He goes to several foreign counties. He even goes to a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam and dispels several myths on the topic. If you want to see human potential and real human progress in action, watch this documentary!
Completely unrelated: Google Videos is shutting down around May 13th, so if there are particular videos you would like to keep, you should either find or upload them on Youtube.
SpiderMonkeyOhYesCompletely unrelated: Google Videos is shutting down around May 13th, so if there are particular videos you would like to keep, you should either find or upload them on Youtube.
Not completely unrelated. Thank you very much. SB for you.
I watched the first 5 minutes and it seems to be pretty retarded. He says "Sweden embraced globalization, and look at how wealthy we are today". WTF! Yes the U.S. has also embraced globalization and companies are outsourcing labor to India and China, look at how that's working out for the American worker. In the medium term, Globalization will always cause some people to be better off, and others to be worse off.
This video ignores any type of serious economic analysis. After Sweden he cites Taiwan. But he doesn't mention that Taiwan received billions of $ in aid from the U.S. to develop their economy, and look at how tiny of a nation it is.
Wall Street leaders now understand that they made a mistake, one born of their innocent and trusting nature. They trusted ordinary Americans to behave more responsibly than they themselves ever would, and these ordinary Americans betrayed their trust.
Beef In the medium term, Globalization will always cause some people to be better off, and others to be worse off.
So you're against globalization?
I'm not against globalization in general. I am against globalization happening at the speed and scale at which it happens today.
Globalization within North America, for example, is generally a good thing (NAFTA). Same for Latin America with MERCOSUR and the Eurozone. But it is happening too quickly now.
I think it was Jorgé posted a video about this a while back. Sir James Goldsmith explains why globalization on such a massive scale is a bad thing.
Wall Street leaders now understand that they made a mistake, one born of their innocent and trusting nature. They trusted ordinary Americans to behave more responsibly than they themselves ever would, and these ordinary Americans betrayed their trust.
I remember my first econ prof showing this video when I was a freshman.
BeefI watched the first 5 minutes and it seems to be pretty retarded. He says "Sweden embraced globalization, and look at how wealthy we are today". WTF! Yes the U.S. has also embraced globalization and companies are outsourcing labor to India and China, look at how that's working out for the American worker. In the medium term, Globalization will always cause some people to be better off, and others to be worse off.
This video ignores any type of serious economic analysis. After Sweden he cites Taiwan. But he doesn't mention that Taiwan received billions of $ in aid from the U.S. to develop their economy, and look at how tiny of a nation it is.
1) Sweden is better off. From the 1970's-80's Sweden restricted free trade and increased unnecessary regulation, GDP and real wages slowed in growth relative to other countries. In the 90's they liberalized the economy and reduced top marginal tax rates - increasing economic wealth.
2) If you think losing low-end manufacturing jobs is catastrophic for a country, you don't know capitalism works.
3)True but Chile, Estonia, Singapore, Panama, and Malaysia all developed their economy and propelled them out of the either the third world or communism without American Aid.
Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol
BeefThis video ignores any type of serious economic analysis. After Sweden he cites Taiwan. But he doesn't mention that Taiwan received billions of $ in aid from the U.S. to develop their economy, and look at how tiny of a nation it is.
Except that it's completely consistent with economic analysis...
Anyway, I didn't come here to debate - I just wanted to post the video and let others watch it.
Aren't countries like Sweden, Estonia, etc. supposed to be the natural benefactors of Globalization? Its the countries lacking in natural resources or human capital trading with countries such as those listed above where globalization is best suited. Countries who willing to purchase finished goods or services from such countries, but also maintain the ability to produce it themselves at a competitive cost do not really gain anything from a globalization. They do however benefit from a global economy, but only b/c they lack the competitive advantage another country possesses. The security is they maintain the capacity to produce on their own, what they trade for in a global economy which keeps prices in check. The examples are an isolated few, but the U.S and China are two that immediately come to mind and happen to represent the world's two largest economies.
A global economy exists and as it benefits a country to participate and as long as they have something to offer there will always be a willing buyer. Globalization is good for countries who cannot self sustain and maintain competitive growth without foreign resources. Service economies more specifically. The EU is a good example. For the U.S. and others... that's a tough sell, but as long as there is a foreign service or good at a cheaper price there will be a global economy. However, there will always then the matter of politics and likewise there will always be countries like those in Africa. Unless warlords are stricken with a sudden attack of conscience.
ragnar danneskjöldAren't countries like Sweden, Estonia, etc. supposed to be the natural benefactors of Globalization? Its the countries lacking in natural resources or human capitaltrading with countries such as those listed above where globalization is best suited.
Globalization is good for countries who cannot self sustain and maintain competitive growth without foreign resources. Service economies more specifically.
What about comparative advance, the fact that trades don't occur unless both parties are made better off, etc.?
Odio reprehenderit iusto aut rerum quo doloremque. Possimus aut aut rem sit provident ipsum. Non consequatur hic ab deserunt consequatur ut.
Et quo doloremque et et ex animi et. Quo voluptatibus est maxime id voluptatem voluptatem. Sed architecto consectetur assumenda. Suscipit totam voluptatem maxime et nemo voluptas.
Debitis molestiae officia aliquid non omnis aut deserunt. Ab blanditiis dolorem corrupti ut et recusandae est. Cupiditate vel repellat aut quo accusantium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
Sorry, you need to login or sign up in order to vote. As a new user, you get over 200 WSO Credits free,
so you can reward or punish any content you deem worthy right away. See you on the other side!
He goes to several foreign counties. He even goes to a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam and dispels several myths on the topic. If you want to see human potential and real human progress in action, watch this documentary!
...and human suffering, when he goes to Kenya... (even though you still see a lot of human potential)
Completely unrelated: Google Videos is shutting down around May 13th, so if there are particular videos you would like to keep, you should either find or upload them on Youtube.
Not completely unrelated. Thank you very much. SB for you.
Here's other links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAyx07MVa9g&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja8R64yOteE&feature=relatednice video...pretty interesting to see the potential of some of these countries. african ETFs ftw?
I watched the first 5 minutes and it seems to be pretty retarded. He says "Sweden embraced globalization, and look at how wealthy we are today". WTF! Yes the U.S. has also embraced globalization and companies are outsourcing labor to India and China, look at how that's working out for the American worker. In the medium term, Globalization will always cause some people to be better off, and others to be worse off.
This video ignores any type of serious economic analysis. After Sweden he cites Taiwan. But he doesn't mention that Taiwan received billions of $ in aid from the U.S. to develop their economy, and look at how tiny of a nation it is.
So you're against globalization?
I'm not against globalization in general. I am against globalization happening at the speed and scale at which it happens today.
Globalization within North America, for example, is generally a good thing (NAFTA). Same for Latin America with MERCOSUR and the Eurozone. But it is happening too quickly now.
I think it was Jorgé posted a video about this a while back. Sir James Goldsmith explains why globalization on such a massive scale is a bad thing.
I remember my first econ prof showing this video when I was a freshman.
1) Sweden is better off. From the 1970's-80's Sweden restricted free trade and increased unnecessary regulation, GDP and real wages slowed in growth relative to other countries. In the 90's they liberalized the economy and reduced top marginal tax rates - increasing economic wealth. 2) If you think losing low-end manufacturing jobs is catastrophic for a country, you don't know capitalism works. 3)True but Chile, Estonia, Singapore, Panama, and Malaysia all developed their economy and propelled them out of the either the third world or communism without American Aid.Except that it's completely consistent with economic analysis...
Anyway, I didn't come here to debate - I just wanted to post the video and let others watch it.
Are you European?
Aren't countries like Sweden, Estonia, etc. supposed to be the natural benefactors of Globalization? Its the countries lacking in natural resources or human capital trading with countries such as those listed above where globalization is best suited. Countries who willing to purchase finished goods or services from such countries, but also maintain the ability to produce it themselves at a competitive cost do not really gain anything from a globalization. They do however benefit from a global economy, but only b/c they lack the competitive advantage another country possesses. The security is they maintain the capacity to produce on their own, what they trade for in a global economy which keeps prices in check. The examples are an isolated few, but the U.S and China are two that immediately come to mind and happen to represent the world's two largest economies.
A global economy exists and as it benefits a country to participate and as long as they have something to offer there will always be a willing buyer. Globalization is good for countries who cannot self sustain and maintain competitive growth without foreign resources. Service economies more specifically. The EU is a good example. For the U.S. and others... that's a tough sell, but as long as there is a foreign service or good at a cheaper price there will be a global economy. However, there will always then the matter of politics and likewise there will always be countries like those in Africa. Unless warlords are stricken with a sudden attack of conscience.
What about comparative advance, the fact that trades don't occur unless both parties are made better off, etc.?
Odio reprehenderit iusto aut rerum quo doloremque. Possimus aut aut rem sit provident ipsum. Non consequatur hic ab deserunt consequatur ut.
Et quo doloremque et et ex animi et. Quo voluptatibus est maxime id voluptatem voluptatem. Sed architecto consectetur assumenda. Suscipit totam voluptatem maxime et nemo voluptas.
Debitis molestiae officia aliquid non omnis aut deserunt. Ab blanditiis dolorem corrupti ut et recusandae est. Cupiditate vel repellat aut quo accusantium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...