Difference between revisions of "World Cultures Comparison Project/Paper"
From ThePlaz.com
(fix link) |
(edit a bunch on paper - but mostly over computer) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Draft}} | {{Draft}} | ||
{{Red Message|Still very rough; needs a major re-organization!; may contain to-be verbs (Oh no!)}} | {{Red Message|Still very rough; needs a major re-organization!; may contain to-be verbs (Oh no!)}} | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Globalization, in the long run, has had a positive impact on both richer and poorer (or developing) nations. Increasing trade between nations helps both parties advance by allowing them each to produce what they are best at and being able to sell those products around the world. | ||
| − | + | No one person can do everything, and the same is true for nations as well. For starters, not every nation has enough of every natural resources. The United Stated does not have enough oil to survive efficiently. Sure, if necessary we could end our dependency on oil, but this would be at an enormous cost to our current industries. Alternative fuels are just too expensive, or we would have adopted them already. But the same also holds true for manufacturing. The United States only has a certain amount of workers and a certain amount of land. It's best to distribute that land to make the most goods as possible for our society. However, in some cases, other nations are better at producing certain goods. Asians are able to produce televisions more efficiently then we are able to. However, Americans are very good at producing medicine due to are highly trained workforce. Thus we are able to trade medicine for televisions. Both parties make out richer because this represents the most efficient means of production. | |
| − | + | And the most efficient means of production also represents the cheapest. And almost everyone wants the cheapest product, regardless of its origin. For example, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and domestic private employer achieves the lowest price possible through massive operations around the world (via Wikipedia). They are successful because of the principle of economies of scale. They are able to use technology and specialization to remove as much waste from their operation as possible. Consumers must like this efficient, low-cost process because more then one-third of the United State's population visits a Wal-Mart every week (via Wikipedia). Most are not concerned that most production comes from China and other foreign factories. Yes, some people do raise concerns about Wal-Mart's effect on local communities and global industries, however, low prices usually draw people in, and in fact, are for the better. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Trade Barriers=== | ===Trade Barriers=== | ||
| + | Many who are scared of Wal-Mart and global competition try to lobby governments to pass trade barriers. Trade barriers are both quotas and tariffs. Both are bad ideas and they hamper both consumers, foreign markets, and even domestic production. They artificially increase prices by reducing the number of producers able to sell a product in a certain region. This shows very similar tendencies to installing monopolies, at least among domestic producers. | ||
| − | + | Throughout history there has been consistent evidence that monopolies are detrimental to society as a whole. They allow a smaller subset of producers to artificially raise prices (Brue 85). Monopolies are not governed by market principles, and therefore are not run for the good of consumers or the economy as a whole (Brue 85). Throughout history, starting with the Sherman Act of 1890, the United States has tried to regulate or break monopolies (Brue 85). Thus, regulations actually trying to create monopolies or monopoly-like situations with domestic producers are inherently flawed. | |
| − | + | Thus, globalization serves to increase competition, granting the most efficient operation the business. This trims the excess fat from supply chains, providing for lower prices. | |
| − | + | ===Innovation=== | |
| + | In addition, protective tariffs reduce innovation. Once a producer has a monopoly they no longer need to innovate to stay competitive. There products will continue to be purchased reguardless of their quality and features. New technologies will not be created without the drive for innovation. | ||
| − | + | This dearth of innovation hurts future industries. Over time some jobs are replaced by other jobs. Looking back, many Americans in the past used to be farmers. Today very few happen to be farmers. Does this mean we are worse off? Of course not! American have a higher standard of living then ever. In addition, American are increasing being employed in jobs requiring less manual labor. What happened? New technologies brought around new industries which brought new, higer skilled jobs. Twenty years ago, very few people dreamed of becoming computer programmers. Today, many are employed in computer realted feilds. | |
| − | + | The same patterns will occur during globalization. Yes some will lose their jobs, but the increased competition creates more new technologies which have the potential to employ large numbers of workers. Thus the benefit of new, higher skilled jobs reduces the pain of losing lower-skilled jobs to foreign nations. | |
| − | + | ==Exports=== | |
| + | Many countries depend on global trade, for both imports and exports, including the United States. The US has and continues to benefit from exporting our goods (Brue 102). Many agricultural goods are sent out of the United States to nations which do not have as much fertile land as we have. We also sell automobiles, airplanes, and coal to nations around the world. In fact, 42% of our exports go to developing nations, helping to improve their lives through products bot essential and luxury (Brue 103). | ||
| − | + | Thus we rely, both our consumers and exporters, on free global trade. This trade will cime along with globalization and must be encouraged. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Nevertheless, enacting regulations and protectionist policies to protect our domestic markets will only encourage protectionist policies against our exports. Enacting these policies will only start a downward spiral, plunging the world into the past by restricting globalization. | |
| − | + | **end edit** | |
| − | + | ?money drive and exporting services (edu and torism) p62 The Choice. | |
| − | + | ||
| + | ==Support== | ||
| + | Thus, the amount of tariffs, and other trade barriers, both internationally and in the United States has gone down in the last 100 years (Brue 115). In fact, many economists consider the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to be a major cause of the Great Depression (Brue 114). The Smoot-Hawley act attempted to choke off import to help domestic producers. Instead, it raised prices for goods, leading to the recession. Thus artificial or protectionist trade barriers are harmful to a nation's aggregate economy, as well as the global climate. | ||
===Growth=== | ===Growth=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 56: | ||
*?Riley interview | *?Riley interview | ||
*The Choice | *The Choice | ||
| + | *encarta: monopoly | ||
==Further Reading== | ==Further Reading== | ||
*The Choice | *The Choice | ||
Revision as of 19:31, 28 December 2006
World Cultures World Cultures Comparison Project Paper - Pro: Economics by Plaz Template:World Cultures Comparison Project
Only a DRAFT!
May change/be updated - still in progress - may still contain inaccuracies
Still very rough; needs a major re-organization!; may contain to-be verbs (Oh no!)
Globalization, in the long run, has had a positive impact on both richer and poorer (or developing) nations. Increasing trade between nations helps both parties advance by allowing them each to produce what they are best at and being able to sell those products around the world.
No one person can do everything, and the same is true for nations as well. For starters, not every nation has enough of every natural resources. The United Stated does not have enough oil to survive efficiently. Sure, if necessary we could end our dependency on oil, but this would be at an enormous cost to our current industries. Alternative fuels are just too expensive, or we would have adopted them already. But the same also holds true for manufacturing. The United States only has a certain amount of workers and a certain amount of land. It's best to distribute that land to make the most goods as possible for our society. However, in some cases, other nations are better at producing certain goods. Asians are able to produce televisions more efficiently then we are able to. However, Americans are very good at producing medicine due to are highly trained workforce. Thus we are able to trade medicine for televisions. Both parties make out richer because this represents the most efficient means of production.
And the most efficient means of production also represents the cheapest. And almost everyone wants the cheapest product, regardless of its origin. For example, Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and domestic private employer achieves the lowest price possible through massive operations around the world (via Wikipedia). They are successful because of the principle of economies of scale. They are able to use technology and specialization to remove as much waste from their operation as possible. Consumers must like this efficient, low-cost process because more then one-third of the United State's population visits a Wal-Mart every week (via Wikipedia). Most are not concerned that most production comes from China and other foreign factories. Yes, some people do raise concerns about Wal-Mart's effect on local communities and global industries, however, low prices usually draw people in, and in fact, are for the better.
Contents |
Trade Barriers
Many who are scared of Wal-Mart and global competition try to lobby governments to pass trade barriers. Trade barriers are both quotas and tariffs. Both are bad ideas and they hamper both consumers, foreign markets, and even domestic production. They artificially increase prices by reducing the number of producers able to sell a product in a certain region. This shows very similar tendencies to installing monopolies, at least among domestic producers.
Throughout history there has been consistent evidence that monopolies are detrimental to society as a whole. They allow a smaller subset of producers to artificially raise prices (Brue 85). Monopolies are not governed by market principles, and therefore are not run for the good of consumers or the economy as a whole (Brue 85). Throughout history, starting with the Sherman Act of 1890, the United States has tried to regulate or break monopolies (Brue 85). Thus, regulations actually trying to create monopolies or monopoly-like situations with domestic producers are inherently flawed.
Thus, globalization serves to increase competition, granting the most efficient operation the business. This trims the excess fat from supply chains, providing for lower prices.
Innovation
In addition, protective tariffs reduce innovation. Once a producer has a monopoly they no longer need to innovate to stay competitive. There products will continue to be purchased reguardless of their quality and features. New technologies will not be created without the drive for innovation.
This dearth of innovation hurts future industries. Over time some jobs are replaced by other jobs. Looking back, many Americans in the past used to be farmers. Today very few happen to be farmers. Does this mean we are worse off? Of course not! American have a higher standard of living then ever. In addition, American are increasing being employed in jobs requiring less manual labor. What happened? New technologies brought around new industries which brought new, higer skilled jobs. Twenty years ago, very few people dreamed of becoming computer programmers. Today, many are employed in computer realted feilds.
The same patterns will occur during globalization. Yes some will lose their jobs, but the increased competition creates more new technologies which have the potential to employ large numbers of workers. Thus the benefit of new, higher skilled jobs reduces the pain of losing lower-skilled jobs to foreign nations.
Exports=
Many countries depend on global trade, for both imports and exports, including the United States. The US has and continues to benefit from exporting our goods (Brue 102). Many agricultural goods are sent out of the United States to nations which do not have as much fertile land as we have. We also sell automobiles, airplanes, and coal to nations around the world. In fact, 42% of our exports go to developing nations, helping to improve their lives through products bot essential and luxury (Brue 103).
Thus we rely, both our consumers and exporters, on free global trade. This trade will cime along with globalization and must be encouraged.
Nevertheless, enacting regulations and protectionist policies to protect our domestic markets will only encourage protectionist policies against our exports. Enacting these policies will only start a downward spiral, plunging the world into the past by restricting globalization.
- end edit**
?money drive and exporting services (edu and torism) p62 The Choice.
Support
Thus, the amount of tariffs, and other trade barriers, both internationally and in the United States has gone down in the last 100 years (Brue 115). In fact, many economists consider the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to be a major cause of the Great Depression (Brue 114). The Smoot-Hawley act attempted to choke off import to help domestic producers. Instead, it raised prices for goods, leading to the recession. Thus artificial or protectionist trade barriers are harmful to a nation's aggregate economy, as well as the global climate.
Growth
Growth is the means which reduces the burden of scarcity (Brue; start of growth chapter). It allows more finished goods to be produced either by increasing imports or making production more efficient (Brue ?).
Growth is keystone of improvement in our lives, and technological advancements are what power it. Looking back a hundred years, standards of living were much lower (cite). There were no airplanes, requiring long voyages on ships or trains to reach destinations. In fact, the US was even more polluted (CITE!!!) then then it is today. Life expectancy and life quality have both risen. Technological advancement has been the largest source of growth in the United States making up 28% of the increase in productivity according to Edward Denison and projected to 1998 by McConnell and Brue (374). New farming techniques have risen farm output (give ###!!!). Less farmland, and less farmers support more people. Computers take the pain out of rewriting essays.
In the United States increases in the amount of people willing to work has amounted to a third of our growth (Brue 374). This has been in part because of our open arms towards immigrants. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, growth was largely due to women joining the regular workforce (Brue 374). Prior to this, discrimination and domestic duties kept women in the house. New technologies permitted millions of women to spend less time cooking and more time producing goods and services. This goes to show what happens when discrimination gets removed.
Discrimination, whether against women, foreigners, or people of color hurts the economy by reducing the amount of labor available (Brue 749). This increases the cost of labor while decreasing productions; both propel the economy backwards. Ending or reducing global trade will only have the same effect.
?shria here?
more international perspectives
Sources
- Brue Textbook
- Wikipedia
- ?Riley interview
- The Choice
- encarta: monopoly
Further Reading
- The Choice
Email Me
