Social Globalism v Market Globalism

[MKS]

One of the most recent trends in social-conservative thought and even some areas of Liberal thought are centered on the ideas so social globalization and its conflict with market globalization. It is evident, especially in the US and other Western nations that the nature of Economic Globalization forces the integration of once geographically separated cultures; however such integration is being met with resistance from the "native" cultural tradition. The biggest example is the influx of Mexican Immigrants, who forced by globalization move north to the US to find work. This almost forced migration has created a reaction from the Anglo inhabitants of the southwest US and California (as well as other places). The neo-liberal doctrine that is so often praised by Capitalists, mostly Social-conservatives, for its economic virtues i.e. an expanded marketplace, has adversely affected their cultural environment. Simply put; the NIMBY (not in my back yard) argument might cause even the most ardent neo-liberal pundits to re-think the policy in order to protect their culture, and probably more importantly "their" property.
But it is unlikely that the doctrine of neo-liberal capitalism will be destroyed for the sake of Anglo cultural heritage, one could hope though that the racism and arrogance of the Anglo power system that governs the US will destroy itself. The one good thing that globalization has created is the opportunity for the dissolution of the dangerous concept of culture and nationalism, it will hopefully cast aside those man made constraints and let us see each other as simply human. There will be then only two groups of people, the workers and the owners, as there always have been and this realization will be so clear it will finally inspire the great revolution of man towards true liberation.

Just some thoughts on the present situation.

[colonelguppy]

The biggest example is the influx of Mexican Immigrants, who forced by globalization move north to the US to find work

actually globablization has the opposite effect.

[MKS]

actually globablization has the opposite effect.

I think you nned to study the affects of NAFTA and other neo-liberal policies which have forced Mexican and other Hispanic/Latin workers north to the US. It is widely accepted that NAFTA and globalization in general has only furthered the dependence of Latin America on the Anglo North, it has caused exploitation, oppression, and mass poverty in the region. You can balme neo-liberalism on the rise of Leftism in South America and Mexico.

[colonelguppy]

the flood of immigrants in the last decade was largely due to the economic disaster caused by zedillo (and to a large extent his predecessor salinas de gortari) in the 94-95 monetary fiasco, however, after the recovery the poverty rate has only fallen in wake of the introduction of NAFTA (its like 17% rural 11% urban) and the various other trade agreements mexico has with the rest of the world. poverty has always existed in mexico, free trade only brought additional capital, growth, and employment. the immigrants came before NAFTA, and they continue to come after.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 04:19 am
f the introduction of NAFTA (its like 17% rural 11% urban) and the various other trade agreements mexico has with the rest of the world. poverty has always existed in mexico, free trade only brought additional capital, growth, and employment. the immigrants came before NAFTA, and they continue to come after.
17%?...really.

Really..

The World Bank puts it at 50%, thats the World Bank, I would suggest taking that with a grain of salt.

If stagnent and lowering wages and an increase of 20 million into poverty after NAFTA is your idea of growth, you must be a lobbyist for a multination corporation.

[colonelguppy]

my mistake, i was siting the cases of extreme poverty, the factbook sites the normal rate as 40% as of 2003

when you say 20 million people were pushed into poveryt after NAFTA was enacted, what statistics at what times are you referring to? i ask because right after NAFTA was enacted the monetary crisis of 94-95 completely wrecked the economy for the years that followed.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 05:17 am
my mistake, i was siting the cases of extreme poverty, the factbook sites the normal rate as 40% as of 2003

when you say 20 million people were pushed into poveryt after NAFTA was enacted, what statistics at what times are you referring to? i ask because right after NAFTA was enacted the monetary crisis of 94-95 completely wrecked the economy for the years that followed.
No official statistic, just some math.

Mexico's poverty rate has stayed around the 1/2 mark the past 20 years, and the population has grown from 70 million to 100 million.

I have also seen that statistic on a couple other humanitarian organization's websites - nothing illegit.

[colonelguppy]

so then its also created 15-20 million people out of poverty, depending on which statistic you use.

it has been noticable that the change in extreme poverty is significant in the last decade, dropping something like 20%, admittedly though the change in normal poverty isn't as significant. however, the statistics don't support the claim that NAFTA has done anything to hurt the poor in mexico.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 05:44 am
so then its also created 15-20 million people out of poverty, depending on which statistic you use.

it has been noticable that the change in extreme poverty is significant in the last decade, dropping something like 20%, admittedly though the change in normal poverty isn't as significant. however, the statistics don't support the claim that NAFTA has done anything to hurt the poor in mexico.
So lets examine the facts

1st World Wokers: Outsourced

3rd World Workers: Factory workers suffered lower wages and layoffs due to intense privitatization, Agricultural workers forced off land into server poverty or illegal immigration, especially native mexicans (see zapatistas).

Multination Corporations: Increased profit and production.

NAFTA is nothing more than pure neo-liberal capitalism in writing.

Whos winning?

[colonelguppy]

1st World Wokers: Outsourced

well thats what happens when you demand more money than what your work is worth.


3rd World Workers: Factory workers suffered lower wages and layoffs due to intense privitatization, Agricultural workers forced off land into server poverty or illegal immigration, especially native mexicans (see zapatistas).

do you have any evidence to support this? i know for a fact that unemployment in mexico is at a low 3%, and that rural severe poverty has actually decreased significantly.


Multination Corporations: Increased profit and production.

NAFTA is nothing more than pure neo-liberal capitalism in writing.

Whos winning?

well of course its liberal capitalism, i wasn't pretending it isn't.

who's winning? well, stock and capital owners, people who were able to get jobs in growing corporations, the average rural mexican and to some extent the urban one too, both countries GDP, hell i could go on for awhile about the benefits of increasing GDP alone.

[MKS]

the average rural mexican and to some extent the urban one too

What world do you live in? The average rural or urban Mexican, or any worker for that matter has seen a decrease in living wage, an increase in inflation a higher cost of living, and less job security, if any becuase of globialization. It is funny how workers on both sides of the border are more willing to fight each other rather than unite and fight the real enemy, Neo-Liberalism.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 04:24 pm


unemployment in mexico is at a low 3%,


The problem is not unemployment.

The 12 year old mylasian girl living off 1 US dollar a day is still technically employed.

The problem is mass emporvershment, low wages high profits.

A economic "policy" masked under the thin guise of benefiting the worker that set in concrete the neo liberal reforms which reversed labor rights in favor of foreign investment.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2006 03:06 pm

the average rural mexican and to some extent the urban one too

What world do you live in? The average rural or urban Mexican, or any worker for that matter has seen a decrease in living wage, an increase in inflation a higher cost of living, and less job security, if any becuase of globialization. It is funny how workers on both sides of the border are more willing to fight each other rather than unite and fight the real enemy, Neo-Liberalism.
and yet the poverty rate and umeployment continue to fall, and the only thing thats caused heavy inflation in the last decade was the monetary crisis of 94, which was completely seperate from NAFTA... something makes me think you're just making that all up.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Raj Radical+October 24, 2006 03:30 pm--> (Raj Radical @ October 24, 2006 03:30 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2006 04:24 pm


unemployment in mexico is at a low 3%,


The problem is not unemployment.

The 12 year old mylasian girl living off 1 US dollar a day is still technically employed.

The problem is mass emporvershment, low wages high profits.

A economic "policy" masked under the thin guise of benefiting the worker that set in concrete the neo liberal reforms which reversed labor rights in favor of foreign investment. [/b]
yes, but how bad off was the average malaysian worker before these jobs were available?

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 24, 2006 10:34 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 24, 2006 10:34 pm)
Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 24, 2006 03:30 pm

[email protected] 24, 2006 04:24 pm


unemployment in mexico is at a low 3%,


The problem is not unemployment.

The 12 year old mylasian girl living off 1 US dollar a day is still technically employed.

The problem is mass emporvershment, low wages high profits.

A economic "policy" masked under the thin guise of benefiting the worker that set in concrete the neo liberal reforms which reversed labor rights in favor of foreign investment.
yes, but how bad off was the average malaysian worker before these jobs were available? [/b]
How far do you want to go back?

It doesnt get much worse than working under the african/asian/latin sun for less than a quarter an hour, 90 hour weeks, subject to sexual and physical abuse and no oppertunity for education or advancement.

...but those sneakers are so comfy, and it does seem fitting that our childrens toys are made by children :lol:

[colonelguppy]

i think working under african/asian/latin sun for a lifeline that is largely related to the health of the climate at that particular time would probably suck more.