Are anti-globalisation protestors selfish? - Page 2

Oerdin · May 30, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They brought in their own species of animals and plants without paying attention to indigenous species, thus causing many to extinct.

The travel was hardly one way. Potatos, Corn, tomatos, squash, beans, suger beets, and yams all came from outside Eurasia.

Quote:

Another major problem of globalisation is economic domination. By exporting capital, MNC's seek to dominate emergent markets. Local industries are no match for these deep-pocketed monsters; they can drive out competition by a sustained price war. The World Bank and IMF are unwitting (?) accomplices in this economic imperialism, their loans have an awful numbers of strings attached to them.

Ask yourself why the local competetors aren't large or efficient. Hmm, could it be because they don't have enough capitol or a large enough market or the technologic know how? So how do you solve those problems?

JohnT · May 30, 2003, 19:33

"What changes then is not what general type of food people eat (culture) but how they eat and spend their money (introduction of mass consumerism, an economic change as much as cultural). "

So? I'm not really seeing the point here: if the anti-globalization people have their way, they will end up creating and perpetuating that which they are supposedly protesting - two worlds, one progressive and rich, the other backward and poor*.

Is that what they want? It is what they will end up with if they have their way.

*Many will argue that's what we have now, and I will concede that point. But preventing 2/3rds of the world from participating in the industrial, economic, and agricultural revolutions that have swept the West over the past 300 years is not going to change that.

Such is as much a fools dream as demanding that the less developed nations should immediately have what it took the West over half a millennium to achieve.

Urban Ranger · May 31, 2003, 00:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The travel was hardly one way. Potatos, Corn, tomatos, squash, beans, suger beets, and yams all came from outside Eurasia.

Sure, but I was talking about the impace of foreign species on the local ecosystems.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ask yourself why the local competetors aren't large or efficient. Hmm, could it be because they don't have enough capitol or a large enough market or the technologic know how? So how do you solve those problems?

Are you asking why nascent enterprises aren't big? Isn't that like asking why a baby isn't 2m (~6 feet) tall and weighs 100kg?

If Ford Motor Company at the time of Henry Ford were to compete with Ford Motor Company of today, who will win?

Urban Ranger · May 31, 2003, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Cultural imperialism is acceptable in that its voluntary. If you don't like US cultural products, don't buy them. If, OTOH, people in a foreign country want to eat at McDonalds, more power to them.

It's not that simple. Cultural imperialism is intertwined with economic invasions. Could local small farmers compete with huge mechanised farms in the US? Could small local restaurants compete with McD?

Cruddy · May 31, 2003, 01:11

Bodd, you are missing the main point of AG protesters. It's the big business stitch up they're angry about, and the suppression of other culture's at the local level that result from that.

The destruction of fast food restaurants is thuggery and pointless, and I don't agree with that behaviour at all. Far better to hit them where it really hurts - the balance sheet. (Any notice how McD's corporate report went? I was delighted).

Your argument about restaurants really doesn't hold up. All those ethnic places serve Westernised versions of their food, not the originals. If you want a real Madras, catch a plane.

DinoDoc · May 31, 2003, 01:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Could small local restaurants compete with McD?

Yes, if they had better food.

Cruddy · May 31, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

I wonder if the teenagers in France spit in the hamburgers like they do in American?

That's NOTHING compared to what happens to the chickens in some UK KFCs. Let's just say they've got a higher than advertised salt content, OK?

GePap · May 31, 2003, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, if they had better food.

You go eat at McDonals for the quality of the food? really?

What matters in fast food is not what you eat, but how you eat it, it is the model that matters, not the exact things offered (which is why, as i said, McDonads around the world vary thier menus to fit local tastes, specially the less western a state is).

Quote:

So? I'm not really seeing the point here: if the anti-globalization people have their way, they will end up creating and perpetuating that which they are supposedly protesting - two worlds, one progressive and rich, the other backward and poor*.

Yes, but the west did NOT become rich because of globalization. Europe and the Us became rich from internal sources (capital, manpower, so forth), as well as Japan. If there is one global economy, why does that lead to eeryone being well off? Don;t we need the poor to be cheap labor? Why should capital go to some place like Namibia, when Nabimia has little to offer the global economy? At the same time, if someone in Namibia gets some capital, why should they invest back in Namibia, when perhaps investing elsewhere will get much bigger returns? If there is nor eason to invest in Namibia, there will be capital flow out of it, and certainly such a place would never be rich, until the world economy found a use for it.

I think allowing the free movement of capital and resources is fine, as long as labor has the ability ot move freely too. Until labor has the same freedom of movement as capital and resources the benefits from globalization will be uneven.

Drake Tungsten · May 31, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Sure, but I was talking about the impace of foreign species on the local ecosystems.

That phenomenon also went both ways. There are numerous examples of Asian species devastating ecosystems here in North America. "Biological imperialism" is an absurd and bogus concept, just like "cultural imperialism."

DinoDoc · May 31, 2003, 01:31

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
You go eat at McDonals for the quality of the food? really?

No. If I'm in the mood for good tasting fast food I go to a local place around here.

Jaguar · May 31, 2003, 02:34

I say that anti-globalization protestors are not selfish. They are simply members of the GIDBC (Group that Irrationally Despises Big Corporations.) This group also includes commies, environmentalists, and animal rights activists.

Zylka · May 31, 2003, 02:36

Well, I think

Sandman · May 31, 2003, 05:51

Culture is a rough and ready thing that people have to use in their daily lives. Creating artificial cultural barriers will only make us weaker, in my view.

JohnT · May 31, 2003, 10:24

"Yes, but the west did NOT become rich because of globalization. Europe and the Us became rich from internal sources (capital, manpower, so forth), as well as Japan. "

Huh? Do you think it is mere coincidence that the rise of the West started with the voyages of Discovery in the 15-17th centuries?

Is it true that in your world, North and South America, the horn of Africa, and India (and the other Indies) lies within the boundaries of Europe and the US? My map sez differently....

GePap · May 31, 2003, 13:19

Trade is not globalization, JohnT. Did capital move freely in the time of mercantalism? And did India and the non_european peoples of the Horn of africa become rich an industrialized from their connections with Europeans? Did the Chinese? Did the Native Americans?

Imran Siddiqui · May 31, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

You go eat at McDonals for the quality of the food? really?

Plenty, plenty, plenty of KIDS do! That is where McD's gets its money from families whose kids are in love with McDonald's food.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:03

Two problems

a) The spread of anglo-saxon culture, while not *that* immoral per se, can tend to create a mentality, as well as an actual situation, where one forces ones own culture upon another people and environment, in which it is unlikely to be as successful (imagine wearing an overcoat in Eritrea), or particularly endearing to the local population, with their own cultures. I would argue that this is something that should be done in moderation, and slowly.

b) While globalisation is a good idea in theory, I'm sure I speak for many anti-globalisation protesters when I say that in practise, the humanitarian abuses, ecological damage, polical levering and economic polarisation of the world, are things that this current interpretation of globalisation has to account for, and stop. I am NOT against globalisation, as it can, properly implimented, be a good tool for redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, and kick starting the economies of poor nations, so they can all contribute to the global economy.

"Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by Indian culture next?"

It is hardly being wiped out. The two cultures in this example are merely being mixed. Each culture takes elements from the other, and auments itself with them.

For example, some indian food that to me feels like a SWAT team in ones mouth, has practically become national British dishes, while many Indians in Britain, and in India itself, enjoy cricket, football, rugby etc. My Indian friends are sharing in my hangover today when we went out last night and got plastered. We dont regard ourselves as different cultures.

The attitude of cultural competition as it were, "we wipe out their culture before they wipe out ours", is based on fallacious assumptions.

"I'd rather have a McDonald's and a fish and chip shop than two fish and chip shops"

Do you think they will be protesting about how British culture is being wiped out by American culture next?

"They have a genuine concern about protecting other cultures" ... who arent in a position to defend themselves economically against the influx of another culture, thus in this current globalised environment, the native culture will suffer. Different cultures should be integrated, not wiped out by globalisation, otherwise it adds another West-centric element to the current system, that need not be!

I think that if people want to take elements of our culture, then we should let them, just as we choose to take elements of other cultures that we are exposed to. Unlike the view of the globalisation protesters that the strawman argument uses, stopping the outward flow, as well as the inward flow, is not a concern, rather I think they are more concerned about it being forced on them, instead of them choosing.

British people arent having Indian culture forced on them. If they choose, the only Indian influence is environmental, and I dont think it is reasonable to say that simply because the sight of an indian restaurant offends one, that it is reasonable justification to eliminate that influence. People in the third world, when the newcomer is more powerful than the native culture, havent been afforded quite the same luxury of cultural choice.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:07

"McD's gets its money from families whose kids are in love with McDonald's food"

You reckon they put weed in the burgers? One time, I ate a Big Mac (big mistake), I felt, tired, dispondent, irrationally happy, sleepy, then the urge to buy more big macs.

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 16:11

McDonald food is unhealthy and tastes very mediocre. The only reason why people in other countries flock to it is it's American and majority of people look up to everything American.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:13

In that context, do you think its wise for my personal safety to campaign for stronger gun laws?

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
"McD's gets its money from families whose kids are in love with McDonald's food"

You reckon they put weed in the burgers? One time, I ate a Big Mac (big mistake), I felt, tired, dispondent, irrationally happy, sleepy, then the urge to buy more big macs.

Almost every kid I know loves McDonald. I have yet to encounter one who doesn't like it.

I personally loved McDonald until about age 16, from then on I suddenly started despising it.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:17

"Almost every kid I know loves McDonald. I have yet to encounter one who doesn't like it. You are probably one of the few exceptions."

I'm not, I'm 18. Despite the fact that I couldnt stand the crap from about 11, they take advantage of drunk people in my town by staying open on a friday night

"I personally loved McDonald until about age 16, from then on I suddenly started despising it"

Its like the tooth fairy, patriotism

or santa in that context - people grow out of it!

Kidicious · May 31, 2003, 16:19

Spiffor,

Puke smiley again?

Kidicious · May 31, 2003, 16:21

Nevermind. I forgot that I saved it last time.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:25

"Culture is a rough and ready thing that people have to use in their daily lives. Creating artificial cultural barriers will only make us weaker, in my view"

Agreed, and when one is living in a world where peoples of different cultures interact, and we as a culture are faced with a cultural treasure trove of different ways to do things, I think it is a good thing when both sides accept each other. Of course cultural dominance is wrong, and that is the point of my argument, it should be augmentation, not annihilation!

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:26

How did you get that smilie? Its not on the list!

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 16:28

Where does America try to force its culture? Remember, people go to Wal-Mart, Disneyland, Hollywood movies, and McDonalds voluntarily. Nobody forces them.

Whaleboy · May 31, 2003, 16:33

I mean the local competition. Here its viable. If I dont want to go to McDonalds, I have decent restaurants to choose from.

Look at the situation in Prague. Many of the larger restaurants are falling out of business because of newer international chains (admittedly not entirely fast food). When I was there in oct 2001, I counted 3 starbucks!!! There isnt a single starbucks in Northampton and I want my latte!!!

In a third world nation, one has an economically powerful nation, effectively extendign itself via corps into business there, mcdonalds etc, but especially the clothing companies, with the result that the local culture is simply overwhelmed.

Here, the economic effect of american culture is more limited, so we were less likely to be overwhelmed by it.

You are of course correct, no-one is forcing people to go into macdonalds and eat a happy meal at gunpoint, but the sociological and economic effects are somewhat more suttle than that.

Kidicious · May 31, 2003, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah
How did you get that smilie? Its not on the list!

It's at another site. Insert a hyperlink. You can see the link if you hit my quote button.

Lord Merciless · May 31, 2003, 16:40

Starbucks are highly liked in China (esp in Shanghai) because people can always find clean WCs there.

Chain stores are also driving local ones out of business here. I'm sure this phenomenon is happening everywhere, regardless of globalization. It will not go away until you erect a custom every 50 miles like in 18th century Germany.