Decisions made on the subject of global economics have many consequences. Such is the vastness of the global economic system. A system that inherently has winners and losers. One in which the more developed nations can exploit the cheap cost of labor in a lesser-developed nation. Several different economic theories have been proposed. The question is which theory do we choose?
I wouldn’t say I could wholly identify with any of the theories proposed. I am a firm believer in the government subsidizing innovation. This is a nationalistic approach. Which is an approach that says a state should use its economic strength to further its national interests. In theory this approach sounds quite good to me. However, when I take a step back and look at all of the policies that have been implemented in order to safeguard our global economic influence, I start to doubt it. The exploitation poor workers in other countries for our country’s economic benefit is just morally wrong. To give an example, Foxconn is a Chinese manufacturing company that most notably assembles Apple’s products. Products like the iPhone and the iPad. Some workers at the plant work as much as 100 hours a week (The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism, 2010). Also due to a recent uptake in worker suicides Foxconn has put up catch nets that surround the plant. This is just plain inhumane. And is probably the main reason why I can’t identify myself as an economic nationalist.
Economic Liberalism is more of a mixed approach to global economics. An approach that tends more to let IGOs regulate international economic exchanges. I definitely identify domestically with economic liberalism. I am a firm believer in the role of government to regulate the economy and ensure no monopolies are formed. Internationally economic liberalism doesn’t take the position of any radical reform. It wants to decrease global inequality through IGOs and tries to forward the idea of global capitalism. I suppose this is the reason why I identify with economic liberalism. It is not too radical. As well is more about helping others than strictly looking out for our own interests.
The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism. (2010). China Perspectives, 2010(3), 135-137
I wouldn’t say I could wholly identify with any of the theories proposed. I am a firm believer in the government subsidizing innovation. This is a nationalistic approach. Which is an approach that says a state should use its economic strength to further its national interests. In theory this approach sounds quite good to me. However, when I take a step back and look at all of the policies that have been implemented in order to safeguard our global economic influence, I start to doubt it. The exploitation poor workers in other countries for our country’s economic benefit is just morally wrong. To give an example, Foxconn is a Chinese manufacturing company that most notably assembles Apple’s products. Products like the iPhone and the iPad. Some workers at the plant work as much as 100 hours a week (The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism, 2010). Also due to a recent uptake in worker suicides Foxconn has put up catch nets that surround the plant. This is just plain inhumane. And is probably the main reason why I can’t identify myself as an economic nationalist.
Economic Liberalism is more of a mixed approach to global economics. An approach that tends more to let IGOs regulate international economic exchanges. I definitely identify domestically with economic liberalism. I am a firm believer in the role of government to regulate the economy and ensure no monopolies are formed. Internationally economic liberalism doesn’t take the position of any radical reform. It wants to decrease global inequality through IGOs and tries to forward the idea of global capitalism. I suppose this is the reason why I identify with economic liberalism. It is not too radical. As well is more about helping others than strictly looking out for our own interests.
I do believe that economically developed countries should help lesser-developed nations. However, that doesn’t mean that I believe that they have the obligation to. The economy is typically always in flux. Thus, one who would mandate that a more developed country help out a lesser-developed country is naïve of the global economic context. A context, like that seen in 2008, that could very well collapse if the bubble-bust cycle is not fixed.
The wave of suicides among Foxconn workers and the vacuity of Chinese trade unionism. (2010). China Perspectives, 2010(3), 135-137
No comments :
Post a Comment