Friedman's description of the world as flat is desirable, but maybe still idealistic. Globalization has not leveled the playing field for everyone, in fact it has made the gaps between rich and poor wider. Countries without infrastructure were launched into a global market race and found themselves unable to compete (the playing field being highly unequal).
To suppose that every player in the globe has equal access to opportunities is to assume that everyone had the same original position at the beginning. The opportunities might be out there, but the access is limited to those who have more power.
In the market place, developing countries that want to see the market as being completely fair adopt the strategy of implementing lower tariffs, lower export/import taxes, and try to let the market magically guide them to those opportunities. These countries find that their inequalities increase.
The countries that correctly perceive the inequality of opportunity will choose to protect themselves and increase protective market barriers. These countries have a higher chance of guiding investment in a way that benefits the population instead of just letting the market decide.
Another example that we have to show us that the world isn't "flat" is migration policies. In Friedman's ideal flat world, I believe we would have complete freedom of movement in order to seek and find opportunities in different geographic areas. Instead, we are restricted to our own little "patch" and if we were born in a place with good educational opportunities and availability of jobs, then we are lucky. But if we are born in a place where there is no infrastructure, the world is still not flat enough to allow us to consider ourselves "citizens of the world" but have to bear the consequences of being born in places with less opportunities than others.
I agree with you that people take the jobs because it is what is available, not because it is the most desirable.
As a contrast, many women in developing countries would much rather work for much less than the 13$/day mentioned above, in conditions that are safer and more comfortable: as maids or servants. Maids can be paid as little as 4$/day but they get to work in a more comfortable environment. The family provides food, sometimes even a place to sleep. Im sure these women would rather be allowed to go to school or pursue other kinds of jobs, but unfortunately this choice is not available to them because of lack of education.
The point is that in a setting where 13$/day does not make that much difference in the long run about your quality of life (third world wages in countries with first world prices), some people have the intuition that instead of killing themselves on a sweat shop for a wage that is not enough anyway, they would rather work for less but in better conditions. Those great wages paid by the sweatshops are doing nothing for the quality of life of the people, especially in the long run.
The whole issue on leverage is not so simple. When you cite Honduras I will cite its neighboring country, El Salvador. Picture the same wages, except that El Salvador's economy has been dollarized, so those 13$/day that you mention, are not sufficient to cope with the inflated prices. Why was the economy dollarized? because it benefits the investors. Anyway those figures look fantastic on paper, but when you go to the country, talk to the people and witness the conditions yourself, and see the incredible gap between rich and poor, you start to wonder if 13$/day is really what will make a difference in the long run. Have you ever visited a developing country?
We need long term solutions for these countries. Allowing corporations to do as they like is NOT the solution, whether the companies like it or not, they shouldn't be allowed to have so much influence in government policies. El Salvador's economy now is dependent on the U.S. monetary policy. El Salvador welcomes new investors at the price of their own independence.
Why would it be so hard to raise the average wage? Companies pay more in their home countries.... why should developing countries continue bending their backs for corporations? In the end, I think corporations would pay the higher wage anyway, if they see no alternative to it. After all, they have the capital to do it. Nevertheless, we are just continuing with the idea that one day wages will go up, instead of doing something about it now.
t's become a sort of fallacy on the left that companies are always beholden to their shareholders. ... Are you sure about this? try telling that to the shareholders. . . . Most college finance books state in their first chapter that the goal of the corporation is profit maximization for the shareholders.
I also see your point that the management class is not consistently behaving in the profit motives of the company, but the management class also has little leverage in determining the course and the policies the company takes. Anyway if an employee or a manager is not acting in the best interest of the company they just get fired, so that the profit maximization goal is actually reached.
Regarding developing countries... it is a matter of leverage. It is quite lazy of the leaders of these countries to not provide alternatives for their people. What you are saying is that it is ok for them to say "it is either the garbage heap or the sweat shop". True solutions for those populations require long term planning and leverage against corporations. For example they require taxing those companies and enforcement of working conditions. However, things do not work that way because the corporation with power and money, threatens to move elsewhere and the lazy politicos would rather get the easy investment from the un-ethical company, than let them go free and thus carve their own pathway for development. If we think it is only "the trash heap or the sweat shop" then of course we choose the sweat shop, but this form of thinking is always on the side of the corporation... never on the side of the developing country.
Development is NOT like a ladder. This is also another paradigm that is unfounded and supportive of the corporations. Corporations and the free market laws that they require, have been in developing countries for a long time and all we can see is that the gap between rich and poor gets wider. Development is not a goal in itself but a continuos way of doing things.
Also, when you compare development of the western countries v.s. the "third world", you are making a mistake in assuming that the conditions were the same. Developing countries now cannot follow the same pathway that the western countries did because the conditions were completely different. Developing countries should not be forced to follow some model that worked for completely different times and in different conditions.
In the developing world, having no leverage is a harsh condition that governments have to face.
States make laws that favor the interests of economic elites. Therefore laws are made in benefit and service of corporations.
Speaking for developing countries the issue is even more alarming. These countries do not have sufficient leverage to stand up to the demands of corporations (cheap labor, tax exemptions, lax environmental laws...) .
The role of the state has been undermined by economic giants.
I see your point regarding the democratic ideal of people affecting policy, however in the real world it is those who have power (aka money) who are able to exert the most influence.
However this is another topic and we are straying away from the issue of whether or not nuclear weapons should be abolished.
I say that we are constrained by our own mentality where we cannot conceive of other ways of enforcing peace. If peace is our goal, why can't we think of a framework of international law and international institutions that can enforce peace by other measures... for example economic measures such as embargoes, etc?
Nuclear weapons just make this world more dangerous to live in. Leaders change and we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of humanity. Such is the case of North Korea. If we didn't have weapons in the first place, we would not have to worry about these issues.
Sure, the damage created by a nuclear devastation is worse (enough to not want to have nukes around, but anyway..), but regarding deterrence, economic interdependency shouldn't be dismissed so easily. The reason why I think it is effective is because though economic damage wouldn't wipe people off the face of the earth, it would definetly wipe out the pockets of the powerful elites, and since they are the ones who are really in charge, they would make sure that peace is maintained in the places where they hold some economic interests. If corporations maintain their interests in only one country, they could care less what happens to other countries, but since investment is no longer limited to just one country but assets of one company can be found all over the planet, then a corporate power would find it in its best interest to deterr its home government from using nukes, or simply engaging in conflict.
The assumption is that we live in a world where states are not the only players and where considerable power rests in the hands of corporations. And in this kind of world, loosing money less desirable than the loss of people's lives.
I have a question for you then... when does "life" begin?
What is a "life" as opposed to living cells? When you over-drink and kill off some neutrons , are you committing a crime?
When it comes to abortion , the first thing we should determine is what does it mean to be "alive" . We should also examine where our views come from, cause usually views that oppose abortion argue that there is a "soul" that was never allowed a chance to materialize... is this where you are coming from JakeJ?
Regarding your second argument that nuclear weapons are the reason major powers have not gone to war.. don't you think that economic interdependency is enough of a factor for sustaining peace? This would make nuclear weapons unnecessary.
"I tried to read my study guide on pdf and I have difficulty concentrating"
I hear what you are saying, but I think that the upcoming generations that are influenced by the new technologies have a different way of learning. The internet is changing the ways that new generations are taught. Kids can no longer just sit through a lecture... They expect immediate results, they are used to immediate interaction with the online world. Why would we expect them to intake information the same way we do?
I personally enjoy the touch , feel, smell of a book . I enjoy grabbing its spine from the shelf. I like to find my own notes scribbled on the margins. But it is not about maintaining a status quo... technology changes things and this is an upcoming trend.
If the technology is made available and it is cheap, it will surely take over.... despite the likes or dislikes of the older generations.
It seems to me that e-books are just one more example of how technology displaces the old with the new. Though there may always be book readers, just as there are still people who listen to LP's or will continue to search for CD's in spite of the MP3 revolutions, the new generations will be more open to using and embracing the newer technologies.
Personally I think I would continue to scout for "real" books... but I do not see younger internet generations being captivated by paper books. Their way of learning is changing as well as their needs. The popularity of e-books will grow and little by little only us "oldies" will be found searching for books in vintage stores in the way we may now search for LP's.
Recent research is providing us with evidence that the paradigm that in order to fix the environment you have to sacrifice economics, is wrong.
The current economic model is wasteful and productivity can rise if we are more mindful of our resources and manage them well. We have to be creative and stop this line of thinking... sustainable development IS possible.
Why do we need to keep things that hinder the survival of our own species?
All kinds of weapons should be abolished.... there is no moral ground to defend them.
