| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 05-Apr-03 12:19 PM
Nepal is preparing to be a member of the WTO. I am no expert in globalization but seeing what became of countries like Russia, Argentina etc etc, I am very much concerned about the future of Nepal. here's an article, a rather old one but pertinent to the present situation nonetheless. ________________________________ http://reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?storyID=2395238&type=bondsNews IMF-no clear proof globalization helps the poor Mon March 17, 2003 06:15 PM ET By Anna Willard WASHINGTON, March 17 (Reuters) - The International Monetary Fund sounded more like its critics on Monday when it admitted there is little evidence globalization is helping poor countries. The IMF, which has often been the target of violent anti-globalization protests, in a new study found economic integration may actually increase the risk of financial crisis in the developing world. "Theoretical models" show that financial integration can increase economic growth in developing countries, the research found, but in practice it is difficult to prove this link. "In other words, if financial integration has a positive effect on growth, there is as yet no clear and robust empirical proof that the effect is quantitatively significant," the new report said. An overview of the study, which was put together by four researchers including the fund's chief economist Kenneth Rogoff, describes the conclusions as "sobering". The IMF often recommends that poor countries open their economies to foreign investors and free-market policies. But critics say those policies damage vulnerable economies, raising poverty rates and destroying the environment. The fund's report found a small group of developing countries have picked up the "lion's share" of capital flows as financial links between countries have become more integrated. Nations with good economic policies are more likely to reap the most benefits and steer clear of financial crisis. HIGHER RISK OF CRISES International financial integration should also help countries to reduce economic volatility, the study said, but in reality this has not happened. "Indeed, the process of capital account liberalization appears to have been accompanied in some cases by increased vulnerability to crises," the report said. "Globalization has heightened these risks since cross-country financial linkages amplify the effects of various shocks and transmit them more quickly across national borders." In the last 10 years, developing countries from Thailand and Russia to Argentina, have seen their economies collapse, even though many of them were trying to follow IMF-prescribed open market policies. CAUTION NEEDED The paper concludes that countries must carefully balance integration in the world economy with strong economic policies and the building of strong institutions, including banks and regulatory systems. "The evidence presented in this paper suggests that financial integration should be approached cautiously, with good institutions and macroeconomic frameworks viewed as important," the IMF said. But the report was unable to come up with a "clear road map" for how this should be done. Such questions should be tackled on a case-by-case basis, the IMF concluded. _______________________ love to hear views on this |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 05-Apr-03 11:46 PM
This is ridiculous. The lucky few that claim to be the ones with an "international perspective" watch in silence when a huge step is about to be taken in Nepal. Guided (or forced, maybe) by something not that clear, our whole economy is about to undergo a very major change and we, supposedly some of the best brains, sit back and witness the drama like a bunch of horny teens watching a stripper at work. I hate myself for expecting these people to respond. heh, 44 says the little counter there. No one cared to respond. Talk about "how to get a citizen to marry you in 30 days" and the whole gang starts hugging each other and jumps around like crazy. Two words people, Plainly pathetic. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 06-Apr-03 11:18 AM
shoot me |
| SITARA | Posted
on 06-Apr-03 04:05 PM
Bang! Bang! :) Actually, I have more of a deculturalization perspective on globalization. Very interesting read, nevertheless. Thanks! |
| czar | Posted
on 06-Apr-03 07:39 PM
"financial integration should be approached cautiously, with good institutions and macroeconomic frameworks viewed as important," the IMF said. There is hardly likely to be much argument against sound economic policies and framework building for any country. Pronouncements like the one in the report, while sounding utterly serious, do nothing to add to clarifying the situation. Much like the speeches of Nepali ministers on all manner of topics. In short, hogwash. If a doctor admits he has not knowledge of how to treat the ailment afflicting the patient, and yet exhorts one to visit him for consultation, most thinking beings would very quickly run the rogue out of town on a rail. Tarred and feathered. The IMF, while confessing that they had no "clear road map" to the globalization mess, has shamelessly offered to examine countries' situation that "would tackled on a case-by-case basis. " Why on earth would anyone agree to this ? Its those loan guarantees that causes most to toe the line. No matter how disastrous the consequences. As the report also points out, as an example, the sordid mess created of the economies of Russia, Thailand and Argentina. All were on IMF prescribed medication. Malaysia chose to thumb its nose at it but its economy didn't collapse either. Thailand was on the road to recovery, Argentina remains a basket case and Russia looks healthier under the firm hand of Mr. Putin. It can be argued, and those more knowledgeable than I will point out, that the countries in the aforementioned list experienced problems because their regimes didn't quite swallow all the medicine administered. Rather, they fudged things by only doing the least they could get away with. That their fundamentals were not sound to start with, hence there was nothing to build on and so on. I won't contest any of this. What is uncontestable is that they suffered and still a few are still in the grip of serious economic malaise. Russian did not have a free market economy before Gorbachovs glasnost and perestroika so they've come a long way in a relatively short time. Nepal has a mercantile tradition that stretches back many centuries. Business people there are a resourceful and srappy lot who somehow will survive, but may not have the savvy to thrive. An advantage of the economy's small size is that it takes very little investment to stabilize things in choppy economic waters. The country already has difficulty absorbing what its been given in terms of financial assistance. It simply doesn't have the institutional framework to absorb and utilize, say, five billion dollars at one go. Russia and Argentina matter in the global game, Nepal doesn't. The G7 have their own interests at heart when they rush to bail out these two. It matters not a whit to them if our economy tanked. The top priority for the present Nepali goverment is peace and security. Sorting out the political situation is necessary before addressing the economic issues, no matter how urgent they may be. In such a scenario, I can not imagine Nepal will meet the requirements to accede to the WTO regime any time soon. Max20, while arguably dire, I don't quite believe Nepal's situation is comparable to watching the rape of Nanking. As was once remarked, the team leader of the IMF survey departing Nepal reportedly said to his colleague " I now believe God exists." |
| czar | Posted
on 06-Apr-03 07:55 PM
Almost forgot. Disclaimer: Please read at your own risk, mine is third world Angrezi and I still don't have a thesaurus. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 13-Apr-03 01:25 PM
My only concern about Nepal's move is about it's future. Yes, the IMF keeps saying "sound economic frameworks" will help a country prosper under free market. I don't think there will be much disagreement if I say Nepal does NOT possess the required "frameworks" to embrace free trade. I don't think our government has a clear idea about the requirements and consequences of Nepal being a part of the WTO. Given that the politicians have not had the privilege of a strong education (correct me if I'm wrong), I was wondering if intellectuals among us, those who have had the opportunity to look at Nepal and the world woth a wider (and hopefully a better) perspective, will be able to forsee the future. I mean, 90% of the "decision makers" of nepal won't know if a dog crapped on their backyard. there must to be people among us who have a lot more lucid understanding of what;s going on and what might happen. If Nepal is going to cripple and be pushed down the list of the poorest nations in the world, this is when we should made our voices heard and stop this from happening. I don't claim to be one of those intellectuals who can accurately prophesize the futue of Nepal as a playground for the WTO. I am just a concerned Nepali whose fears are based on the situation of other nations. In short, if this step is going to cost us whatever we have (which is more like, whatever is left of us) I think we should start now to try and stop it. |
| RAJUNPL | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 12:43 AM
Czar jyu there is no need to be that knowledge in thesaurus.One can clearly understand what you wanted to say.That was a beautiful knowledge. GLOBALISATION (mcdonaldisation) has never proved to be success in most of the third world countries.It sucks rather than serve.Russia and other second world countries countries has more to do with the stable politcs than the nepal.That can sometime controll the globalisation.The third world countries like argentina and thailand has the different perspective. I do believe the same as czar said "nepal has more to do with the peace,security and stability.Just yesterday I was shocked to see the nepal telecommunication privatisation and bid by three indian major companies.Though that was not-to-bad step but will the nepalese citizen and govt. take the direct advantage of it..? Well,If there would be nightmere to the third world countries by the globalisation policies nepal would be the first one.I am quite surprise by the nepalese economist here.If they would have taken education in the west ,They forgotten the first lesson. GLOBALISATION WILL EAT NEPAL. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 04:15 AM
Rajunpl, I don't think Globalziation is bad. Globalization is often misunderstood as a relatively new phenomenon, and that it only serves the interests of the industrialized nations of the west. I disagree with this thinking because: 1. The process of Globalziation started ever since primates started walking in the pre-historic ages and the process of Globalization (transfer of goods from one place to another) was evident in the mesolithic and the neolithic ages. Sculptures etc. found in Jericho tells us that it had trade relations with the other nations/areas/civilizations. Also, there was a Silk Trade between the Chinese and the Europeans as early as 122 AD. So, people going to places for better trade (trading) oppurtunities is not new. 2. Talking about Nepal and the Indian Sub-Continent, Kautilya's Arthashastra clearly mentions the importance of nepali hand-made rugs. This means that Nepal used to export those to India. There must have been things which we imported from India, even then. And those things might have influenced our thinking. 3. Since the process of Globalization has been an intergal part of human civilizations from the mesolithic-neolithic ages, I don't think its a "stoppable" process. There's no way Globalization will come to cul-de-sac now in the 21st century! No way. 4. Technolgical advancement of the last 2 centuries have made this place a really small place in which to live. furtermore, with the use of common currencies and all that's happening economically have inter-linked the economies of the world. No nation can survive in isolation. Opening up to the world is not only important but essential for the survival. 5. To those who protest against the increasing westernization/globalziation in Nepal, I have a question: What would have happened if Coca-Cola wouldn't have come to Nepal? The answer is simple: Some Indian company would have come to quench our thirst. No, we wouldn't be drinking what our ancestors used to drink. 6. Globalization brings immense economic oppurtunities with it. Its for the country's policy makers to think of the ways to exploit those economic oppurtunities to the best of the country's interests. Look at China. They exploited the economic oppurtunities brought forth by Globalization and they are GETTING RICH. 7. There are some people who think that Globalization leads to mono-culturism and for the prservation of various cultures, one should oppose the processs. I happened to meet one of those observers (forgot her name, but she is a very famous critic of Globalization. An Indian lady in her 40s) at one of the symposiums on Globalization at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997, and I wasn't very impressed by her arguments. I asked her, which culture has so far remain unchanged and she had no answer! So, this argument that Globalziation leads to destruction of local cultures too, can be refuted. 8. Globalization and Nepal: We have to make favorable policies for both the nation and the multinationals to operate in Nepal. That way, only our economy benifits. If we shut our doors to the western companies, then its not a big deal for them. They can go to Malawi and operate. Its us, who will be at the loosing end. Of course, a lot of planning is needed. Haphardly planned, ad-hoc policies will benifit the companies, not the nation as in the former USSR. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 04:21 AM
haphazardly planned hunuparne last para ma.. anyatha bhayecha |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 04:32 AM
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established a WTO desk to look after all things related to Nepal's entry into the WTO. Also, last year, the Institute of Foreign Affairs released a report on Nepal's economic diplomacy. Te brain behind this team was Prof. Sridhar Khartri, with whom I had the priviledge of working for almost 8 months. The convenor of that Economic Diplomacy Team was Dr. Badri Prasad Shrestha, who is now our Minister of Finance, other team members included , Mr. Prabhakar Shumser Rana, Gyanchandra Acharya, Shankar Sharma etc. ]. Based on that report, the Ministry has now established a desk at the MoFA, which aims at helping nepali busineses and also works alongside the WTO desk to help in formulating economic policies to make it easier for us to enter the WTO. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 04:35 AM
Economic Diplomacy Team was Dr. Badri Prasad Shrestha, who is now our Minister of Finance, other team members included , Mr. Prabhakar Shumser Rana, Gyanchandra Acharya, Shankar Sharma etc. ]. read it as: Economic Diplomacy Team was Dr. Badri Prasad Shrestha, who is now our Minister of Finance. Other team members included Mr. Prabhakar Shumser Rana, Gyanchandra Acharya, Shankar Sharma etc. ]. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 12:32 PM
My two cents worth: http://www.geocities.com/bhagat266/a/globalsouthglobaltrade.html |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 14-Apr-03 01:54 PM
I don't think using history as an argument in support of globalozation will get us anywhere. There is a difference between export/import with restrictions and FREE TRADE. I don;t think the ones that criticize globalization ever say we all should use just products manufactured in out own country. From what i've observed, when foreign companies are allowed to invest in third world countries (implying the labor is really really cheap), they have the might to change the course of the country's advancement. If they're making profits, they'll keep investing and hire more people, which, obviously is beneficial to the country and it's people. Trouble arises when they do not get "enough" profits and the minute profits drop, they'll lay off all the workers, shut down the industires and take off. NO one can vouch for the companies always making profits. If capital is in hands of "one of our own", the decision to invest will not completely be based on profits. If the government owns a company, it will not shut it down just because the stocks went down by 1 point. Foreign investors won't care about the unemployment rate of the country. I, for one, wouldn't be ready to give a bunch of white billionaire's so much control of the country and its people. Another thing. People talk abuot how our existing companies can take part in the global scence if we're under free trade. I've argued this in sebsonline too. Say our Ram and Shyam Garment co. sells kattus in America. If and when it starts getting big and starts to think about "competing" with other big names, GAP will start a multi-million dollar campaign for promotion of its stuff. Lets go as far to say Ram and Shyam produce better quality garments, but does it even matter? Do people buy products based on that? I mean, we all wish it were like that but we all know the effect of advertisement and the impact of "brand name" I think globalization simply rips poor countries off. Pay a nepali worker 25 cents an hour and sell the t-shirt he makes for $10. when the labor gets skilled and the labor supply goes down and cost of labor goes up, shut down the factory, leaving thousands jobless and find another country that has hungry people willing to work 60 hrs a week at 15 cents an hour. Globalization sounds really awesome but I think its awesomeness is limited to its sounds. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 15-Apr-03 12:43 AM
Well isolated freak jyu, I am not much impressed by giving the hint of silk route and all that.You can also see the barter system in that time but cannot compare to the blobalisation.You can also see the various method of trade in middle east and the europe that time,which has developed and had bad effect by the various wars. Let's go for the simplest of the sipmle example,how the british lever ltd. affects hindustan lever ltd. and how the the HLL affects the nepal lever limited.The NLL going to india and HLL profits going to BLL.You can see same to P&G.HOnda japan ltd. sucking the hero honda ltd.Yes, there is certein limit of profit to the people and the country but all that labour and huge capital going to the foreign country is unbearable. For other example if there was no colgate in nepal BRIGHTER TOOTHPASTE woud have done better and atleast huge profit of c\apital remaining in nepal.Yes the fragile economy of nepal has more to learn,more to see.But how on earth the the second country do get benifit. The budget deficit is one of the main happening opening door to the foreign companies.The chinese has the different economic policies after the 80's.They have many reason to satisfy with the business imperial like SONY and COCA COLA.As you said if there was no coca cola in nepal the indian co would quinch our thirst.What would have been if there would other co. generate and really make the govt. need for it and could have been some sort of industrial move. I believe necessasity brings the things on earth.Like indian has had the policies between1950-90.There was okay for nepal when they(puppets) close the doors for the foreigner for more than 100 years. You can see the mexico which is still poor after the NAFTA while US and canada are in their way up.This prove the failur of the globalisation. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 15-Apr-03 02:19 AM
NEPALNEWS :Private company to deliver telecom services The United Telecom Limited, a private company has been given permission to provide basic telephone services in Kathmandu valley within a month, Nepal Samacharpatra reported. The Mahanagar Telecom Limited, an undertaking of the Indian government, the Bidesh Sanchar Nigam Limited and Telecom Consultant India Limited are jointly working with the Nepal Venture Limited to render telephone services under the WLL system. The company aims to deliver telecom services in the Kathmandu valley by establishing a switching equipment having the capacity of distributing one hundred thousand lines. The United Telecom Limited has been formed through the collective partnership among the three Indian companies and one Nepali company. The Mahanagar Telecom Limited holds the largest share equivalent to 26.68 percent. nepalnews.com am Apr 15 ************************** what would you call this..? obviously not globalisation but one can say the transfer of economy.Think about the HAJAM in nepal you can hardly see the nepalese there.This could be more than globalisation taking most of the money to india. likewise kulli,ghar banaune mistri,made in the new road.If we have more open economic policy it will be profitable to indians rather than nepalese,deficit will ever remain. Poor economic infrastructure is all to blame.administrive bosses are rather busy in sending son/daughter in america/pajero and all their basic needs.The spreading of rumours about economic policy and entering WTO has lots of bu******ts. It will bring no good rather than worse.which can be seen 15-20 years later or so. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 15-Apr-03 02:08 PM
I just wanted to comment on the issue of culture that isolated freak raised. You pointed out that no culture can survive forever and it's an everchanging process. There can be no disaggrement on your statement because yes, it is a fact. That, however, does not mean that we cannot put efforts to protect culture. The question you said you asked - "I asked her, which culture has so far remain unchanged and she had no answer!" can only be asnwered with none but this does not justify destruction of cuture in the name of "globalization". Here's an analogy. You discover an iron mine in one of the hills in a tropical area. Turns out the forest that grows on the hill has a very rare variety of herb and it also is home to some rare animals. You'd say clear up the forest and go for iron ore. If someone points out that we are going to lose the rare herbs and animals, you'll probably ask "which animal can prevail forever?". the answer is none but that does not justify forceful destruction of a living thing. I hope you get my point. Rajunpl, you did a great job pointing out the state of mexico. Great observation. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 15-Apr-03 10:45 PM
hmm interestinmg points. will try to write something in reply tonight. (need some time to think) a freak. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 16-Apr-03 04:04 AM
Enjoy your break hajur,always keen to see your evereducated points -SS(/.npl) |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 20-Apr-03 12:13 PM
hmmm... waiting for the freak's "tonight".... |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 20-Apr-03 12:27 PM
tonight's the night.. will be on this definately tomorrow hai.. enjoy tuborg.. whereever you are. (ain't globalization good?) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 02:03 AM
OK, I am at it, finally. Thanks for the reminder, Raju and maximum20. Maximum argues that historical examples have very little, if not any relevance to what we are discussing. I beg to differ. But, before I carry on, let me make one thing clear: I have no economics background whatsoever, however, having learned about the international systems at a community college, I am more tilted to analyze Globalizattion vis-à-vis history and Political Science/International Relations theories. [Free] Trade was a part of any international system. I just scanned some maps from my old text book so that it will be much easier for me to explain what I am trying to say/prove. . I am not that of a good writer, so this map will, more or less, explain things. Map:1. Now, thats way too historical, without any significance nor relevance to the modern world, some might argue. And to this, my answer will be: NO. Because, trading then too was an economic process and represented Globalization. According to Buzzan and Little (2000) Trading created a kind of economic international system that far outdistanced any political one. Not only was the trading system much larger than even the biggest empire, it outreached the spheres of military-political relations altogether. So, much similar to what we have todayan international economic system than transcends borders and systems . If we go by the Structural approach, then, the Globalization, in its fully developed system had developed way before the word international was coined in the 1780s. The map posted tells you the trade routes. The trading that went on in the historical period. Also, the invasion of big multi-national companies is too nothing new. Just as todays Sony and Toyata conduct businesses all over, The Perruzi Company, as early as 1300s was conducting businesses from London to Constantinople. Map 2. The FREE TRADE concept and marketization, is nothing new. The process that we are experiencing today due to the various conventions on Trade and the establishment of the WTO, can be traced back to the British Corn laws of 1846,which lowered the cost of food by removing tariffs on imports, thereby exposing the British agriculture to competitions from abroad. When the process of theorizing events to understand the world and scholars came up with the Political Science, Political Economy, IR and International Systems theories, the scholars who belonged to the Liberal school argued vigorously and rigorously for Britain to adopt to the Free Market and Global Trading. When Britain adapted Liberalism in its economic policy, the other countries followed the suite. Aaru pachi lekhchu.,. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 02:08 AM
hetreika image nai upload bhayena.. i will seek san's help in posting the maps. also, maximum, i will get back to you on culture soon. But in the mean time, if you have time, please read these two books: 1. International Systems in World History (OUP: 2000) 2. The Globalziation of World Politics (OUP: 2001) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:06 PM
OK: Thanks to San, the images are now uploaded on Sajha. Here's my earlier post with images and some "editing" Maximum argues that historical examples have very little, if not any relevance to what we are discussing. I beg to differ. But, before I carry on, let me make one thing clear: I have no economics background whatsoever, however, having learned about the international systems at a community college, I am more tilted to analyze Globalizattion vis-à-vis history and Political Science/International Relations theories. [Free] Trade was a part of any international system. I just scanned some maps from my old text book so that it will be much easier for me to explain what I am trying to say/prove. . I am not that of a good writer, so this map will, more or less, explain things. http://www.sajha.com/uploads/Photo0029111.jpg The map shows the ancient trade routes. You can see that trade somehow connected the whole world. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:08 PM
|
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:12 PM
Hettreika, hudai bhayena.. anwyay, moving on to the next paragraph. Also, the invasion of big multi-national companies is too nothing new. Just as today's Sony and Toyata conduct businesses all over, The Perruzi Company, as early as 1300s was conducting businesses from London to Constantinople.  The FREE TRADE concept and marketization, is nothing new. The process that we are experiencing today due to the various conventions on Trade and the establishment of the WTO, can be traced back to the British Corn laws of 1846,which lowered the cost of food by removing tariffs on imports, "thereby exposing the British agriculture to competitions from abroad." When the process of theorizing events to understand the world started, scholars came up with the Political Science, Political Economy, IR and International Systems theories. The scholars who belonged to the Liberal school argued vigorously and rigorously for Britain to adopt to the Free Market and Global Trading. When Britain adapted Liberalism in its economic policy, the other countries followed the suite. So Globalization and Free Trade somehow helps in promoting liberalism and somehow helps in peace. Aaru pachi lekhchu.,. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:13 PM
Hettreika, hudai bhayena.. anwyay, moving on to the next paragraph. Also, the invasion of big multi-national companies is too nothing new. Just as today's Sony and Toyata conduct businesses all over, The Perruzi Company, as early as 1300s was conducting businesses from London to Constantinople. The FREE TRADE concept and marketization, is nothing new. The process that we are experiencing today due to the various conventions on Trade and the establishment of the WTO, can be traced back to the British Corn laws of 1846,which lowered the cost of food by removing tariffs on imports, "thereby exposing the British agriculture to competitions from abroad." When the process of theorizing events to understand the world started, scholars came up with the Political Science, Political Economy, IR and International Systems theories. The scholars who belonged to the Liberal school argued vigorously and rigorously for Britain to adopt to the Free Market and Global Trading. When Britain adapted Liberalism in its economic policy, the other countries followed the suite. So Globalization and Free Trade somehow helps in promoting liberalism and somehow helps in lasting world peace. Aaru pachi lekhchu.,. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:15 PM
The dots you see on the map that's posted above reprsents the cities in which The italian business had offices. let's see if I can post the first map ths time: |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:18 PM
hetterika.. Hudai hundaina.. San jyu, feel free to delete the repetations to save some space. OK last try:  |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 21-Apr-03 10:22 PM
look at that map. The trading then wasn't any difefrent than today's WTO network and globalization. With this liberakl attitude in trading came a liberal attitude in thinking. people became more liberal and tolerant of other ideas.. Yes, the debate on sovereignty and political independence due to heightened globalization still continues, but we have to go with the flow. Nation states aren't that important in this inter-connected world. |
| rajunpl | Posted
on 22-Apr-03 12:04 AM
Well I think it's not clever to compare the then british model of trade and now what we call the globalisation. Well, SONY,AMEX,COKE and all the rest business imperialist suck the nation's labour economy rather than providing.It's always been example,like you can see in any other third world countries.In argentina they are long suffering because of the imbalance of the international market. One good example is east india company,which can be rather said as a global looting rather than the global market.The feudal british international policies,this was the same happening period as isolated freak jyu mentioned above. If nepal would have to take advantage of the globalisation, they should have the economoic reform. Otherwise in the same situation they could do nothing more than the worse. |
| sajan | Posted
on 22-Apr-03 02:39 AM
Dear all concerned, Its obvious that I have really missed matrix of disputes based on superficial nature in my absence in Sajha for couple of weeks. Of course it was not an advertent either. Indeed, neither I have the deepened knowledge on Globalisation nor the political. However, I always pop up over the disputes generated by Isolated Freak and Rajunpl jyu. Not to mention that, this is the dispute really based on Globalisation. I have read the aspects of it spoken by all concerned. These are really pragmatic issues. What I think is Globalisation always become an eminent element for the nations economy. This is the good and important strategy but it has to have a good implementation too. Political turmoil has been always seen as an enormous impediment for nations breakthrough. The elimination of such major impediments is dire necessity first to sketch strategies of all sorts which may be fruitful to nation. Thanks and regards, SAJAN |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 22-Apr-03 04:57 PM
the last time I didn't respond to your arguments for globalization based on history is because I think the context is totally different. The mere fact that this has happened in the past does not justify it's existence in the present. Hitler committed a genocide in the past. Six million Jews were killed and th state supported it. What does that mean? We should shut up if another dictator attempts to erase a race? My point, to try to justofy any issue by pointing out that it has happened in the past is not what a person with clear conscience should do. I did some more work on my own and am convinced that Nepal is NOT going to better from globalization. I mean, come on, when has free trade ever bettered a poor nation? I don't want to see nepali's working their ass off so that some white guy who runs a corporate giant can buy a billion dollar mansion. I don't want Nepal to be another Argentina where after the Capitalists pull out, the government goes broke and freezes the bank accounts of it's own citizens and thousands of citizens take it to the street to get killed/hurt by the same country's police's bullets. I very sincerely wish something be done about this. I hoped we could make our voice heard and help stop our severly impoverished nation to be a money-making tool for billionaires. That was my main aim behind making this posting at sajha. As always, i'm open to any arguments on the contrary. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 10-May-03 09:56 AM
wanted to pull this topic out of the forgotten wastes of this site. I'm under the impression that some of you had more to say on this matter. waiting... |
| le chef du nuit | Posted
on 11-May-03 06:49 PM
alright im a math geek and my only exposure to any economics was during my o-levels, and that was many many ears ago. so i may be asking questions that sound stupid if so, apologies if not, would someone please explain? a) what does 'globalization' actually entail? complete opening up of any economy to foreign investors? i was under the impression that you could already do that in nepal.. witness coke, pepsi etc b) i believe that india until the recent past was a closed economy. i was under the impression that since opening their market to foreign companies, its economy has been given a boost. my indian friends always talk about the tremendous growth in infrastructure in the past however many years, growing affluence in the middle class etc.. IF this is true (and only if) why do people only point out to argentina and russia and the suchlike, where the policy failed. why not about india? c) this questions bound to annoy some people: if improvement in economic conditions comes at the price of loss of cultural identity, why cant we change? after all, we know what biology has to say about survival of the fittest. d) max20, forgive me, but your analogy w/hitler is totally absurd. these ancient trade routes brought prosperity, not genocide. like you said, justification on the basis of historical evidence may not be a good thing, but IF something worked for you in the past, arent you encouraged to give it another shot? let me also make a similarly absurd analogy.. suppose your flashlight goes off. in the past, if you thumped it a couple of times, it would light back up. wouldnt you thump it again? |
| Madhav | Posted
on 11-May-03 08:13 PM
Isolated Freak Ji, Very in-depth perspectives from your side on globalizations. But I dont agree on your point "Nation states aren't that important in this inter-connected world". I have rather different tenets in this regard. No doubt that the globalization has transgressed the national boundaries and nations are not the sole determinants in the issue of their national interests. They have to pursue their political, and economical interests flowing along with the wave of globalization. Still, the relevance of national sovereignty exists. Nation can decide what to allow within their boundary, and which economic policy they should work out etc. Let's talk about the United States. It is the country that established the institutions like UNCTAD, IMF, WB and recently WTO in order to shape global political environment and flourish the theory of economic independence. To gain economic prosperity and assume economic leadership in the world, US pursed immigration policy in the 1970s that was focused to drain skilled labor from other countries. US became successful in its policy. Now it has different immigration policy and working on to stag flow of immigrants. Therefore, state is important. Globalization is a process, not an elimination of national sovereignty. Therefore, Nepal should try to see what is good for the national interest despite the tide and wave of globalization. |
| ashu | Posted
on 11-May-03 08:49 PM
>>Therefore, Nepal should try to see what is good for the national interest despite the tide and wave of globalization>>> And that national interest is -- as demonstrated by amazingly long lines outside the overseas recruiting agencies just last week or 35,000 applicants for 800 blue-collar jobs in South Korea -- to send Nepalis away to the global labor marketplace from Nepal. oohi "thank God for globalization" ashu ktm,nepal |
| le chef du nuit | Posted
on 11-May-03 08:56 PM
ashu's post prompts another question from this economically uninitiated e) if our labor is lined up in droves for blue-collar jobs elsewhere, whats wrong in opening up our economy so that these blue collar jobs come home? surely the money saved in airfare would in itself be a posetive impact on the economy? :) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 11-May-03 09:14 PM
Madhav, I didn't get any training on Economics, so my analysis of Globalization is based on International Systems theory. As far as I am concerned, Gloibalziation is a result of liberal foreign polices of many nations. And the liberal theorists of International Relations argue that, international organizations and multi-nationals are major players in today's world affairs. Nation states will continue to be there but to survive they have to open up. Not a single country will wsurvive in isolation. However, I agree with you that the nation states will/should come up with the polcies that maximize their national interests. The US has the ability to control the world -economy because the US Dollar is the most widely used currency world wide. Its the sheer brilliant-ness of the US Economic Policy makers that they could "internalize the international economy" and "internationalize the internal economy" and the US is one of the core states, if we go by Immanuel Wallerstien's World System Theory (WST). You are right when you say, that nations have the rights to limit the movement/investment of foreign companies/organziations. Yes, gioing by the International law, its possible. However, going by the practice, it is not. Blocking one multi nationa;'s entry to Nepal means blocking other perspective investors. I am talking about big companies, not Mama Chau-Chau types. I don't quite agree with you when you say that nations can chose the economic system they want to pursue. Everything depends on what's hapopening in the broader framwework. Even China opened up! India has opened up and this trend of opening up tells us that the world is moving towards a Uniform Capitalist system. Whether its good or bad, that still remains debatable. But, the trend is more on Capitalism than on any other system such as Socialist of Mixed economies. |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 17-Jun-03 09:07 PM
been caught up for quite some time so i apologize for not responding on time. Someone said the presence of Coke and Pepsi made them think we were open to free trade already. The names "cocacola" and "pepsi" might be owned by american companies but the manufacturers in nepal are nepali companies. when we say free trade and being a member of WTO, we just give too much freedom to foriegn investors. I cannot draw the complete picture of the effects of such unrestricted power to money-minded companies mainly because it's a very elaborate task and partly because i expect visitors of this site to be smart enough to figure things out by themselves. I wonder how many of you have watched "Roger and Me" by Michael Moore. It shows how money minded companies can destory the whole city in a matter of a few weeks. And the movie talks about the situation in Flint, Michigan and we are talking about a poor county like Nepal. My analogy to hitler was just to show that just because anything occured in the past, it is not justified. Free Trade has had devastating effects in countries like Russia, Mexico, Argentina etc and if we learn anything from that, it should be that poor countries like Nepal will always be exploited for the cheap labor we have. the money-minded investors can make all sorts of promises to lure us but they're not obliged to keep any because... well, they are money-minded. If nepal's labor supply drops and thus wages rate hint on going up, no one can stop the investors from closing down all the industries, leaving thousands unemployed overnight. I would like to hear from people who think embracing free trade and signing in for WTO will actually help a poor country like nepal. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 17-Jun-03 09:25 PM
maximum 20, The russian example isn't quite fitting because the USSR spend a significant chuck of its economy on defense and defesne related expenses such as army mobilization and such in Siberia, along its borders with China and that was creatinga burden on its economy and that's why the USSR disintegrated in 1990. When it broke up, it had no money whatsoever to start an economic system with.. so, they got american companines and all that to fiel the economy.. however, in the absence of money and good policies, they just couldn't yield much success, and you are right. It had a devastating effect in Russia, an example that some critics of Globalization use to prove their point.. but, loo at the other side, i.e, China and India. What do you say about the immense economing oppurtunities brought forth by the opening up in these two countries? namaste Thanks for bringing this thread back..maile ta birsi sakeko thyo.. There's still one important issue, i.e, culture(mono vs. plural) to be discused. :-) |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 17-Jun-03 09:35 PM
You outlined history. Your depiction is accurate but do take a look at your timeline again. after breaking apart, russia is short in dough so american investors step in (with huge smiles and big promises, mind you!) and then after sometimes, behold! the country is in a much worse condition. let me quote what you said. >>When it broke up, it had no money whatsoever to start an economic system with..." this is when americans came in... >>they got american companines and all that to fiel the economy so now they have the money, they should have prospered >>>in the absence of money and good policies, they just couldn't yield much success You see the trend here? there's one word to summarize it all EXPLOITATION China and india's cases are different. both nations are in lot better shape than the then russia or the present Nepal. Even if american investors decide to back off, china and india have the ability to take care of themselves. I'm not denying the fact that labor exploitation is rampant in both of these nations but the effect will not be as damaging. india and china were (are) both very self sufficient nations. Nepal has a totally different story so i think to predict the effect of free trade in nepal, we have to scour the history of countries as poor and as helpless as nepal. I think you'll agree that India and CHina do not fit this category |
| maximum20 | Posted
on 17-Jun-03 10:10 PM
Here's an article that might answer some of the questions - http://www.plusmedium.com/GEORGE/a02.asp |