5/28

I found Singer’s definition and assessment of national identity problematic and his suggestion of “considering ourselves as members of an imagined community of the world (171),” rather than members of individual nation states somewhat blind. Not to be too harsh…

In quoting Sedwick as an introduction to the “preference for our own” concept, I found myself, as he expected, thrown by the suggestion that we should be “bound to show kindness… to those of our own race more than to black or yellow men (153).” Before finishing the quote, I already began explaining to him that an American is an American; we all hold some generally similar set of beliefs, live under the same system of justice, enjoy the same freedoms, pay taxes to the same government, have the same power to change what we see fit, laugh at many of the same jokes on SNL and sing the same national anthem (although it ends differently in different places… “play ball” or “gentlemen, start your engines”). Though I quickly found that Singer addressed many of these counter-arguments in the pages that followed, the idea that “rejecting the notion of giving preference to members of our own race [makes it] difficult to defend the intuition that we should favor our fellow citizens, in the sense I which citizenship is seen as a kind of extended kinship, because all citizens are of the same ethnicity or race (168).”

I can tell you that, while watching the World Trade Center fall, I did not feel any less horror for my fellow Americans of color than I felt for those of my own race. But I can also tell you that the reason that I did not feel compassion toward the high-jackers was not because they were not American or because my nationality made me somehow better or more valuable than them. At the risk of sounding like a naive Southerner, “neighborly” compassion is not totally dead (and, often, still very important)… in many ways, 9/11 showed me that. My 13 year old Alabama self would probably have never known just how strongly I was tied to so many New Yorkers that I had never met simply because we share a few basic identities. Therefore, I am reluctant to ask anyone to surrender their own national identity because I, at some instinctive level that I cannot wholly describe, would not sever ties with my own.

At this point, humanity’s absolute willingness and ability to unite under one imagined community with “allegiance to a common set of ideals and values” is almost zero. In particular, I have two examples in mind:
1. What sort of compromise could be made between the jihadist and liberal democracy advocating the type of freedom of religion that we enjoy in the United States today?
2. How would India, a much more expansive population than jihadists, feel about the type of freedom of expression laws that permit certain types of pornography?

While the need of the wealthy to recognize the needs of the devastatingly poor and capture their individual ability to help correct the problem is undeniable, doing so through a one-world identity is likely to create more problems than Singer is ready to admit. It will take time and widespread education and increased awareness, both of which we are capable of. Exposure to the problem can only help solve it. Who knows… maybe (I stress maybe) our sense of national identity will eventually lead us to a national sense of shame that we have not done all that we comfortably could to save the lives of starving children.

5/24

I saw a thing about this on TV a few weeks ago, and today's class made me remember it... a weather-altering, "large scale chemical alteration of the atmosphere" conspiracy thoery... enjoy

http://www.airapparent.ca/library/full_text/chemtrails_lasvegas3.htm

5/22

There is no denying that East Asia’s economic accomplishments, especially when described by Stiglitz, have been great. But while Stiglitz’s focuses on the shiny aspects, he largely dismisses many implications of the “centralized authoritarian development (Broad, Cavanaugh, Bello 393)” that guided the growth. They point to the large number of labor disputes that broke out in the late 1980’s after several decades of growth and environmental harm accompanied buy little change in wages. The answer to this problem is a more representative government.

In order to establish and maintain a well-functioning economy, one must deal with the “costs of transacting,” which have no part in neo-classical economic theory, but are very much a part of every day life (North). Because good governments are the most effective way of dealing with this issue, it seems obvious that a more representative government would better disperse problems associated with command development by giving more facets of society an “in” on dealing with transaction costs and finding the “correct balance” between government and market (Stiglitz). Broad, Cavanaugh and Bello point to citizen’s initiatives as an important way for the voices of all those with interest to be heard.

Overall, it is the people of a country that are most important in determining patterns of development. The better educated the population, the better able they are to make informed decisions regarding what they want the role of government to be in the daily lives. As an American, I would likely find the East Asian governmental practices of pervasive government intervention in the economy problematic because I have been taught that I have the right to make my own choices and forge my own successful path. Likewise, I am inclined to support decisions such as to move away from micro-managing agriculture and handing land over to families to cultivate as they see fit (Stiglitz 49).

I think that the prospect of the economic advancement at the individual level is an aspect of widespread income growth that is rarely mentioned yet extremely important. If each member of society can feel that “moving up” is within their grasp, they will be much more inclined to strive toward this goal, rather than that of mere survival. But improvements in government, education and overall economic advancement are often necessary before developing nations can get to a point where they can make solid decisions and work toward such advancement on their own. It is a vicious cycle that, in order to be stopped, must be controlled long enough to establish an exit point from which countries can begin their climb out. Over the years, many plans have been tried… while none has been perfect, we are continuing to learn from each one. A perfect exit plan from this hellish mess of poverty, undereducation and disorganization may never be cultivated… but even offering an imperfect place from which countries can begin their journey out may be better than nothing.

5/17

“Capital will be attracted to a jurisdiction… where the welfare derived from the bundle of local amenities, income-earning opportunities and taxes is the highest (Wolf 264).” Such a state, as Wolf describes, would focus its efforts remedying specific market failures only, taking a hands-off approach to anything they can. States that already exist in the manner are, as Wolf recognizes, generally the wealthy developed nations that immigrants want to move to and natives see no need to leave.

Yet, if capital is globally migratory, and the already wealthy are satisfied overall, what does this mean for developing nations? Wolf recognizes that “the mechanism of the state is at least as defective as that of the market (Wolf 67).” Good governments and good markets are “symbiotic”: investors look to the stability of governments in the decision to invest in a country and governments rely on minimally favorable market conditions to run smoothly. A credible government is difficult, if not impossible, to establish alongside a fledgling market that lends itself to corruption. So wealthy investors continue to take their capital elsewhere, to more stable and beneficial countries, and struggling nations become more and more desperate.

Though Wolf says that a good way to discourage such constraints of corruption is to open the market up to global competition (Wolf 73), it seems almost inevitable that a major regime collapse is the only means to purge many corrupt nations. Even if opened, they would discourage capital investment so vehemently through their corruptive actions that competition could actually arise for governmental power…IE, civil war could easily ensue.

As this course goes on, as much as I would like to think of the developing world as open to creating the life that I enjoy, I continue to find more and more obstacles that they must face in doing so. The universal gap between the richest and poorest nations has implications much more widespread than merely “wealth.” The disadvantages the developing nations must overcome in catching up (or even getting within view) seem nearly impossible to wholly address. In many ways, it seems as if it may be inevitable get worse before it gets better. Bringing the developing world up to speed will require a great deal of cooperation, tolerance and faith… making sure that the developed world does not lose to greatly in the process will require just the opposite.

5/14

Perfectly in synch with our reading on multinational corporations and foreign direct investment is the latest news both in this arena and in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. ThyssenKrupp AG, a German-based steel corporation that employs over 187,000 worldwide and has roughly 600 foreign subsidiaries, announced plans this morning to build a $3.7 billion dollar steel processing plant in north Mobile County. The project will create 2,700 direct jobs and as many as 50,000 indirect jobs over the next few decades. The site will process steel from Brazil for use in a large variety of further production processes (most importantly, for use in the ever-growing automotive industry in the Southeast). A celebratory champagne brunch just wrapped up between city officials and ThyssenKrupp representatives, last I heard… Southern Hospitality at its finest.

5/10

The problems that excessive debt creates for both developing and developed nations are clearly enormous. As I read Stiglitz 8, in particular, I found it quite clear that the progressive development necessary in the poorest, most indebted nations to fuel and support further globalization is blatantly impeded by creditors… the picture is incitingly bleak. However, I simultaneously felt some sort of defensive reaction to many of Stiglitz’s suggestions. It would be hard for anyone living in America to deny that they enjoy the benefits of belonging to the world’s richest population, but my hesitations were not borne of greed.

My primary objection was to the insistence that “money should flow from rich to poor (nations), while risk flows (simultaneously) from poor to rich”. While in theory, the humanitarian in all of us would like to find some magic cure that, along these lines, enables everyone in the world to live comfortably and enjoy a well-functioning, profitable economy, the implications of accepting such high risk (especially when you consider the weakening of the dollar, huge deficits, etc) could not only be catastrophic for places like the US, but for the entire world… especially if you buy in to any degree of hegemonic theories. If defaulting on debt was to become a more common practice (ignoring the obvious fact that many nations have no choice, and to try to hold them to absurd debts is basically cruel and unusual punishment) and the IMF, funded by developed nations, were to take the hit then couple that with risk acceptance, etc… you get the picture. While there are responsibilities that developed nations must accept if they truly want to pursue and spread a successful global economy, a line must be drawn before we expose ourselves to the possibility of world-wide collapse (which seems highly likely is the US or EU were to suffer from a severe collapse). Although it is far from a solution to the problem that we currently face, I agree with Stiglitz that a major problem is over-lending. Yes, free-flow of capital is good. But predatory lending is a totally different story.

Ultimately, it seems that there are about 750,000,000 scattered, unparallel and often unconnected lines that we need to be walking all at once. While it is easy to see developed nations as unfairly rich and greedy, it is also necessary recognize the importance of leaders in the market and accept that they too must protect themselves. As Stiglitz points out, governments of developing nations has a responsibility to their people and must incorporate this into their dealings… while it may seem obvious, so do governments of developed nations. We must just keep trying to find a balance.

5/8

I found this example of Frieden’s theory in action. The article states that “many investors have shifted to the pound,” showing that they may have put aside concerns about the stability of exchange rates that is generally so important to international investors in exchange for the ability to make cheaper international purchases (Frieden 260). The danger here is that the future devaluation of the pound puts these investors at high risk in the long run.

This is “good for UK shoppers” because the purchasing power of the pound is much greater than that of the dollar, euro or yen. Ultimately, imports are cheaper than domestically produced goods and because England is a relatively small nation with a high percentage of imports, this means good news for UK consumers. Exporters, on the other hand, are hurt because other nations will be reluctant to buy their products at the increased effective cost that the exchange rate causes.

5/3

I find Stiglitz’s basic premise, that intellectual property should not be included in the WTO (128), problematic at best. In an earlier reading, Wolf described the five main problems that must be solved by a sophisticated market economy. Questions surrounding the place of intellectual property rights in international trade concretely touch on three of these five: the free-flow of information, protection of property rights and (less so) the idea that competition must be fostered. In his four central features of a modern market economy, this debate encompasses all four: corporations, innovation, intellectual property rights and financial markets. Yes, intellectual property rights itself is one of the four.

While, as I have recognized previously, our current attempt at managing economic globalization could stand for a good deal of improvement, many of Stiglitz’s sentiments on the protection of intellectual property rights at all toe the lines of “fostering competition” and “protecting property rights.” In my view, intellectual property is personal property. Innovators, especially those who began with their adult lives with thick stacks of hefty bills from various educational institutions and chose to accept the opportunity costs related to the time that they spent developing their product should be guaranteed to see some return on it. Call me selfish, but I would at least want to cover my bills after I spent all of that time on the project. (although hopefully, especially in the case of drug researchers, they also have concern for the well-being of others in their hearts) Though Stiglitz does not totally condemn IP rights, he often highlights very extreme examples of over-protecting IP rights.

As globalization progresses and the cost of communication becomes less and less, the definition and borders of intellectual property becomes increasingly more confusing. While patents grant (often excessive) monopoly power, if the patent-holding innovator had seen the high opportunity cost of inventing without the benefit of a possible pay-off, we would not have the product available to us to start with. As an ever-globalizing economy, it seems obvious that some sort of enforceable protection of an innovator’s rights to their product must be more widespread than just nationally. To not internationally protect intellectual property sufficiently could have serious detrimental effects on the world economy.

I do not seek to discard the needs (especially medical) of developing nations, nor to promote means of selfish overprotection of profits. Overall, I see that there is a simple need of large corporations that is difficult to write in to any law: they need a conscience. I think that Stiglitz’s idea of an innovation fund to encourage researching diseases that plague the third world is excellent and well-aimed. As further debates over globalization arise, I am optimistic about our ability to recognize and address problems such as this with our management of the world economy. However, I do think that intellectual property, just like goods and services, is an increasingly important part of trade that should be addressed by the WTO if we are to economically converge in a harmonious way.

venezuela is pulling out of the IMF and WB

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-05-01-voa14.cfm

5/1

Singer’s “One Economy” is an ethically-minded examination of the recognized need for some sort of wide-scale, policy setting body to deal with economic globalization, and our fledgling attempt at establishing such a body. As Wolf recognizes, market dynamics lead it to “want to cross borders,” theoretically benefiting all parties involved in every transaction via comparative advantage. After all, he says, there has never been a case in which a country benefited from anti-liberalization of their markets. Proving the benefits in any concrete manner, however, had been much more difficult. While most reasonable measures show that inequality is likely increasing, this is far from uncertain. It does appear, however, that standards of living (measured in HDI, easily illustrated on the Human Development Report 2006 - Human Development Trends website) are following a positive trend.
Just as the issues and statistics scrutinized with regards to globalization and its effects are virtually innumerable, so are the problems we can find with our current best attempt at managing economic globalization: the WTO. This fact, in my opinion, makes an important statement to advocates of a one world economy lead by a more powerful and comprehensive body. While debate is at the heart of democracy (a “pro,” given that this body would be more democratic in nature than our current model), the structural problems presented by vast differences in wealth, population, education level, etc seem too large to ignore. This is, obviously, disregarding religious, social and political convictions. As attractive as Wolf’s portrayal of global economic possibilities may seem to those viewing the situation from the economic powerhouse that is America, ethical questions both addressed by Singer and a certain multitude still outstanding place us a long way from a realistic, widely-beneficial realization of even an all-pleasing modification to the WTO as it stands.

4/26

Wolf tells us that, “enemies of globalization are opponents of the market economy (40).” While, as an American, I find it difficult discredit the virtues of a free market, his colleagues point out many of the undeniable difficulties associated with relaxing barriers to international trade and opening the markets of developing countries.
Stiglitz points to the largely uneven GDP growth between countries, enormous gaps in wealth both between and within nations and seeming inability of present political tools to manage economic globalization as unavoidable and delicate problems of economic globalization. Indeed, the reconciliation of American equality-based ideals is a difficult task for those citing vast economic advantage that the United States has in the global market over a country like Chad. This is not to condemn the virtues of competition and the quest for personal gain that Wolf praises in a free-market. It is simply difficult to watch tragedies of poverty and inequality (that too often lead to violence) without questioning whether or pro-globalization decisions have met with the degree of success that world leaders may have hoped- especially in developing nations. While opening up capital markets, allowing multi-national corporations to enter developing countries to benefit from cheap wage rates, etc may lead these countries to gains, the instability that this creates outweighs the possibilities of gain (Stiglitz). In addition, as Freeman points out, there is evidence to suggest that this outsourcing has contributed to falling wages rates for less-skilled workers in industrialized nations. No one is immune to problems presented by economic globalization, and the list goes on.
However, it is just as difficult for any one national leader to accept the problems of the world as still deal with those immediately facing his own nation. One person can only do so much. Though, as Singer points out, our definition of “what is acceptable for one independent, sovereign state to ask of another” is growing, humans still very much see themselves as belonging to a clearly delineated country. Collectively, people do not discredit this identification enough to view ourselves simply as “citizens of the world. Herein lies the difficulty of allocating international resources. Our global economy is growing faster than our ability to manage and nurture it to success. Questions of morality relating to poverty, resentment held by developing countries and possible violence rising from it, self-promotion over the benefit of humanity, as well as where to draw the line in each issue are more overwhelming than revealing. Managing globalization is a delicate balance, and declaring a critic of the seemingly inevitable process “an enemy of the free-market” seems a bit harsh.

Test Posting

Test http://www.al.com/