tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post3332431420514145658..comments2023-09-12T10:29:46.606-04:00Comments on Squibs™: International Relations - week of February 24thJosephus P. Frankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576658512201164524noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-89500191059886946052014-03-04T23:08:51.549-05:002014-03-04T23:08:51.549-05:00I feel that many people use globalization as a cau...I feel that many people use globalization as a causal account for many things: socioeconomic disparity, culture subversion, Western normalization, etc.–but I see it as more of an effect. I see it as a broad-standing umbrella term for a variety of causes and their effects. For instance, if the international system is largely competitive in the sense that nation-states are seeking self-interested goals, it is expectable for advantaged players to use the things that spur globalization (communication, transportation, etc.) to their benefit. It just so happens that Western culture is, in this regard, "winning". The point, then, is not to simplify globalization as a causal account or even a phenomenon, but to better identify the individual factors that are causing the problems, and isolate solutions to them within their respective domains. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-56927038334427960582014-03-04T04:02:14.385-05:002014-03-04T04:02:14.385-05:00I think this is a very good argument, Carolina, an...I think this is a very good argument, Carolina, and I agree with you. I remember Professor Bach mentioned something along these lines in lecture, too. This goes with the dependency theory, where the developing countries are exploited by the developed countries. These first-world countries believing they are helping the countries grow when in fact they are forcing ideas and products upon them which the developing countries are either not ready for or do not know how to properly utilize. But as you noted from the video, these current first-world countries started from the bottom at one time, as well, and they needed time to gradually progress into the power they are now. The problem remains in the fact that the developed countries don't take this into account for currently developing countries, because they are past that stage. But this may end up being detrimental to the developed countries themselves, because if the third-world countries don't survive, it affects the entire international system due to the impacts of globalization.Manisha Sriramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11343018268166588144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-88780508658033499522014-03-04T00:15:12.741-05:002014-03-04T00:15:12.741-05:00I share your interest with having to create a new ...I share your interest with having to create a new wealth before commencing to redistribute it among the thoughts of neo-liberal thinking and the speaker. Although it is obviously a more modern time, with technology and advancements, I do believe that the way globalization might have been comparable to the nineteenth century is in the sense of buying, selling and trading rather in the manner in which it was conducted. Again, I do agree with your point on actually explaining the medium in which wealth is created and maintained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-21631043959517897842014-03-02T21:10:01.186-05:002014-03-02T21:10:01.186-05:00Melissa Hernandez
It was interesting how he said ...Melissa Hernandez <br />It was interesting how he said that how globalization today is processing is not because of the new emerging technology, but rather “only because powerful countries have decided to rewrite the rules that govern the global economy in a certain” that consists of deregulation and opening of their economies, “especially the financial markets” and then pressuring the other countries to do the same. In a sense saying and ultimately blaming, the increasing the gap between the North and South, primarily on the Northern powerful counties, which I agree with. If the Northern countries did not pressure the Southern countries to lower their trade borders and decreasing in their ability to protect their domestic industries, the Southern countries may able to grow their own industries so they can compete on the global scale with northern countries’ industries. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-72725443570027421682014-03-02T15:15:47.960-05:002014-03-02T15:15:47.960-05:00Krystopher Mandujano
I would have to disagree wit...Krystopher Mandujano<br /><br />I would have to disagree with Chang's argument that it was politics and not technology that created globalization. I think that politics helped to make globalization "official" in terms of policies, but without technology, global politics would be more focused on countries and their allies than the world as a whole. For example, if air travel was not perfected than it is likely that negotiations between nations would not be as extensive as they are now because of the longer travel times which would make trade foods, and other perishable items much more difficult. As for his points about free trade, I agree with his point about how the less developed nations like Brazil are hurt by free trade because of the fact that these less developed do not have the ability to compete with the more developed nation, and they would need addition rules in place in order to compete with the other nations.<br /><br /><br />Krystopher Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03161631768105799250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-12485367763467981692014-03-01T19:51:39.955-05:002014-03-01T19:51:39.955-05:00Frank Jimenez
I would have to disagree with Chan...Frank Jimenez <br /><br />I would have to disagree with Chang's argument that politics and not technology. I think that technology is the biggest reason why globalization exists, but I agree with what he is saying about how the powerful countries dictate what is done politically throughout the world. <br /><br />I think that this issue is very relatable to our class in learning North/South, Developed/Developing nations. There is a reason why it is very hard for these developing nations to do what their name entails because of the rules that richer nations put on them. I believe in the realists stance that everyone is for themselves and it only makes sense that our system is like this. All nations are out for themselves and will definitely establish a system that exploits the weaker nations. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-50897847883291108022014-03-01T00:16:26.382-05:002014-03-01T00:16:26.382-05:00Chang argues that globalization is politics and no...Chang argues that globalization is politics and not technology. He mentioned that the world economy in late 19th and 20th century was almost as globalized as world economy today and achieved under bases of primitive technologies. Technology at that time was not driving globalization instead it was a general consensus that cross border economic activities need to be carefully regulated. Interesting. . . Rogelio Hernandez Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05214398537275104003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-33527907938665544882014-02-28T22:11:33.997-05:002014-02-28T22:11:33.997-05:00I found it interesting how he said that globalizat...I found it interesting how he said that globalization was not merely caused by advanced technology. That it was more politics that caused globalization and that technology was just the surface of it. However, I also believe that politics is not the only thing that caused globalization. I believe that people were brought together just by the challenges facing the world and not just by technology or politics. Anushka Ramnaninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-3393808343008092632014-02-28T19:59:34.606-05:002014-02-28T19:59:34.606-05:00While there is the possibility of the Northern cou...While there is the possibility of the Northern countries purposely keeping down third world states through neo-liberal policies, I'd find it more likely that these richer countries just cannot truly understand the problems that poorer countries are facing. Because the richer countries are significantly more advanced (at least in economic terms) than these poorer countries, the richer countries cannot truly understand the viewpoint of the poorer countries. For this reason, Chang's idea to make global laws work based on a country's current state seems like it could be effective in narrowing the gap between developed and developing countries. The world economy may take some hits in the short-run as some developing countries may take on more non-neoliberal policy, but as more countries reach a common economic level, the distribution of wealth created by global trade could be more equally distributed.Francis Esmasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-3617338246852215302014-02-28T12:00:49.356-05:002014-02-28T12:00:49.356-05:00Eunsol, I agree that developing countries should b...Eunsol, I agree that developing countries should be able to use policies that suit them better. In fact, developing countries should be able to form the type of government and economy that best suits them. Yet, America can not allow socialist, or other forms of non-democratic governments to form abroad because it might be a threat to the American goal of spreading democracy internationally - especially if a non-democratic government is successful. For example, Iran had been a successful country economically and politically it was doing well under a socialist government. But, America didn't like the idea of a stable socialist government (especially one that was openly anti-West) so they executed Project Ajax - which is just one example of U.S. infiltration of foreign government's domestic affairs. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-59684382637838318022014-02-28T02:04:43.400-05:002014-02-28T02:04:43.400-05:00I agree with some parts of his statement. I do not...I agree with some parts of his statement. I do not think that we should view globalization only as referring to technology and new inventions. I believe, it is tightly connected to politics, since basically almost everything nowadays is related to it. However, at the same time, I disagree that globalization is defined only by politics. It may play a huge part in it, but for me the term "globalization" is related to the overall progress of the world. Politics have existed for a long time, whereas globalization is a new statement defining the overall change and progress going on, whether it is political,technological, economical or ecological...Katrin Gendovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-41060567369784022372014-02-27T20:28:22.113-05:002014-02-27T20:28:22.113-05:00I think Chang brings up an interesting point in th...I think Chang brings up an interesting point in that most first world, economically prosperous nations developed themselves under a protectionist perspective. Now, the states of the North preach the ideals of neoliberalism, as if this paradigm that was intentionally not employed by these well-established states would now help developing countries. Personally, I wonder if this decision is consciously being made in an effort to oppress third world states and keep them weak. <br />Also, I find that Chang's bus driver story further supports the idea of scholars like Jared Diamond that geography and simple luck determines the future success and wealth of not only a person, but an entire state. A counter argument might be, to refer back to Chang's story, that the Indian bus driver could just move to the European nation. But in my opinion, this further reinforces the importance of the location. The person wouldn't need to move if another state or location offered similar or less opportunity. Zachary Fergusonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-30543411447830054462014-02-27T18:01:06.361-05:002014-02-27T18:01:06.361-05:00On top of that the story about Geneva further show...On top of that the story about Geneva further shows the monopoly of the rich countries on global economic decision making. There are so many things that have huge ramifications on a lot of people, however they simply can't keep track of everything and lose out on a lot of things that might actually be beneficial for their continued economic development. I can sort of understand right now that the global financial crisis is a bigger issue so they need to figure that one out sooner and then start looking at other things. But once they do then I personally feel that they should slow down things and start focusing more on specific scenarios rather than making grand statements and solutions that are meant to solve everything in one go. And start acting more as an advising committee rather than an oligarchical system that threatens those that do not follow a set path. On top of that they should work towards providing advice on independent growth, such that they can be self reliant in the case on another economic melt down. And through not having to be directly manipulating and guiding a system the developed countries can also have more resources themselves and not have to lend huge sums of money.<br />My personal stance is that the IMF, world bank and WTO have pretty much ruined the potential of growth in developing countries, and so long as they impose such strict non restrictions, then a bunch of the world will stay developing for years to come. And that instead the WTO should stop having specific protocol that they use as a default for all situations, and instead find unique solutions to each crisis. So actually promoting individual development rather than having to be a piece in a global puzzle favoring the rich. The idea of globalization is amazing if the concept is to promote universal growth, but seeing as it is only used as a way for rich countries to abuse poor countries through lying to them and not providing anything other than a reason to become lazy and dependent on others, makes it a sour concept. I love the fact that I get to know what happens around the world and I want the world as a whole to be better place however cliche that sounds. Because if we start seeing globally competitive firms forming in developing countries that would provide for better global competition, which would actually be beneficial for the MNCs out there. Another point is that without the trade barriers some of the rich countries have actually started to fail as well, because they look at short term economic gains rather than long term sustained economic development. On top of that it would promote better living standards and more interconnections of the global community, however unrealistic that may seem on paper, it is still something I hope might be actually used.Christian Bagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326498354181458608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-8734539500785468332014-02-27T17:36:28.107-05:002014-02-27T17:36:28.107-05:00Christian Bager
So my first comment for some reaso...Christian Bager<br />So my first comment for some reason was deleted when I tried submitting it so this is the shorter version<br />I agree with a lot of what he is saying throughout the entire presentation. Especially to start with of when he shows that the entire idea of creating this is essentially just the rich countries being too proud of sitting on their high international high chair with globally recognize status. The very fact that it was these rich countries are now directly influencing economic reform in countries that might not even speak the same language has something to show for this. Also the fact that 99% of what they are doing now is coming up with excuses as to why a certain policy didn't work is a testament to this. <br />My economics teacher in high school that taught me international economics used to emphasize one point that Ha-Joon also alluded to. That the rich countries know exactly how the poor countries should change their trade policies in order for them to get develop, but instead they nearly make the conscious decision to not allow them to use these methods, and instead promote methods that make the developing countries less likely to develop. <br />I'll add a bit more in a bit, I just need to finish something else first.Christian Bagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326498354181458608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-12921306518736145542014-02-27T16:09:39.376-05:002014-02-27T16:09:39.376-05:00Elizabeth Palafox
This was also a thought of mine...Elizabeth Palafox <br />This was also a thought of mine as I watched the video and it seems that's this type of individualized policy reform based on the each country'a need is also dependent on the already developed countries just as their economy is. The type of policies intact now are another form of siphoning wealth of lesser developed countries and its not in the best interest to give up that powerLizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780012941844836277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-23929340154674057572014-02-27T15:35:30.608-05:002014-02-27T15:35:30.608-05:00Roberto Luna
I agree with his comparison of the wo...Roberto Luna<br />I agree with his comparison of the world economy and sports. How is a developing country supposed to compete with "heavy weights"? The example of china proves his point had it not protected it's industries it would of never accumulated it's wealth next to the developed country's around it. developed states say that neoliberalism is the guide to achieving 1st world status though the lecturer points out that many developed countries broke the rules to achieve their wealth today. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-82712493487122041092014-02-27T15:31:52.042-05:002014-02-27T15:31:52.042-05:00Helen Darr
I don't fully agree that we are as...Helen Darr<br /><br />I don't fully agree that we are as globalized right now as we were just a few of decades ago. But if you look at it from a political perspective, then perhaps, since the different regulations etc have been in place for quite some time. However, from the individual's perspective, I think technology has played a greater role in globalization than politics. A good example is what has been going on in the Middle East. <br /><br />However, I agree that with globalization, the problems many countries face, especially the developing countries, have become more demanding, whereas they are more vulnerable to what's going on in the world and their capabilities to solve the problems have become smaller because of all the regulations and policies in place. Coming from European Union myself, I have witnessed how the Union places often times ridiculous regulations, policies, demands on the countries, creating unnecessary additional hardships. Perhaps the Union could be partially blamed for the European crisis by draining the countries from the money that could be invested better. For instance, it is required that a small American-size liquor store in Europe has to have three sinks. Like the presenter pointed out- many policies that rich countries force on other counties work well in theory and could be justified, but in practice- they are not really feasible. Hence, I agree that the political freedom for rich countries has increased, because they can often dictate the "rules" while there is a reduction in political freedom for developing countries who find themselves having to accept the often unnecessary conditions just to, for example, trade with the U.S. or Germany, etc. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-24630094210913135172014-02-27T15:23:26.814-05:002014-02-27T15:23:26.814-05:00Your critique echos the Marxist critique of Ha-Joo...Your critique echos the Marxist critique of Ha-Joon's ideas: that capitalism as a world system simply cannot support the universal use of smart protectionist policies that all now-developed countries used during their periods of development (not to mention outright theft, through colonialism). Export-led growth requires a hell of a lot of importers. Maybe the rich countries could be those importers, but their industries would be unlikely to sit back quietly as their foreign competition grows stronger. Also, Modern Monetary Theory points out that once you strip away the concept of money (which very few people, including Nobel laureate economists, actually understand), exports are a net loss, while imports are a net gain. (Think of yourself: if you were a net exporter, giving more of your stuff away to other people while receiving less stuff in return from other people, you would be worse off in reality.) Only if the accumulated money were spent to get more things, would it be worth it - but then you wouldn't be a net exporter then, would you? You'd be at parity.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-64956892298042679582014-02-27T15:12:27.870-05:002014-02-27T15:12:27.870-05:00I don't disagree with you - it all depends on ...I don't disagree with you - it all depends on how you define "globalization". If you focus mostly on the greater degree of interconnectedness between far-flung people and the spread of ideas, then very few political policies affect it (the only exception I can think of being censorship).Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-5603841446261589922014-02-27T15:10:21.767-05:002014-02-27T15:10:21.767-05:00His point is more that technology is not the only ...His point is more that technology is not the <i>only</i> thing that drives globalization. (Unlike what some people like Thomas Friedman seem to think. I say "seem to think" because the jury is still out as to whether T-Fried actually thinks, or whether computer software writes his books and columns.) For instance, fiber optic technology is a necessary but <i>insufficient</i> condition for outsourcing call centers to India. If call center workers in the U.S. organized themselves as effectively as doctors (or to a lesser extent, lawyers), the government would have outlawed such outsourcing, and all the fiber optic technology in the world would not have produced this one example of globalization. And so on, and so on, down the list. But your point that technology enhances globalization and makes integration easier is absolutely correct.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-82864022929151777292014-02-27T15:02:42.202-05:002014-02-27T15:02:42.202-05:00I think you'll like any one of Ha-Joon's b...I think you'll like any one of Ha-Joon's books, particularly <i>Bad Samaritans</i>. The interesting thing about South Korea and Japan is that the U.S. encouraged and allowed them to follow different policies than those urged on other countries, arguably because they were viewed as important allies against the USSR and China, so U.S. policymakers wanted them to be industrial powerhouses. Whereas countries like, say, Jamaica....Josephus P. Frankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08576658512201164524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-43635667592393339102014-02-27T14:59:04.446-05:002014-02-27T14:59:04.446-05:00Did my comment above help out at all, or were you ...Did my comment above help out at all, or were you looking for a different sort of explanation?Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-26733832712656637032014-02-27T14:57:13.202-05:002014-02-27T14:57:13.202-05:00Very true. But it's also perfectly true to say...Very true. But it's also perfectly true to say that everyone in any country with a lottery <i>can</i> become a millionaire. It's just that we all know that the chance of everyone winning the lottery is nil. Likewise, people living in much of the developing/underdeveloped world <i>can</i>, potentially, get rich or move to a rich country. The point, however, is that without broad-based economic development, we <i>know</i> that a majority of people in such countries will not. An even worse problem is this: even if a hundred thousand Ha-Joon Changs took over the government of, say, Zimbabwe, what are they to do? They need technology from the developed world to develop, and if the developed world tells them that they must adopt neoliberal policies before they invest (that is, send bulldozers, cranes, water purification equipment, sewage treatment plants, computers, factory machinery, etc.), then what are they to do?<br />China's answer has been: develop our infrastructure, education, and healthcare through strong-state communism; then, once it is up to par and capable of supporting large-scale business, we selectively open our markets to foreign capitalists keen on exploiting our workers for low wages. Then they will transfer the technology we need to develop further, until........ we shall see.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-71350352713151980862014-02-27T14:47:46.023-05:002014-02-27T14:47:46.023-05:00You aren't wrong about what he is saying, nece...You aren't <i>wrong</i> about what he is saying, necessarily. It's just that there is more to it. His example of the bus drivers is meant to lampoon the neoliberal dogma that in capitalism, people are paid according to the value of their labor: more skill, more money. His point is that wages aren't determined merely by skill, but by a host of political-economic and historical factors that are completely overlooked by neoliberal ideology. (Elsewhere he similarly lampoons the neoliberal dogma that insanely high CEO pay is always justified; he calls it "The L'Oréal Principle: Because I'm Worth It".)<br />As for Haiti's situation, certainly one can't lay all of the blame on neoliberal policies. Its founding as a slave plantation colony of France, having to fight a bloody and destructive war to achieve independence, centuries of hostility from European powers for being the first self-governed Black former colony, being forced by France to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in reparations (yes, reparations, because by freeing themselves Haitians deprived poor French nobles of their human property), etc., etc., throughout its history, are also major factors. Ha-Joon would only say that Haiti could be doing a lot better under an economic regime other than the neoliberal one.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27964023.post-8769298343875477272014-02-27T14:34:34.252-05:002014-02-27T14:34:34.252-05:00Ha-Joon isn't saying that economic growth per ...Ha-Joon isn't saying that economic growth per se is causing instability; it's a certain kind of economic policy, neoliberal economic policy. As you all read in the Annual Editions article on the financial crisis and developing countries, many developing countries did not get hit as hard as the U.S. and Europe by the crisis.<br /><br />As for closed/open markets or socialism/capitalism, take China vs. North Korea as an example. Both are self-proclaimed socialist countries. North Korea, however, has largely closed markets (not really out of choice, however, but due to externally-imposed economic sanctions). China has partially open markets: its policymakers have selectively chosen which markets to open to foreign investment, and which to keep closed. As for an example of a country with far more open markets than China, take Ireland. During the bubble, Ireland was a hot destination for investment. That worked out well while the bubble was expanding, but now that it has popped, it is in dire straits. Ha-Joon is advocating selectively open markets; between North Korea, China, and Ireland, he would say China's policy is best.Peternoreply@blogger.com