[This is a response to MVP's post: "The Problems with Globalization"
For starters, we must bear in mind that Wall-e presents a world that is highly improbable if not impossible. For us all to be a bunch of overweight slobs in hover-chairs that wore the same clothes and ate the same food would merit that we all had the same tastes and preferences. (I have many other economic problems with the movie such as the question of where they got the resources for food etc. that they seem to just dump into space - but I digress.) You have a point that aid agencies give a lot - America as a whole gives a lot of financial aid. But that does not mean they are doing all they can; in fact, their giving money may be hurting as it goes to no useful/efficient end.
"Let's face it: there's always going to be a discrepancy or a gap between the rich and the poor... it will still exist so long as technology and capitalism... exists."
This is in places misguided and in others economically untrue. There don't have to be poor people for there to be rich people; life (and economics) is not a zero sum game. This view of the world assumes that when people voluntarily trade, one party is made worse off. To illustrate my point further, I'll present a hypothetical:
You can live in one of two worlds:
In World A - you have an income of $200,000 a year while everyone else makes $100,000 a year.
And in World B - you have an income of $300,000 a year and everyone else makes $500,000 a year.
Bear in mind that these amounts a real money terms: thus, in world B you can purchase 50% more than world A while everyone else can purchase 400% more in world B than in world A.
Think about your answer before you shout out the answer.
Most people I have asked will say "World A." Unless you think everyone being poorer would somehow make you better off (say you are malicious), this is the wrong answer. Relative wealth shouldn't matter - if it did, we should have a legitimate reason to hate Warren Buffett for being a smart investor. There may always be a gap between the richest person in the world and the poorest person in the world, but that doesn't mean there have to be poor people - we can all be rich.
As for your problem with globalization (as I understand it there is something wrong with you needing to be connected with the internet) this isn't really a problem with globalization. Globalization is in part about reducing barriers to trade, transportation, and information sharing. Your needing to visit facebook is a personal problem - the fact that you have access to facebook is because of globalization: do you see the difference?
"But now it's a much more dangerous device that even grown ups can't live without.
I'm not sure this is rational. Or at least any more rational than being in the 19th century and saying that we are becoming too dependent on candle power (for more fun on candle power, see Bastiat's "Plee of the Candlemakers"). It's technology. The danger always lies in the fact that one day (for some inexplicable reason) we might lose it and go back to scratching the dirt for subsistence. But that is not a legitimate argument against globalization - just because we fear not having technology, does that mean we shouldn't use it now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I generally actually agree with Jon. I'm really only commenting to say excellent reference to "The Plee of the Candlemakers." Completely random, but excellent.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, the Wall-E point was only a hyperbolic example of what happens when humans lose touch with each other due to the dilemma of connected disconnection.
"constantly connected in 10 different screens at once, and yet never really reach out and touch someone?"
"constantly connected in 10 different screens at once, and yet never really reach out and touch someone?"
"constantly connected in 10 different screens at once, and yet never really reach out and touch someone?"
-----------------------
We good now? Good.
I am more than aware of the movie's economic unlikelihood insofar as food and resources is concerned and went so far as to clarify as such in the comments.
As far as capitalism goes, there is always a discrepancy. It's built into the system. I don't understand what you are getting at when you say there don't have to be poor people to be rich people. Marx's entire problem with capitalism lies in class theory, bourgeois v proletariat. I take your point that it is not a zero sum game, but that's not my argument, and that's not why those who despite capitalism argue against it.
"There may always be a gap between the richest person in the world and the poorest person in the world, but that doesn't mean there have to be poor people - we can all be rich."
Are you aware that this is in essence impossible? We cannot all be rich so long as there is someone richer than us...
What I think you're getting at is yes, we can help solve some of the world's problems, but regardless, the idea is limited resources keep the gap open, which is why redistribution of wealth, although it would never work realistically, is what Marx calls for in order to solve this problem.
"Relative wealth shouldn't matter - if it did, we should have a legitimate reason to hate Warren Buffett for being a smart investor."
It does. People do.
"Globalization is in part about reducing barriers to trade, transportation, and information sharing. Your needing to visit facebook is a personal problem - the fact that you have access to facebook is because of globalization: do you see the difference?"
See connected disconnect above. The same principle behind what we talked about in class about not being able to survive without our cell phones.
And yes, I know that it is not as big a deal as the money problem in globalization, but it is worth a mention.
As Colin mentioned in the comments of my post and as many before our time have noted, the ones benefiting most from globalization aren't the ones complaining.
Ok, now I think I can really contribute. I THINK Jon is saying that when everyone can afford everything they want, or at least provide for all of their needs, relative wealth won't matter. Its true, there will never be a time when everyone has the same amount of wealth so there will always be "richer" and "poorer." But right now we think poor is a bad thing because it implies that one can't afford everything one needs or wants. But when everyone can afford all of those things those terms might not lose their meaning, but they will lose their potency.
Of course your reference was an exaggeration - and you didn't need to mention a robot coming to make you more aware of the world around for us to realize that. My point was that humans aren't really losing touch with each other - the way they connect is just changing. You may not think that the way things are progressing is desirable, but frankly that's irrelevant. (The food and resources comment was a side comment - let's keep it there.)
As for Marx and his problems with the class differences, his issue with the proletariat/bourgeois difference was the exploitation which he saw an inherent part of their relationship. My point is philological - the liberal use of the word "poor" is my concern. It should be seen as a purely 'absolute' term: for example, Mateo in Ethiopia is poor because he is malnourished, riddled with disease, and lives off less than a dollar a day; whereas Matthew in New York is rich because he has a 5,000 square foot house, health and home insurance, and went to graduate school. While rich and poor are still somewhat subjective here, my point lies in the fact that Mateo can have all of the stuff that Matthew has, and it doesn't have to be at the expense of Matthew; he too can be rich.
"the idea is limited resources keep the gap open"
I'm a man who believes in scarcity as much as the next economist. But 'limited resources' is not where your counterargument should be placed. There is the reality of comparative advantage which works like a technological improvement and can continue to work as such until everyone has the same slope on their production possibilities frontier - which will never happen.
"'Relative wealth shouldn't matter - if it did, we should have a legitimate reason to hate Warren Buffett for being a smart investor.'
It does. People do."
It does: Relative wealth really only matters in the sense that people have envy or jealousy for someone who has more than they do. It doesn't make much of difference for anything else but our own pride. It shouldn't matter.
People do: I thought you said you were pro-capitalism. You cannot say that people have a legitimate reason to hate Buffett because he is a smart investor and simultaneously believe in the principles of capitalism. They don't.
As for people being unable to survive without their cell phones, they can. Take away a person's cell phone, and they will be fine, most likely less productive, but fine. Again, it's a form of technology, you take it a way and we will probably still be fine - we won't be as well off, but we will be okay. Suppose you were around before any form off telecommunication and you were musing about taking away paper as a form of communication (e.g. letters, plays, books etc.) - many would say that people need those things to survive.
To say and believe this (and the former statements I addressed) is weirdly Marxian for a capitalist to say.
"As Colin mentioned in the comments of my post and as many before our time have noted, the ones benefiting most from globalization aren't the ones complaining."
Yes, but let's not forget the people who were also before our time that actually made sense. Globalization (for all intents and purposes) is a result of increased trade. We don't voluntarily trade unless it makes us better off. Really, the people who disapprove of globalization simply don't understand what is actually happening in the process. I'm not trying to argue that there are no downsides to trade and globalization, but those downsides are no where near comparable to the upsides created. And really, globalization helps me a lot less than someone in an undeveloped country - I am made a small margin better off by gasoline that is a few cents cheaper. The African coffee producers with increased business see huge marginal gains because initially, each incremental change towards something better will have more value for them (for more on the "catch-up effect," see China).
"People do: I thought you said you were pro-capitalism. You cannot say that people have a legitimate reason to hate Buffett because he is a smart investor and simultaneously believe in the principles of capitalism. They don't."
I didn't say I. I said people. You noticed my defense of capitalism at tonight's dinner, don't forget.
"To say and believe this (and the former statements I addressed) is weirdly Marxian for a capitalist to say."
I didn't say I didn't believe in the capitalist system. It is possible to see the downsides of capitalism while still believing that it has been beneficial overall. It's not a perfect system, and my posts have generally taken that into account. Note the distinction between realism and idealism in my last post.
I feel that the fear of losing something does not mean we should do without something. Even if for some reason we lose all our technology and end up back at square one, we have had technology and can strive back towards it. We can enjoy what is created today because if we don't then why do we have it? People use the technology to connect with each other and it helps make everything more convenient.
Post a Comment