Tuesday, December 9, 2008

An Economic World

Steger discusses the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of how the world, as we know it, has been globalized. However, I believe the international economic scene has further globalized the world more than any other dimension. "Economic globalization refers to the intensification and stretching of economic interrelations across the globe." These interrelations involve nations all over the world who open their doors for trade. Countries have become so involved and tight nit, that some could not survive without the goods and services of the other. Today's markets are universal, therefore linking the economies of just about every nation. Steger also mentions how massive corporations now operate on an international basis by manufacturing goods one place and selling them on the other side of the globe.

I don't understand how political dimensions could systematically globalize the world as economics has. I know that there are a lot of policies involved with a nation's economy but most countries rely on trade for goods that help sustain the nation's well being. Without these goods the nation would fail along with its political system. Why is trade considered a bad idea? Through comparative advantage, a country can use its resources to produce goods that it is most efficient in manufacturing, and trade for everything else.

How has the world been globalized through cultural dimensions? I don't think languages would be emphasized in schools if we were not involved with foreign nations, or people economically. Without an interlocked economy, what motives would there be for being cultured in a foreign nation?

6 comments:

Omair Khattak said...

To answer your second question, i think that trade can be bad because indigenous peoples who cannot contribute to the economy by way of their native practices must adapt to the global economy and in doing so cease to rely on their ethnic heritage.

Take the colonial system, for example. What has become of the colonial system is now seemingly sovereign nations that are still interlocked with their parent countries in the world economy. The peoples who were first extradited out of their countries, be it forced labor or indentured servitude, returned with extraordinary prowess amongst their fellow peoples because of their knowledge of the contemporary world markets. Their authority came to supersede that of the indigenous people's traditional tribal leaders. So now the ethic peoples are led by peoples who otherwise have no connection with peoples except for their capabilities as economic leaders, thereby crippling culture and sending the society into culture crisis that to this day have yet to be resolved.

Omair Khattak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colin said...

Your post is very idealistic, and does not deal with economic globalization as it really is. Countries do not suddenly start producing goods that they are most efficient at making. In order for a country to even begin to develop, it must rely on hefty loans for national projects such as building infrastructure and producing factories to make goods. Already, these countries are behind the buck, as the interest on international loans grows at a heinous rate that literally becomes exponential in a matter of a few years. Look at Jamaica as a prime example of the disastrous results of globalization. They have been a "developing country" for over 30 years, and currently more than half of EVERY tax dollar the government earns goes to repaying foreign debt. Instead of actually being able to help themselves, they are hopelessly trying to catch up on international debt. There is a documentary in the Rhodes Media Center entitled Life & Debt about Jamaica if you're interested. 70% of Jamaica's GDP is from the service sector (tourism).

Emily Sellers said...

Just a note on the language comment. In the United States fluency in other languages is not as extensive as it is other countries. In those countries they are learning English. So really how two-sided is this cultural exchange?

claire said...

Not to gang up on you too much, but Omair and Colin both make good points.

An obvious point is that those massive corporations operating on an international basis you mention tend not to be interested in the quality of life of their cheap labor.

Something like 10 languages become extinct every year, right? Imagine how many other pieces of history and culture disappear alongside them.

Joy Henary said...

About "how political dimensions could systematically globalize the world as economics"...political regulation creates the very framework that we have for economic activity.