Voices
in
Japan

poll

Is globalization a good thing for the world's economies?

39 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

In general, yes, if you follow economic theory. But there are always specifics that need to be taken care of, and also exceptions where regulations need adjustment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

The same technique 'thought control' was employed in one of Orwell's fictional novels. As is said, 'truth is stranger than fiction'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fizz,

Shifting the debate to environmental issues doesn't mask the fact that the data (annoying things, facts, aren't they?) on fertility rates disproves your attempt to blame overpopulation on globalisation. But I'm glad you're shifting the debate, because that means maybe, just maybe, you do actually see something in the data I've shown you, but don't like to admit it. Whatever.

As for the environment, it's worth noting that it's anti-globalists like Trump and Ukip who deny climate change and seek to rip up environmental protection laws for the sake of their own profits (and most certainly not to help "the sufferings of the poor")

Those nasty bogeyman "elitists" you keep invoking are the ones actually trying to do something about climate change, and about birth control in developing countries, etc, so really what are you actually on about?

(Dear moderators - I'm appalled that you removed my post for apparently being vulgar, when the only remotely vulgar thing in it was a direct quote from Fizzbit's previous post, yet Fizzbit's post originally containing it (directed at me) has been allowed to stand. Why can Fizzbit be vulgar to me? I understand that you are very strict on this site, but applying the rules inconsistently is problematic)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I can see is the data which shows us that improved living standards leads to lower birth rates and decline n population size.

I still can't stop shaking my head at your utter inhumanity. So! The Chinese have improved living conditions but they can't go outside to breath fresh air. I hope one day you listen to yourself, and your f#$king data. Then dream of a home some where over the rainbow. You really sound like an elitist who will never be able to connect with the sufferings of the poor, just keep posting your data cuz it makes you feel important. Over 80% of Okinawa's reefs are bleached. And that's just one point. Sea life are dying off in record numbers. Just how many signs do you need to stop your blind optimism?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fizzbit,

you can't see how this would increase population possibly overpopulation?

What I can see is the data which shows us that improved living standards leads to lower birth rates and decline n population size. This is being seen right now in Japan, Taiwan, and Korea, will very soon be seen in China, and would also be the case throughout Europe without immigration from elsewhere. The birth rate is also at or below replacement in many more recently developed countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil, etc. Here, have some more data:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

It clearly shows an inverse correlation between birth rate and economic development.

I'm shaking my head as to why you'd say overpopulation "isn't caused" (I'm guessing you meant "won't be caused") by globalization

No-one has demonstrated any such causal effect, while the data shows that economic development (globalisation) is leading to lower birth rates.

Not even a little? What else would cause overpopulation?

Overpopulation is caused by high birth rates, and high birth rates are seen in poorly developed countries with low levels of education and women's rights. Across the board, when GDP per capita, education levels, and women's rights go up, we see birth rates go down. If 'globalisation' refers to the economic model of the last several decades, we can see that it has gone with a great increase in the global GDP per capita, education level, and women's rights; so I don't think your theory that globalisation causes overpopulation is based on any sound statistics or reasoning.

don't try to be tricky and say all these people lifted out of poverty is not having an impact on the world birth and death rates

I'm not being tricky; according to the data, I'm being correct. All those people lifted out of poverty definitely has an impact on the world birth rate - by reducing it. This isn't a Star Trek fantasy, it's clearly shown in the data.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in generally, let's see what happen with protectionism country like N-Korea, Cuba, Myanmar and compared with VN, China before opend to the world

1 ( +1 / -0 )

People should remember the maxim that says "The road to perdition is paved with good intentions" . Globalization is good in principle, but I have seen the predatorial propensity of well off countries and their multi-nationals do ghastly things to those they purport to want to help/enrich. I recommend reading( or youtube)" The economic hitman".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If China is the current model for "globalization" -I am not sure if people will want to live in that sort of pollution. Many cheap throw-away products are made thru "globalization" and not everyone wants cheap throw-away products. I would say many are going anti-globalization and more local especially in relation to food.

I see the mass-produced globalized cultures and products coming to an end smaller producers taking over with better products that will last longer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Overall, yes - it has great potential (and it's inevitable) - but it has to be regulated in order to protect the weak and the poor. The problem is that the powerful and the wealthy tend to control it for their own benefit. Two important points, at least, must be kept in mind - that "economies" really consist of people (without people, there is no economy), and that trickle down doesn't work (we need trickle up globalization).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

On the whole, yes. But either the third world rises to our standard of living, or our standard of living sinks to third world level. Depends on how you handle it. Right now, it looks like the later. Witness the US and the rise of Trump.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Yoshitsune

The fact is that for the non-super rich around the world, on average, life has improved enormously over recent decades, and economies have grown;

I agree with your comment. So you can't see how this would increase population possibly overpopulation? Better medical facilities and access to them. Healthier food from new tech, governments or NGO's. Mortality rates for births and the elderly decreasing. Add-in an ever increasing globalization which will further put a strain on the planet and resources; I'm shaking my head as to why you'd say overpopulation "isn't caused" (I'm guessing you meant "won't be caused") by globalization. Not even a little? What else would cause overpopulation?

Note the massive reduction in extreme poverty, especially in the decades post-WWII. How would you fit these data in with your 'globalisation is evil' narrative?

Ah! Now I get it. You reacted emotionally to my post. Must have been that Darwin comment. You shouldn't have. I never said it was "evil", the closest I got was saying human nature can not be trusted with that much power, then you go on and compare me to Mao and Stalin. Just a bag of confusion you are. Anyway, I looked at your Global Poverty "data", and yes, it's a good thing, but don't try to be tricky and say all these people lifted out of poverty is not having an impact on the world birth and death rates.

Would it be a fair assumption that your contributions to this thread have not been based on any data or solid evidence?

And the hammer comes down! Good one.

Well, again, I checked out your "data" and I will thank you since I like reading from different perspectives and Max Rosner is a true optimist, so good for him. I did notice he doesn't say much about globalization or overpopulation though, or anything negative really except the mass media.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Without globalization this site and poll wouldn't even exist.

Globalization is just people trading with other people, and everyone's life is much improved versus where we would be if none of it had ever happened.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes because what is the alternative?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Globalization is far too complex an idea for anyone to give you a straight-up good/bad answer. Anyone who tells you otherwise is peddling a simplistic ideology to advance their own self interests.

In the long sweep of history, trade has generally been better for civilizations than isolation, with of course the notable exception of times in early history when medical science and sanitary technology were too far behind to keep up with all the diseases traveling along trade routes. That problem solved, human life gets better as people get more specialized skills and specialized skills are only possible when people are able to trade with other people with specialized skills for the things they need.

The problem today isn't that global trade is bad, it's that in western society, particularly American society, the popular discourse is caught in an infantile ideological discussion between "No global trade at all" vs. "Unrestricted free trade for everyone!" Like every other issue that stumps Americans, a sensible middle ground of regulated free trade works well for everyone except the tiny noisy minority who crave ideological purity because middle grounds make them have to think.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Moonraker put it very strongly.

For this, I am against globalization. It sounds good on paper and in academic lecture halls, but horrible in practice.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Is globalisation a good thing for the world's economies? Yes, definitely. Is it a good thing for the people who live in those economies? Well... that's a far more difficult question and has a lot more to do with the way individual countries set up their financial systems. Right now, I'm leaning a little toward the average worker being worse off. However, as has already been said, it's great mechanism for the super wealthy to become even more so.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Fizzbit,

It seems you don't fully understand what effect two billion more people on the planet

The question was about globalisation, not overpopulation; and overpopulation isn't caused by globalisation. Furthermore, signs are that population growth is slowing in any case; developed economies across the world are seeing their populations start to age and shrink, and world population is likely to peak during this century and then decline.

it is your type of "eh...everything will be fine" kind of thinking that will bring about massive poverty

Here, have some data:

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/

Note the massive reduction in extreme poverty, especially in the decades post-WWII. How would you fit these data in with your 'globalisation is evil' narrative?

And since you never really offered any concrete answer, Yes or No, as to whether globalization is good or bad for wolds economies, I reckon you're a fence sitter

I thought it was pretty clear that my answer was that globalisation is good for world economies. Have some more data:

https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth

Note the massive spike post-WWII. How would you fit these data in with your narrative? Would it be a fair assumption that your contributions to this thread have not been based on any data or solid evidence?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Yoshitsune

It seems you don't fully understand what effect two billion more people on the planet in a record 25 years time will have. You accuse me of sounding like Mao and Stalin but, IMO it is your type of "eh...everything will be fine" kind of thinking that will bring about massive poverty, maybe another world war, causing the death of millions, maybe billions of people. And since you never really offered any concrete answer, Yes or No, as to whether globalization is good or bad for wolds economies, I reckon you're a fence sitter.

Lastly, some of my observations seemed to go over your head, maybe. I never said anything about collectivism, actually the opposite if you read carefully, and how did you come to "bringing down decadent capitalism" when I specifically said that we shouldn't stop modernizing the world? Baffles me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Globalization was a great theory 30 years ago. Back then the unions in the US were saying that giving up jobs to countries without proper protections for workers rights would result in a loss of good jobs in the US and people being exploited in other countries.

Back then I thought is was just whinging. Thirty years on I've changed my mind.

The unions weren't completely right. The didn't discuss the environmental consequences, the rise of nationalism as totalitarian regimes try to mask their misrule, etc. One of the worst offenders (and best examples) is China. Labor unions are stifled, workers exploited, pollution up the wazoo, support for NK, claims to all the South Asian Sea. I could go on and on.

In the meantime, as has been pointed out, the displaced workers have not been helped to retrain for new jobs and, partly because of that, inequality has increased pretty much worldwide.

So the theory was interesting but it was a theory. It's been disproved.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I think a globalization makes it easy for people who have cultural back grounds respectively visit to and work at foreign countries, so they can share diverse ideas each other. Based on the ideas, we can come up with new ones such as resolutions, strategies, services and of course technologies. Also, these ideas can encourage companies to compete with another company more. Therefore, this virtuous circle leads to national econoy and world's economy in the long run.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Fizzbit et al

Look at the power the globalists have already accumulated

'The globalists'? Globalisation did not create the super rich. The 1% have always been there at the top. The lords and kings and queens of medieval Europe, Chinese imperial courts and the local bigwigs of their tributaries, the Japanese feudal system, etc etc, all saw the majority living as peasants while a lucky few lived the life of riley and did whatever and killed whoever they pleased. This class of people and this gap between haves and have-nots preceded globalisation; if globalisation is now to be destroyed, don't fool yourself for a second that people like Trump, Putin, Abramovich, Murdoch, et al, are going to suddenly stop living it up and start distributing their wealth to the masses.

The fact is that for the non-super rich around the world, on average, life has improved enormously over recent decades, and economies have grown; yes, the 1% still do what they do, but the goal should be to make it harder for them to pull dirty tricks like hiding their money in off-shore havens, not to burn the whole system to the ground in some ridiculous and doomed attempt to redistribute their wealth.

This is no Star Trek fantasy show

Your post reads more like the reasoning of Stalin and Mao right before they caused the deaths of tens of millions of their own people through policies of collectivisation, depopulating the cities, bringing down decadent capitalism, etc.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Globalization is a failure. All it does is lower everything to the lowest common denominator for ordinary people and make the rich richer.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Globalisation is a poorly defined phenomenon which is of scant benefit to the common person.....

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well, some sort of globalization will be essential to our survival on the planet, unless our population levels drop by 90%. We need to cooperate. The problem is that globalization is now being directed by the same nation-state oligarchs that run the old system. Like introducing the automobile and pulling it by a horse. Only much worse.

Until we can find a new paradigm, we should proceed slowly with globalization, and not just hand out massive new powers to unaccountable global elites.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No !...Globalism will drive down wages and increase unemployment.. Manufactures will move their plants to countries where wages are low ..It is self destructing for any western country to support this..

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No. Human nature can not be trusted. Look at the power the globalists have already accumulated. They are no longer just concerned with their profits, now they want a globalized culture, which IMO, will need to be totalitarian in nature. For thousands of years humans have survived in small groups or on their own, growing and raising their own food. The globalists want to convince you that you need this or that, and look where we are at. The biggest problem is overpopulation which will reach 9 billion in the next 30 years. How long can this go on and what will those at the bottom look like? No. Depopulate the cities, many should go back to self sustenance, and let Darwin take care of the rest. No reason to stop space exploration, finding new energy sources/inventions, or modernizing the world. More people should be working at home now. My wife could do it but there is no will from the company.

This is no Star Trek fantasy show. The meek will not inherent the earth. The globalists will destroy it or burn it down before handing all that power to a Ghandi type.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Yes... I'm not against people getting rich, just as long as they don't destroy the natural world

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Globalization in theory is nice, but we all know that big corporations with all their resources, technology and head start can totally crush local businesses, akin to Europeans colonizing South America and Asia. China has learned this lesson the hard way, it's the reason why China has Alibaba, Huawei, WeChat, Baidu while Japan doesn't, well Japan has Rakuten, but Alibaba overtook it a long time ago.

The strategy is clear, protect potentially big industry in its infancy, then open it up to rake in the profit. The English, French, German, US, Japan, Korea, China all started as protectionist country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the true sense, yes, although it benefits some more than others in the short run. But unfortunately "globalisation" is just a catch phrase with certain countries demanding nothing change for them except things get easier while other nations make all the sacrifices.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think the question is a bit off. Globalization - understood as the increasing mobility of people, goods, services and other things across borders - has the potential to be extremely beneficial and it has produced a lot of positives. But at the same time that it is positive it is also destructive - old ways of doing business, etc have been eliminated and the people dependent on those ways have suffered greatly. As a process that inherently creates winners and losers like that globalization has done a terrible job of creating a fair and equitable world. It has made it easier for the super wealthy to vacuum up even more wealth while leaving little to nothing left for everyone else. So we are left in the paradoxical situation of living in a world that is much wealthier than it used to be, but filled with people who for the most part are just as poor as they used to be. That has to change.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yes but NO! Currently those at the top are syphoning off a DISGUSTING amount of wealth to the detriment of BILLIONS, and we are NOW seeing the results, Brexit, trump, etc the little people are being shafted.

The ROBBER BARONS have been pilfering massive amounts for the last 30yrs & its coming home to roost.

LESS GREED would do the world WONDERS!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@Moonraker. Agree with your post completely. It is good for the global economy but not necessarily good for individuals. I believe it has created a super wealthy class and increased the divide between rich and poor

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Not even a question, without it our daily lives would still be where it was 30 years ago as there isn't too much incentive to specialise, innovate and make oneself competitive. Everything is cheaper for the consumer because of globalisation

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the future No, But at present yes but not for long. How we trade now will be very out dated in haft a generetion. What will be exported around the world will be Data and raw materials, Gone will be the day where Plant build the product then export it product around the world. Car plants will be local, As local as a village of 1000 population to product their transport mode and most products. The Data for the Product will be sent to any plant in the world were the 3D assembler is base. With world pressure to reduce CO2 level Countries will take up these new technologies to reduce their Greenhouse footprint and savings on Fossil fuel costs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes you should build the (paper) tower higher cause highee is better. But when the market fails (as it must) sometime, the higher the tower the bigger the fall. Not to mention it seems to just make the rich richer which is dangerous for humanity.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes, but it definitely favours some more than others.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well, it's certainly a way for the superrich to get superricher.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Exactly Moonraker. You nailed it. Globalization itself is a marvelous idea, IF AND ONLY IF the good of the general masses is taken into consideration. If not, it becomes a vehicle whereby the rich exploit the poor and pillage the planet's resources. Same as capitalism.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Theoretically, yes, according to economic theory, because it makes markets bigger and specialisation more profitable. But powerful vested interests distort the process and then monopoly capitalists tend to see all the gains.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites