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/