Globalization and the Human Condition
- Thread starter coberst
- Start date
-
- Tags
- condition globalization
Nope - if it did who would buy the products the globalised labour is making?
And aren't we seeing an "averaging out" wages throughout the world?
And aren't we seeing an "averaging out" wages throughout the world?
I think we are seeing an averaging out of wages. The wages in China and many third world countries are rising just as the wages in the South rose as industry began the march toward cheap labor. Likewise wages in America have been static or declining relative to inflation.
The end of this averaging out process will, I suspect, be substance wages as we see in those in the lower half of the family median income in the US.
Populations will continue to rise thus providing markets for capital and cheap labor for capital. The logic of globalized capital is subsistence wages for labor.
I would say that Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism.
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning and can be confusing. Most people seem to use the word to mean the domain of knowledge connected with syllogism and fallacies but ‘logic’ can also mean the principles of any domain of knowledge. To be clearer in some uses one might use the metaphor ‘logic is grammar’.
When I say ‘Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism’, I mean ‘Wal-Mart is the grammar of capitalism’. Also I mean that Wal-Mart has become what the principles of capitalism could be expected to produce if the principles of capitalism are extended to their logical conclusions.
I suspect that Globalism is the grammar of capitalism. Consumerism might also be regarded as the child of capitalism.
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
Globalism is primarily about capital and corporations. Corporations are legal entities that live forever either in their original form or in another corporate form through a process of merger and acquisitions. Today capital is fluid globally. There are few if any places that money cannot move easily and with many powerful friends.
If we use the method I call ‘follow the money’ I think we can get an idea of what a corporation is about by examining ‘means, motives, and ends’.
The corporation comes in many forms and Wal-Mart is perhaps one of the best for accomplishing what corporations are for, which is accumulating profits and growing ever stronger and more independent.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders. If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
‘Logic’ is a word with more than one meaning and can be confusing. Most people seem to use the word to mean the domain of knowledge connected with syllogism and fallacies but ‘logic’ can also mean the principles of any domain of knowledge. To be clearer in some uses one might use the metaphor ‘logic is grammar’.
When I say ‘Wal-Mart is the logic of capitalism’, I mean ‘Wal-Mart is the grammar of capitalism’. Also I mean that Wal-Mart has become what the principles of capitalism could be expected to produce if the principles of capitalism are extended to their logical conclusions.
I suspect that Globalism is the grammar of capitalism. Consumerism might also be regarded as the child of capitalism.
Let’s examine the logic (principles) of capitalism.
This is off the cuff but I would say that the principles of capitalism are:
1) Ever maximizing productivity
2) Ever minimizing cost
3) Constant competition via prices
4) Off putting cost to a maximum
5) Control local governments to avoid regulation
Wal-Mart might be a useful corporation for describing my meaning that Globalism leads to subsistence labor.
Globalism is primarily about capital and corporations. Corporations are legal entities that live forever either in their original form or in another corporate form through a process of merger and acquisitions. Today capital is fluid globally. There are few if any places that money cannot move easily and with many powerful friends.
If we use the method I call ‘follow the money’ I think we can get an idea of what a corporation is about by examining ‘means, motives, and ends’.
The corporation comes in many forms and Wal-Mart is perhaps one of the best for accomplishing what corporations are for, which is accumulating profits and growing ever stronger and more independent.
Corporations have great means in the form or organization, life expectancy, and money. Corporations can easily make or break any community or any politician.
Corporations have only one responsibility and that is to provide profits for its share holders. Their motives are clear and uncomplicated. They owe nothing to anyone but their share holders. If war increases the bottom line then war is good, if not war is bad. If costs can be transferred to the local community rather than absorbed by the corporation then that is a good.
It seems to me that the logical end for all of this is that corporations thrive on ever expanding populations, governments easily controlled, and cheap labor that eventually reaches subsistence levels. If it enhances profits the definition of subsistence is edged forward as required. An example is the minimum wage that exists in the US. There is consideration being given to increasing that minimum if the corporate stock holders have their taxes reduced.
If you mean principles, why confuse the issue by saying first that logic is the same as grammar and then that logic is the same as principles? Why not say principles and be done with it? And can you provide citations that support your use of these words as equivalent, interchangeable?
[edit] I ask for this because when I see people play fast and loose with language it's often a prelude to, or part and parcel of, attempts to "baffle 'em with [bovine droppings]."
[edit] I ask for this because when I see people play fast and loose with language it's often a prelude to, or part and parcel of, attempts to "baffle 'em with [bovine droppings]."
Last edited:
No your logic is faulty capitalism requires people to be able to buy things, if everyone is on a subsistence wage (as you call it) then they wouldn't be able to buy anything but food (and I suppose basic shelter/clothing) so what would they be being payed a wage (no matter how low) to make? And who would be buying what they make?
Bruno Putzeys
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 155
Globalisation can have two eventual outcomes:
1) Leveling out of wealth. The fact that we're learning to make products using less and less labour would indicate that after leveling, most people would be much better off than now.
2) Instability.
It's basic control theory. A basic idea of economics is that the whole system will converge on a stable optimum. What's forgotten is that time is a factor. Depending on the integration constants of the different nodes the system can be stable or become unstable.
Global subsistence is not a natural outcome unless there is a global catastrophic crash of the economy. Subsistence means everyone does everything for himself, which is tremendously inefficient. We are getting very good at doing things efficiently. Our 2% farmers in Belgium provide food for the entire population and more. The same goes for a few factory workers who assemble several cars per week per person. Etc.
1) Leveling out of wealth. The fact that we're learning to make products using less and less labour would indicate that after leveling, most people would be much better off than now.
2) Instability.
It's basic control theory. A basic idea of economics is that the whole system will converge on a stable optimum. What's forgotten is that time is a factor. Depending on the integration constants of the different nodes the system can be stable or become unstable.
Global subsistence is not a natural outcome unless there is a global catastrophic crash of the economy. Subsistence means everyone does everything for himself, which is tremendously inefficient. We are getting very good at doing things efficiently. Our 2% farmers in Belgium provide food for the entire population and more. The same goes for a few factory workers who assemble several cars per week per person. Etc.
Meffy says—“If you mean principles, why confuse the issue by saying first that logic is the same as grammar and then that logic is the same as principles? Why not say principles and be done with it? And can you provide citations that support your use of these words as equivalent, interchangeable?”
Webster says—“Logic—the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
Grammar—the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique”
People comprehend some words better than others. Also people become accustomed to using words like ‘logic’ and ‘science’ in a distorted manner.
Webster says—“Logic—the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
Grammar—the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique”
People comprehend some words better than others. Also people become accustomed to using words like ‘logic’ and ‘science’ in a distorted manner.
HeavyAaron
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,208
Have you forgotton that the stock holders are people? You've (rightly) noted that cooperations ultimately answer to their stockholders and that's to where the profits flow. But you seem to have forgotton that stock holders are people. And thus the wealth flowing to the stock holders thus flows to people.
Well said.
There's a question I use to shut up socialists....
What is capitalism?
They have no idea how to respond to that, they're just spouting mantras.
(Not suggesting you're a socialist, coberst, only suggesting some of your arguments sounds socialistic.)
I do not find the word 'socialistic' to be frightening, nor is it intimidating.
I think that my list of the principles of capitalism is on the mark. Do you disagree?
I do think that you are correct that few people understand much about anything and my post is an attempt to change that a bit. I am a retired engineer and I have owned or been a partner in a corporation and recognize its advantages and as my post indicates that I think that there are also many faults that we nee d to be aware of.
The following is a post I made about a year ago.
CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control od decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.
Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
“Thomas R. Dye, Professor of Political Science at Florida State University, has published a series of books examining who and what institutions actually control and run America. to understand who is making the decisions that affect our lives, we also have to understand how societies structure themselves in general. Why the few always tend to share more power than the many and what this means in terms of both a society's evolution and our daily lives. they examined the other 11 institutions that exert just as powerful a shaping influence, although somewhat more subtle: The Industrial, Corporations, Utilities and Communications, Banking, Insurance Investment, Mass Media, Law, Education Foundation, Civic and Cultural Organizations, Government, and the Military.”
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/12-dye.html
The Case for Breaking Up Wal-Mart http://alternet.org/workplace/39251/
For those who are interested in this problem the above article will be very interesting.
The following are a few excerpts from this article.
There is an undeniable beauty to laissez-faire theory, with its promise that by struggling against one another, by grasping and elbowing and shouting and shoving, we create efficiency and satisfaction and progress for all. This concept has shaped, at the most fundamental levels, how we understand and engineer our basic freedoms -- economic, political, and moral. Until recently, however, most politicians and economists accepted that freedom within the marketplace had to be limited, at least to some degree, by rules designed to ensure general economic and social outcomes.
It is now twenty-five years since the Reagan Administration eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement. For a generation, big firms have enjoyed almost complete license to use brute economic force to grow only bigger. And so today we find ourselves in a world dominated by immense global oligopolies that every day further limit the flexibility of our economy and our personal freedom within it. There are still many instances of intense competition -- just ask General Motors.
But since the great opening of global markets in the early 1990s, the tendency within most of the systems we rely on for manufactured goods, processed commodities, and basic services has been toward ever more extreme consolidation.
The stakes could not be higher. In systems where oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, competition itself is transformed from a free-for-all into a kind of private-property right, a license to the powerful to fence off entire marketplaces, there to pit supplier against supplier, community against community, and worker against worker, for their own private gain. When oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, what is perverted is the free market itself, and our freedom as individuals within the economy and ultimately within our political system as well.
Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called "monopsony." Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
For those who are interested in this problem the above article will be very interesting.
The following are a few excerpts from this article.
There is an undeniable beauty to laissez-faire theory, with its promise that by struggling against one another, by grasping and elbowing and shouting and shoving, we create efficiency and satisfaction and progress for all. This concept has shaped, at the most fundamental levels, how we understand and engineer our basic freedoms -- economic, political, and moral. Until recently, however, most politicians and economists accepted that freedom within the marketplace had to be limited, at least to some degree, by rules designed to ensure general economic and social outcomes.
It is now twenty-five years since the Reagan Administration eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement. For a generation, big firms have enjoyed almost complete license to use brute economic force to grow only bigger. And so today we find ourselves in a world dominated by immense global oligopolies that every day further limit the flexibility of our economy and our personal freedom within it. There are still many instances of intense competition -- just ask General Motors.
But since the great opening of global markets in the early 1990s, the tendency within most of the systems we rely on for manufactured goods, processed commodities, and basic services has been toward ever more extreme consolidation.
The stakes could not be higher. In systems where oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, competition itself is transformed from a free-for-all into a kind of private-property right, a license to the powerful to fence off entire marketplaces, there to pit supplier against supplier, community against community, and worker against worker, for their own private gain. When oligopolies rule unchecked by the state, what is perverted is the free market itself, and our freedom as individuals within the economy and ultimately within our political system as well.
Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called "monopsony." Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment. In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely.
That doesn't sound like the capitalist world to me. I went shopping on Saturday and didn't notice anyone struggling against anyone.
Sounds more like a scene from a third world socialist nation.
The capitalist world isn't a zero sum game and exporters like China don't have a competitive advantage just because they pay their workers less. In many cases their plants are newer, bigger and more efficient as well as paying less in wages.
When we open up our markets to foreign competition four things happen.
Firstly, the resources that our uncompetitive industries were using can be diverted to industries in which we are competitive (often service industries).
Secondly, consumers save money, that can be used to buy more services in which we have a competitive advantage.
Thirdly, our companies make more profit, which is channeled back into productive industries or to stock holders - who get to buy more services etc.
Forthly, workers in developing nations get richer and so they can afford to buy more of our competitive exports.
If you happen to be one of the workers from an inefficient company or industry and you lose your job and can't be retrained, then you lose out. That is why we need to ensure that we have adequate social security and provide incentives to retrain and ensure our competitive industries can grow (this is a bit of a balancing act).
UserGoogol
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,074
Well no, but the stores are struggling to get customers. One of the more important points of capitalism is competition, and "grasping and elbowing and shouting and shoving," does not seem like an inaccurate way of describing competition, although it's certainly a negative spin on it.
Even though capitalism is not as such, a zero sum game, at any point in the game there is a certain amount of capital/resources/consumers to fight over, and people try to get as much as that stuff as possible. In the act of getting capital, they produce more capital, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that grasping and elbowing occurs.