Neoliberalism is an economic and political strategy the believes globalization can only succeed with the principle of free trade. These types of people emphasize the reduction of restraints on international economic institutions so that free trade can occur. They believe if this is put into practice, it will be easier for all countries to profit from international trading. The article gives an example of the free trade system in Mercosur, South Africa where tariffs and restrictions are eliminated.However, the counterpoint to the neoliberalist ideology is that this type of free trade will not help, but only hurt smaller, poorer countries. It will benefit Western industrialized countries, but that is all. I agree with the more conservative ideology, that some regulation is needed. If there are no restrictions on richer countries, exploitation will most likely take place, making the wealth companies and countries richer, and the less developed countries poorer. I believe there needs to be a balance between this conservative ideology that relies on government regulation and the neoliberalist thought that only stresses free trade. My questions are, how do economic institutions such as the World Bank and UN branches think about these ideologies?
We also talked about copyright laws again in class on Wednesday. Although I think that there should be some freedom to be creative and expand on others ideas, there should be a limit. I stick by the Beatles theory, that if a band or artist is known for their sound, it should be illegal to copyright that music.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Blog 3
This week we focused on the importance of the Middle East and the conflicts they had because of where they were geographically...
The Middle East was the center of all global trade. Routes through the Middle East connected Europe to the Far East. The Middle East also made it possible for the Persians and the Chinese to trade. Essentially, this connected the East and the West. Of course being such a major part of global trade, the Middle East constantly ran into conflict within its own territory. The Muslims and Crusaders fought for many years, because of conflicts like this the Middle East was never really able to reach out to other places around the world.
This moves me to the Persian Gulf. In a sense a blessing for whoever controlled it because it was a great place for trading. It connected the Mediterranean Sea, India and the Middle East. What more could you ask for? Unfortunately, it was so popular that there were constant fights over who controlled it. The conflicts made it so that the trade routes were unsafe and trade in the Persian Gulf struggled. Short after the Black Death hit, the Portuguese swooped in and took control of the Persian Gulf. This was also the fall of Egypt's superiority in trade.
The European Crusaders and the Muslims constantly fought over religion more so than money. It does not surprise me that both had a chance to share the gold mine the Persian Gulf but instead could not settle their differences. In the end the Portuguese were the winners! This is one of the few instances i can think of when money was not the top priority.
The Middle East was the center of all global trade. Routes through the Middle East connected Europe to the Far East. The Middle East also made it possible for the Persians and the Chinese to trade. Essentially, this connected the East and the West. Of course being such a major part of global trade, the Middle East constantly ran into conflict within its own territory. The Muslims and Crusaders fought for many years, because of conflicts like this the Middle East was never really able to reach out to other places around the world.
This moves me to the Persian Gulf. In a sense a blessing for whoever controlled it because it was a great place for trading. It connected the Mediterranean Sea, India and the Middle East. What more could you ask for? Unfortunately, it was so popular that there were constant fights over who controlled it. The conflicts made it so that the trade routes were unsafe and trade in the Persian Gulf struggled. Short after the Black Death hit, the Portuguese swooped in and took control of the Persian Gulf. This was also the fall of Egypt's superiority in trade.
The European Crusaders and the Muslims constantly fought over religion more so than money. It does not surprise me that both had a chance to share the gold mine the Persian Gulf but instead could not settle their differences. In the end the Portuguese were the winners! This is one of the few instances i can think of when money was not the top priority.
Blog 2
For week two's reading Janet Abu-Lughod discusses Venice and Genoa's history of trade. Both Genoa and Venice were supreme forces in the Mediterranean trade. In the 13th century northern and central Italy's most commanding merchants had a firm grasp on trade in Europe and down to the Middle East. Genoa and Venice both attempted to monopolize the trade routes. Genoa eventually fell because of their connection with Egypt. Egypt provided Genoa with many slaves through trade. Once this connection fell through Genoa never recovered.
The destruction of the Mongol Empire led to the decrease in value of the north. The Mediterranean was badly affected and produced low profits. The last significant thing Genoa attempted to do was take control of the Atlantic. This was a stretch but they weren't left with many options. In the end this was a failure and Venice took over the connection with Egypt. Genoa was left with virtually nothing and Venice took over.
I found the issues between Venice and Genoa to be quite interesting. Each tried to stay one step ahead of the other and control the trade routes. They also tried to cut off trade routes of the other. The greed for money and power both possessed was incredible. Unfortunately, Genoa fell short of this battle mainly because of natural disasters and external factors.
My question is how much longer could Genoa have fought off Venice if they didn't lose their connection to Egypt?
The destruction of the Mongol Empire led to the decrease in value of the north. The Mediterranean was badly affected and produced low profits. The last significant thing Genoa attempted to do was take control of the Atlantic. This was a stretch but they weren't left with many options. In the end this was a failure and Venice took over the connection with Egypt. Genoa was left with virtually nothing and Venice took over.
I found the issues between Venice and Genoa to be quite interesting. Each tried to stay one step ahead of the other and control the trade routes. They also tried to cut off trade routes of the other. The greed for money and power both possessed was incredible. Unfortunately, Genoa fell short of this battle mainly because of natural disasters and external factors.
My question is how much longer could Genoa have fought off Venice if they didn't lose their connection to Egypt?
Blog 1
In before European Hegemony, Janet L. Abu-Lughod attempts to bring light to the time period before Europe became a dominant power. The reason for this is to give background and an explanation for how things changed. Janet has the idea that historians are wrong for starting with the European hegemony and working backward. Instead she suggest they go back and work their way forward.
Janet begins in the 13th century. She says that during the 13th century there was a huge amount of economic development and cultural achievement around the world. Technology played a big role in the economic boom. New technologies made it easier for countries to trade amongst each other. With the trading came a spread of culture. The money used from trading went back into cultural affairs. It was somewhat of a cycle.
During this time, there was no one country or area of the world that was a hegemonic power. At this time the West, Middle East, and East were all similar in power. The question is raised, could we describe this time period as a world system. Maybe even modern capitalism for a better term. This time period is very interesting. It's hard for me to imagine a time period in history when Europe was not seen as the dominant power. I guess my reason of thinking is the exact reason why Janet questions why we assume that Europe was always the dominant hegemony.
Janet begins in the 13th century. She says that during the 13th century there was a huge amount of economic development and cultural achievement around the world. Technology played a big role in the economic boom. New technologies made it easier for countries to trade amongst each other. With the trading came a spread of culture. The money used from trading went back into cultural affairs. It was somewhat of a cycle.
During this time, there was no one country or area of the world that was a hegemonic power. At this time the West, Middle East, and East were all similar in power. The question is raised, could we describe this time period as a world system. Maybe even modern capitalism for a better term. This time period is very interesting. It's hard for me to imagine a time period in history when Europe was not seen as the dominant power. I guess my reason of thinking is the exact reason why Janet questions why we assume that Europe was always the dominant hegemony.
Cosmo Gov
Can there ever be a world government? At first I thought that there was no way the human race would come together and be governed by a single body, at least during my lifetime. Although, after reading “Critical Responses to Neoliberal Globalization in the Mercosur Region,” by Heikki Patomaki and Teivo Teivainen and discussing this in class my argument has changed. In the reading the writers use the term Cosmopolitan democracy, which I have never heard of and I had to look it up. From what I got out of the term is that it is a theory of a government that was composed by a man named David Held. This theory is that all facets of the human race fit in to a single community that is supported by shared morality. This term can be used as a way to describe a world government or can just be an idea of different nations and individuals having more comprehensive relationships with other nations and individuals. These relationships are centered on the globalization that is occurring today with better political, economic, and moral understanding and unification between nations. The writers of this article center their argument on this term as well as neoliberal globalization.
I think this article had many interesting points, from what I could understand as I am not up to date on all the political and ideological terms. But, I try and look them up to gain some understanding of what is going on with current beliefs and movements. Since I have not heard of some of these ideas that are influencing our generation it is probably why my first response to the idea of seeing a world government within my lifetime, let’s say I make it till 2050, was absolutely not possible. Now, as I become more educated with the idea of globalization during the twenty first century and the current movements my thoughts are beginning to change. Although, even with these ideas out there I still think a catastrophic event like a natural disaster or and economic tragedy is needed for a world government to come together. There has to be a need for it and right now there seems to be really no need for a world government at least within the core countries. It may seem like we are alright without a world government, but I believe it would most certainly help the world as a whole.
I guess what it comes down to is when will humans stop classifying and stereotyping by race, religion, and geographic location. Until we can put our physical and historical differences behind or aside we will never be able to be governed by a single body. The thing that really makes me think is what is going to happen during my lifetime. I feel like we have been exponentially advancing as a species and during the twenty first century I think our advances will be at the highest rate. Thus, what will our generation do during this age of exponential growth?
I think this article had many interesting points, from what I could understand as I am not up to date on all the political and ideological terms. But, I try and look them up to gain some understanding of what is going on with current beliefs and movements. Since I have not heard of some of these ideas that are influencing our generation it is probably why my first response to the idea of seeing a world government within my lifetime, let’s say I make it till 2050, was absolutely not possible. Now, as I become more educated with the idea of globalization during the twenty first century and the current movements my thoughts are beginning to change. Although, even with these ideas out there I still think a catastrophic event like a natural disaster or and economic tragedy is needed for a world government to come together. There has to be a need for it and right now there seems to be really no need for a world government at least within the core countries. It may seem like we are alright without a world government, but I believe it would most certainly help the world as a whole.
I guess what it comes down to is when will humans stop classifying and stereotyping by race, religion, and geographic location. Until we can put our physical and historical differences behind or aside we will never be able to be governed by a single body. The thing that really makes me think is what is going to happen during my lifetime. I feel like we have been exponentially advancing as a species and during the twenty first century I think our advances will be at the highest rate. Thus, what will our generation do during this age of exponential growth?
neoliberalism globalization.
If the government was removed from world trade, I feel that there would still be problems and that poorer countries would still remain poor. It is a good theory but I feel like that it would not work in practice. We, as a richer nation would not pay the "fair price" on things that the poorer countries produce. Much as we pay lower wages to illegal immigrants to profit. I'm not sure that I even understood what the article was exactly talking about but I am pretty positive that it could not work.
Capitalism is all about maximizing profits through minimizing costs, and we will minimize costs at all costs. (pun intended). There are sweat shops where kids work for pennies a day, and that's in America so other countries are trying to minimize costs too. So I really don't feel that this could function on a global scale
What do you guys think could this system work?
Capitalism is all about maximizing profits through minimizing costs, and we will minimize costs at all costs. (pun intended). There are sweat shops where kids work for pennies a day, and that's in America so other countries are trying to minimize costs too. So I really don't feel that this could function on a global scale
What do you guys think could this system work?
last blog
The last thing we talked about in this semester was neoliberalism. Trade is very important to neoliberalists seeing as they don't think globalization is possible unless the entire world participates in trade. I can understand that point of view, because trade allows for the exchange of goods and raw materials as well as ideas, theories and morals. Without trade and the hands-on experience of a certain country, it is very difficult to appreciate the customs of that country and be willing to acquire that mindset of acceptance. But WITH trade, that task becomes much easier to accomplish.
This in turn leads to the thought of one culture. Right now, despite the fast forward effects of globilization, cultures are still very different. Each has become more accepting of other cultures, granted, but isolation is still very much in effect. But, if we continue in the fashion we are right now into the future, could it be possible that these separate cultures will eventually become one giant culture, a melting pot of the entire world under one canopy of integrated culture?
Another thing discussed during class was the issue of "copyright." All the music, movies, or the result from any creative outlet for that matter, is copyrighted, which makes it illegal for others to steal. But is it really stealing? If one person uses another person's works to provide inspiration for their own creations, how is that illegal? I think copyright has crossed the line of just being there for practical purposes and merged into the world where it's all about the money and empty rules.
This in turn leads to the thought of one culture. Right now, despite the fast forward effects of globilization, cultures are still very different. Each has become more accepting of other cultures, granted, but isolation is still very much in effect. But, if we continue in the fashion we are right now into the future, could it be possible that these separate cultures will eventually become one giant culture, a melting pot of the entire world under one canopy of integrated culture?
Another thing discussed during class was the issue of "copyright." All the music, movies, or the result from any creative outlet for that matter, is copyrighted, which makes it illegal for others to steal. But is it really stealing? If one person uses another person's works to provide inspiration for their own creations, how is that illegal? I think copyright has crossed the line of just being there for practical purposes and merged into the world where it's all about the money and empty rules.
Neoliberal Globalization
Part 1:
Potomaki and Teivainen had a very interesting article that discussed the political and economic theory of neoliberalism. The best theoretical response to globalization is a theory called cosmopolitan democracy, but the problem with it is that it is not part of the “real world historical processes”. In Potomaki and Teivainen’s article they use the example of a region in Latin America called Mercosur where neoliberal globalization has shown many political responses that exhibit signs of cosmopolitan democracy. The main issue they are having troubles with is financial globalization. They are attempting to find radical reforms. Countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil have revealed that they have developed in such a way that they now have the political consciousness to handle real problems that citizens were having. Potomaki and Teivainen also developed working definitions of concepts such as: globalization, democracy, civic public spaces, and trans/supra-national responses to globalization. They discovered that they needed to redefine the “conceptual basis”of cosmopolitan democracy in terms of political economy.
Part 2:
I found it interesting that countries in South America were exhibiting signs of neoliberal globalization. I am not sure what country I expected, but South America threw me for a loop.
Part 3:
What other countries do you think are showing signs of neoliberal globalization? Is this good or bad and Why?
Potomaki and Teivainen had a very interesting article that discussed the political and economic theory of neoliberalism. The best theoretical response to globalization is a theory called cosmopolitan democracy, but the problem with it is that it is not part of the “real world historical processes”. In Potomaki and Teivainen’s article they use the example of a region in Latin America called Mercosur where neoliberal globalization has shown many political responses that exhibit signs of cosmopolitan democracy. The main issue they are having troubles with is financial globalization. They are attempting to find radical reforms. Countries such as Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil have revealed that they have developed in such a way that they now have the political consciousness to handle real problems that citizens were having. Potomaki and Teivainen also developed working definitions of concepts such as: globalization, democracy, civic public spaces, and trans/supra-national responses to globalization. They discovered that they needed to redefine the “conceptual basis”of cosmopolitan democracy in terms of political economy.
Part 2:
I found it interesting that countries in South America were exhibiting signs of neoliberal globalization. I am not sure what country I expected, but South America threw me for a loop.
Part 3:
What other countries do you think are showing signs of neoliberal globalization? Is this good or bad and Why?
Last blog -- Neoliberalism
This week’s reading was on the subject of neoliberalism which is an economic ideology involving the reduction of restraints on economic institutions to make it easier for everyone to profit. The perfect example of this is free trade, opening up all borders for trade and eliminating all restrictions and tariffs. A recent attempt example of free trade that the authors go into detail about is the Mercosur in South America. Neoliberalists believe that globalization is a process that is only possible with the principle of free trade in practice. More conservative economists believe that free trade would just lead to further exploitation of the lesser-developed countries. With free trade, the developed nations are no longer so accounted for for what they do overseas (as they are now with countless restrictions) and they’d be free to outsource all they want. This would lose countless jobs for many citizens of the powerful nations since thousands of jobs would be moved overseas where the minimum wage is significantly lower, thus it is much cheaper. Production would boom though and huge companies would thrive. But in this situation, there is no room for improvement for the lesser developed nations even though the principle is to give everyone a free chance to progress economically. Free trade just gives developed nations an opportunity to take advantage of those less fortunate for their personal benefits.
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Last blog -- Neoliberalism
This week’s reading was on the subject of neoliberalism which is an economic ideology involving the reduction of restraints on economic institutions to make it easier for everyone to profit. The perfect example of this is free trade, opening up all borders for trade and eliminating all restrictions and tariffs. A recent attempt example of free trade that the authors go into detail about is the Mercosur in South America. Neoliberalists believe that globalization is a process that is only possible with the principle of free trade in practice. More conservative economists believe that free trade would just lead to further exploitation of the lesser-developed countries. With free trade, the developed nations are no longer so accounted for for what they do overseas (as they are now with countless restrictions) and they’d be free to outsource all they want. This would lose countless jobs for many citizens of the powerful nations since thousands of jobs would be moved overseas where the minimum wage is significantly lower, thus it is much cheaper. Production would boom though and huge companies would thrive. But in this situation, there is no room for improvement for the lesser developed nations even though the principle is to give everyone a free chance to progress economically. Free trade just gives developed nations an opportunity to take advantage of those less fortunate for their personal benefits.
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
Is it possible in today’s capitalistic society of complete self-determination to open up all borders but avoid this situation?
Dana
final blog
This week's reading cover globalization, cosmopolitan democracy, and neo-liberalism. The authors provide examples of each through the European Union and Mercosur. They debate what is best for the world economy. According to neo-liberalism, there should be free trade between countries and virtually no government intervention in the process. This would help the rich get richer and possibly help the more poor countries but it would not benefit them on the same scale as the more wealthy nations. They argue that some amount of government check is needed on more wealthy countries so that they can not outsource all of their companies to areas of the world where they can take advantage of the people by paying extremely low wages.
I agree that some government regulation is needed. If there is none, the world would become more heavily skewed towards the richer companies who would be incredibly wealthy and away from the poorer countries who can not make the same economic moves as the richer nations.
Neoglobalization
This article discusses the Mercosur trade agreement in South America. In this article, Neoglobalization is questioned. It is close to cosmopolitan Democracy. One of the characteristics it contains is that every person in a group should have his or her own ability to achieve goals. Their own determination. However, if this is not the case with one or more members of the group, then it causes blocks in cooperation etc. The cosmopolitan democracy comes from many different networks that are connected and make up one nation-state. Now, it is the purpose of the Mercosur to make these different networks work together.
There are more details to the Mercosur tasks. It attempts to protect the political structure, production, exploitation of materials and the need for a democratic process. Most importantly, the union between the different networks must remain strong and their collaboration not weakened by lack of self-determination.
Neoliberal societies have been most prominent in South America. However, many of these have not faired well. The countries had very little freedom for their citizens and the difference in state of living and wealth between the rich and the poor generally worsened. I think that these types of regimes are not productive for our world. In this day and age every person should have the right to influence their own government and the laws that bind them.
----Dorothy Smith "Bunny"
Extra Credit (free culture)
I think that the article about free culture was very interesting. I found that the argument that restrictions on different things actually makes us lose freedom and culture. This was interesting to me because I never thought about this in that way.
Immediately I thought of music and movies having copy writes. I feel like the only reason copy writes exist because people wanted to find ways to make as much money off of the music or movies as possible. I agree with my classmates who felt that after a certain amount of time the copy write should be lifted. I feel that music and movies are something that should eventually belong to the public because the public is the people that are exploited in a sense to make the different music and movies popular. I feel that if a person wants to continue to make money from movies or music that they should have to continue to work in the craft. I feel that artist continually making money off of old projects just reinforces wealth inequality.
Immediately I thought of music and movies having copy writes. I feel like the only reason copy writes exist because people wanted to find ways to make as much money off of the music or movies as possible. I agree with my classmates who felt that after a certain amount of time the copy write should be lifted. I feel that music and movies are something that should eventually belong to the public because the public is the people that are exploited in a sense to make the different music and movies popular. I feel that if a person wants to continue to make money from movies or music that they should have to continue to work in the craft. I feel that artist continually making money off of old projects just reinforces wealth inequality.
Neoliberalism Blog
We concluded the semester by talking about Neoliberalism. A Neoliberalist would support free trade. They also support things like the IMF and the World Bank. From the Neoliberalist view point globalization can only truly succeed, if all countries are able to trade with each other. There are currently many restrictions and tarrifs on trade from certain countries to other countries. An example of this would be the US not trading with North Korea or Cuba.
The opposition to the Neoliberalist view would say that capitalism typically helps developed countries more than countries that are not developed. Free trade globally could make things so that developed countries are not accountable for what they do overseas. Undeveloped countries would continue to be taken advantage of, as developed countries outsource. With the restrictions companies are not allowed to outsource all of their jobs for low wages in other countries. Instead companies have to build in their own countries and abide by the outsourcing restrictions. So basically free trade means more wealth, money and a better life for develop countries and the exact opposite for underdeveloped countries. This also would never give the undeveloped countries a chance to improve.
I like the idea of free trade but when you break down its effects, I don't think it is worth it.
On another note in class someone mentioned the thought of globalization leading to one mass culture. Any thoughts on that?
The opposition to the Neoliberalist view would say that capitalism typically helps developed countries more than countries that are not developed. Free trade globally could make things so that developed countries are not accountable for what they do overseas. Undeveloped countries would continue to be taken advantage of, as developed countries outsource. With the restrictions companies are not allowed to outsource all of their jobs for low wages in other countries. Instead companies have to build in their own countries and abide by the outsourcing restrictions. So basically free trade means more wealth, money and a better life for develop countries and the exact opposite for underdeveloped countries. This also would never give the undeveloped countries a chance to improve.
I like the idea of free trade but when you break down its effects, I don't think it is worth it.
On another note in class someone mentioned the thought of globalization leading to one mass culture. Any thoughts on that?
The West's Hegemony
The Western world, particularly the United States, have held varying degrees of hegemony over the rest of the world for almost the entire modern era. This brings up two very important questions. The first is, is this good? The second concerns the future. What will come after this?
So the effects of Western hegemony, to be fair, I don’t think they are terribly different from what would happen under the hegemony of any other region. Other regions are exploited for the gain of the hegemon. Human rights and democracy often take a backseat to potential helpfulness to the hegemon when governments of the “third world” or “developing world” or whatever else the term might be at the time for the less powerful nations. Hegemony over the rest of the world is good if you are the one in power, and is considerably less awesome if you are not. Western domination has helped the West, but not necessarily the rest of the world, I think.
What’s next? This is a question that has been frequently posed over the course of the class, but without any specific answers brought forth in discussion. I tend to agree with Fareed Zakaria’s idea, which is that the “pie” will simply get bigger, and therefore, even though the West’s share of that pie will grow, so will everyone else’s, and the proportion will decrease. I think this leads to the possibility of a world system closest to one without hegemony since the 13th Century system. We would see a multi-polar world, where the United States would still likely have the most important voice, but would only have one voice of many. Regional powers would have much more influence on the system, as Brazil, South Africa, India, and similar nations rise to take their places on the world stage. All of this would still be relatively hegemony-like, but multi-polar, as opposed to previous uni or bi polar systems. What do you think this system will lead to?
blogg
The article covers this issue with the trade agreement in South America called Mercosur. The only issue that I see, with it is that it is hard to imagine that more than a handful of the countries involved would oppose the abstract principles of cosmopolitan democracy. These principles include the fact that all groups and associations are assumed to have a capacity for self determinati0on. Should one of the major players, not have this capacity, it would hold the union back significantly, and prevent cooperation and collaboration. The case of cosmopolitan democracy arises from multiple overlapping networks of power, which are confined to the nation-state. These networks are complex and delicate, and it is the job of the Mercosur union to attempt to unite these nations. The defense of self determination, the creation of a common structure of political action, and the preservation of the common good are all important priorities. Democratic autonomy, another important factor, would require the ability to balance these factors, and in a nation that falls short, it could jeopardize the ability of the mercosur. Principle of social justice also follows in the political and economic union. The production, distribution, and exploitation of materials must be conductive to the democratic process, and a common structure of political action available to all. People, must be able to be members of diverse communities and retain membership to these communities. This is what is most import ant about the global societal union, the ability to collaborate based upon complex as well as diverse backgrounds and create something new and innovative. I find this the most important part, as it is instrumental to the purpose of the union itself.
Free Culture Extra Credit
Although the audio was poor at times, I found the movie we watched in class about free culture to be very interesting. Much like some of the comments I heard during our discussion in class the speaker in the movie said that because of restrictions supported by law, our freedom is prohibited and in result we are losing culture.
During class a few students voiced their opinions on the restrictions about the re-usage of work. We focused on the "copyright" and music. People commented that music should only be restricted for a certain amount of time. After the artist has died, whats the point of the restriction? That artist can't make any money off of it anymore. It may as well get used or sampled by someone else for their innovative idea.
I agree with these comments. I also have an understanding for why for people try to keep there work and the deceased work restricted. I think it is all about money, just like everything else. Of course as a person that has never a song, I would support that people should be able to use others peoples music. But I have a feeling that if people were trying to use my song I wouldn't want them to be able to. Sounds selfish but that's the way it is.
For now I have nothing anyone would want to use so I say the restrictions on music should be removed. Open new doors for other people and allow innovations. Support free culture. Or at least let me download music for free. That way I wouldn't have to steal it anymore.
During class a few students voiced their opinions on the restrictions about the re-usage of work. We focused on the "copyright" and music. People commented that music should only be restricted for a certain amount of time. After the artist has died, whats the point of the restriction? That artist can't make any money off of it anymore. It may as well get used or sampled by someone else for their innovative idea.
I agree with these comments. I also have an understanding for why for people try to keep there work and the deceased work restricted. I think it is all about money, just like everything else. Of course as a person that has never a song, I would support that people should be able to use others peoples music. But I have a feeling that if people were trying to use my song I wouldn't want them to be able to. Sounds selfish but that's the way it is.
For now I have nothing anyone would want to use so I say the restrictions on music should be removed. Open new doors for other people and allow innovations. Support free culture. Or at least let me download music for free. That way I wouldn't have to steal it anymore.
Neoliberal Globalization and Cosmopolitan Democracy Blog
Patomaki and Teivainen’s “Critical response to neoliberal globalization in the Mercosur region: roads towards cosmopolitan democracy?” begins by describing cosmopolitan democracy as realizing a political community that is more conducive to democratic goals that are based in globalization. The authors then recognize that cosmopolitan democracy has previously been seen in a Eurocentric light which is detached from numerous other historical occurrences. Next, they define globalization as “the belief in the oneness of the world and humankind” (41). Transnational neoliberalism is said to have a direct correlation with globalization because it assumes that the world has achieved, or will eventually achieve if rational policies are followed, economic unity due to economic globalization. This growth can best be gained through “free” international trade, reasonable budgets, low inflation, privatization, the economization of social life, and deregulated markets, assuming those trying to achieve it have transnational mobility. Patomaki and Teivainen then state that even if the majority of people want to disregard property rights, the government must go against this in order to further free market capitalism, which is what led to most of the instances of despotism in Latin America. This led to the strengthening of the economic elite in those countries, which caused more of a disparity in the distribution of wealth. However, globalization has also led to boundaries in Latin America being considered more along the lines of public spaces instead of state borders. Therefore, at the same time that Latin American nations are struggling against globalization, they are also increasing in their “cosmopolitan attempts to participate in world politics” (47). Transnational organizations were created, which adds to the authors’ argument that Mercosur does not prevent further democratization. Some people are worried that regional concerns could soon supersede national ones, but others view this as a natural adjunct to globalization. The EU has no problem with it since it is encouraging trans-regionalism. Patomaki and Teivainen thus conclude that globalization constrains some political possibilities while opening up others, including the possibility of a model based on the EU to help integrate toward cosmopolitan democracy, which causes them to believe that the Mercosur region is moving toward transnational and global democracy.
I found it most interesting that globalization is beginning to achieve what was simply reality. As we discussed earlier in this course, the idea of a nation being based on a common language and eventually ideology did not come into play until a fair amount of time had passed. Patomaki and Teivainen assert in the article that globalization has collapsed distance and reorganized social spaces and practices, which has led to the creation of “states” that transcend geographical and political boundaries. This sounds to me like the world is resuming its original format, which I find intriguing.
I would have found it interesting if Patomaki and Teivainen would have elaborated more on the relationship between despotism in Latin America and capitalism. They explain that despotism in Latin American countries often came about as a result of a push for capitalism, but they do not explain other methods that could have been pursued. They assert that the Latin American governments ignored the demand from a majority of the citizens to regulate property rights because that would have theoretically hurt the general welfare. So instead of following what the people wanted, the governments decided that in order “to gain free market capitalism, the demands of those opposed, including the victims of recession, unemployment, and all types of physical and moral pains, must be ignored” (44). Do you think that this was the best course to follow? Should there not be a course in which the current welfare is not disregarded in favor of the future?
I found it most interesting that globalization is beginning to achieve what was simply reality. As we discussed earlier in this course, the idea of a nation being based on a common language and eventually ideology did not come into play until a fair amount of time had passed. Patomaki and Teivainen assert in the article that globalization has collapsed distance and reorganized social spaces and practices, which has led to the creation of “states” that transcend geographical and political boundaries. This sounds to me like the world is resuming its original format, which I find intriguing.
I would have found it interesting if Patomaki and Teivainen would have elaborated more on the relationship between despotism in Latin America and capitalism. They explain that despotism in Latin American countries often came about as a result of a push for capitalism, but they do not explain other methods that could have been pursued. They assert that the Latin American governments ignored the demand from a majority of the citizens to regulate property rights because that would have theoretically hurt the general welfare. So instead of following what the people wanted, the governments decided that in order “to gain free market capitalism, the demands of those opposed, including the victims of recession, unemployment, and all types of physical and moral pains, must be ignored” (44). Do you think that this was the best course to follow? Should there not be a course in which the current welfare is not disregarded in favor of the future?
Critical Response to Neoliberal Globalization
In this interesting article, Potomaki and Teivainen question the political-economic theory of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism (in my opinion) is similar to the neo-classical theory of political economy; that is, restraints on economic systems (i.e. government) should be drastically reduced, therefore citizens of the world would be able to more easily make decisions and profit, or something like that. Neoliberalism seems very similar to cosmopolitan democracy. According to a well-cited Wikipedia article,in cosmopolitan democracy, "decisions should be made by the citizens that are influenced by them, avoiding to have a single hierarchical form of authority." That is, decisions should be made by the people rather than governments; the people should control the economy (in a capitalistic sense).
Neoliberalistic political economy has been tried in parts of the world, perhaps most notably in Latin America, with mixed results (leaning heavily towards failure). However, it is obvious that in the countries where neoliberalism was implemented, the societies were not free (e.g. Pinochet's Chile). One could also object that other nations did not have policies of neoliberalism, but is this necessary for a neoliberal political economy to work...? In many countries that have had neoliberal political economies, the economic gap between rich and poor has/had widened, which is contradictory to the theory's intent.
Here's an (semi-) unrelated question: what will the effects of globalization be on things like copyright law? Will copyright and patent law become (increasingly) internationalized/globalized?
Neoliberalistic political economy has been tried in parts of the world, perhaps most notably in Latin America, with mixed results (leaning heavily towards failure). However, it is obvious that in the countries where neoliberalism was implemented, the societies were not free (e.g. Pinochet's Chile). One could also object that other nations did not have policies of neoliberalism, but is this necessary for a neoliberal political economy to work...? In many countries that have had neoliberal political economies, the economic gap between rich and poor has/had widened, which is contradictory to the theory's intent.
Here's an (semi-) unrelated question: what will the effects of globalization be on things like copyright law? Will copyright and patent law become (increasingly) internationalized/globalized?
Neoliberalism (Shaq Smith)
The ideology of neoliberal globalization has been on a roll since the early 1980s. It was not in fact a new idea in the history of the modern world-system, although it claimed to be one. It was rather the very old idea that the governments of the world should get out of the way of large, efficient enterprises in their efforts to prevail in the world market. The first policy implication was that governments, all governments, should permit these corporations freely to cross every frontier with their goods and their capital. The second policy implication was that the governments, all governments, should renounce any role as owners themselves of these productive enterprises, privatizing whatever they own. And the third policy implication was that governments, all governments, should minimize, if not eliminate, any and all kinds of social welfare transfer payments to their populations. This old idea had always been cyclically in fashion.
In the 1980s, these ideas were proposed as a counterview to the equally old Keynesian and/or socialist views that had been prevailing in most countries around the world: that economies should be mixed (state plus private enterprises); that governments should protect their citizens from the depredations of foreign-owned quasi-monopolist corporations; and that governments should try to equalize life chances by transferring benefits to their less well-off residents (especially education, health, and lifetime guarantees of income levels), which required of course taxation of better-off residents and corporate enterprises.
The political balance is swinging back. Neoliberal globalization will be written about ten years from now as a cyclical swing in the history of the capitalist world-economy. The real question is not whether this phase is over but whether the swing back will be able, as in the past, to restore a state of relative equilibrium in the world-system. Or has too much damage been done? And are we now in for more violent chaos in the world-economy and therefore in the world-system as a whole.
Do you think Neoliberalism is effective?
-ShaqSmith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)