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

Free Culture (Final Blog)

This week we read an article by Heikki Patomaki and Teivo Teivainen entitled “Critical Responses to Neoiberal Globalization in the Mercosur Region,” and watched videos on youTube.com discussing “Free Culture.” Lawrence Lessig, a lawyer, wrote a series of books, which these videos are made off of. I had never truly thought about the effects of copyright, I just always knew it was there, and was taught never to copyright. I agree with what was copyright laws on some accounts, people that make a living by designing, creating or writing something have to have a way of making money, and copyright it how it is done. But then I never knew that copyright laws could extend so far beyond a life. As for the article, I found the debate it brought up of democracy and globalization very intriguing.

People brought up good reasons in class for copyright, such as the girl who’s father created a program that does his work for him. But at the same time who gets the money from the copyright expires. I personally do not think it is right for the work, whatever it may be, to still be copyright, I think it should be available for everyone to use. I just believe that after seeing someone else’s work, one can adapt it for their own and use pieces of the old. Some of my favorite music is from combining different types of music to create something brilliant. Such as in Step Up, the music combines classical with a modern beat, to signify the dancers merging hip hop and ballet.

A question I thought of while watching the videos was what about remakes and covers? How do those not go under some copyright law? Almost every movie out there has been made in one way or another, a lot of the movies I have grown up watching are remakes of movies my parents grew up watching.

last blog

Neoliberalism and Globalization:
In this article Neoliberalism is discussed and questioned. A neoliberalist supports things like free trade, and the world bank, also they believe it is imperative that all countries trade with each other. The Mercosur trade agreement in South America is explained as it an example of this.
Neoliberalism is similar to cosmopolitan Democracy yet it is more binding. One of the characteristics of neoliberalism is that every person in a group has their own ability to achieve goals. However, this is not always successful because if one person does not, there is a glitch. The cosmopolitan democracy comes from many different networks that are connected and make up one nation-state. The purpose of the Mercosur trade agreement to make these different networks work together. Mercursur also works 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.
In opposition to the Neoliberalist view, one would say that capitalism helps developed countries and poses a disadvantage to third world countries. If there were global free trade, developed countries would continue to abuse underdeveloped countries. As developed countries outsource, the underdeveloped countries would not even have a fair chance to develop. With the restrictions placed now companies are not allowed to outsource all of their jobs to low-wage countries. There are limited restrictions that companies have to follow, such as building in their own countries and abiding by the outsourcing restrictions. It seems most likely that free trade means more wealth for developed countries and the exact opposite for underdeveloped countries.
In class we talked about the effects of global trade. Any thoughts on the concept of a single global culture?

Neoliberalism

So for our last blog we talked about neoliberalism. Neoliberal policies say that commercial activity is the best way to produce and supply the goods and services that our society needs. Labor unions and state affairs are said to interfere with the free play of capitalism. For globalization to succeed, many countries would need to allow trade to all countries. It would not succeed if countries only traded with certain countries. This is what economic globalization is all about. Some countries believe that by following this type of ideology the world economy would grow and also it would be better for the social well being of everyone. With the removal of these borders and barriers, corporations would grow and thus expand its market. Most developed countries have accepted neo-liberalism and thus have their corporations and economy expanded. However, less developed areas would have a harder time accepting this because of the lack of technology and development compared to the other developed nations.
I agree with the authors in the sense that all nations need to collaborate in this ideology for globalization to really take place. Even underdeveloped countries need to take part so that true globalization can take place.

Last Blog

Once again the readings pertain largely to globalization and looks at it from several different perspectives. First, Held provides a response to globalization that is largely detached and essentially suggests reform of this system. He fails to recognize the fact that he is largely focusing on a European perspective even though he uses only the European Union as evidence to defend his decision that the best answer is cosmopolitan democracy. Patomaki and Teievaned on the other hand defend why they believe cosmopolitan democracy actually would not be a good response to globalization whatsoever.

Although the explanation of neoliberalism was essentially everything I imagined it to be with a truly global market free of any government intervention, I was very impressed with the way Patomaki and Teievaned considered globalization and defended their beliefs with strong supporting evidence. When they thoroughly explained the Mercusor region, I found it extremely refreshing from the European model that seems to be what everyone turns to these days. I also found the part about the necessity for all countries to partake in globalization to be very interesting because the either extremely wealthy or extremely poor countries are the ones that find it the most difficult. This reminded me of a reading from early in the semester in my Comparative Politics class that suggested that the countries that fall somewhere in the middle are the ones that can easily prosper. Unfortunately, the wealthy are satisfied right where they are and wouldn't want to risk that, and the poor can't simply jump into globalization either, although it would be ideal.

The only problem I really had with neoliberalism is that it seems quite extreme because we all know that certainly somethings are just better off being controlled by the government. Privatization of all businesses could truly create a giant mess, and I'm not exactly sure where Patomaki and Teievaned draw the line, it seems unclear to me.

extra credit free culture

I thought the movie in class about free culture was really interesting because the speaker in the movie was claiming that we are losing our rights to freedom and our culture through the use of restrictions on creative works, such as patents. Someone in class commented that they felt everyone should be able to use everyone else’s work as long as the work is properly cited and does not try to pass as one’s own work. I agree with this comment because I feel it is important to use other people’s previous work so we are able to build on and progress. When someone creates a piece of art or music, it sets the foundation for new inspiration. I think educational institutions have been the best promoters of the free culture movement because they do not have intent of economic gain. I found a really cool website freeculture.org which is a website that contains students from various universities coming together through email and blogging to support the free culture movement.

last blog

In this week’s reading, the authors talk about the concept of cosmopolitan democracy, which is a response to globalization that forces us to rethink our political society in accordance with our democratic ideals. Held’s model of democratic governance tends to be detached from what is going on in different contexts of the globalizing world and does not account for the transformation process toward cosmopolitan democracy. In addition, it is largely based on the European’s perspectives and experiences and thus may not generalize to the other parts of the world. The authors continue on to define the concepts of globalization and civic public spaces and discuss the effects of neoliberal globalization in countries such as Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. The authors explain that neoliberal globalization has strengthened only the elites, while declining the middle class, lowering the standard of living, and increased poverty. I think it is going to be interesting to see the interactions and effects of more and more countries becoming democracies, especially because the countries in the Mercosur region seem to be faring poorly. The authors state that Mercosur was created by “diplomats and economists” and most of the decisions of these regions were clearly economistic. If countries such as these are continued to run purely for economic incentives, it is inevitable that they will perish in the future. I think it would have been interesting if the authors would have compared more regions of the world as well, because this notion of cosmopolitan democracy could have been expanded even further.

Final Blog

Patomaki and Teievanen discuss the possibility of their being a different response to globalization. The most discussed political theory for the globalization process is the theory of cosmopolitan democracy. This theory mainly states that we must rethink the political community before we can obtain our ideals and aspirations. That is status quo policies and politics must change before any real ideals are met.
Neolibralism promotes the idea that the forces of the free market will in turn be most efficient in promoting a good economy. This means government should play as small of a role possible in economics and the market.
Patomaki and Teievaned discuss the flaw in the cosmopoliton response to globalization. In David Held’s cosmopoliton democracy he focused on the Europeon Union and how it responded to the globalization process. His model is inspired from the Europeon integration process although he has never admitted it. As a result, his theory tends to be Eurocentric. Patomaki and Teievanen attempt to disprove this by focusing on a different area of the world. They focus on the Mercosur region of Latin America which includes Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil.
Although I believe there are many sectors of the national economy where the government should not play a role, there remains the fact that some establishment need to be run by the government such as a national postal service or important infrastructure related industries. Although I found this reading interesting I find it difficult to picture an increase in global politics.

neoliberalism

So throughout the course, globalization is probably the word that i am most familiar with. For this LAST BLOG, globalization pops up one more time. Globalization is the ideology that deals with destroying the barriers that separate nations in order to make the world more globally economic. Neoliberalism is what promotes the market forces and commercial activity as an efficient way for the very simple theory of supply and demand. Neoliberalism discourages government intervention and relies on the countries as a whole to partake in globalization. The policies of Neoliberalism will create global prosperity and it was accepted by most "beginner" agencies.

Some countries, however, do not have the means to participate in neoliberalism and are not able to escape their impoverishment. At the same time, some extremely wealthy areas are actually afraid to participate because they do not want the lesser countries to attack them out of spite.

Extra Credit blog--free culture

The movie that we watched in class was about free culture and freedom in general from patents and the government that has regulated this. The movie talks about how patents have evolved from using someone’s invention in four years after it was created to a patent extending to forever. This guy David, talks about how we are losing the battle of freedom and that culture is being stolen from people through patents.

First, I found this entire speech to be interesting, but one thing I would like to talk about is the Homer Simpson problems of having to pay $25,000 to the company that owns the Simpsons for a two second background. This just goes to show you how greedy people have gotten throughout society in the last hundred years. Patents were not a forever thing, but as soon as someone got a hold of it and realized they could make a lot of money, that is when it took off. The recession today, where did it start off…The greed of the CEO’s and banks that thought they could make a pretty penny off of someone. Patents have not become as large of a problem yet because it has not put us into a recession. America doesn’t do anything unless there is a problem with MONEY for the CEO’s, and patents are not exceptions!

However, one thing that needs to be addressed is if patents were to become more lacks, like in the 1700s, then the person who made the creation that is being patented will lose money. That is not entirely far for that person to lose money when they have clearly made it as their livelihood. There needs to be some moderation that satisfies the majority of people without the creator losing too much money. Our economy has to come into play at some point. Forever is forever to long lol.

Genetics is where patents will start to have the largest problem in my opinion. This is another problem that needs to be addressed and fixed before it becomes a problem. If you are a geneticist working in a lab and you discover a trait that is expressed on a specific gene, you may patent that gene as yours. The problem comes into play when another trait, say cancer, is discovered on the same gene. The second geneticist cannot do anymore research on that gene without paying the patents and first geneticist money. This problem can cost people there lives, or create explosions for that first geneticist to do whatever they want with “their” gene like put it into an animal to create a mutation. The book Next by Michael Crichton is a wonderful novel about the over use of gene patents. It is not all scientific it is also just a really good read!

Globalization and the cosmopolitan democracy

I found this article's method of argument to be very fascinating. The authors begin my informing us that there has been only one "viable" response to globalization - that of cosmopolitan democracy. This is the idea that in order for our democratic ideals to be realized (as we know them) in conjunction with globalization, we must remake and rethink our political community. I took "political community" to be international relations, including but not limited to transnational and international organizations, diplomacy (as opposed to physical aggression) and on a smaller scale entities that are not overtly or obviously (by name) political beings, but ones that have effective political power - NGOs (e.g. Red Cross, Amnesty International). After identifying cosmopolitan democracy as the only fledged response, the authors tell us that because the theory is based on too narrow of basis, it is indeed actually not a very good response to globalization at all. The article then goes on to explain what is really going on by aptly and with earning my great praise, a region which is completely seperate and different (especially culturally) from the EU (Held's basis for his theory) while still being partially founded on the same principles.

I found it very interesting to see which region the author's focused on for their exploration. It is indeed the best region to have picked to really illustrate the problems with Held's cosmopolitan democracy theory. The region is geographically isolated from the EU, has a starkly different culture, different basis for economy, and I believe to be a very different history. The Mercusor region being in the New World was largely imperialized for years while the EU has the imperializers. The region chosen for discussion really highlights the diversity that is found in globalization and at the same time shows why it is so difficult to make a proper response to it (why Held "failed" and why nobody else has "succeeded.)"

I do not understand the two different yet inter-related definitions of globalization. The first being that the spatial expansion of a social system. This one I understand - decisions in one place can and probably will affect the people in a country half way around the world. I do not understand the second definition - a change in how the social system is organized - can somebody clarify this for me please?

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a set of economic policies that strays away from the government sectors, and the free movement of goods and services around the world. In this reading they say that labour unions and states interfere with the free play of the capitalist market. In other words neoliberals what trade free of borders throughout countries which would eliminate the governments interjections. With opening trade to all countries and eliminating the government’s involvement, globalization would greatly improve. There have been several countries that used this tactic and had poor economic turn out for its people.
I found it interesting that the concept of neoliberalism to open up free trade to countries failed, and by failed I mean for the poor and middle class of the country living in poor conditions. Globalization can be good for a countries economy and also culture from one country to another is opened up. I could imagine that with free trade there would be less incentive for a product to be safe.
One problem I see happening after opening up free trade is immigration problems. If the trade is opened up without any regulations or involvement of the government there would be a lot of people living in countries that are not theirs. I am not saying that the government can solve all of the problems, but with their involvement it would make it harder for illegal immigration to take place. A countries economy relies on the delicate balance of people emigrating and immigrating; hence, the welfare systems would fade away.

Last Blog

Patomaki and Teivanen’s article discusses the need to adjust the bias of cosmopolitan democracy, a theory that requires a readjustment of the political community so that democratic ideals can be realized. The authors argue that cosmopolitan democracy models do not account for real historical processes. Many cynics argue that the opportunity for globalization in politics is limited by corruption, conspiracy, and the concentration of power within nationalistic forms like Washington and the IMF. Through the article’s study of the Mercosur region, however, are examples of national networking and global ethico-political visions. It is therefore possible that globalization can be both a constraint and an advocate of new political improvements.

The article specifically describes the European Union as the primary model of cosmopolitan democracy and regional democratization. While not perfect in spreading democracy across national boundaries, many leaders in the Mercosur , which includes Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil, see the EU as the closest thing in today’s world system. For the Mercosur to copy the EU would be unreasonable, as the two regions have experienced vastly different histories and have different expectations of and opinions on human rights that ultimately influence the decision makers of any integration process. Furthermore, there are several other regional integration projects occurring in Latin America that place it in a state of flux. It is possible that it does not have the stability to structure a model like that of the EU, especially in light of competition between the NAFTA agreement and the Latin American push for more autonomy. The effects of these differences create obstacles to the development of a global political economy. On the other hand, because many people view themselves as having European qualities, it is possible that public opinion will sway government leaders toward adopting a system that will allow for an increase in standing in the politico-economic hierarchy. In Brazil, there has been civil societal involvement in budget making for municipal administrations for two decades. This participatory budget planning has inspired other democratic reforms at higher levels, like in Mercosur cities.

Under this example, perhaps it is possible to push toward a world system united under the same economic and political ideals. It certainly seems that the Mercosur has the foundation for an arrangement like that of the EU. Perhaps the formation of another EU-like institution will create a trend that will force other compatible regions to follow suit, truly revolutionizing the world system. I am sure the path will not be so easy, though, simply because as the article mentions, different places have different histories, and on a related note, have different expectations for human rights and development. The Mercosur is contemplating the possibility of a system like the EU because they identify with Europeans to start with and are willing to follow such a model. Other regions of the world may not be so inclined to follow suit, especially where democracy is not a priority. I am most interested in if these types of institutions will form and provide further competition to the U.S. as leading world economies, especially with the rapid growth of China’s economy. If current trends continue, it seems that China will take over as the world’s leading economy, though there is time for responses from the U.S., the EU, and perhaps a new power, the Mercosur. Will these political globalization processes find success, or are they just a theory that a couple of regions appear to mimic for now?

Neoliberal Globalization - Uh oh?

As more and more nations are becoming democracies and our world is becoming increasingly more globalized, how are the two going to affect, help, or hinder eachother? It's a serious question. Will our or others' democracies be at risk due to globalization? Can we look forward to democratic world if eventually all nations become democracies? Theoretically, this would be a world in which internationally made decisions will be for the good of the whole and the majority will rule. What would really happen, though (if this were the case) when so many so-called "democracies" are actually ruled by ruthless and selfish dictators?

Patomaki and Teivainen use the Mercosur region in Latin America as a case study for analyzing neoliberal globalization and to speculate its potential trajectory toward a cosmopolitan democracy. The countries in the regions have found the most pressing problems have to do with the financial end of globalization and from this Patomaki and Teivainen argue that we should define cosmopolitan democracy in moreso in politco-economic terms if we are to more fully understand and function in a neoliberal, globalized world and retain democratic governments.

Neoliberal globalization, they argue, has actually made the positions of economic elites more powerful than they previously were. Such elites are not generally concerned with welfare, so those policies have declined along with the middle class while the living standards of the majority have gotten worse. Poor people cannot boost the economy by buying goods, so economy declines. Neoliberals attempt to boost it, but usually at the expense of the environment. The treaty that strengthened the bond between nations of Mercosur was mainly economic though it includes statements for social justice. The scholars also see the social effects of globalization in the of transnational, interregional communication and action involving individuals and groups seeking political action beyond the boundaries of the state, especially in the form of human rights groups. Other groups are pressing for more decision making above the national level with a more institutionalized group. While the economic bent would suggest anti-democratization, Mercusor was found to reinforce and even rescue democracy in Paraguay.

Nonetheless, one has to be concerned that in the case of Mercusor--and as I believe would be the case for future regional communities in an increasingly corporatized--the decision-makers are dominated by business bosses. In a world where the bottom line is what matters and profits are the main motivating factors for decision-making, democracy is at risk because democracy involves the decision-making power the general people out of concern for the basic-rights of all. If globalization is mainly driven by economy, than I am skeptical of it and lean towards the opinion that it is ultimately bad.

Nationalism and/or Patriotism

In order to differentiate between nationalism and patriotism I turned to the trust Oxford English Dictionary because everywhere else the definitions were literally the same exact words. For myself the only differences between the words were connotations that I thought were subjective because of my own individual contacts with the words in specific contexts.

"1. a. Advocacy of or support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination.
[in smaller subtext] Whereas patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment, nationalism now usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism. In earlier use, however, the two appear to have been more or less interchangeable."
(Oxford English Dictionary online at http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00321451?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=nationalism&first=1&max_to_show=10)

At least the OED confirms that it's not just lack of knowledge that has led us all to think of nationalism and patriotism as synonyms. Apparently they have essentially been synonyms for a long time and only just recently have become more differentiated. So, patriotism is a more general feeling of support for one's own nation (its interests, etc.) even when doing so may harm other nations. Nationalism is that but for a specific ideology in support of one's nation's interest.

Does anyone agree or disagree with the OED? I would add that nationalism has a more aggressive connotation and patriotism more defensive, but I think that is, like I mentioned, subjective.

Final Blog-Neoliberalism

David Helm and his chums tackle in this work Neoliberal globalization and the challenge it faces in cosmopolitan democracy. Cosmopolitan democracy's goal is to reform globalization worldwide, on all scales.

The other work, by Patomaki takes a different route, saying that Neoliberalism, and hence neoliberal globalization, have been associated with bringing about a harmonious worldwide economic system. The main idea is to bring many public sections of the economy into more privatized ones, an action that Patomaki argues is either impossible or ineffective. He argues that those sectors destined to be privatized (telephones, transportation, etc.) do not apply to large portions of the world who are bereft of such technologies. The exclusion of the enormous lower class (on a global scale) would render such a system incomplete. In addition, the upper class, with their known fear of public transportation, would avoid such practices, again making it incomplete.

Patomaki states that implementation of such a system would only further the division of class systems, worsening living conditions. We may have economic peace, but class strife would soon tear us back apart. Therefore, we need to see a total reform by individual countries in such areas before we can implement these standards. Elimination of the class system for one, however far fetched that may seem, but the author fails to provide a solution. In addition, I would argue that many sectors cannot be privatized, such as water or sewage, without a massive collapse of infrastructure.

Neoliberalism

Neoliberal policies promote market forces and commercial activity as the most efficient methods for producing and supplying goods and services. At the same time, they also turn away from the role of the state and discourage government intervention into economic, financial and even social affairs. Economic globalization is a process driven by this ideology; removing borders and barriers between nations so that market forces can drive the global economy. Governments around the world have adopted these policies and still continue to pervade classical economic thought, allowing corporations and affluent countries to secure their financial advantage within the world economy. Countries that adopt these beliefs believe that by expanding the free-market and private ownership would create a greater economic efficiency and social well-being. It is by this deregulation, privatization and removal of borders and restrictions that corporate activity has the ability to expand. Corporations are able to grow rapidly in size as well as influence, and have the ability to become the most productive economic units worldwide. It is a belief by neoclassical economists, political and the financial elite that in most countries, neoliberal policies will create global prosperity. These beliefs are so entrenched that this view determines the policies of international agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO, thus dictating the functioning of the global economy. Despite reservations from within many UN agencies, neoliberal policies are accepted by most development agencies throughout the world to be the most likely means of reducing poverty and inequality in the poorest regions. However, Patomlakit and Teivainen provide so called ‘exceptions’ to this ideology, stating that some countries throughout the world lack modern technology, such as internet or proper means of transportation and therefore cannot be classified as a privatized sector. Nations with the lack of these means are excluded from neo-liberalistic beliefs.

Free Culture

The video on Wednesday’s class in global societies talked about free culture and where is it going. Today we have copyrights for just about everything and everyone’s work is protected from others benefitting off it. (Unless that is if they choose to pay that cha-ching dollar amount for these rights) It proves the point that money makes this world go round. I think free culture is an attitude that people should be able to have access to anything that is important to their culture whether this is music or arts or whatever the culture is. Brought up in class was the example of France and how they are trying to preserve their culture and block out certain parts that are not integral with their own. This is interesting because they are doing exactly what the choice of free culture represents. People need to be able to pick and choose what they want to experience is their daily lives.
My second point on this is to bring up another example on from class, was that of music rights being given to certain people. Take the Beatles for example, they have made many great songs but the rights have recently been sold because Michael Jackson owned them but he is since deceased, so this leaves the song being given away to the highest bidder. One the one side, everyone could benefit from this and all people could be using their songs for whatever reason it may be, but is this truly right? I think not, in the capitalist society we live in, if it has chance to create a monetary value, everyone will do it. It is just how the world works, who every can bring the cash wins.
In the end however, both sides are right, because like anything there is exceptions to the rules. For every 500 things you find that should be available to everyone, you can find 500 things that shouldn’t because of someone’s hard work. The argument can continue for a long time, but the mere true is this is just how society has worked, the more you fight against it the further you get left behind as you fight.

LAST BLOG!!

In this week’s Reading for global societies, “Critical responses toneoliberal globalization in the Mercosur region: roads towardscosmopolitan democracy?” by Heikki Patomlakit and Teivo Teivainen, theytalk about where globalism is leading us in today’s world. Withglobalization spreading to even the most remote countries now, the thoughtof what democracy begins to come up. The thought is that of acosmopolitan type of democracy. In this lengthy article, the authors talkmuch about the model of the EU and how it is working for their countriesor lack thereof, this idea of trying to grasp of how government can begreater than a country. They also dice into the area of Brazil, Mercosur,where many efforts have been made to better the area, but partnerships arehard. They say a lot of the economic partnerships have failed and the IMFcannot keep up with the expenses of some militaries. The area is justdriven home that a lot of partnerships to bring back money into areas isfaltering and globization is not reach the smaller countries enough. “Allgroups and associations are assumed to have a capacity forself-determination. The defense of self-determination, the creation of acommon structure of political”. This is what the article tries to conveythroughout the reading. That globization is just self determination on aglobal scale. It networks overlapping with each other and creating bondsthat become an integral part of daily life throughout not just the thirdworld, but the whole world.
I think this article was fantastic as is analyzed that global spectrum ona political level. Think we are headed towards a political glo0balgovernment, but will tell. I hope that this article can be seen as justa measure of how certain areas of the world are doing, because I did not find this to be overwhelming true throughout the article.
I wish he would have studies more world groups, and taking more out anoutsiders approach, however I thought it was detailed enough, I thinkmore analyzing of the certain orders and countries could have done thearticle well.

Free Culture

This Wednesday we listened to a lecture by Lawrence Lessig discussing copy right laws, and the movement he calls "free culture." The debate has two sides, the "copyright" which believes that any creative/innovative material is the intellectual material of the creator, and that that material should be protected with copy rights and patents. The "copyleft" as the free culture supporters are sometimes called, argues that today's copyright laws stifle creativity and that all new culture is built off of the old, so it necessary to reduce copyright laws.

Both sides have positives and negatives. The copyleft's argument that copyright laws are stifling creativity and cultural vibrance are partially true, how can today's musicians be inspired by other songs, if using those influences leads to lawsuits. But at the same time, how could a musician have a career if they can't make any money of the fruit of their labors? I think the real answer is a balance between the two. Songwriters, artists, filmmakers, engineers and software technicians, anyone whose work can be considered intellectual property should have certain rights to protect their efforts, but should those licenses last for life + 50 years, and if its a piece of corporate work, 120 years after creation? That seems a little extreme to me, and the amount of money necessary to use that material seems insane. $25,000 for three seconds of the Simpsons in the background of a documentary? Honestly, it seems a bit extreme, most people probably didn't even notice Homer at all. So the answer is somewhere in the middle, we need to protect artists and innovators, without stifling the creativity that is inspired by the past.

For an example of what I think is a gross misuse of copyright laws, read the following... You've probably heard the song, "Bittersweet Symphony" by the Verve, at least if you had a radio in the US in 1998 you probably did. But did you know that the song writing credits go to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards? Yepp. And thats because the Verve sampled the music of the Andrew Oldham Orchestra, that covered a song written by the Rolling Stones, "the Last Time." (You can read about it on Wikipedia too, if you're curious) The Verve had permission to sample the Oldham song, but allegedly "sampled too much", so all of the song writing credits, and 100% of the royalties go to the Rolling Stones. Is this fair? The Verve wrote the lyrics, and while the music is rmostly taken from the Oldman Orchestra's cover, I wouldn't say its plagiarized, especially if they paid for sampling rights. And more than that, if the arrangement is really by the Andrew Oldham cover, which is distinctly different from the Stones version, why aren't they getting any money out of this deal?