One of the things that the Ambassador said was how America inspires nationalism worldwide; a very worrying idea. What separates us more than nationalism? Was this not the catalyst that set off WW1? Indeed the same forcefulness in which we put forth in Iraq in an order to democratize the Middle East, and the same passion in which we bring to our supposed ‘War on Terror’, is what is bringing forth a sense of nationalism based on American hatred which has become the breading ground for terrorism and animosity. Possibly, it has become the ‘anti- globalizer.’ If countries continually fear loosing legitimacy based on the whims of the United States, how will trust ever form? If trust can not form, than how will free trade develop? I don’t pretend to be an expert on foreign policy, but I think an important question in globalization is how much American foreign policy (not just American money) influences how the world views western democracy and our ideals (democracy, free market), and to what extent it helps to put fuel to the fire of animosity that exist between different racial groups, and between the west and the east. Friedman makes the point that poor people don’t mind being poor as long as they have opportunities. I would make the point that poor/ weak countries do care if they feel they do not have autonomy, and that this fear, as the ambassador points out, leads to unintended consequences, especially when it comes to working together. For instance, Pakistan’s views of the United States as a threat to the region only hampers inter-country relations. It is this form of animosity that will lead to sanctions which very certainly hamper free trade. It might be more conductive to the US relations with Cuba if it removed such sanctions; Hamburgers, not hate.
One of the many questions that seems to keep coming up about globalization is the effect that it is having on the American health care system ,and, like most things in politics, their doesn’t seem to be any good answer to the problems globalization is causing in health care. Corporations no longer seem like the right resource to provide benefits because jobs security no longer exists, while at the same time private health care remains enormously expensive. The percentage of
US citizens living without health care has risen for the last half decade, the largest increase occurring as recently as 2005. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the greatest decrease in this percentage comes from full-time workers insured through their employer. It seems to become increasingly clear that some form of government sponsored health care is necessary. One idea to address the problem is the Medical Savings account which allows money to be placed into individual accounts tax free. While this is a good idea, and to me seams to be the future of the health care system, any direct change would severely damage the health care pool, and the transition period could be devastating to the current health care state. With the current power of the AARP, any sort of reform that could disturb the immediate future of health care seams unlikely. Tax credits for businesses that offer health care have also been suggested, but they seem more like a temporary fix than any sort of permanent solution. Another band-aid solution is to allow for the expansion of the State Health Care Insurance Program to cover the cost of health insurance for those who can’t afford it and are not eligible for Medicare. Another interesting solution to this problem has been to allow government regulation of patented drugs so as to gradually reduce their cost, making health care more affordable. The United States currently funds American drug companies by allowing them to drastically overcharge the US customers while other developed countries (such as
Canada) pay much smaller premiums while also reaping the benefits of drug research. In other words, the
US is “subsidizing” health insurance for other countries at the expense of American consumers. But if the United States is loosing jobs to countries such as
India, why should it be forced to pay the majority of health care costs? If this change does occur, it is imported that it occurs gradually so as not to cripple drug companies who will need a transition period in which drug costs will likely increase in other developed nations. However, this plan seems sketchy for the same reason individualized health care does, the transition period have the possibility of upsetting the current system.
Mcdonald’s McPassport
With so much Job loss and creation happening continuosly around the world, its nice to know McDonalds is thinking about job security… sorta. The post had an article in it last weak that talked about McDonalds McPassport, it’s not legal documentation, but an identification card that works within the European Union; making it easier for an employee to switch from one branch of McDonalds to another without having to be retrained, and therefor cutting costs. It’s nice to know there are obvious and emediate plusus that come with global integration.
Not to keap on bringing up Africa, but… I found this picture by Erik Kristensen. I was origionally drawn to it because of its description, which labals the bridge as a project supported by the European Union. This came as a surprise to me, but apparently the European Union is a huge African doner (along with the World Bank) and has a partnership with the African Union. It supports a wide range of projects, anything from serving as a 3rd party election observer in Zambia, to building infustructure (the lack of which is a huge hinderance towreds economic development.) What is perhaps most striking is that the EU is itself a collaboration betwean a group of countries, and it works with not only Africa, but also countries in the Caribean and in the Pacific. From what I see on its web site, the EU seams to be trying to do what the US did after WW2; democratization through economic aid, this alone is an exportation of political culture.
On a side note. Their are still places in the world that not even the UN will truelly touch, Dafur currently bieng the most recognized. Anti-globalization is taking place.
A couple summers ago I went to Oceana, West Virginia. One of the ressidence of the town was talking about an incident which has occured only about seven years eirlier. He spoke passionatlly about how he had worked for decades at a mining company which essentially employed the entire town. When they found they could hire the residents of another town for cheaper, they simply took their buissiness elsewhere; decades of hard work and seved up leave and benifits gone with no warning. The economy of the entire town in ruins. It begs the question in outsourcing, or any ecconomy; what do we do with those who are lost in the shuffle. Reading Friedman’s book in many ways has reshaped my view on globalization, but I think sometimes for practicalities sake ecconomic anylists don’t always take into account the humanity envolved in the labor force, and for many education will simply come too late.
My blog taday talked a little bit about the globalization of Africa and its effects on the devestated African economy. I went onto a couple web sites and this was the information I found…
For the most part, the experts agree that its cruicial that Africa must globalize in order to truelly rise from poverty, but that the methods of globalization must occure in a slow process, drasticlly different to that which has occured in the past.
This is difficult for several reasons. First of all, Africa does have a long history of globalization, manifesting itself through the vehicle of imperialism, arguable up the present day. This lends to a natural distrust of outsiders, often justifyably. One example of this is the affects of the oil industry in Nigeria which left the African nation with both poor working conditions, and enviornmental conditions so devestated that even clean drinking water is hard to come by. Within recent history, Africa has moved from having a food surplus, to becomming food deficient, the affects of industry bieng a major factor in this transformation. Clearly, industry will not always regulate itself. Imperialism has also set up a political and ecconomic climate where neither a truely African ecconomic base nor political autonomy really formed. The resulting instability tends to ward away any true ecconomic gains. Autonomy of the African nations is a chief concern in dealing with globalization. It is only through autonomy that long term political and ecconomic stability can occur, creating the road way for possitive globalization. These changes, along with increased education, will alow africa to to follow in the footsteps of Asia.
Right now African ecconomies are enacting reforms; streamlining their trade and currency through intercontinental organizations, and focusing on exporting basic goods such as food. While organizations such as the UN reccomend outside aid and trade (hey, that rhymes), thay also reccomentd that this be secondary to exports and inter continental trade. People nead job security, even in Africa.
I havn’t yet read what Friedman has to say about third world countries and the developing world, it will be interesting to see his perspective. Comments? Questions? Please respond
