Globalization, regardless of one’s opinion of it, is growing
and spreading rapidly throughout states in the world. I dislike the wealth
disparity that is occurring worldwide due to globalization. Over the summer I
began reading a book called Plutocrats: The Rise of the Super-Rich and the Fall
of Everyone Else by Chrystia Freeland. This book completely enlightened me to
just how bad the wealth disparity is already and how quickly it is growing.
Chapter 7 of the Foer reading greatly explains the economic
concerns with capitalism in globalization. Foer illustrates the concerns with
his explanation about how referees are nominated. In Italian club soccer,
referees are nominated by two members on a council and they decide. One member
is a representative of Juventus of Turin and the other AC Milan, the two most
powerful football clubs in Italy, both owned by exponentially rich families. Foer
highlights that because of this, the two clubs usually get the most mediocre
referees and the ones who can be easily corrupted for their benefit. Well known
and impartial referees never work at Juventus games and when referees go
against these powerful clubs, they find themselves working in less popular
leagues, Foer notes on page 170. Not only does this narrative parallel the growing
disparity in Italy, but also the wealth gap worldwide.
Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the
Fall of Everyone Else takes on the task of explaining how rapidly the wealth
gap has grown worldwide in the past few decades. One of the reasons I
personally love the book is because rather than focusing on persuading readers,
Freeland focuses more on explaining the rise of plutocracy in globalization as
objectively as possible. One of her main points in the book so far has been
that this increasing global wealth gap has caused people all over the world to
have more in common with citizens from other countries than his own
countrymen—all because of socioeconomic status. I think this is a really
interesting point especially when considering it with one of possible outcomes
of globalization—the deterioration of individual states and the formation of
one giant global state. Though I’m not sure if the deterioration of individual
states could completely take place because capitalism requires competition, I
think it brings an interesting image of the future into question; a future
where instead of nations, people are separated and grouped by class. Once
again, though I’m not sure how probable this outcome is, it is still one worth
considering.
Freeland also notes that globalization has kick started “twin
gilded ages.” The first gilded age is one occurring in the BRIC nations—Brazil,
Russia, India and China—where their industrializations are taking off. Part of
the industrialization of these nations has come from out sourcing of labor from
the United States and other western nations. The second gilded age is occurring
in the United States, where a growing wealth gap is occurring, especially worse
after the recession. Historically, we have learned that gilded ages are not
good for the general populous. And this is all because of globalization,
according to Freeland.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteTwo questions
1) Why is laying out a story using 'facts' not a method of persuasion?
2) Why does plutocracy matter is the poor are also better off materially? Does it matter if some people gain a billion so long as we can all eat?
Prof Shirk,
Delete1) It's not an obvious or confrontational method of persuasion. I also feel that Freeland's main goal, or at least how I read it, was that she's concerned more with explaining it objectively. And through that I think she's able to persuade people more because she's so subtle about it.
2) I personally don't like how unfair and systemic the problem is. Not only that, even though a lot of developing nations are being pulled out of poverty they're also facing some pretty cruel treatment and human rights violations. For example in China with iPhone factories. The workers may be paid just enough that they're technically not living in poverty but they're treated horribly. Also plutocracy and globalization only really help developing nations and bring down the standard of living for developed nations. If one purely concerned with how plutocracy and globalization would affect America, then it would be seen that the standard of living would go down, wages would go down, and the economy in general would slow for average citizens.
P.S. Its cool that you have read Freeland. I assign an article from her on this topic when I teach my globalization course.
ReplyDeleteThank you! It's really an amazing read so far. One of my favorite books at the moment.
DeleteVictoria,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that globalization is creating a wealth gap, however; don't you think it has also closed it a little bit? Globalization has made communication and transportation cheaper allowing those in poverty or developing countries to gain access. Also, a large part of globalization is the constant innovation occurring allowing more people to start businesses, and therefore create more jobs. When global trade increases, unskilled workers are high in demand and those in developing nations can get wage boosts.
Madeleine,
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points and they are correct but I think other aspects should be taken into consideration. As I mention in my response to Prof Shirk, even though these developing nations are now becoming more economically accessible and are getting out of poverty, the workers are still treated pretty horribly.
I disagree with your one point though. You claim that a large part of globalization is the constant innovation, allowing more people to start more businesses. The problem with this is, though, you need more than just an idea to start a business, and if you're on the poor end of the wealth gap and do not have enough money to create a business from this idea, there's no point.
Victoria, the Freeland book seems to be pretty interesting, thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteThe thought of a globalization of the socioeconomic classes is not entirely new, in fact this was one of the main aspects of early communist ideology in the 19th century.
When looking at countries like Qatar that import tens of thousands of workers from countries like India, Nepal or China, one can see the globalization of cheap labor (and the negative effects of it). This might be evidence for the emergence of a globalized working class.
However, as I wrote in my post, I disagree with the idea that states detoriate through globalization. I think that the construct of a nation state is only furthered because of the economic processes that are happening on a global scale.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteThis was very interesting to read. I do agree that globalization encourages the growth of the gap between the rich and the poor and that this is very important to acknowledge. How do you think that we can fix this issue or do you think that globalization makes it inevitable? I think the point you bring up about the possibility of having more in common with citizens from another country is very interesting, do you agree with this, or do you think that patriotism outweighs the growing commonality between citizens from differing states.
Morten,
ReplyDeleteI definitely understand your point though I still disagree with it. I think globalization not only fosters the deterioration of states but also homogenizes their cultures. I think the Freeland book would definitely change your mind and I definitely recommend it!