>> Does it necessarily follow that "lowering of living standards for all
>> workers and absolute poverty for most" follows from capital's "roaming of
>> the world in search of cheap labour".
>> I think not.
>> Surely it must improve the living standards of some individuals in less well
>> off countries.
>Relying on experience so far, only a small minority benefits
>in most cases, while for the rest living standards won't
>improve and the environmental conditions worsen.
>The products and the profits leave the poor country.
>There are a few exceptions, such as South Korea,
>but there is no guarantee against crisis, when
>unemployment may force people back to the
>poverty and unbelievingly inhumane working
>conditions. While international finance risked and lost
>nothing.
So there are benefits! And probably not too minor to the people who would
now be employed.
Or do others have "authourity" to determine what is beneficial to a third
world country.
To me it seems to be a problem with people rather than what system or mode
of economic development is in place.
>> Richer countries may have to "pay" for their lesser well off neighbours but
>> our standard of living on average is much higher.
>> Is part of the "problem" with globalization, that Western nations will have
>> to take a pay cut! (( washes mouth out with soap and water )) ;-)
>> Are we concerned about how globalisation affects the whole world or only
>> part of it.
>so far the effect of globalisation is making the rich richer and the
>poor poorer in every country - perhaps with the exception of Norway.
>Everywhere we are demanded by the monetarists and the free-marketeers
>to tighten our belt if we are employees, and concessions, tax-breaks
>and excessive salaries if we are top cats. Masses are driven to
>social unrest and fundamental fanatism. Capitalism doesn't work.
>Capitalism is dangerously rotten.
People's motives and self-interest are what are rotten.
Tony Pierce
