4 ms·

Onions cost much more than 100 rupees around here. My advice to Indians: raise your prices! Don't work for less than a European salary, so that you may buy oni

Onions cost much more than 100 rupees around here. My advice to Indians: raise your prices! Don't work for less than a European salary, so that you may buy onions at a European price! That was the purpose of globalisation since the start: to equalize level of life, salaries and prices (on a global market).

bebna 13y ago
And then compete with european market? Oh, have fun with that.
johnchristopher 13y ago
> That was the purpose of globalisation since the start: to equalize level of life, salaries and prices (on a global market). Oh god no, that is economic history revisionism. Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. This is what it has become. In the begining globalisation was about information and tech. exchange, a larger trade market and allowing people to move easily thought frontiers. Never, and still not, about fair trade. You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that (especially in the US where globalisation is mistaken for global free-market).
- Steko 13y ago
  "Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. " The largest result of globalization has been dramatically raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. "You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that" When you raise people's standards of living they begin to demand their own social rights.
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    >> "Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. " >The largest result of globalization has been dramatically raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. Doesn't change anything to the fact that it wasn't intended. Companies promoting globalisation aren't doing it to raise standard issues of living. Quite the contrary. >> "You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that" > When you raise people's standards of living they begin to demand their own social rights. Same as above. Once the economic situation has been enhanced it will not bring social rights unless people (almose litteraly) fight for it. Globalisation by itself doesn't guarantee social rights because it's not architectured to do so. Moreover: people with low standard of living still demand for social rights (see brazilian tribes, north american natives, etc.) even when they can't participate in a more rewarding economy.
    - Steko 13y ago
      "Companies promoting globalisation aren't doing it to raise standard issues of living. Quite the contrary." That's a straw man no one is claiming. A lot of non-companies did promote this aspect of it though (see below). "Doesn't change anything to the fact that it wasn't intended. " It certainly was intended by many who promoted it. Here's Paul Krugman in 1997: The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19... "Once the economic situation has been enhanced it will not bring social rights unless people (almost literally) fight for it" Some social rights, like the increased standing of women, come naturally with economic benefits. Others, as said above, will be increasingly demanded by an empowered middle class looking to defending their property against injustice. In some cases yes they may have to fight for some of those rights. How exactly are you proposing they get these rights, click their heels together and hope? "Globalisation by itself doesn't guarantee social rights" Straw man claimed by no one. What alternative is there that you're offering and what contemporary example can you offer to rebut the transformations of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and more into much freer societies?

bebna 13y ago

And then compete with european market? Oh, have fun with that.

johnchristopher 13y ago

> That was the purpose of globalisation since the start: to equalize level of life, salaries and prices (on a global market). Oh god no, that is economic history revisionism. Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. This is what it has become. In the begining globalisation was about information and tech. exchange, a larger trade market and allowing people to move easily thought frontiers. Never, and still not, about fair trade. You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that (especially in the US where globalisation is mistaken for global free-market).

Steko 13y ago
"Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. " The largest result of globalization has been dramatically raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. "You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that" When you raise people's standards of living they begin to demand their own social rights.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  >> "Globalisation is first and foremost the method for rich countries/companies to outsource their workload to a cheaper provider. " >The largest result of globalization has been dramatically raising the standard of living of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. Doesn't change anything to the fact that it wasn't intended. Companies promoting globalisation aren't doing it to raise standard issues of living. Quite the contrary. >> "You can't equalize level of life without social rights and globalisation don't push for that" > When you raise people's standards of living they begin to demand their own social rights. Same as above. Once the economic situation has been enhanced it will not bring social rights unless people (almose litteraly) fight for it. Globalisation by itself doesn't guarantee social rights because it's not architectured to do so. Moreover: people with low standard of living still demand for social rights (see brazilian tribes, north american natives, etc.) even when they can't participate in a more rewarding economy.
  - Steko 13y ago
    "Companies promoting globalisation aren't doing it to raise standard issues of living. Quite the contrary." That's a straw man no one is claiming. A lot of non-companies did promote this aspect of it though (see below). "Doesn't change anything to the fact that it wasn't intended. " It certainly was intended by many who promoted it. Here's Paul Krugman in 1997: The benefits of export-led economic growth to the mass of people in the newly industrializing economies are not a matter of conjecture. A country like Indonesia is still so poor that progress can be measured in terms of how much the average person gets to eat; since 1970, per capita intake has risen from less than 2,100 to more than 2,800 calories a day. A shocking one-third of young children are still malnourished--but in 1975, the fraction was more than half. Similar improvements can be seen throughout the Pacific Rim, and even in places like Bangladesh. These improvements have not taken place because well-meaning people in the West have done anything to help--foreign aid, never large, has lately shrunk to virtually nothing. Nor is it the result of the benign policies of national governments, which are as callous and corrupt as ever. It is the indirect and unintended result of the actions of soulless multinationals and rapacious local entrepreneurs, whose only concern was to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. It is not an edifying spectacle; but no matter how base the motives of those involved, the result has been to move hundreds of millions of people from abject poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19... "Once the economic situation has been enhanced it will not bring social rights unless people (almost literally) fight for it" Some social rights, like the increased standing of women, come naturally with economic benefits. Others, as said above, will be increasingly demanded by an empowered middle class looking to defending their property against injustice. In some cases yes they may have to fight for some of those rights. How exactly are you proposing they get these rights, click their heels together and hope? "Globalisation by itself doesn't guarantee social rights" Straw man claimed by no one. What alternative is there that you're offering and what contemporary example can you offer to rebut the transformations of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and more into much freer societies?