The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Globalisation, inequality, injustice and protest > Comments

Globalisation, inequality, injustice and protest : Comments

By Ken Macnab, published 7/3/2012

The most grinding poverty is a trifling evil compared with the inequality of classes.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Ken bases his article on the fallacy of equivocation. He doesn't define globalisation, but uses it to refer to a whole suite of polices - i.e. controls - and then lambasts free markets.
Posted by Matt L., Wednesday, 7 March 2012 8:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can only shake your head in wonder at the confusion of someone who writes an article criticising globalisation without distinguishing between economic phenomena caused or sponsored by government, and those not caused or sponsored by government.

"Four legs good, two legs bad." Baaaah! "Down with freedom." Up with the state! The problem is that government is being used to favour big corporations. We demand as a solution, more arbitrary power for government! Baaaah!
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 9:09:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a classic case of begging the question. You assume globalisation is bad and, from that premise,you argue that globalisation is bad. Let's hope Ken's students, if there are any, are taught the basics of logical thinking.

Just by happenstance, the World Bank has recently released its latest report on world poverty. Guess what? The number and proportion of people living in extreme poverty continues to fall, the Global Financial Crisis notwithstanding. Indeed, the United Nations Millenium Development Goals have been achieved several years earlier than the 2015 target date.

How has this happened? Greater freedom in trade, economic and labour market reform, individual property rights - indeed, the very stuff of capitalism, which might be what Ken means when he talks about globalisation.
Posted by Senior Victorian, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 9:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The good ol' World Bank regularly trumpeted its protege, Egypt, as one of its "top reformers" during the preceding decade....strange is the fact that the general population of that county was becoming successively more impoverished at the time.
Yup, globalisation in full flight.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 9:19:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cause and effect, anyone?

An awful lot of "effects" are described here, in exhausting detail. Injustice, poverty, poor physical and mental health, drug abuse, low standards of education, violence, obesity, teenage pregnancies and so forth.

Masses of "causes" too. "Globalization", "personal relationships, institutional procedures, structural frameworks, and cultural discrimination", "unequal treatment and rewards in the workplace", "wealth and income differences", "unregulated self-interest, facilitated by reduced international barriers and regulations, dominated by the free marketing of finance, goods and services" and so on.

What is missing is any kind of link between the causes - any of them - and the described effects. You might just as well say "society causes inequality", and leave it at that.

The most intriguing aspect of the "Occupy" movement is, of course, that it isn't a "movement" at all, in any sense bar the basic human reaction to perceived unfairness - "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more".

But to try and equate the protests of a bunch of hippies in a Wall Street park with the excruciating bravery of a Syrian demonstrating against government oppression is, to me, simply obscene.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 9:28:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must agree with the other posters. Ken McNabb rails against globalisation without bothering to say what he thinks it is or just how it is supposed to contribute to the problems he points to, or what can be done about it - if anything.

He also confuses problems common to advanced countries - the Americans have always had a substantial under class - with changes in the global system.

In any case, one result of the globalisation he so despises may well be the lifting of considerable poverty in the developing world. Note the world back report rleased today (reports in tomorrow's newspapers). Again, this may be more about those developing world economies adopting market disciplines but certainly globalisation means that more low level jobs can be moved to the poorer countries - jobs that don't mean much in the advanced countries but mean a lot in less fortunate countries.

On all levels McNabb has miserably failed to prove his thesis.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 10:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy