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
Technorati
Flickr
del.icio.us
Ice Rocket
WikipediaYouTube – 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 is a teacher at Zurich International School in Switzerland, where he teaches Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Economics. Jason was an international school student in Malaysia before studying economics at Seattle University then earning his Masters in Education. He calls Seattle and Northern Idaho home. In addition to maintaining an economics wiki and this blog for economics student and educators, Jason also gives presentations on using Web 2.0 tools in education at workshops and conferences around the world. His economics wiki won the 2007 "Best Educational Wiki" award from the "EduBlog Awards". Related posts:
- Intro to International Economics – “Making Globalization Work”
- Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”
- McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
- Mankiw on free trade in politics
- Does free trade really mean lower prices? A debate between two economists much smarter than me
Teachers!
Submit your Econ questions here. Replies will be posted to the blog
hah i love the video!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-world-is-flat ]
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…
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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!