First posted in the original Lobby Group blog by contributor Coral Bloom-
Failure of Globalisation
There are many, many issues and I feel I lack any kind of real in-depth of knowledge as to their causes and therefore their remedy. The complexity merits a level of expertise which I lack. However, after much thought and reading, I am suggesting the following points for further discussion.
Please bear in mind these are discussion points and represent the issues I see; globalisation has been the excuse for massive greed and imbalance, yet it claims to offer better living standards. It has certainly brought improvement in standards for those at the top end of society, but the general public have been left feeling insecure, and see only unfairness. You may not agree with these as being the root cause. They are discussion points only that may lead, after development to framework for improving fairness. If you disagree then I’d appreciate explanations to improve my understanding.
Corporate Competition
The massive financial power of multinational corporations does not promote business competition. Microsoft bought over how many companies as a means of obtaining resources? This reduced competitor pool.
Globalisation removes the best people from local communities and concentrates them in centres (London, New York) etc.
Stringent anti-competitor rules must be implemented on a national and international basis.
Payment to resources could also include a compensating payment to the community for lost resources. If we are really going to take nurses from the Philippines rather than producing our own, then we should pay the Philippines the full cost of producing replacement nurses. Additionally, companies and not the migrate worker, must by law, bear full cost or movement and settlement and resettlement.
Human Aspects of Globalisation
There is a growing disparity between rich and poor, nationally and globally
Efforts should be made to equally this situation. Such efforts will foster a greater sense of community within and across nations. Equalisation will reduce the Them and Us Philosophy, and replace it with an appreciation of our similar and disparate values.
Globalisation promotes localised hunger. Poor countries can not compete for grain.
Markets should have two types of stock markets. Those stocks dealing with life-essentials should be banned from the Casino Market that deals exclusively with luxury resources. There is a vast difference in dealing with wheat as opposed to luxury vast flowers or compact disc materials.
Globalisation promotes reduced employee rights and income. All employees should be viewed as stakeholders,
All employees should be paid appropriate to company profits. There is no reason why a cleaner should be the in employment of a multi-million pound company, making massive profits and dependant on state top-up benefits to live. If you need a cleaner, then pay them appropriately for the area, maintaining localised living standards as a minimum.
Any country participating in global economics must implement a rights and standards charter in order to be permitted into this exclusive club. A factory worker in the UK must ensure her children have clean running water and have food. Currently competition means she cannot do so, when competing with a factory worker in China. This should be standardised across competing populations.
Globalisation increases competition. The reality is that globalisation increases stress levels. This increases mental health and subsequent physical health impairment in the population, and the next generation (epigenetic studies, Glasgow, New York).
We need a new philosophy of how we live our lives. This must be explored and actively promoted by all leaders
Globalisation does not promote full employment.
Industrial manufacturing moved east, and now aims for Africa, leaving 2 populations trained and unemployed and displaced.
Globalisation leads to a uniform environment. Uniform diets leads to disease epidemics (Latino/American Indian diabetes epidemic).
The thought of McDonalds appearing in Cairo, or Kinshasa horrifies me for the loss of local traditions (American Indians had much knowledge and wisdom, but all swept aside in the first wave of imperial globalisation they had seen) and therefore fails to promote individual and international understanding, destroying local cultures. If I ever go to Moscow then I expect to see blinis on the menu, not burgers or pizza! Over-globalisation should be controlled by anti-competition laws? We need more respect for population differences.
Local competition and buying power should be equalised by the dominant competitor where cultural impact is forecast locally. If a company is intent on promoting goods that lead to illness, they must pay for that illness to be treated.
National Governments
Governments find it increasingly difficult to control tax revenues (anyone who thinks tax is bad, think of life without police officers and you kid is missing!)
Close of tax loop holes, with severe penalties for all who participate in tax avoidance schemes. All nations should endeavour to simplify tax rules. Tax avoidance laws, should have severe penalties applied (I am thinking of those applied to convicted drug dealers, where all assets are taken), impounding property, cash, investments and all companies, ensuring there is not profit in crime.
Globalisation reduces the security of individual countries – Al Qaeda could destabilise any market of its choosing, creating world wide consequences. There were food riots in a number of countries in the past 12 months or so, as a result of activities on global stock markets. The US Federal Government have announced the current credit crisis is the greatest risk to US security at this time – internal strife is the concern.
Each nation must ensure economic security. This does not preclude working internationally, but places a stronger emphasis on self-reliance.
Politicians are beholden to business leaders and not the electorate.
Political systems must be re-aligned to ensure they meet the needs of the local population who elected them.
Globalisation and Environment
Modern governments and businesses do not use Full Cost Accounting Techniques. This must be implemented across all sectors. Regardless of your personal views on Global Warming, there is not one single reason why you or an organisation should trash planet earth. You would not dream of inviting someone into you home if you thought they would trash your home. Planet earth is no different.
Globalisation is based on consumerism. This relies on removing all resources from the earth at a far higher rate than the earth will ever replenish them (limited sources of coltan is one prime example).
Full compensation should be appropriate, including the cost of replacement, the cost of landscape wound healing.
A global government will be required to administer a global economy
(UN Security Council failures, makes this scary).
Governments are unable to adapt to localised population needs. This must be enshrined in international laws and economies.
Ethics
All management and professions should be subject to Oath prior to professional employment, similar to medics. Immoral/dishonest activities will lead to a barring from that and related professions.
Banking, Finance and Business.
Much of the details of banking and business are beyond my level of knowledge and I have therefore not considered this here.
However, I am leaning towards thinking that all regulatory bodies should act as police forces, using the same thought processes at least. No nice telephone calls to announce a visit in a few days etc. Having a bank boss sitting on the regulatory board would have had any police officer worth his salt preparing for an arrest application in due course.
I do believe we need a fraud anti/corruption squad, an internationally independent one. One that does not fear dragging a corporation or government to court.
I believe politicians in this country must be barred from taking rich pickings employment once they have left politics. All politicians must return to their previous employment, and previous standard of living for a period of 5 years. A dentist should be happy to return to his work, a schoolteacher should be happy to return to teaching.
I also believe that politicians should be barred from money making opportunities during their time in office. Politicians should return to an ideal of serving their country rather than themselves.
I also believe that any company requiring any debt should be automatically seen as a major investment risk – even if that borrowing is for £10. They should be aiming for massive credits, not debts.
We were all taught if you didn’t save up for that toy, you couldn’t have it for a reason.
I await the thumping and banging, the screams of hair pulling and a torrent of rants!
Contact your local elected officials - for free
by bobajob
13 Feb 2009 at 04:11
Some positive sides of globalisation:
a)Increasing world trade levels
b)Allowing brands to be established internationally, e.g. Vodafone, Toyota, HSBC, Lloyds Insurance, David Beckham, Lewis Hamilton, U2, Pfizer, Glaxo, BBC world service & news 24, etc. (Notice the hi-tech or excellence bias in these successes)
Some negatives:
a)Inhumane exploitation of workers
b)Outsourcing where the service deteriorates
c)Unemployment of workers in the country that previously produced the goods or service
d)Exploitation of a country's natural resources permitted by governments with a short-term view and neglecting to ensure better legacies for present and future generations of the local people
A government needs to engage in short- medium- and long-term man/womanpower planning to try to balance the local supply and demand for human resources. Does our country do this?
But there will always be shortages or surpluses in a patchwork pattern. Job centres mainly match jobs to suitable people. If it was easier for people to relocate more easily, it would help. In the old days, you could stay with the same company for life. Now, due to increasing rates of change we are forced to re-train as jobs change or fall away.
Life in the corporate environment today imposes huge challenges to management. Government red tape is a burden – small business feels it is excessive – do they have a case?
by kooltidings
13 Feb 2009 at 05:34
It is a bit ironic to think that for a country that wants to have ‘global companies’ Britain is very reluctant to have a common currency ie the Euro
Re red tape for small companies. A lot of French companies are full of praise concerning the ease of creating a company in the UK.
On the issue of globalisation through we need to address seriously the issue of taxes, where are they being paid, companies registered in one country to fax purposes etc, in the same way we need to address the Non-dom issue
Re the two types of stock market. I think that if banks are ‘split’ bak to how they used to be then the Casino gambler can play among themselves
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 08:40
bobajob,
I sometime wonder about people relocation. I sometimes think that corporations are isolated from the effects.
1. broken extended families – grannies teach young mums how to look after their kids.
It is grannie who tells a young mum that a rash is nothing to worry about, or that the baby needs a doctor, now.
Older people become isolated when the family have moved afar, so greater costs to local government. I’ve no data to support this, though it is pretty obvious. I could think of many other impacts too.
2. Desire for companies to ‘be close to centre’ leading to an imbalance in UK economy’.
Why on earth did Glaxo move to Stephenage – what was wrong with Cumbria or Wales or somewhere further away?
by CoralBloom
13 Feb 2009 at 08:48
Corporate environment
The corporate environment is covered in red tape because they will always put profits first.
Have you seen an African building site? From Egypt to Tanzania, flip flops for the workers are optional – now that made me think wht that country would be like with no Health and Safety!
On the other side of the coin, I’ve seen many people look to home-made soaps as a way of earning a little money. In the UK, no one does it because the regulations and insurance requirements are horrendous. It would be illegal for me to make my own soap (as easy making bread) and give it as gifts…
by Goldtop
17 Feb 2009 at 08:03
One of the debating points raised in Jericoa’s “What Happen’s Next” post is-
e) Commitment to an Open Global Economy
What I don’t understand is this. Until you reach a point where everything from a bottle of milk, through a pair of jeans or a lawnmower to a car or a house is the same price in every country in the world and a person is paid the same wage for performing the same task no matter of where he or she is located, how can you have a world market or a true global economy. What is disposable rubbish to one person will be a valuable treasure to another. Someone is always going to be at a disadvantage. Its an impossibility surely?
by CoralBloom
17 Feb 2009 at 17:36
I too am still trying to figure this out.
So far, all I can come up with is that Globalisation is a means for the rich to expand their activities exploiting resources as they go. Anti-globalisation inhibits these activities.
I love the idea of buying goods online. I can buy rugs, baskets etc directly from Co-ops or from their small reps here in the UK, bypassing the international companies. I know by doing this, the people working at the co-ops are making money in a more equitable basis. To me, this is the benefit of globalisation. I can buy what I want or need.
When politicians talk of globalisation I’m pretty sure this is not what they are thinking of. They are thinking of Microsoft et al.
Globalisation can open the world of different cultures to us. Different peoples. Instead, we have the spread of a uniform McD’s.
The reality of it is this.
Textile work moved from the UK to China, since the workforce there are “willing to work for 10 bob and a bag of rice”.
We are left with no industry.
They begin to aspire to improved working conditions and wages. Now the Chinese want cars and consumer goods.
So the company will find a country where the resources are “willing to work for 10 bob and a bag or rice”.
The cycle continues. It is a means of driving the price of resources down.
As to movement of people. People will only move if:
a) A sense of adventure or a desire to experience something very new.
I’ve done that a couple of times. Only one member of my extended family has even moved south to England let along abroad. Even as a sense of adventure, it is expensive – are you really going to ship your pots pans and all the other bits with you? No you buy all over again. And it is so hard to leave your family and walk into that airport, even when it is a free choice.
Without kids I can make that choice much more easily. If I had kids, I just wouldn’t have moved. I’d have been giving up a support network, and that would just be one of how many issues?
b) Desperation.
The Polish tradesmen didn’t come here for the weather!
12 adults living in a home meant for 2 adults and 2 kids (at a squeeze) isn’t what anyone dreams of, is it?
Globalisation of labour can work in some industries. The space industry for example. Scientists and engineers all working together for a specific project. The Center For Disease Control is another, highly specialist organisation that demands mobility of employees. I can’t think of one industry where it is really necessary other than those very small, highly specialised industries.
Nursing, building, medicine, marketing, bakers, etc. None of them should really be left to international movement of labour should they? They are all jobs that we all need, regardless of country.
The details are what are important.
Europe is the only place where internal border control has been removed. Some East African countries are in the processing of doing so now. The effects of implementation, I fear will cause huge political rows when they realise exactly what they have done. No one in Scotland would seriously walk with their families and belongings to Cornwall to find work. They will in Africa.
Movement of vast numbers of people has two effects. The home nation has a gulf left behind. When the young move, who will look after the elderly?
The receiving nation magically must find additional hospitals, housing etc.
None of these costs are met by the employer. Why not? He has saved himself a training bill by not training the local population. So the receiving country is paying for local unemployment and the supply of increased services.
But remember, Europe does not have uniform labour policies