it is such a big problem would not the government do something against it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As depicted in the video, free trade is viewed as a master plan of large corporations intended to provide the means for controlling the world. It is something to be fearful of, “threatening the end of the world”. The video most certainly would agree with the Karl Marx’s left wing critics who contend that globalization is “synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
The anti-globalization movement unites disparate groups such as environmentalists, liberals and labor unions. In terms of environmentalists, free trade and globalization leads to an improvement in access to goods. This means that there is more of a chance for bad things to be on the market, and with the increased competition that comes along with free trade, firms and producers will most likely do whatever they can to get their product sold, disregarding expensive “green” or “healthier” manufacturing methods. Whatever existing problems in an economy are, with free trade and globalization each issue will be magnified and exaggerated, because it will be on a global scale. The microeconomic issues of an individual country now become macroeconomic global issues.
Free trade, according to the World Bank, is “freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries”. Free trade ultimately leads to a “standardization of cultural expressions” because as each country is trading ideas as well as goods with each other, free of inhibitions and consequences, each country will slowly be assimilated into every other country, and the world will become sort of one massive standard culture. I think that this can be a bad or a good thing, I think that if it is forced, if globalization were ever to be mandated then it would be a terrible thing. I think it is a natural progression that the world will go through, eventually it will happen, but we need to be ready for it and I don’t think it will happen soon. At least, the “standardization of cultural expressions” will not, the beginning stages of free trade may be possible. But I think there is too much stubbornness, age old traditions, and lack of healthy communication between some nations today so because of that,“standardization” would not be a good thing. However, eventually, I think it could be a successful transformation, as each country shares it wealth with one another, not only in terms of goods but also ideas and knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Madison,
I think it is important to consider human behavior in your answer to the last question, when you stated how there will always be a group who is rebelling. I hadn't thought of it in that way. But do you think that just for that group of people we should hold back a progression which might be potentially beneficial for a large population? I wonder if one of those groups could ever hold enough power to stunt globalization once, or if ever, it occurred. What would happen if we de-globalized! When you said how globalization would be successful only in theory and if ever implemented, it would virtually be a disaster, that reminds me of a utopia, how it sounds nice but could never happen. Maybe we can equate globalization to trying to create a utopia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This was such a creative idea. Kudos to whoever came up with it! I thoroughly enjoyed how this movie and the evils of free trade were tied together. (:
1) Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of free trade is definitely negative for it is seen as an ominous, destructive entity. According to the movie clip, “‘free trade’ would make possible the exploitation of the environment and the domination of all life.” In other words capitalism cannot be regulated. It only serves the rich and cripples the poor. For the benefit of the global economy capitalism must not be able to thrive. The context of this video most closely aligns itself with Chanda’s third definition of globalization. “Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the ‘werewolfsh hunger’ of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.”
–
2) Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
These are the people who will be the most negatively affected by globalization, hence why they must band together to stop it in its tracks. Capitalism will spread internationally, take advantage of the poor, and devastate the natural world. Neither of these groups reaps the harvest of globalization; instead they are robbed of the fruit of their labor.
–
3) What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is trade that occurs between countries without any barriers or hindrances. Firms are able to sell directly into a country as easily as the firms within that country are able to trade. It may be able to “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” due to the fact that the more powerful players in the global economy will smother the weaker ones. Eventually only the cultural aspects of those few empires will exist. This would be a devastating as the true beauty of humankind lies in diversity. The world is comprised of a diverse population not only in terms of ethnic background, but also in difference of opinions, ideas, upbringings, taste, accomplishments, failures, hopes and dreams. Every person is an individual. It is important to support the diversity of mankind, for it allows us to shed our ignorance and become open to the lifestyles of those who are not very much like us. This is why free trade must be regulated to some extent so that all peoples will have the fair chance to flourish. We cannot allow greater nations to take advantage of the less powerful ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex your analysis is too wonderful for words! What an extremely detailed comment. Great job breaking down question two. You explained each group's reasoning very well. I like the example you used to answer the third question. Sadly, that happens to be very true in many cases. Protectionism would be an excellent tool to use to control free trade for the sake of preserving diversity of cultural expressions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Theresa great job interrelating the questions. I agree with all of your points. I found these statements to be excellent: "Whatever existing problems in an economy are, with free trade and globalization each issue will be magnified and exaggerated, because it will be on a global scale. The microeconomic issues of an individual country now become macroeconomic global issues." This is one of the major downsides to globalization. Everything spreads and that includes the economic issues. This can serve to be a serious problem in the near future if free trade is not regulated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1 the video shows the free market and the capitalism in general as an evil force that want to control the world, that only benefit to the rich people, that destroy or buy all the things it finds. I think that this is a very wrong way of thinking about the capitalism, it benefits all the people only you have to see how the normal people live with the mercantilism
2 globalization affects a range of different places and in every place that it affects a small group appear against it but only in that place. For example the capitalism attack the environment and small and to the labour but the ecologists and the labour movements don’t have anything in common
3 Is easy to see that if we know the culture of every place we want the bet of every culture and we change our culture to obtain this, and because for almost every one the best of the different culture are almost the same all the world is starting ro have the same culture but I think that this is OK, because it permits to change the bad things of our culture
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alison.ecslb.f09
In my opinion your answer is a good example (especially the part about the labour movements) fro the real problem that the people see to the globalization: the possibility of losing the thing that the have because I person which is in a worse situation want to work as the same that the person in the developed country but for less so the person in the developed country has to work for less if he want to be able to compete
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.In this video, free trade is represented as an evil force that should be prevented. It is against capitalism and implies that it only benefits the wealthy and further wounds the poor. This video most aligns with the third definition of globalization in Chanda’s book “left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about werewolfish hunger of capitalism reaching four corners of the world…”
2.Environmentalists, liberals and labor unions are often united in the anti-globalization movement because they are those who will be affected the worst by globalization. Therefore, these groups unite to stop globalization before it begins to affect the world.
3.Free Trade is a trade between countries without any barriers. I believe, as most things are, the initial idea of free trade is ok, then again many believed that communism sounded good as well, what people do not tend to weigh are the destructive possibilities that may occur when this is actually put into action in the real world. I do not think the outcome would be good at all, countries may be able to spread their wealth with each other, but this would also cause a mingling of cultures, which may spread them, but may also cause tensions. It seems that not matter what is passed many things end up corrupt in this world and loopholes are always discovered. I also believe that there is an automatic barrier to free trade, and that is currency. If free trade is to be made at its simplest, then the countries will most likely wish to have a common currency. If this were to take place, then someone would have to establish it and that would put specific people in power and they could benefit their own country through this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Diana,
I think you made some very good points in your post, your opinion on free tade is an interesting idea and very true. I agree that a mix of cultures is good, howevere it would not be good if people began to pick up the cultures and customs of other countries and create a less diverse world.
-Caroline
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
It seems to focus on the left wing critics point of view, who sees globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
This is because they all believe globalization is bad. The environmentalists believe that the act of free trade will increase the amount of goods transport around the world, which increase the use of fossils fuels and pollutes the environment. The liberals also dislike this because they believe in freedom and the country should be able to produce whatever they like rather than specialized in an area and the firms must produce this good. The labor union does not like this as this limits the job opportunities available in the country.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade promotes the freedom to trade between countries. It “fosters a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” because countries will be specialized in an area and all the goods will all be coming from that country and hence fosters standardization. In my opinion, this is bad for consumers as it limits the choices and diversity of consumers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Pedro
You mentioned that it helped to change the bad things in our culture. However, I do not believe there is a better or a worse culture, they are just different
Derek
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Free trade is not supported by any means in the video. The video shows free trade as economically harmful and that free trade should be stopped. The video aligns with the third definition of Chanda's book, the one explaining left-wing critics and Marxism.
2. These three diverse groups will be most affected by globalization, which is why they form an unlikely alliance to halt the spread of capitalism. Capitalism would obviously be opposed by liberals, and environmentalists and labor unions don't like globalzation because it highlights the problems they fight against and make them worse with capitalist policies; labor laws/unemployment and the unhealthy environment.
3. Free trade is trade between countries that isn't hindered by any laws or regulations. It would simplify and standardize the world because with free trade, countries could specialize on one product because they would know that they could trade this product with other countries beacuse the other country would also specialize on a single product. This would result in the whole world having the same products in the same amounts. Although the economy probably would be healthy under this system, the world would be a much more boring place. It would also result in the depletion of natural resources more quickly if only one product was made in a country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Caroline
Comparing the implementation of free trade and the implementation of communism was really interesting. People did think communism sounded like a good idea, but then it turned out to not be so good. However, I don't think all countries need to have a common currency to participate in completely free trade. I think a fixed exchange rate would probably suffice, so that the value of currency could always be the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to the video, free trade is a faulty capitalist invention, which is only concentrated on helping the rich and is destructive for the poor. Free trade needs to be extinguished. The view aligns itself with “expansionist and exploitative capitalism” that is viewed by the left-wing critics.
The anti-globalization movement is attractive to groups that suffer as a result of it; such as the environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions. For example, for labor unions, if there is free trade then there is more competition for them. As the labor can now come from many different groups, countries, etc. making it a lot more difficult to for workers to stand out.
Free trade is when trade is allowed between two points without barriers and interference from the government to control the trade. Free trade can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” because it also for the interactions and transactions between cultures without a problem. With the increase of trading that occurs, essentially represents the more sharing of ideas, goods, and things between cultures, the more uniting the world more closely. Even with all the problems that it has, I think free trade is a good thing, and as the world becomes more globalized, it will become a harder thing to avoid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In response to Allison:
I really enjoyed reading your comment because it was filled with valuable information! I liked how you brought in the aspect of LEDC's and MEDC's because it is true that these countries would certainly be aided with free trade. It would boost their abilities and ideally let them have more contact with the rest of the world, helping their economies to grow.
I think that I slightly misunderstood the question about free trade to “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. Now that I re-read it, I agree that it can be harmful to the world if cultural expressions were lost, but I don't know if I completely agree with this idea. I don't necessarily think that free trade would cause the loss of individual cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry is that of expansionist and exploitative capitalism from Chanda's book. The video describes free trade as a capitalist movement that will ensnare the world in its clutches and destroy the economy. The video depicts free trade as dominating the entire world through one economic process.
2. The anti-globalization movement unites such disparate groups like environmentalists, liberals and labor unions because through globalization, groups see the fall of things like the environment, democracy and unions. Globalization is seen as expansion that could be extremely controlling and it could cause serious problems for market competition and trading opportunities. Globalization can mean that people will buy goods that are cheaper, and this can cause problems for countries that have to produce at higher cost levels, meaning they won’t receive much of the trade.
3. Free trade is exchanges between that can occur between countries without any hindrances, rules, regulations or anything of that sort. It can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” because it makes the relations between countries easy, and it would foster the idea that countries would only have to produce a few specialized goods. This would mean that they would really make their cultural expressions just a standard manufactured thing. Cultural differences would just become manufacturing differences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To John Lyons-Harrison,
I agree with your answer about how countries would blur the differences between their countries. I also agree that countries would not really be different, they would just be manufacturing machines. The world would be pretty boring. I also think that free trade and globalization is portrayed by the video as seriously wrong and can totally cause serious world problems. Globalization is seen as horrible and a mass world domination of capitalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video's view of free trade is that it's an evil entity that serves only to aid the rich and powerful. The video aligns itself with the Marxist definition of capitalism as exploitative. All of the above groups see capitalism as a threat that must be contained or destroyed, as it makes corporations more powerful (thus earning the opposition of liberals and labor unions) and could lead to the destruction of environment through pollution (thus earning the opposition of environmentalists). Frre trade is trade between countries with no agreements or hindrances in the way, which causes countries to become interdependent and adapt to cultural differences, causing similarities. It's a good thing, as it allows people to get the goods that they need easily.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
John Lyons-Harrison;
Globalization isn't all that bad! Not everything would become the same, and not all corporations are evil. The video is a gross exaggeration. and should not be trusted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video aligns itself with the definition of globalization as, ‘expansionist and exploitative capitalism’. Free trade is depicted as an evil consortium that desires to control all resources and industry in every nation, and speaks of the LEDC’s being the losers in this situation.
The anti-globalization movement can unite such disparate groups not be finding similarities between them but by providing a common enemy. Assuming the definition of globalization is ‘expansionist and exploitative capitalism’ then exploitation harms the environment and the labour force, and expansionism would harm the liberals. Therefore uniting these groups.
Free trade is the ability for any entity, whether corporate or individual to sell or buy in any market unimpeded. It can foster a standardization of cultural expressions by monopolizing all produce to the most popular or cost effective. Once this has happened, all persons will be eating similar foods, wearing similar clothes, and buying similar things, therefore a global standardized culture would have been created. This is by far the worst thing possible that could occur. Our diversity as individuals and groups is our main source of beauty in my opinion and the loss of that would be a crime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to michael.ecsla.f09
don't you think that once one corporation gains the upper hand and is able to produce at a lower cost per unit then all it's competitors because it has access to such a large market and resources, that we run the risk of monopolizing all industries? And if that happened we could all be tempted to buy the same goods from this 'super corporation' because of their high efficiency and low costs.
I do agree with you on one point however, that the video is packed with exaggerations, but I'm sure they are indented to add to the attempted 'humour'.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Discussion Questions:
1.Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of free trade depicted int he movie obviously aligns itself with the Marxist view of free trade as a form of capitalism and thus as evil.
2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Honestly I think Alex pretty much said it all int he beginning. Each of these groups are a minority, which is a side product of capitalism. Capitalism creates and enlarges the gap between upper classes and lower classes and thus those in the lower class are going to rebel.
3.What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade can lead to everyone buying a certain product from the one place where ti is cheapest, causing everyone to end up buying the same exact product from the same exact person, thus destroying any uniqueness in cultural expression.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Caroline
I also enjoyed your comparison between the implementation of free trade and the implementation for communism. However, if we were to follow Marx's theories then we would see free trade as a necessary tool for communism to truly rise to power. He predicted that capitalism would become the predominant system for a time. However, he then said that capitalism was imperfect as it would create a void in classes, a rather large divide both socially and economically. This would cause the lower class, the majority of the population, to revolt and thus would rise communism in order to equalize all citizens and fix the problems of free trade and capitalism. So, do you ( and everyone else) think that the world will follow this trend in the future? It is clear to see that there are significant voids forming and there is mounting pressure for a more equal society (at least in America).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. THis follows the marxist view presented in the Changda's book.
2. Each of these groups has its own specific qualms with globalization. Environmentalists believe that it makes it easier for us to destroy our planet, liberals just don't like the orthodox view and since at this moment, globalization is orthodox, liberals are against it. Labour unions don't like the idea because it means they have less power in their market than before.
3. I think it's a bad thing because it is only through diversities in culture that some economic decisions are made. For example, originally in Sudan, the muslims and the blacks lived separately because of their opposing views but this worked out well for each of them economically because neither used up the other's resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Response to Luca:
I really appreciate your answers but in regards to question 2. Aren't liberals and environmentalists actually gaining support? Also, many liberals are in powerful and prosperous positions due to their controversial views. Could it maybe be that liberals are only liberals for the money?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1)In the view of the video, free trade is a bad thing, although it is not really being described why they think that is the case. It definitely aligns itself with the third quote “expansionist and exploitative capitalism“, seeing as they repeatedly mention “capitalism” in the clip. They say that capitalism and free trade are directly linked.
2)These groups unite, because they all have something to lose. Environmentalists fear that globalization will eventually ruin the world. For example, due to globalization Brazil has a greater demand in wood and so deforestation takes place because the government does not have any regulations with it, because to them the rise in the economy is more important than their land. Labour unions also fear and that is also why protectionism exists. In Germany for example, I know that protectionism exists, because otherwise imported fruits from Africa would be a lot cheaper than the fruits produced in the own country. Therefore people would not buy enough of the own-made fruits and so German farms would have be closed down to due a lack in demand.
3)Free trade means paying no tax when entering a country with large amounts of a good or service, which is to be sold in the entered country. It allows a vast variety of goods and services to be sold all around the world and so the choice is bigger and so is the standardization of the choices. People get used to the fact that they can buy bananas in Denmark, although they cannot be produced there (for example). My opinion is split about free trade. I think it gives each country a large variety of goods and services to buy that we normally wouldn’t have. Also, it spurs the economy in countries where the economy is still low, because it allows them to specialize in certain regions. On the other side, I mentioned the problems that arise for example that farmers in the own countries cannot earn enough money any longer, or the fact that the earth is suffering from globalization. That’s why I’m unsure whether free trade is actually good or bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to jack.esclb.f09
I enjoyed reading your answers, I wrote similar answers to 1) and 2).
I think that point you mentioned there in the end was really interesting; you said that through globalization people will start wearing the same things, eating the same food and so on. That's something I had never thought of. And in the beginning I thought it was not true. But now when thinking about it I can really see your point. The richer nations determine what is being sold on the market. And often they also put things back into the market when they don't need it anymore, for example old clothing or computers. These are generally bought by poorer countries. Why? Because they need to adapt to the globalized world in which we simply cannot live without computers etc anymore. So people start becoming more similar and are losing their culture. Slowly, but steady. Really good point you raised there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video depicts free trade as an evil tool to be utilized in a corporate world takeover. It aligns most with the third definition, as it views capitalism as a menace to freedom, and free trade as a means towards that end.
2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Globalization, has, naturally, a global effect. It touches a great variety of groups, ranging from environmentalists worrying about the adverse effects of corporate development on environmental health to labor activists who fear losing their jobs to cheaper competitors.
3.What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the selling and buying of goods between countries without restrictions in the form of tariffs or good quotas. Because goods from any country can theoretically be available in any other country, cultural items such as toys and entertainment could be constant across many different societies. This is a downside of globalization, because traditional cultural customs are ignored in favor of a global, standardized culture that does not allow for uniqueness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kerstin,
You mention the economic disadvantages that may result from an expansion of free trade as local businesses are crowded out by larger corporations with more economies of scale. What would you say about the cultural effects? As the youth of a nation begins eating McDonalds instead of traditional foods, and wearing cheap blue jeans rather than traditional dress, part of the culture is lost. This is another downside of globalization that cannot be ignored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. This video depicts free trade as something evil that should be avoided as it only benefits the rich and further hurts the poor. It seems to align itself with Chanda’s third definition of globalization: “Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the ‘werewolfish hunger’ of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.”
2. These are the groups of people who will be most affected by globalization, so it would make sense for them to unite to try and stop it. If capitalism spreads, it will take advantage of the poor and injure the natural world, which is what these groups are against.
3. Free trade allows trade to take place without any restrictions or barriers between individuals or firms in different countries. It may be able to “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” due to the fact that the more powerful firms in the global economy will smother the weaker ones meaning, eventually only the cultural aspects of those few empires will exist. I think this is a bad thing because there will be less cultural diversity in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mattea,
That is a good point about toys and entertainment. It is already happening i think because a lot of nations do not watch their national cinema anymore, they only watch American movies. The food aspect of it is important aswell. People start to lose touch with their culture, and the world might eventually end up with very similar countries.
Sara
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video definitely views the concept of free trade and unregulated capitalism as negative. Capitalism is cast as the overarching enemy in the movie, aligning with the left-wing critic definition of “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”. Free trade is accused of plundering the resources of the minorities and less fortunate parties in order to benefit rich nations and corporations – who care little for anything else but profit
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) The video agrees with the third definition, which equates free trade with expansionist and exploitative capitalism. Free trade, in the video, is shown to be, just like the ring in Lord of the Rings, an entity that will only bring evil to the world and therefore should be destroyed.
2) The anti-globalization movement believes globalization leads to the exploitation of the environment, which explains the involvement of environmentalists. Liberals, who are in favour of reform and progress, believe globalization aligns with conservative ideals and will widen the income gap as the rich will benefit most. Labour activists unite against globalization as workers will, pressurized by the possibility of losing their job to cheap labour from other countries, be compelled to accept lower wages.
3) Through free trade countries are enabled to have access over goods they would not have been able to produce themselves. Thus almost all markets around the world will have similar goods, such as potatoes, which were originally only available in certain areas. This is an example of how globalization may "foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world." On top of this, free trade encourages large firms to make profit by becoming multinationals and having establishments in as many places around the world as possible. As these firms often have large market power it is made extremely difficult for small, local firms to compete with these conglomerates and eventually give up their place to the larger multinational firms. This replacement of small, traditional establishments by multi-nationalist, omnipresent stores is another example of how free trade can "foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world" as almost everywhere around the world you will start to see the same multinationals.
This is an issue I have mixed feelings about. I believe it is positive that countries are able to share each others resources. On the other hand, I dislike how cultural diversity is being stifled by globalization – I find it sad to see how in my home town in Belgium, Gent, chain stores are gradually taking the place of small, traditional shops and restaurants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mattea,
in your response to Kerstin you mention how globalization spurs the youth of a nation to buy products by multinational corporations rather than goods proper to their culture. I fully agree with you on that, but your last point about the youth wearing jeans instead of traditional dress made me wonder – does this not, in a way, encourage our acceptance of people living in different countries? I mean, though I think maintaining some cultural diversity is important, wouldn't traditional dress emphasize and make it harder to overcome the differences in various cultures? I don't know, that's just how I see it.
-Eline
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Chandra’s definition from the Marxist perspective is the one that this movie takes. It portrays it as the antithesis of evil and the one object being used by large corporations to have their way with the laborers and other citizens. It shows all trade organizations to be the same, while there goals and aims are definitely not all identical. It simplifies the situation beyond what it probably should be.
2. This is because free trade is seen by these groups as the definition of “big business.” Environmentalists recognize the fact that imports from still-developing or culturally different countries may not have the same rules and regulations in regards to keeping the environment in mind. Also, with big oil coming from countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, this pollutant which affects many ecosystems is not a U.S.-based good but is harming the U.S. environments. Liberals, in the traditional sense of the term, shouldn’t be opposed to the idea of free trade because, well, they’re liberals. But it is obviously seen as a practice that is ruled by the few and powerful and puts the common man beneath their boot. Labor unions can see jobs outsourced overseas as a result of free trade because of certain wage restrictions they may be fighting for.
3. Free trade is the ability of different nations to engage in trade that is not deterred by high protective tariffs or other factors. The idea that it “fosters a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” does not seem like an accurate statement. Most free trade does not result in this kind of cultural mix. Any interaction is mostly done between men in suits who are not interested in spreading their culture back to their people. The days of that are long gone. Most free trade serves as little bit more than a profit incentive.
Trevor Tezel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eline,
I see from your second definition what’s meant by “standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” That was not as clear to me before. With big name chains like Wal-Mart who are based around the world, there is definitely a certain sense of standardization that takes place. I’m still not quite sure about your first definition, though. Your answers to the first two questions were great and gave me a lot of insight into the issue at hand.
Thanks!
Trevor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The view of free trade portrayed is overwhelming negative. It equates the forces of evil with free trade and not only that shows that any attempt to moderate it will fail and the only successful system is complete destruction. It The most obvious definition it fits is the Marxist one of the exploitation of the world by expansive capitalist forces.
2. Free trade is able to unite the diverse movements of the left because individually each group has its reason to disprove of it. Capitalism is about exploitation of resources for maximum gain ignoring negative externalities unless they are regulated, which natural leads to exploitation. Groups on the left tend to ascribe values to positive externalities (Green movement – Green areas, General leftist – the value of enjoying life (human rights) and anti-globalization – cultural diversity.) This leads to unification. A common enemy.
3. Globalization is the expansion of capitalism as it continues to seek new markets, markets it needs to keep up the standards of living by the people on top and to maintain production. This leads to a standardization of culture because one culture is pushed by the rich and people want to follow this example. Individual culture doesn't have the same sort of appeal to the young. The ways of your parents are generally seen as culturally backwards by the youth. The new thing is backed by all the stars people have been taught to worship as being successful and the icons of success. People try and emulate and the old culture collapses. Look at the world now and there is a unified western culture that unites most of Europe and North America with vast stretches elsewhere in the world. This had never before happened. The same kids wearing the same t-shirts and clothes, listening to the same bands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
This critical video views the promotion of free trade as an expansionism based on the interest of the corporations and as a tool to step into the developing countries to exploit their system and produce more revenues abroad. In the definitions in Chanda's book, the video align itself with the views of Left Wing critic, reminding the observations of Karl Marx," were wolfish hunger" of capitalism.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Anti-globalization movement unite with disparate groups such as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions because they share similar views towards free trade. Environmentalists would argue that the expansionism into resource-rich third world country is potentially destroying the local environment by stripping away its valuable natural resource which are homes to various creatures. Labor unions would fight against the movement because free trade could bring the exploitation into the working environment, resulting in lower wage and worse working conditions.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
In my definition, I consider "free trade" as a good, positive thing. Free trade promotes the removal of barriers existing between nations that would limit their international interaction in terms of trading. Trading is extremely vital to the fostering growth of economies because a both the export and import country could benefit from trading. Those who export receive revenue for what they give, and those who import could use the resource for domestic consumption. The video illustrates an extreme case of the free trade movement. It represents how large transnational corporation tie up with the government in order to expand its operation into foreign territory to exploit the local environment and system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with everyone that the free trade movement is providing the large multinational corporations, a window to expand their operation around the globe to "standardize the culture." To add on to this, this is one of the major reasons why nations decide to put tariffs on imported goods – to protect the domestic businesses from being crowded out by large firms and to preserve cultural values and practices.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the “werewolfsh hunger” of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism. There appears to be a difference of good and evil…and I guess evil representing capitalism and big corporations.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
All these groups support free trade, which means that they wouldn't accept limits or boundaries being set on trade. Environmentalists wouldn't agree to large forms of globalization as it would require human beings to have more wants and needs. Hense having to chop down more forests to get these good if we are talking about paper or tables. Labor unions would feel their workers would have to do more work for less wage to become more competitive with other countries.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade allows the flow of natural trade to go on between countries without any restrictions such as tariffs etc. Trading between country is very important for countries as it enables us to receive a wide variety of goods to build our economies with, if its new food kinds or metal alloys. However there are believe that there are also negative sides to this, if governments can't regulate whats coming into their countries, they could possibly lose control, and the economic situation of their own country could come in danger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video depict capitalism and free trade negatively and "evil" the video tries to show how globalization is synonymous with "exploitative and expansionist" and therefore this video adheres to the ideas of Karl Marx. The video shows capitalism need to "dominate the world" and take over the four corners.
2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
This is due to the exploitative and expansionist view points of capitalism and how it must dominate all. If it did it exist then there would be destruction of many natural environments such as forest to produce and aid the wants and needs of humans. The introduction of free trade everywhere would mean that companies would look to exploit the cheapest labour so they are able to be more competitive in over seas markets and so countries with low labour cost would benefit but those with high labour cost would be hindered from such a move. This competitive drive for labour would also reduce labour cost we would see that people would have to do more for less.
3.What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the ability of companies to be able to trade in various countries without any tariffs or barriers. This trade is crucial in the diversification of goods in the markets and we would see different goods come into these markets even if it was unavailable to be produced in the country. Trade is important in the growth of an economy. The negative side of free trade is that big corporations may exploit the cheap labour and the governments in these countries in order to ascertain what they need. We would see a large decline in culture as corporations are able to trade in any countries and there will a breakdown in culture as the market turn worldwide due to the lack in tariffs and barriers there for large corporate businesses are able to control nearly all the markets. This would lead to the world being lead by the rich sector which would lead to a break down also in culture and would make world culture collude more as there are no barriers the world has become one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Ralph,
Great answer to all three of the questions i liked the idea of corporation reaching out to all for corners of the world really shows the expansive nature of globalization. With the second question i would also include the idea about countries with cheaper labour will benefit more than countries with more expensive labour. None the less a great response in which you incorporated the video.
Dan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. This video depicts free trade as a terrible force that is only used as a means for large businesses to oppress the poor. The video aligns itself with the Marx definition, which portrays free trade as yet another way in which the poor are subjugated.
2. The anti-globalization movement unites very disparate groups because it does work against many of their beliefs: it can harm the environment and it certainly promotes big business. These groups are also all united by the fact that they work against the interests of big capitalist power, be they anti-government anarchists or pro-worker union organizers. As free trade works very much in favor of large corporations, all of these groups’ ideals are, by definition, opposed to its aims.
3. Free trade is a system by which nations can trade without government intervention. In my opinion, it is not a good system because, as Trevor stated, it is not performed by or for the people of the nations. Especially in developing countries, free trade is carried out by a few wealthy and powerful people while the rest of the nation has little say in the matter. It is a profit-driven system.
Chamonix
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Dan,
I really liked what you had to say about the fact that free trade reduces diversification of the market. You're right, this could be a good thing. I know that some developing nations have very poorly structured agriculture, which can be a barrier to economic development in these areas. Some nations that have poor agriculture but plentiful natural resources are able to use free trade to feed their people and make money. However, as you stated, this leads to countries that are so specialized that they only really produce one or two goods. Naturally, this can be a problem. In times of boom, these countries will do very well, but recessions could lead to market failure. I know Ralph noted that the Netherlands specialize in producing flowers. During a time of depression, this sort of luxury good would see a fall in demand in hard times. Also, in markets based on natural resources such as oil, depletion of these resources could leave the countries with nothing to export.
Thanks for the great post,
Chamonix
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of free trade description in he movie obviously aligns itself with an evil view and also portraying free trade as a form of capitalism.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
These are the people who will be the most negatively affected by globalization, hence why they must band together to stop it in its tracks. Capitalism will spread internationally, take advantage of the poor, and devastate the natural world. Neither of these groups reaps the harvest of globalization; instead they are robbed of the fruit of their labor.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
there are some points which are negative. For instance, I found the negative sides to free trade and globalization which are exploitation, loose of culture, and environmental pollution. Though, there are many people who tend to consider these aspects so that they can appreciate and get the point into the benefits of free trade. But I still consider that the free trade is important and it can be very beneficial for countries unless they no more push LEDCs even more into debt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1)Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of free trade depicted in this video is that free trade leads to the exploitation of natural resources and people for the benefit of rich, malignant corporations. This video most aligns itself with the third definition in Chanda's book: Karl Marx's definition of globalization as capitalist hunger being spread throughout the world.
2)Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unites such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labour unions because these are the groups that are most threatened by negative effects of globalization. Environmentalists have to contend with the increased ease and efficiency with which the earth's resources can be exploited. Liberals have to contend with globalization to a capitalist end decreasing social standards. Labor unions have to contend with increased competition from other countries where labor is much cheaper.
3) What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is a system in which nations can trade strictly based on economics conditions instead of restrictions implemented by governments. It can foster standardization of cultural expressions around the world, because it increases interaction between peoples. I don't think that this is necessarily a good thing insofar as it pertains to the homogenization of world cultures. However, I think it is a good thing to the extent that it increases understanding among cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Heyy Chamonix,
You say that you think globalization is negative because it does not have positive effects for the people of the nations. However, the whole theory of comparative advantage is the specialization that is enabled by globalization actually allows for higher levels of consumer welfare. An argument for globalization is that it increases the amount of choice that people would have than if they were operating primarily within a subsistence framework. Do you think that these benefits are not realized? Is it not possible for a profit driven system to have positive social impacts as well? Just playing devil's advocate here and I'd really love to hear what you think.
-Issa
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The video describes free trade as an evil movement, intent on taking advantage of those who cannot stand against it to add to the power of those in the circle of wealth. The video's idea is best defined by the communist definition of globalization.
2. The anti-globalization movement unites so many different groups because it is a far reaching problem which makes possible the exploitation of the environment as well as leading to the domination of all life. These groups see this as wrong and wish to take a stand against this for various reasons that each group has closest to heart.
3. Free trade is a system of trade that occurs between countries without any barriers or hindrances. It can foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world only in an ideal world where no one country or group used this to get ahead or to be greedy. In my opinion, it is a good thing only in theory. However I think that free trade and subsequent globalization eliminates each culture's identity and cannot ever be a good thing for the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Issa,
I agree with how you feel about globalization being both good and bad, but I think that in the end it will eliminate all of the wonderful cultures this world has to offer and we will all be stuck with whatever the greatest at the time is (right now American). I don't know about you but I love many other cultures and I'd hate to see everything become Americanized like is happening right now little by little.. what I really want to say is that each individual people should keep control of its cultural identity by not indulging in free trade too much. Free trade is also very good to increase general consumer welfare, but I see it ending badly..Oh and as an answer to the question you asked Chamonix about a profit driven system having positive social impacts as well, I think that it is possible in the short run but there is no way for there to be positive social impacts in the long run because of corruption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) The concept of free trade in this video somehow is not normalized as “capitalism” as adverse. Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production is privately controlled; according to the video. This “capitalism” was been compared to “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”. Free trade is blamed of looting the resources. This is not reasonable, I think because it just benefits the rich people.
2) The anti-globalization movement believes globalization leads to the exploitation of the environment, which explains the involvement of environmentalists. Liberals, who are in favour of reform and progress, believe globalization aligns with conservative ideals and will widen the income gap as the rich will benefit most. Labour activists unite against globalization as workers will, pressurized by the possibility of losing their job to cheap labour from other countries, be compelled to accept lower wages.
3) Free trade allows trade to take place without any restrictions or barriers between individuals or firms in different countries. It may be able to “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” due to the fact that the more powerful firms in the global economy will smother the weaker ones meaning, eventually only the cultural aspects of those few empires will exist. I think this is a bad thing because there will be less cultural diversity in the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
This video obviously strongly criticizes free trade, as it is described as the tool to destroy freedom and put forward inequality. It relates to the third definition, since it attacks the evil nature of free trade when creating inequality.
2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Such groups, though different, are all greatly affected by globalization.
3.What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Nowadays, mostly everyone around the world dresses alike. China, South America, Europe, everywhere people dress alike. Before, each country or culture used to have its own typical dressing style, or costume, as an american cowboy was quite different from a samurai. Globalization conveys the acceptance and learning of same lifestyles around the world. It's not that good since it eradicates tradition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Armando,
I agree with your point about having less cultural diversity in the world. Free trade, as you rightfully claim, indeed contributes to a subordination of developing countries to rich dominants, who will exploit the formers' resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Armando,
I agree with your point about having less cultural diversity in the world. Free trade, as you rightfully claim, indeed contributes to a subordination of developing countries to rich dominants, who will exploit the formers’ resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Marcelo,
I agree with your point about having less cultural diversity in the world. Free trade, as you rightfully claim, indeed contributes to a subordination of developing countries to rich dominants, who will exploit the formers’ resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
In the video, free trade is represted in a bad way for developing countries. It is debated that the only ones who can benefit from the free trade and globalization are rich people. This creates an enviroment in which capitalism is spreading around the world day by day and expending more. Thus, the individuals are going to not be able to fight capitalism anymore.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups because those groups are the ones damaged by globalisation and capitalism. It is not possible for those groups to fight against capitalism all by own so it is a logical movement of them to unite. My opinion is that I think this movement can create an ideology but hard to go further than this.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade can be explained as the feedom to the trade between countries. I think it is right that it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” . The reason of this is that the countries will be specialized on the products since the other countries will be specialized on another products, it will be easier to trade this product to other countries. I think it is a bad thing because there will be no different types of products even it will be better for economics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
to Armonda
I agree with you that the free trade will cause less cultural diversity but I think we should not skip the benefits that will bring to economy. Economy will be more healthier when there is no regulations between countries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
In this video, the international trade is not seen as a development for the countries, it is stated as being the evil force and taking over the world. The international trade is seen equal to the capitalis, so the activists are fighting against corporate globalization. So in Chanda’s book the definition to be chosen should be the last one which sees globalization as expansionist and exploitative capitalism .
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The definition of the globalization is given as expansionist and exploitative. This kind of a rapid globalization can affect the environment in really bad means, the polution will be much higher, negative externalities will lead. So for the environmentalists, this is very likely to be the supporters of the anti-globalization and world trade. Liberals basically think that globalization can be a benefical for the countries to develop, but because the world is now ruled by capitalism, it is really hard to develop if you are not from the upper class who controls the system. So they support the anti-globalization movement. For Labor unions, the international free trade will lead to a huge competition which will divide the labors, and endanger their unity. Labor prices will differ accordingly, and this will create an inequality.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is Free trade is a system in which goods, capital, and labor flow freely between nations, without barriers which could hinder the trade process. In my opinion, fostering a standardization of cultural expressions around the world is not a good thing, because this affects the uniqueness of the different cultures and the variety. The society would become only stereotypical if this is to be happened. So I see it as a bad thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Marcelo,
I liked your point about the cultural diversity and uniqueness of the culture. Free trade would affect it really badly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Free trade in this video is depicted as harmful and disadvantageous for developping countries wishing to trade fairly with all the other countries. They suggest that "free trade" originates from the capitalists and that the big corporations support them. The last of Chanda's definition seems to represent what is being stated in the video.
2) The anti-globalization movement unites disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions because capitalism cannot be fought on its own. All these groups are against a certain aspect of globalisation, such as the environmentalists are against it because it creates high pollution etc. So all these groups unite to try and bring down globalisation themselves.
3) Free trade is a way for all people to trade without any barriers between the people and the firms, which lets the economics set the rules. It can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” theoretically, however globalisation is the brainwash of a society and it eliminates what we once considered as a different culture with exotic food, a different way to dress and different customs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karen – I strongly agree with you that through globalisation, a loss of culture is inevitable and that environmental pollution takes place. However, it is too easy to say that free trade is good, because we live in the societies that benefit from it. However, if we were to spend some time in a developping country as a local and try to install our own corporation, it is a different matter.
We all have our opinions on this matter, and it is essential to know who is affected as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1.Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade is depicted as an evil that exploit the environment and the vital resources of developing countries.The last definition overlaps with the idea of free trade in video as both of them state that free trade is a form of capitalism and it serves for the well-to-do class as it enhance hierarchy and in favour of liberals and exploit the commodities of countries such as countries with rich oil reserves in order to make money.
2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
It is because all those disparate groups are taken advantage by global corporates. The environment is being polluted by the factories of global organizations ( eg. nuclear power stations ) and human life can be endangered as well as environment, the work of labour class is underestimated and used by the rich to get richer but poor gets poorer. All those groups unite and when they all fight against free trade then there can be a solution.
3.What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the system based on free movement of resources, goods, services , investments, labour force from a country to another and is not interfered by government. It may be good if it can be taken as the idea that the tecnology from one country is taken to another. Then it will contribute to the developing country to catch up new world inventions and create their own. However, it is a bad thing in the sense that the resources of poor countries are exploited and they are left in poverty or the privatization of sources can lead to only rich class to make use of it but the lower class would be left without benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
It matches up with the Left-wing critic’s definition since it denounces capitalism and free trade as evil.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The video argues that all three have been hurt by free trade: environmentalists because corporations are destroying natural resources, labor unions since they are losing both their union power and their jobs, and liberals because they tend to have more anti-capitalism views.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is international trade without any restrictions. It can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” by connecting countries together through trade, hence bringing their cultures together and mixing them together. I think this is both positive and negative.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nesibe Zirzakiran
What do you think about the intermingling of cultures united through trade?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Free trade is imaged as a negative impact to the environment and country;s resources. In the video, it is also said that free trade is a form of capitalism where the economic system are controlled by the private owners for profit instead of the state. The private owners take advantage of the country's resources for example, for their advantage of earning high profit.
2. Because these are people who are negatively affected by globalization. So, since capitalism is spreading internationally and they are harming the society especially the poor and does not do any good to the world. Labour class are being underestimated and they are not treated fairly. These groups joined together and they fight agaisnt free trade.
3.Free trade can cause everyone to buy a particular product from a place because they offer the cheapest price, and resulting in almost everybody buying the same product.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ #Ozge Elif Özer
Nice explanation and opinion Ozge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade is depicted as an evil force which has no affect on developing countries. On the other hand the definition in video and Chanda’s book are stating that free trade is a kind of capitalism.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Such disparate groups are taking different views about globalization. For example; the more globalized world the more polluted environment. Therefore, this will make environmentalists concern about the people health and environment health which will lead them against globalization. In terms of liberals, if the world is not ruled by capitalism then it might be beneficial but by this system rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. Because of a possibility of inequality labor unions are against globalization too. They should all get together to get over globalization.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is movement of goods and services one country to another without any restrictions or barriers. This has both advantages and disadvantages. In terms of, sharing new inventions about technology or something like that this would be an advantage but I don’t think sharing cultures and create a typical and only one culture is logical. Every single culture should have its own traditions and the world should maintain their special sides.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To marcelo.echl.f09,
For the 3rd question I liked the way you highlighted what the globalization did until this time and I think for not getting more and more alike people should maintain their cultures.
Thanks..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) . "Free Trade" would make possible the exploitation of the environment and the domination of all life. They View it as a controlling mechanism which is viewed in negative aspect, that only benefits the rich people, This proves a proverb that Rich get Richer. As described in the movies it best reflects the definition “ expansionist and exploitative capitalism”.
2) As in the example in the movie it says they environment and domination of all life will have a negative affect on the environment, this of course concerns environmentalists, in addition to that there is a threat that Rich will get richer and labour unions are against it, cause they fear that they might lose work. They can also view it as falling too much power into the hands of different corporations and they become too influential over government stuff.
3) Free trade is a movement of goods and services free of charge meaning no barriers no tariffs. This enables standardization of products in Georgia and Europe so with this comes taste that becomes the same due to the fact that goods and products are becoming the identical around the world . There is also a term called MC Donald’s affect, in todays world many people like MacDonald and almost every country has it, it promotes the loss of traditional dishes and the way of meal time. In my opinion its good as long a culture isn’t lost. Innovations must make life better and easier but they should side affects like losing traditions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The view of free trade shown in the video can be defined as ‘evil’ in my opinion, hence the comparison of globalization/free-trade towards the ‘one ring’. If we consider the Lord of the Rings trilogy, we can clearly see the negative effects of the ‘one ring’ that are cast upon different groups of people (even the ‘human’ race). Out of the three definitions in Chanda’s book, the video seem to align itself closely to the third definition given, where globalization is seen as “synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism”.
2. Quite simply, we could just take a look into the drawbacks and disadvantages of free trade and globalization. We can look at the disadvantages of free trade/globalization that would affect each group. Firstly, anti-globalization movements would not want globalization to occur (or to be specific, want to stop the extension/rate at which globalization is taking place), hence being an “anti-globalization” movement. For other groups such as environmentalists, the main disadvantage of globalization is that firms are very likely to lead towards capitalism (exploitative capitalism) and reduce their costs of production as much as possible. For example, pollution caused due to firms’ production; firms are less likely to put in effort and money to reduce/eliminate the harm they are causing to the environment. Therefore, groups like environmentalists would join forces with anti-globalization movements.
3. Free trade occurs when countries are able to trade goods and services without any government interference, or trade barriers (such as tariffs and quotas), hence trading partners are “free”. I see the concept of free trade between nations as being “open-minded”, and therefore I believe that free trade can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. If I were to be completely honest, I am quite indifferent about this free trade concept. However I am aware of the good and bad influence free trade has on a nation. The main purpose of free trade is to remove trade restrictions, so that nations are able to smoothly trade goods and services to each other (just as if it were a trade occurring within the same nation), and the ‘opening up’ of many countries, therefore in that sense, it is a “good thing”. Contrary to the “good thing” above, the “bad thing” is that countries would exploit each other’s agreements; most likely the developed countries would exploit the less developed countries (in terms of resources, labor, and so on). In my general perspectives, I believe that a firm’s sole purpose, or the sole purpose of international trade is to make profit/money. If not to make maximize profits, then it would just mean that the nation would want to maintain whatever they have. Hence the whole concept of comparative advantage exists. Which products should we produce and which product should we import to make a high amount of profit/maintain the high amount of profit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To: Dennis.echl.f09
As much as distinct cultural identity is important in the world, I disagree with your views towards globalization “cannot ever” be a good thing for the future. Yes, globalization does some what enforce conformity to “social norms” (or whatever values the most ‘dominant’ nation of the world has set upon the world), but without globalization, I think that we wouldn’t be able to even recognize this so called “cultural identity” and our cultural differences of each other. Without globalization, we wouldn’t be on the Internet right now, discussing economic issues with people around the world. Without globalization, we wouldn’t know the ‘true value’ of culture. Without globalization… So on.
In conclusion, globalization has its benefits and limitations, each to a certain degree. And therefore, I think that your views towards globalization (it cannot ever be a good thing for the future), is an overstatement and a little too one-sided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The view of free trade in the video is extremely negative. Free trade is depicted as a means of owning class to get richer and use up the resources all over the world. The definition of free trade as expansionist and exploitative capitalism is the most appropriate one for the video.
2. Disparate groups unite with each other because all of them are against the negative impacts of the globalization. Liberals find the globalization as a threat for the rights of the individuals and equality in the society. Besides, free trade is a highly right wing concept. Labour unions are against the free trade because there will be job shifts to areas where hiring labour force is cheaper. The environmentalist are against free trade because the exploitative capitalism will start to use up the resources and pollute the environment because of the desire of the owning class to minimize the costs.
3.Free trade allows nations to have a great deal of communication with each other. People from two nations meet each other, and their products or services are introduced to each nation. Knowing other nations leads to a standard culture. I don't have a positive or negative opinion on the standardization. I like the possibility that I can eat a Big Mac menu wherever I am. However, I feel like the diversity of cultures is fading away, as globalization spreads around.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@# issa.echl.f09
I agree with the view that the cultures are getting alike. The domination of the USA culture is more prevalent, as the globalization gets stronger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade in the video is expressed as a hierarchy, which only serves large corporations, and allows the rich to get richer without helping the poor.
The video aligns itself with the left wing critics such as Karl Marx.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Because all of those groups have been negatively affected by the globalization movement. Liberals believe that globalization only increases the income gaps between the classes and should not be allowed to continue. The labor unions believe that globalization will result in exporting jobs to places where there is a cheaper labor force. Exporting jobs would result in fewer jobs and decreased working conditions for members of the labor unions. Environmentalists are against captialism and globalization because the desire to make full use of all the resources results in increased pollution and over usage of the resources which are readily available. If there is more regulation, fewer resources will be used because of regulations.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade increases cultural expression because of the increased inter-cultural interactions. With greater international trade, the people of the world are more conscious of cultural concerns when producing their products to make them appealing to the larges group possible; however, the mass appeal limits the individual cultural identities because the groups look to create one product to appeal to the masses. In all, I believe that free trade and the international cultural expression is a good thing as it brings about international cooperation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video is giving a message of anti-capitalism. Capitalism is seen as an evil which should be abolished by all nations. That is why it is also against free trade. Also Chanda defines free trade as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
Free trade and globalization give a chance people to get products with cheaper prices. Also they may get the products with high quality because they will have an opportunity to choose.
In my opinion free trade has both positive and negative side for human beings. If a country is well developed in order to make free trade there will be a competition between the firms. That is why firms will be trying to improve themselves. With this bucking up process firms will employ a lot of people. But that situation can be the vice versa; if a firm wants to develop more they can use technology more that is why some people can be unemployed as a result of structural unemployment. When we look at the situation with the perspective of less developed countries, we can see that they cannot be always the one who is lucrative. Because they usually sell raw materials with a cheaper price and get the processed materials with an expensive price. That is another situation for the bad side of the free trade. But people usually have an opportunity to choose what they want to buy with a lower price. “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” That cannot be good every time because as far as I understood it is the standardization of the product which is traded. It cannot be beneficial every time because there can be some other products which are better for economics. Also it decreases the variety of the products. But it can be good in terms of prices; countries cannot decide on the product by themselves, a procedure can take a place. This is good for consumers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Ece Erdem
Hi Ece I liked your explanations to given questions. I also want to mention that we have same ideas about the standardization of cultural expressions around the world. I also beleive that that vanishes the uniqueness and the variety of the products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems to align with the Karl Marx definition that describes free trade and globalization as an “exploitative and expansionist capitalism”, that only wants to take benefit of its surroundings.
Because all those groups are unite against globalization because of different reasons, for example, the environmentalist are against the undiscriminated use of the environment in order to produce wealth without taking into consideration the consequences of it, the labor unions are against the advantage taken by the ruling class in order to obtain profit of free trade without improving work conditions or distributing uniformly the wealth, anarchists and left-wing critics are supportive of this reason. In conclusion, they are a varied group united only against globalization.
Free trade could theoretically favour the exchange of cultural and social expressions helping to the production of a common hybrid culture shared by all human beings thanks to free trade, that’s because the culture is forged by certain things, but mainly because of the goods and services that a community share, if we all share the same goods and services we would have a quite common culture. In my opinion free trade and globalization are good in controlled quantities, too much free-trade could bring along the destruction of certain resources, or the over-exploitation of labour communities. But under certain conditions free-trade could help to improve the overall economy and would standardize the economic level of certain countries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Repply to # k.zurabishvili
It's quite interesting the assertion you make in your last point about the McDonald's effect, it's right that it homogenizes the culture bringing along a common culture (the McDonald's food) but with the cost of losing some traditions that are worth-saving. We have to look at free-trade and globalization as a double-edged sword, that can help a lot but that could destroy a lot if we are not conscious about what we do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The Lord of the Rings video depicts free trade in a very negative light. The video states that free trade is exploiting the environment and that it is taking advantage of the resources of developing nations. The video claims that free trade only serves the interest of the rich. The video aligns with the definition from Chanda’s book that states globalization is “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unites all of these three groups because these groups are against what they believe globalization stands for. Many view globalization as destroying the earth and taking advantage of resources. Therefore environmentalists could be against globalization because they may see it as destroying resources. Liberals are anti-globalization because they believe they see globalization as unfair and unethical capitalism. They believe that capitalism only benefits the rich and does not allow poor countries to compete. Finally, labor unions are against globalization because it is not beneficial to laborers. All of these groups are united because they are all harmed by globalization.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade can be defined as open trade between countries, without any government restrictions or intervention. I believe that while free trade has its advantages and disadvantages, it is overall a good thing. Free trade opens up the world to different cultures. Through free trade, different countries can be exposed to different elements of civilizations from around the globe. As well, I think the economic benefits of free trade outweigh the drawbacks it has.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Nesibe Zirzakiran
I like that in your response to question 3, you looked at both the good and the bad of free trade. Do you think maybe there is more benefit than just a transfer of technology? Can't all nations, regardless of if they are poor or rich, benefit to some extent from the lower prices, greater efficiency, and wider choice of products as a result of trade? I think that while poor nations can be exploited by free trade, they do however get some benefit from this trade. They are able to benefit from the several items I mentioned above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video portrayed free trade as malignant. The video depicts free trade to be a step towards globalization, which they say is a bad thing. I personally do not think that free trade or globalization are bad things. There are many things that we take for granted that are products of globalization. For instance, the success of McDonalds, the International Baccalaureate, and the World Trade Organization. Even the UN can be considered a product of globalization; so why is it a bad thing? Socialist nation probably thinks that globalization is taking power from their central government and displaces it to a higher more powerful system. This is like taking the power from the “little guy”. This is the case for many efforts of globalization (exploitation), but in the end the benefits outweigh the costs of this system, as long as it can stay uncorrupted and well structured.
The video, I think, is entirely left wing verging on Marxism. It is promoting the rebellion against private business and thus a rebellion against basic freedoms. This being said, I think the video seems to align itself with the definition that states that globalization is “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”. I disagree with this in the highest regard. Globalization, if well contained, will keep the world safe and will promote the basic freedoms we take for granted every day.
• Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The groups stated above are all primary left wing run organizations. They are the bottom end of the capitalistic school of thought food chain. The labor unions rebel against globalization because they think that the global leaders will not abide by the previous rules the labor unions were created to protect. They also think they will just be considered as a workforce instead of individual people.
The liberals feel as though they will not have a say in the government’s ruling on anything. They also think that their voice will not be heard. I think the liberals feel that their freedom will be restricted and their choice constrained.
The environmentalists probably think that if large companies come and privatize business, the environment will be the last of the companies’ problem. The companies will start to ruin the environment by using cheap and efficient ways to produce their goods, which will most likely have harrowing effects on the environment.
• What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
“Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
Free trade in the sense of the definition stated above seems to be a great idea when certain barriers are set such as the WTO. If we consider trade that goes through the WTO to still be free trade, then free trade is essential to the prosperity of most national economies. I feel this way because many countries can only prosper if trade is in place. If we analyze the trade between Korea and America, we notice that Korea has a certain factor endowment that only it can offer with the least amount of opportunity cost; this is also the case for the United States. So with free trade we get lower prices, a better standard of living, and economies of scale; so what is so bad about free trade?
Free trade can increase the standard of living in a nation because it brings more money into the nation. Also investors to a nation will want to first make sure that the nation is credible and this usually means the quality of life in the nation is high. Companies would also not want to invest in a nation that treats its people poorly because the company would not want to send the message to its consumers that it exploits cheap labor form under developed countries. Countries that want to be invested in will most likely raise their standard of living to attract investors workforce and international trade started to increase. The standard of living also increased. Now Japan is one of the most prosperous nations in the world. (paragraph taken from a comment I made on the discussion board)
Free trade will also create a sort of world culture that many have not experienced. Being from an Embassy family, I have lived all over the world. I have been immersed in the “world” culture. It is a culture that if everybody was to experience it, they would rejoice it. Everybody is happy and people are accepting. People of this “world culture” are accepting of all different walks of life. If people were to see what this “world culture” really is, the ignorance would dissipate. Also when trade is being conducted across borders, a higher level of education is necessary. Children would start to learn languages earlier and would become more internationally educated. An example of this would be the International Baccalaureate, which is an internationally set standard of learning that is becoming accepted globally.
Overall, free trade is there to enhance the prosperity of the countries involved. There are also positive externalities that arise from free trade. There is a ripple of goodness that, in the long run, will affect the country’s people, even the “little guy”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Alison.ecslb.f09
I agree with your statement depicting that the gap between the LEDCs and the MEDCs will decrease and I feel as though those against the globalization movement fail to see the potential of it. I disagree to your statement that free trade will be the "negative result of the greedy and destructive nature of mankind". I think that organizations such as the World Trade Organization will stop the sadistic nature of mankind. Companies will not be destructive because everybody has something to lose and everybody has something to gain. Globalization will not steal humanity's uniqueness. It is not like one day we start trading with everybody and we instantly are infused with another culture because, we are already trading with everybody and I am still me and you are still you. Our beliefs will not change but our willingness to accept and respect others' will need to become more lenient. Also your reference to the "greedy and destructive nature of mankind often manifest in capitalism, the world could truly become "flat"" is paradoxical. Capitalism is about being different and using your advantage. The reference to "flat" insinuates equality, which is defiantly not capitalism. It is more like socialism. Capitalism will not make us the same, socialism will.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jcarreno Do you have certain example in which free trade would be good and which free trade would be bad? I agree with your idea, but I think it would help me understand the point if I knew which moments you were speaking of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video depicts free trade as the enemy since it only benefits the rich by helping the rich get richer but not helping the poor get richer. This seems to align with the left-wing critics and Karl Max who describe capitalism as “werewolfsh hunger”
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
All three of these groups do not approve of globalization. Environmentalists do not approve of globalization since it encourages companies to compete and try and save costs. This causes the companies to stop worrying about pollution since it would cost to reduce pollution. Liberals do not approve of globalization because it increases the gap between wages since companies will export jobs to countries with cheaper wages or bring in immigrants willing to work for less. Lastly, as I said already, globalization allows companies to export jobs to countries with cheaper wages which labor unions do not approve of.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade can “foster a standardization of cultural expression around the world” since anyone can sell their product in any country. This means that people in one country can buy and appreciate the goods made in another country. I think that this is a good thing that anyone can sell their product in other countries, however I think that when it comes down to the basics of an economy where larger companies dominate the market, free trade can hurt economies more than help them. This is because large companies can produce their goods in other countries and therefore they don’t employ workers from their home country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jcarreno
You mention overexploitation of resources in your opinion about whether free trade is good. I think that one of the main overexploitation of resources in a lot of cases is the overexploitation of wages. A lot of companies will move their factories and production sights to countries where they can pay workers less and thus save money.
Noah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade is depicted in a very very poor light in the video. They accuse free trade of destroying the natural resources of the world, and only benefiting the leaders of countries. This aligns with the "expansionist and exploitative capitalism" almost verging on Marxism. I personally completely disagree with this viewpoint. Free trade and globalization, to a certain degree is really beneficial to the world as a whole, allowing us to communicate, and interact with people from around the world. That is something that is a result of trading with other countries.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
I feel that globalization works really well to unite disparate groups because it is a very nice thing to scapegoat. Globalization is something that is really hard to stop. We have become so entangled into other countries that, I'd say, it is almost impossible to stop, or even reverse. This gives something for the groups to complain about, even though there isn't too much that can be done about it. They may each dislike globalization for different reasons, (environmentalists disliking the possibility of natural distruction, liberals thinking that it only helps the "leaders", and labor unions thinking that it hurts workers) but really it just gives them something to get publicity, and let them talk about other issues.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is defined as the ability for businesses to trade with other countries, without government interference. This can lead to a standardization of cultures around the world eventually because, with free trade, everyone can be exposed to cultures from everywhere. Eventually if someone sees enough of some kind of cultural practice, it can become ingrained into their own culture. If this happens to enough cultures, with enough countries, we may get to the point where we just have one world culture. I think this is kind of good, kind of bad. Good because it could possibly reduce racism, hate, etc in the world, because we'd all have similar practices. Bad because it may take away what makes each country unique.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mehmet_Mert_Suma
Oh my goodness, I love your Big Mac example for question number 3. Not only does it make me laugh, but it is a really good example of how the culture of one society is beginning to proliferate into many other cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the video, as many people mentioned in the discussion, free trade is depicted as the activity of corporations or capitalists to dominate the world market and exploit resources from LEDC’s. Definitions related to this idea would be globalization in economic and business views, which generally talks about economic transitions and how it affects people’s life.
I think those groups are involved in anti-globalization movement because the negative consequences of globalization are related with what these groups are fighting for. For instance, building factories and exploiting resources causes pollutions, therefore, it leads environmentalists’ participation in anti-globalization movement.
Free trade enables international corporations from all over the world to exchange their goods and services freely. In this process, people from different cultures would move, and this would contribute to spread different cultures to different nations. If this process keeps go on, the culture would be all mixed together, and this will led to the standardization of cultural expressions, in my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
• Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of free trade in the video describes Free Trade as something that wants enslave other countries and makes them compete between each other. It also describes it as an advantage for the rich people and not like explained in our reading which said that everyone can profit from trade.
The blog entry describes it as something that can be profitable by all countries:
“[…] as well as increased wealth and welfare among all countries involved.”
The video’s view is like free trade is something bad which will not help countries but actually destroy them. In the other hand the Blog Entry gives in my opinion more real description of what actually happens in real world.
It seems to align with the last one; “expansionist and exploitative capitalist” It makes capitalism look like it is something that wants to control everything.
• Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
It unites for different reasons, as we know globalization usually includes many actions like harming the environment, been unfair for workers and been more useful for rich people. Anti-globalization movements unites so different groups because it is able to touch or harm several topics or points of the world, like mentioned before it might harm the environment, create competition which will eventually lead to unemployment and other points.
• What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
It is the system that allows traders to trade with other traders outside the country boundaries in order to trade with other traders with no interference from their government.
It is thanks to free trade that we are allowed to consume and buy products not produced within the boundaries of our country, which eventually allows us to be closer and know better different cultures around the world, because the different products produced by a country are in some way the expression of their culture and way of living.
In my opinion it is a good thing because it allows people to learn more about other cultures which they don’t have any direct contact and this knowing can help us to develop better characteristics by trying to do things in different ways which can eventually make people and workers in general more efficient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bryan_DiLaura
Hey Bryan;
First of all I totally agreed with you in the first question.
According to the second one I think your explanation for free trade is very accurate and what is more important direct to the point.
At last i totally agreed with your answer for "Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?", but I specially liked the part of "Bad because it may take away what makes each country unique".
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The video ironically presents a negative view on free trade. (I love how the video pictures Bush as the servant of corporations!) But it also points out the power and benefit of free trade. Free trade accelerates the speed of corporation exploiting our environment, as all the countries specialize in different fields generating higher efficiency of production. Free trade is an inexorable trend facing the globe nowadays and is dominated by the rich.
This is because free trade accelerates the exploitation of the earth, and labors in developing countries in an effort to generate high efficiency for manufacturing, for the rich and all the stuff related to materialism. Free trade is unfair to poor countries.
Free trade is the international trade in a non-barriers context. Through such trade, goods conveying different cultures are transferred around the world, uniting people into common understanding of various cultures. I think this is a good thing even in terms of developing countries in which people seem to be “exploited”. Needs and provision are always bound together. There are many “dark factories” around developing countries in which the workers laboriously making branded shirts for 70 cents an hour paid. People say that’s cruel and blame the corporation. But without such “exploitation”, there might have not been even 70 cents for those people to make their livings. They need the money and the corporations provide them with opportunity. Free trade makes the world more efficient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jaime Arias
I agree with you that free trade also fuse different cultures together. It makes workers more efficient and provides more job opportunities to people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
This video definitely depicts free trade in a negative manner. Free trade is described as a result of capitalism. These are depicted as the “enemy” of the world as disadvantageous for developping countries wishing to trade fairly with all the other countries. The video seems to fit with Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the “werewolfsh hunger” of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unites such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions because they are all affected by free trade and capitalism. Environmentalists are affected because extensive globalization could very likely ruin certain aspects of the environment and exploit resources such as fossil fuels that are not good for the environment. Labour unions may dislike it because it results in lower wages for domestic workers, as jobs can be moved to cheaper centres of production. Globalisation will pose a problem for liberals as they perceive it as being highly conservative with a high focus on profits rather than social rights, freedom and equality.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services. Free trade has a huge affect on a country’s culture. An example of this would be the replacement of traditional restaurants, hotels, and other local businesses that are replaced by international chains such as McDonalds, Hilton Hotels, etc. This would “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”. Personally, I think free trade presents many positives amongst the negatives already discussed. Free trade decreases the gap between Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs) and More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs), as it would allow LEDCs to industrialise and develop thanks to foreign investment. Free trade is a present economic positive but is a prime example of unsustainable development.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Dilan Gunes
I agreee with your response to the first question however you need to elaborate on the fact that it matches the definition of Left-wing critics: expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
For your second answer I once again agree. However, you once again need to elaborate on why Labor unions would be anit-capitalist: labor unions may dislike it because it results in lower wages for domestic workers, as jobs can be moved to cheaper centres of production.
Your third answer is very correct. However the question does not ask you to discuss what should happen to the world but rather your opinion on free trade. You could elaborate more on the fact that individual (national) cultures could be lost if free trade intensifies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
-Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade is portrayed as evil and destructive in the video. It goes country by country destroying the natural resources of that area. It is also portrayed as very powerful, and nearly unstoppable, as the rich countries of the world advocate it, and therefore it continues to thrive. It most nearly aligns itself with Chanda's definition of "expansionist and exploitative capitalism." This is because free trade is depicted in the video as attempted to take over the world and exploit the lesser cultures.
-Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Free trade can unite people from these disparate groups because it affects a wide range of opinions in a negative way. This is due to its destruction of natural resources, exploitation of other countries, and the unfair labor situations it puts people in.
-What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the ability for countries to trade amongst one another, allowing countries to specialize in certain products, increasing availability and quality of these products around the world. I would partly argue that this does not “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” because it allows other countries to spread their cultures through free trade. However, it can create a standardization because it can be lost as to where certain foods or traditions originated from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In my opinion free trade is a good thing because it allows other countries to thrive within an economy that might otherwise not be able to. A good example of this is China, who gains a large portion of their GDP from free trade and the exportation of cheap goods to countries around the world. As an advocate of freedom, I feel it is not fair to regulate what people can and cannot do with THEIR products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Huanni Woo
You say that free trade is unfair to poor countries, but I would take a slightly different approach to it. Free trade can be a major economic booster for many "poor" countries, therefore a more suitable victim of free trade would be countries with few natural resources. These countries have to buy from other countries, increasing the prices of their products, and cannot sell to others because they do not have enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Free trade is depicted as detrimental to the development of a country, especially in comparison to other countries internationally. While I agree that free trade can become a cruelty to countries that cannot sustain themselves either because of a lack of natural resources or because of some other reason, I would argue that free trade is the most functional method of international commerce.
Nothing is perfect, but this video only highlights the negative aspects of free trade and fails to denote the positive features. Also, any alternative method of international commerce will have its drawbacks, and this video therefore seems a bit misinformed or one-sided. Maybe if a suitable replacement to free trade was explored in the video, with a legitimate assessment of its values and limitations, I would consider the presentation to be more realistic.
-Michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mitchell Broughton
In your response to Huanni, you bring up a very good point that is free trade's ability to create a means for less developed countries to develop their economy. A less developed country with many natural resources or with motivated citizens that are willing to work diligently to produce goods at a high productivity level will be able to, in a free trade, climb the social ladder on an international scale. That is the beauty of free trade in my opinion.
-Michael
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The definition of trade that best aligns itself with the video is “the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, can foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
It aligns itself most with the third definition, as it portrays free trade as an evil tool of capitalism, which it views negatively.
2. 2.Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
While these groups may share different social policy focuses, their economic policy focuses can still coincide. All of these groups may find a negative aspect of free trade. For example, environmentalists might worry that free trade will prevent them from ensuring that all of their products are made in an environmentally friendly manner or labor unions might worry that globalization will out-source their labor and lose them jobs.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is when goods can be flow between countries without being impeded by tariffs or quotas. As it would cause goods to be able to be sold across the globe, it may cause cultural customs in goods to be traded in for goods that are more standardized and can be sold more broadly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Mitchel Broughton
I disagree that allowing countries to spread their cultures through free trade would not foster a standardization of cultures. I believe that this is actually what would result in the standardization of cultures, as it would force people to take the more cultural aspects out of their products in order to be able to market them globally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) I think free trade perspective for this video is very negative as it sees the free trade as an evil force to control the whole world. In the video it clearly enhances that free trade is in the world to get richer by consuming all of the resources in the world. So I think the last definition of Chanda's book seing globalization as expansionist and exploitative capitalism is better for free trade explained in the video.
2) For the globalization defined as expansionist and exploitative capitalism there is nothing else but money. So in order to get richer and get the money all the side affects of the production is being ignored. That's why the negative externalities like enviromental damages can be easily ignored in order to make more money which can make enviromentalists angry. On the other hand, liberals can be on the side of globalization but when they think of capitalism they can anticipate it as it is very hard to control the system in capitalism if you are not from the upper class. So they can join anti-globalization movements. For labours the globalization makes more competition so there will be more inequality between labours and also it damages the unitiy of labour force. That's why they can be against to globalization.
3) Free trade provides communication among different countries, cultures. So it can be seen as interaction of different cultures in the world. I think the level of globalization makes the difference at this point. Because globalization has a risk to make standardization of a culture which will reduce the varieties in the world mosaic and make all the cultures almost the same. I think that the globalization cannot be end totally as the interaction between the contries is also important, but it can be kept at a level in which countries will keep their own culture alive and more vivid with the help of other culture's different features.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bryan_DiLaura
I really liked your explanations. Especially about the third question you discussed the possible effects of free trade on cultural base very good. Looking at from two perspectives for having only one culture among the world is insteresting. I mean I don't think any positive effect of it like you did but looking from a broad perspective like you do is a better job I guess. But still I think that having one culture among the world is a really bad thing as it has possible power to inhibit the variety among literature, art, economics, politics, history, shortly everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. The video seems to align itself with the more Marxist definition of globalization. It describes capitalism as a system in which only the elite win and there are no chances for those below to rise up and compete as equals. According to the video, when free-trade is established, the work force is taken advantage of.
2. First of all environmentalists see globalization as an opportunity for large businesses to not only destroy their domestic environment but also the environments of other countries. This is especially the case when firms enjoy less strict environmental laws in foreign countries. Free trade, according to environmentalists, allows them to circumvent these laws. Liberals and labour unions feel that free trade weakens the voice and power of the average worker. As the firms get larger and larger, according to them, they increase their ability to shed incompliant and unwanted employees. They feel that free trade will only benefit those run the firms and have negative consequences for workers.
3. Free trade occurs when countries trade without hindrance from the government. They are free to trade virtually without many restrictions. This may lead to a more monotonous society as local goods and services may be outperformed by those from other countries. A good example of this is popular culture. As more and more people are exposed to videos and music that say, “if you are like me you are cool” or, “If you dress like me, you are cool” people are pressured into assimilate with this “cooler” culture. However I believe that a hybridity (apparently this isn’t a word) occurs which is basically a culture which includes elements of popular culture as well as local cultures. And, in my opinion, this can be a good thing as it reduces the tendency to be naive. Eventually, popular culture itself will become a hybrid of many cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dilan Gunes
I agree with your opinion that it is important to retain one's culture alongside trade. However, adopting or modifying foreign cultures into one's own can have its benefits as well. For instance, perhaps one culture has discriminatory customs which prevent it from achieving optimal output. If they were to adopt a more tolerable attitude towards things it would allow them to be more competitive in the global market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems obvious that the point of view of the video corresponds with the definition offered by Marx; it is “a synonymous of expansionist and exploitative capitalism.
They all feel like globalization means a destruction of what they believe in. Ecologists think it will privatize and exploit all natural resources, leading to a world with any green places. Liberals and labor unions may have the same presentiment about the effects of globalization, they believe it will make few people, mainly those who are already rich, obtain all the benefits and workers will be exploited.
Free trade means everybody is able to produce, buy or sell any products if he wants to, obviously if it is within legality. This way, a producer of coffee from Brazil is able to sell his products at UK and by products from this country as tea or whatever. It encourages the exchanges between cultures as a community can export it´s typical products to another country, and import typical products from that other one, thereby culture from everyplace of the world will expand through all the globe, making them meet each other thanks to the need of trade, but they will all have their essence as they still have their own typical products to offer.
I believe international trade is a good thing due to different motivations, economically I believe it increases competitiveness, so corporations will invest in research to find new cheaper and better ways of production to reduce it´s costs, leading to an increase of the countries development. Also because those countries who produce in exceed some product is still able to find revenues for it, so resources are allocated and not missed, always creating benefits. It is important to take into account that international trade will help those developing countries which have raw materials but not enough capital to exploit them, another country will exploit them given a percentage to the developing country, which will have revenues and less unemployment as people is employed by those exploiting the raw materials.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
In the video Free trade is the evil factor, and the ultimate goal is to end free trade and capitalism, hence preventing corporate globalization. Chanda’s left-wing critic’s definition seems to fit best to the video, where free trade and capitalism is described as evil that exploit the environment and it being harmful to developing countries. As in the definition the Free trade in the video is described as bad and harmful for the developing countries and very beneficial to large firms in developed countries. The developing countries are looking for a fair trade but the large corporate firms only care about profit so and they are much more powerful than the developing countries and therefore they are ‘taking over the world’.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
Because they think that globalization will in some way harm those unions and therefore they unite them and all the small harmful things that might happen and they become one ‘team’ fighting against globalization. For example labor union is most likely against the globalization due to the risk of loosing their jobs to somewhere else where products are much cheaper to produce.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is when firms or countries are able to trade without any barriers. Firms can export goods and sell them to another country and then just as well import goods from other countries. “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” my opinion on this leans more towards negative, since if countries would specialize in the production of certain goods then it can result in there being very little diversity for consumers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Alexander Wallar
Goods points to support free trade and globalization, your points makes those who are against it think about what they would not have it free trade was not an option (such as Mc Donalds, IB or so many other things)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To #jjowett
I like your arguments, even though I do not understand two things. You say that the video shows the free trade as a result of capitalism, I mean, isn´t it? The video has a wrong view of capitalism, and thereby of free trade. It is true free trade might be damaging if it is not regulated, as it happens with capitalism, thereby we have mixed economies.
Also, I do not think free trade encourages unemployment. As we know some countries have an absolute advantage in some sector, maybe the labor force is cheaper, and that´s why companies move there leading to unemployment. But the last country will have an advantage in another sector, what the state has to do is encourage that sector where in has absolute advantage, so companies do not move their production. We could say unemployment isn´t just produced by free trade, but also by the poor reaction of governors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
In the video, free trade is depicted as the key component of the evil prevalent in the world through capitalism, the root of all evil. Free trade allowed the exploitation of the environment and drained the vital resources of developing countries. It serves the interests of the rich and their coporations. Clearly, the video seems to align itself with the 3rd definition of the left-wing critics. “expansionist and exploitative capitalism”
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The seemingly disparate groups are able to unite under the cause of anti-globalization because they feel that capitalization has worked against their interests. Despite the criticism for being too alarmist at times, it is undeniable that the capitalistic system has not maintained an exploitative relationship with the environment. As for liberals, assuming the definition to be the commonly used one in everyday talk, they seek for more systematic distribution of wealth and so forth which is not particularly in the spirit of laissez-faire. Moreover, labor unions would be very much against globalization because one of the characteristics of globalization is the outsourcing of jobs. This could leave domestic workers unemployed and workers abroad thoroughly exploited.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is, in essence, the free flow of ideas around the world. Goods are results of innovations. Someone thought that someone else might be in need of something; therefore he/she specializes and makes it while others do the same for him/her. So, it may seem that it is only natural that this should be encouraged. However, the free flow of ideas may result in a standardization of them, if left uncontrolled.
Today, just about everywhere we go, we can expect to have a Big Mac for lunch. And it’s not just about burgers, but countries are becoming similar (and disturbingly Western) as certain goods that become dominant in the competition makes its presence international. When certain goods become so iconic in the industry that eventually the brand replaces the name of the type of good, (MP3 players and the iPod) the monopolistic prevalence of the brand destroys the sense of diversity that countries used to have in the past. Perhaps materialistically, there could be little doubt that we have gained more. But if goods are ideas, and we are simply getting more of the same things, perhaps it is a standardization of cultural expressions. Which is bad because most of us don’t even realize it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Gunnhildur Ómarsdóttir
I like your responses in general, but I have a question for question 3.
You talked about the decrease in diversity of goods that comes with specialization of certain goods by certain nations (or certain states). But don't you think that the diversity that can be achieved by having everyone produce a good at a mediocre level of productivity defeat the purpose of being diverse? In fact, it seems more that things will be 'different' rather than 'diverse' because of the positive connotation attached to the word. I wouldn't mind a lot of other people using the iPod, if my 'diversified' alternative is to have a portable MP3 player that is not half as attractive as the iPod, but it's different from its counterpart in Finland with their own companies and style.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
Free trade is one of the important thing for capitalist economy structure. In video, they think that free trade is important danger for undeveloped contries and poor individuals because only rich people and developed contries can benefit from free trade and this won't be fair for developin contries and undeveloped contries because it is drawing away difference between developed contries and undeveloped contries and one of the other danger is free trade becoming expanding all over the world.
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
This movement may effect the free trade and it will be beneficial for developing contries and undeveloped contires. As we know that liberals and labor unions try to create more fair conditions for economical contest between developed contries and undeveloped contries but I think this movement won't be succesfull in long run because as we all know firms that are more powerfull than others will use their power to get more power according the capitalist system.
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade provide firms to trade without having any difficulty like barries. According to that firms or contries can specialized in one product one export it to other contries and import goods that they are not specialized but “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” seems bad for consumers because they won't have any choice so they will have to benefit from goods that are not enough qualified and cheap.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Asucan
I agree with your comments for last question but I don't think some countries may keep their own culture alive because when globalization started to effect world by free trade it won't be possible for some countries to keep their culture alive because there will be bandwagon effect in societies which is hard to get under control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Free trade is regarded as the value which should be destroyed in the video. It can be construed that the inhabitants in the video see the free trade as a ladder to create a greater disparity between the rich and the poor. That is why; they are firmly against it. Thus, the last definition of Chanda which is expansionist and exploitative capitalism is the most suitable with the situation.
2) Those disparate groups have something common that they do not favor or benefit from some of the consequences of the globalizations. For example, the environmentalists are concerned about the fact that in behalf of more production, the nature might be destroyed and the pollution may crop up in a more gloomy way. Moreover, the reason why the liberals do not support a globalization movement is that the free ideas and the rights of people may be restricted in terms of the equality. Furthermore, the labor unions do not admit such a movement because they are worried about that the firms may not tend to provide some goods and services which do not require labor work basically. That is why; they are concerned about getting unemployed or being not able to use their skills.
3) Since free trade offers to export and import without the governmental effect, the firms and countries can take actions more independently. I think this provides better communication among the countries. Without the concrete borders, the countries may seek for their benefits readily. By the help of the communication, also the cultural values are shared and the cultural values can spread to all over the world. That is why; free trade may trigger to lose some of the cultural expressions and to have some which are alike – as it is stated in the quote. I think the idea of the spread of the cultures to the entire world is really justifiable unless all people start to comprehend and react in the same way. Eventually, this would create a world of millions of people who have the same mentality. Till the point which the people would not lose the conscious of having diversity in the cultures, the relation between the globalization and free trade is a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Alexander Wallar
I liked your IB example as a response for the last question. I think you are right about that IB is one of the significant elements of the common culture(world culture in your words) in the entire world. Globalization is effective at the point that people enjoy its benefit like having high standards of living. However, the common culture should reshape and renew itself, otherwise the world would face with the loss in the diversity of cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video depicts free trade as a negative concept. In the movie, the characters were doing anything they could to oppress free trade and relate it to capitalism, inferring that it cannot be controlled in any means and therefore is reckless or dangerous to the economy. It shows that because it cannot be controlled, it takes advantage of many people.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement units disparate groups such as those listed because they are those that would not profit from globalization, and therefore stand behind their beliefs. These groups would be clearly opposed to globalization and therefore would not in any manner defend it.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the ability to trade without interception from an outside party, usually the government. It can “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world” because without controls it is limitless. Complete free trade to me is not a good idea, because there is much room for error without regulation. Semi-free trade however makes much more sense. A balance of good regulation and freedom allows many more people to benefit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ raphael.echl.f09
I actually found your answer really helpful and simple to understand, but its hard to agree with your view of free trade because I dont really understand that part. You said that it is special but I wasnt sure what that meant. Other than that its to the point though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The view of Free Trade in the video is that it is evil and that capitalism must be stopped. The video compares the struggles depicted in Lord of The Rings with an anti-capilist movement. In the video, the producer names George W. Bush as an entity to serve the corporations. The video aligns itself with the left wing critics following Karl Marx with their definition: expansionist and exploitative capitalism
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
The anti-globalization movement unites the groups because they all seek to avoid a world in which one group leads all trade and government.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade is the ability to engage in economic agreements with any individual or group free of regulations. It can foster a sense of community within the world because all different groups regardless of economic standing can engage in trade. In my opinion, Free trade has it's up and downs. Some aspects of free trade are beneficial while others can be harmful due to the overpowering influence of large groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wonwoo_Choi
I agree with your answer to third question. Free trade can be very good for an economy however individuals can take advantage of this type of trade. Free trade allows for all groups in different economic standings to be equal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
–> The view of free trade is frowned upon in the video fearing the disadvantages of free trade. They fear that such trade practises might eat away the natural resources in their economy and hinder their domestic economic development. From Chanda's book capitalism alings itself with the video, because the characters depicted in the video have set a vision to erradicate capitalism.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
–> The anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists are scared the other countries might eat away their natural resources, liberals who by their very defenition are against capatialism fear it might benefit only the richer domains of the society and not the poorer sections and last of all the labor unions will protest because domestic employment might be curtailed.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
–> In my opinion I feel fostering a standarized cutltural expression around the world is a good thing as cultural differences amongst the participants namely different countries with different cultural beliefs and values are diminshed. By developing a standard culture a unanimity in their culture is set.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jackson_Mote
Good Response! You made a good point about when you said that "it can foster a sense of community within the world because all different groups regardless of economic standing can engage in trade." But I am not quite sure if I fully understand by what you mean in your last sentence about overpowering influence of large groups.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
According to the video free trade is introduced as an bad force that should be prevented. The main opinion about free trade is that it is just beneficial for the rich people and big firms. The significant part in definition of globalization is in Chanda’s book “ left wing critics,” and it represents the capitalism.
2) Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
This happens because, they all believe that globalization is bad. All of the groups have different opinion about the anti globalization movement. E.g. environmentalists think that free trade will increase the amount of the product all over the world and during the trade there will be a huge consumption of fuel and it will damage the environment. The liberals also don’t support this because they give big importance to freedom and the countries should be able to produce whatever they like . Moreover, labor union doesn’t support this movement because the countries’s labor force will be affected in a negative way.
3) What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Free trade means mainly is no limitation in trade between the countries. It increases the living standarts of people, because everyone will be working in just one area. In my opinion, it is bad thing because, there will be limitation in variety of products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Behiye ?lkay Dasdemir
I agree with your response in question2 and as you said all of them has different approach to free trade and using good terminolgy is great.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video from the blog entry. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
-We see that free trade is defined as a bad force in the video. Also in the Chanda's book, free trade is shown as capitalism.
Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
-These three groups have different opinions about globalization.According to the humans they think that if the world is more globalized the environment will be more polluted. This situation makes environmentalists think about environment more. So they become against to globalization. When we look from the view of the liberals we see that they think the world should be a capitalist world. Also labor unions don't want the globalization, too. Because they think that there is a probability of inequality.
What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world”? Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
-The definition of free trade is the interchange of goods and services (but not of capital or labor) unhindered by high tariffs, nontariff barriers (such as quotas), and onerous or unilateral requirements or processes. As everything this situation has both advantages and disadvantages. First of all I want to talk about the advantages. By free trade the countries share something, for example technology… Also there is a disadvantage of this situation. For example; while countries share the things they sometimes affected by the culture of the other country and they start to assimilate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Muhammet Murat SEKBAN
Your answers are good for the 1st and 2nd questions. But for the 3rd question if you have written the advantages and disadvantages of free trade it would be better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The view of free trade depicted in this video is definitely negative. Capitalism is depicted as the antagonist of the movie and free trade is supported by big corporations that exploit the resources of underdeveloped countries and take advantage of minorities in order to make a profit.
Labour unions dislike free trade as it causes low wages for workers because there is low cost labor in other parts of the world. Environmentalists are against free trade as it results on the destruction of natural areas to make way for industrial production or office buildings due to jobs being moved to other places around the world. Thirdly, liberals hate the capitalist ideology that values profit over equality and, at times, basic human rights.
The integration of people from all around the world can often create a mix of cultures that eventually blends into one. This would result in a huge loss of culture and traditions, which can make the world a far less interesting place, as well as resulting in a huge loss of jobs that examine differing societies and cultures. On the other hand, this integration can be a good thing as everyone would know how to interact, making communication, business transactions and other interactions far easier and much more efficient. In my personal opinion, this homologous world that free trade could result in is a bad thing because I love to travel and see different places and experience different cultures.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dogan Ozcan,
I think your point about the sharing of technology is a good point that I overlooked. This sharing of technology will help to improve efficiency and hopefully advance things such as medicine of transport.
@Muhammet Murat SEKBAN,
Do you not think that free trade could decrease the living standards of many people as many large corporations seem to disregard human rights and equality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
The video depict free trade as a negative force. It claims that free trade only benefits large corporations and the rich and exploits the poor and the developing countries. According to Chanda these would be “ left wing critics” of globalization and free trade
2) Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
All believe that globalization is bad. They all think that free trade has negative effects e.g. environmentalists think that free trade will increase the amount of the product all over the world and during the trade there will be a huge consumption of fuel and it will damage the environment..
3) What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?
Because we are defined more and more by the products we buy, if we buy similar products as is the case in free trade we are likely to become more similar. Also we will influence each other in various other economic way for instance through the formation of multinational enterprises. In my opinion, this does lead to less variety of products and diversity in cultures and thus some knowledge may be lost. However, it does help us to bridge cultural differences and unite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Although, i can understand your joy from traveling i think that globalization will ultimatly bring benefits and help us bridge cultural or ethnic differences and make us realize that we are all humans
Like or Dislike:
0 
0