Everywhere we go, whatever we do and whichever circumstance we are in, there is conflict. In this world of chaos, love, despair, faith and the like, conflict can never be avoided. When we were young, most of the time, we encounter conflicts because this boy or girl stole our food, kicked our bag and won't play with us. As we grow up, we experience different kinds of conflict. At times, conflict even leads to violence and other messy instances.
Conflict is never good- for it sets apart the people having misunderstandings. It is the one responsible in dividing people apart. We did not know better when we were at a young age. We fight back, say harsh words and do nasty things just to get back at people. In short, we don't think. We just do what we feel like doing. We just do what our instincts tell us. Most of the time, what we do without thinking leads to conflict due to the emotions present during that specific time.
Bleiker (2009) states that how to address a conflict is not easy at all. There are ways wherein conflict is avoided and one of these is confrontation. Confrontation is basically the talk or an act that occurs when a party directly communicates with the other party and they arrive at a solution. Some confrontations lead to a negative event but some turns out well. Another approach is the engagement approach where at times, the negotiation process is said to be "soft". Most of the time, engagement and dialogue offer good alternatives and options for confrontation but if this approach is used, some bigger and larger issues are not addressed. Here comes the concept of antagonism- hostility that leads to active resistance and opposition (Bleiker, 2009).
Conflict is something that does not only occur within our community but it also extends to the borders of our country. Most of the conflicts that we experience involves state against state that fight over something huge. Bleiker (2009) posits that moving beyond conflict requires negotiation and complete understanding between parties. This compromise must be geared towards justice and peace. The ability to forgive must be present since conflict cannot cease without forgiveness. It is important that we learn how to forgive and forget in order to move on completely. Friedrich Nietzche mentions that we have to "break with the past in order to live".
What forgiving is, is not about forget what happened either. It's more of knowing what happened, learning from it and understanding the causes of this conflict. We do not forget easily and we do not forgive immediately, but in time, it is necessary for each and everyone of us to learn to let go. Grudges will not get us anywhere. An example of having conflicts is North Korea. It experienced a whole lot and politics in Korea displays signs of what Nietzche proclaims (Bleiker, 2009).
Bleiker (2009) states that conflicts arise from historical circumstances. The roots are and will always be engraved with every party. Understanding and dealing with these conflicts is what actually mater because it is up to us alone to create a peaceful environment. There are several approaches to end a conflict- dialogue, negotiation, compromise, engagement, confrontation, etc, but all of these things are relative. Meaning, it still depends on every individual or state.
In political situations, threat and suspicion will never be eliminated. There is mistrust and complete negative emotions involved, which leads to conflict (Bleiker, 2009). What's wrong with this is the assumed thought involved in these instances. Reconciliation is a vital term when it comes to conflict because it reconnects and improves relationships between and among people.
This question is hard to answer since it differs for every entity and individual. However, I agree with Mr. Nietzche when he said that it is important to put the past behind and present on whats left of our lives. We will never achieve a peaceful and harmonious environment if we ourselves do not know how to move on and let go. Acceptance is a key issue. What happened in the past, what harm it may have done to us, shall all be forgotten. The community must move towards a good positive direction, to develop peace and justice.
Elimination of conflict is a road to a successful globalization. Especially now that countries are open to one another and their are several activities that link all the various markets, conflict should be put aside. Individuals must focus on building a healthy future, as one, to be able to establish string relations that may benefit all economies.
Source:
Bleiker, R. (2009). Can we move beyond conflict?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What makes the world dangerous?
The world is becoming more and more dangerous nowadays. With the emergence of several unexpected occurrences. Some people are afraid of political issues (especially now that there's an upcoming elections this May). Some are afraid of economic problems such as GDP indicators, inflation and unemployment. Some are terrified of the natural disasters and calamities which have proved their power to us through several ways (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc). In all aspects, danger cannot be avoided and the coming of these problems are beyond our reach.
As human beings, we continue to search for more- more information, more details and more preparation for what is to come. Due to this search for knowledge about certain events and things, we discover more and realize how dangerous the world is. Every second we breathe, we try to avoid the dangers of life- chaos, famine, instability- this is exactly why we strive to become better persons in every aspect we know.
Dillon (2009) states that the things that are never ending is not fixed. For him, these changes are constantly evolving into something else. Out leaders (military, political, economic, professors) always tells us to be prepared for the real world. This is perhaps why they teach us skills to be able to defend ourselves when we face life the hard way.
Out mentors constantly warns us that transformation is change are the only things that are constant in this world. At the same time, they themselves are frightened of this fact. As the world transforms, we ourselves evolve into more mature persons as well. Dillon (2009) posits that if we are being-in-formation, we become dangerous. He mentions that nobody can predict the future. In line with this, former President Roosevelt also said that we shall not fear anything but itself (Dillon, 2009).
The more we try to make sure, the more we force to foresee the future, and the more intend to secure ourselves, the more we endanger ourselves. Dillon (2009) says that "The very instruments and the very preoccupations which tell us what to fear and how to protect ourselves from danger often also threaten us". According to him, we are the ones who make the world dangerous by trying to escape from danger.
I do believe that by avoiding danger, we are prone to it more. There is a saying that goes "What you don't know won't hurt you". This statement is true- if you don't know anything and if you don't anticipate or expect the things to come, you won't even be wasting brain cells to research about it or be scared of it. Though I believe that knowing more is better, there are some things that shouldn't be known. An example of this is the "End of the world" or "Judgement day" rumor of the people. There was a movie shown that shows what it can do to our work like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "2010". I do not close my mind to the possibility of the event. I do believe that it may be possible, but I don't stress about it because I know whatever I do, this is unavoidable. This point of mine gives me a new realization- what makes the world dangerous is its people, for thinking too much about the possible dangers that may occur. Indeed, we endanger ourselves because we think too much about danger. My belief is that what matters is now, the present. Make the most out of everything. Accept and bounce back with whatever it is life will bring to you. Danger cannot be avoided but regret can. By living and seeing things clearly, we get to love life, love everything about it- the politics, the economy, all of it. After all, the world evolves constantly. What changes it is our perception of our own world.
Source:
Dillon, M. (2009). What makes the world dangerous?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
As human beings, we continue to search for more- more information, more details and more preparation for what is to come. Due to this search for knowledge about certain events and things, we discover more and realize how dangerous the world is. Every second we breathe, we try to avoid the dangers of life- chaos, famine, instability- this is exactly why we strive to become better persons in every aspect we know.
Dillon (2009) states that the things that are never ending is not fixed. For him, these changes are constantly evolving into something else. Out leaders (military, political, economic, professors) always tells us to be prepared for the real world. This is perhaps why they teach us skills to be able to defend ourselves when we face life the hard way.
Out mentors constantly warns us that transformation is change are the only things that are constant in this world. At the same time, they themselves are frightened of this fact. As the world transforms, we ourselves evolve into more mature persons as well. Dillon (2009) posits that if we are being-in-formation, we become dangerous. He mentions that nobody can predict the future. In line with this, former President Roosevelt also said that we shall not fear anything but itself (Dillon, 2009).
The more we try to make sure, the more we force to foresee the future, and the more intend to secure ourselves, the more we endanger ourselves. Dillon (2009) says that "The very instruments and the very preoccupations which tell us what to fear and how to protect ourselves from danger often also threaten us". According to him, we are the ones who make the world dangerous by trying to escape from danger.
I do believe that by avoiding danger, we are prone to it more. There is a saying that goes "What you don't know won't hurt you". This statement is true- if you don't know anything and if you don't anticipate or expect the things to come, you won't even be wasting brain cells to research about it or be scared of it. Though I believe that knowing more is better, there are some things that shouldn't be known. An example of this is the "End of the world" or "Judgement day" rumor of the people. There was a movie shown that shows what it can do to our work like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "2010". I do not close my mind to the possibility of the event. I do believe that it may be possible, but I don't stress about it because I know whatever I do, this is unavoidable. This point of mine gives me a new realization- what makes the world dangerous is its people, for thinking too much about the possible dangers that may occur. Indeed, we endanger ourselves because we think too much about danger. My belief is that what matters is now, the present. Make the most out of everything. Accept and bounce back with whatever it is life will bring to you. Danger cannot be avoided but regret can. By living and seeing things clearly, we get to love life, love everything about it- the politics, the economy, all of it. After all, the world evolves constantly. What changes it is our perception of our own world.
Source:
Dillon, M. (2009). What makes the world dangerous?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Why do some people think they know what is good for others?
It is a part of one’s life to expect to receive something in return for their actions. In our society, there is always someone who thinks that he knows better which is why he teaches those under to him to do some actions. An example of this is the care and support that our parents continually give us. We know that our parents want the best for us and though their intentions are good, we tend to break away from what they are asking us to do. They know best- but we occasionally disobey them because we think that they lack judgement and understanding with what we are going through. A huge part of us thinks that they give us advice based on their experiences which are old, making it incompatible with our present problem. We treat their advice as intrusions and that they do this to limit us from what we want to do. As a result, we have this thirst for independence and aims to defend our integrity (Inayatullah, 2009).
A bigger picture of the example I just stated is the way policy makers from rich countries feel compelled to teach others how to manage their resources and respective institutions. We have International agencies such as the World Bank, who guides all financial institutions per state for peace and order. It is in human nature to do good to others. This is exactly the trail of thought why we believe that providing what is best for others essential especially in human responsibility. However, why is it that when someone teaches us or shows us guidance, we think that we are guarded? And they’re just there because they want to become superior over us? Due to this negative effect, we stop ourselves from warning others. In that case, are we denying our full humanity since it is natural for people to do good in relation to those around him (Inayatullah, 2009)?
There are two contemporary interventions in history: one from Euston Manifesto and the other one from Robert Cooper. Euston Manifesto reformed the left. He believed that cultural variation means that some communities failed to learn about the modern life. These people reject what is good. Inayatullah (2009) mentions that the Manifesto writers did not care about the powerful and how they use ideals as masks to eliminate the powerless. They firmly believe that modernity and democracy that is free and liberal will benefit the people. Robert Cooper from the right, in the other hand presented arguments that jumpstart imperialism and colonialism. According to Cooper, postmodernity is the most advanced stage among the three civilizational stages. Postmodern, he said, is the full realization of modernity (Inayatullah, 2009).
Exclusive knowledge is the belief that we have superior knowledge. Inayatullah (2009) says that the need for superiority emerges from the doubt that maybe we are inferior to others. Superior or the act of knowing more as compared to others turns good intentions into charitable arrogance at times depending on how others see it. But what is the issue with superiority? Inayatullah (2009) posits that when we emphasize what is good for those around us, we only avoid in order to face the pain of our own lack. People give because they need to receive, because the people lack knowledge.
We are all donors and receivers. We are all victims of exclusive knowledge and the ultimate challenge is to change our way of thinking that those who “know more” and teach us wants to remain superior over us because it is possible that they only want to do good. The cycle of mutual incrimination must be transformed into a cycle of mutual enrichment (Inayatullah, 2009). This is what I think should be the case. People must always see the best in others because it is in human nature that individuals are good. This can be related to several key players in the role of globalization today. Governments, multination corporation, etc will always play an important role in relation to its own home country and for globalization to work, there should not be anyone superior and inferior. Exclusive knowledge cannot be eliminated but I believe that what we should change is our way of thinking itself to develop as one nation. In the light of globalization that is emerging nowadays, people must learn how to live in relation with one another. Accept, be open-minded and explore ideas. Knowledge is broad and no one entity knows everything. It is our role to guide those around us, to do good and to establish strong relations in the outbreak of globalization.
Source:
Inayatullah, N. (2009). How Why do some people think they know what is good for others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
A bigger picture of the example I just stated is the way policy makers from rich countries feel compelled to teach others how to manage their resources and respective institutions. We have International agencies such as the World Bank, who guides all financial institutions per state for peace and order. It is in human nature to do good to others. This is exactly the trail of thought why we believe that providing what is best for others essential especially in human responsibility. However, why is it that when someone teaches us or shows us guidance, we think that we are guarded? And they’re just there because they want to become superior over us? Due to this negative effect, we stop ourselves from warning others. In that case, are we denying our full humanity since it is natural for people to do good in relation to those around him (Inayatullah, 2009)?
There are two contemporary interventions in history: one from Euston Manifesto and the other one from Robert Cooper. Euston Manifesto reformed the left. He believed that cultural variation means that some communities failed to learn about the modern life. These people reject what is good. Inayatullah (2009) mentions that the Manifesto writers did not care about the powerful and how they use ideals as masks to eliminate the powerless. They firmly believe that modernity and democracy that is free and liberal will benefit the people. Robert Cooper from the right, in the other hand presented arguments that jumpstart imperialism and colonialism. According to Cooper, postmodernity is the most advanced stage among the three civilizational stages. Postmodern, he said, is the full realization of modernity (Inayatullah, 2009).
Exclusive knowledge is the belief that we have superior knowledge. Inayatullah (2009) says that the need for superiority emerges from the doubt that maybe we are inferior to others. Superior or the act of knowing more as compared to others turns good intentions into charitable arrogance at times depending on how others see it. But what is the issue with superiority? Inayatullah (2009) posits that when we emphasize what is good for those around us, we only avoid in order to face the pain of our own lack. People give because they need to receive, because the people lack knowledge.
We are all donors and receivers. We are all victims of exclusive knowledge and the ultimate challenge is to change our way of thinking that those who “know more” and teach us wants to remain superior over us because it is possible that they only want to do good. The cycle of mutual incrimination must be transformed into a cycle of mutual enrichment (Inayatullah, 2009). This is what I think should be the case. People must always see the best in others because it is in human nature that individuals are good. This can be related to several key players in the role of globalization today. Governments, multination corporation, etc will always play an important role in relation to its own home country and for globalization to work, there should not be anyone superior and inferior. Exclusive knowledge cannot be eliminated but I believe that what we should change is our way of thinking itself to develop as one nation. In the light of globalization that is emerging nowadays, people must learn how to live in relation with one another. Accept, be open-minded and explore ideas. Knowledge is broad and no one entity knows everything. It is our role to guide those around us, to do good and to establish strong relations in the outbreak of globalization.
Source:
Inayatullah, N. (2009). How Why do some people think they know what is good for others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Why is the people's movement restricted?
People always prefer if they move freely in everything that they do. They want space to themselves. They also want free time from time to time in order to enjoy what they want to do alone. Most of the time, people prefer if the people around them ignore what they are doing or what they want to do, because they don't want others to meddle with their own activities in life. You see, people enjoy their private and personal space.
Similarly, countries want their personal territories, personal space and own title to land and other assets. In our world today where globalization is emerging, space is becoming more and more neglected. People travel all over the world due to several reasons- work, travel, vacation- the point is, all the nation states open their territories for other people to go to. For these people to be able to travel from border to border, the government of every state also implement rules and regulations to promote peace and order.
The movement of the people is somewhat prohibited in a way that individuals find it hard to travel from place to place, from state to state. Due to several documents and requirements by the governing body for traveling abroad, people see this as a hassle and end up not fixing all the requirements in order to be able to go to places. What is violated here is a human's privacy, personal space and personal reasons. A people who just graduated from college may want to rest and take a vacation, but this act is restricted due to several barriers along the way such as visas for security and safety. The literal flow and movement of normal individuals are restricted because of safety and simple precautions for every state. A fresh grad who wants to go to New Zealand to visit his relatives is immediately blocked to apply for visa (not approved) because of the fear that he might be running away from the Philippines.
It is beneficial for everyone if all governments are like this. However, only the developed countries exercise this kind of strict security. Here in the Philippines, it's not really the case. When we look at the bigger picture though, it is good that this kind of security is implemented to bring order in one's country. Though some individuals are restricted, this does not mean that they can no longer be able to do what they want. It is just right that in our world today, regulations and strict supervisions are maintained in order to progress.
Globalization promotes the integration of different people, cultures, traditions and even products of corporations. Though there are also restrictions for these entities, it is just fair for the country's government to ask for documents, files, etc to make sure that the entry of these institutions and people will not bring chaos in their territory.
Similarly, countries want their personal territories, personal space and own title to land and other assets. In our world today where globalization is emerging, space is becoming more and more neglected. People travel all over the world due to several reasons- work, travel, vacation- the point is, all the nation states open their territories for other people to go to. For these people to be able to travel from border to border, the government of every state also implement rules and regulations to promote peace and order.
The movement of the people is somewhat prohibited in a way that individuals find it hard to travel from place to place, from state to state. Due to several documents and requirements by the governing body for traveling abroad, people see this as a hassle and end up not fixing all the requirements in order to be able to go to places. What is violated here is a human's privacy, personal space and personal reasons. A people who just graduated from college may want to rest and take a vacation, but this act is restricted due to several barriers along the way such as visas for security and safety. The literal flow and movement of normal individuals are restricted because of safety and simple precautions for every state. A fresh grad who wants to go to New Zealand to visit his relatives is immediately blocked to apply for visa (not approved) because of the fear that he might be running away from the Philippines.
It is beneficial for everyone if all governments are like this. However, only the developed countries exercise this kind of strict security. Here in the Philippines, it's not really the case. When we look at the bigger picture though, it is good that this kind of security is implemented to bring order in one's country. Though some individuals are restricted, this does not mean that they can no longer be able to do what they want. It is just right that in our world today, regulations and strict supervisions are maintained in order to progress.
Globalization promotes the integration of different people, cultures, traditions and even products of corporations. Though there are also restrictions for these entities, it is just fair for the country's government to ask for documents, files, etc to make sure that the entry of these institutions and people will not bring chaos in their territory.
Friday, April 2, 2010
What can we do to stop harming others?
It is part of human nature to care for those around us. One form of hurting people is intervening in their lives especially when they don't want us to. Often times we do not know that our actions hurt other people especially our loved ones. Most times, we are too occupied focusing on the small things that we tend to forget the big picture. We fail to take into account what we should be taking good care of, or simply what our actions portray to those around us. Similarly, the people we meet every single day do not notice that at times, they hurt us and in return, we feel bad without them knowing.
This question is complicated to answer. It may be answered by two main approaches: Political and legal approach. The political approach asks what can be realistically and legitimately done to stop people from hurting each other? What main political organizations must play a role in preventing others from harming the people? It's a dilemma about the limits of lawful authority during times of emergency (Orford, 2009). There is what we call the Metaphysical account of law which was shown when NATO intervened in Kosovo in the year 1999. Many argued that the intervention was illegal but legitimate. It is in this law that the universal law is taken into account because this gives legitimacy to intervention itself (Orford, 2009). There's what we call the realist account of law where it comprehends the law as an expression of the interests and desire of states. Here, global politics and humans are expected act naturally and instrumentally (Orford, 2009). She also mentions that "the realist approach privileges bilateral relations as the heart of international order". She states that the third type of account of law is the Decisionist account of law which states that the primary role of the state is to protect its people and it shall survive depending on the life of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). Lastly, there is a Democratic account of law which centers on understanding relations and commitments between individuals in terms of politics. Here, the claims to authority shall always be seen and contestable.
Though there are several views regarding the law and how our political and legal law affects how we see the relations of each entity in the society, the question stills holds valid and unanswerable. In terms of politics, in order to be effective in preventing people from harming one another, we should think about the possible measures that are required of the community in terms of humanitarian processes (Orford, 2009). In other words, it is up to us to change these political queries into our own understanding. These views must be challenged and geared towards our own initiative to participate in molding the circumstances in our lives and those around us.
Now we move on to think about how we can properly stop people from hurting others, in terms of legal means. This raises the issue of legal authorities and legal protocols but in the end, it is still in us and what we can do that can only be determined and justified by us alone. Our decisions about protection must be informed by a lawful and political concept. The law we know must be based on a common political order, which requires respect and obligations from each member of the whole community (Orford, 2009). As such, we can only stop people from violence and trouble based on how we see their actions, intentions and perceptions. It is based on out own minds to be able to think critically and know right actions from wrong.
In the light of the emergence of globalization everywhere, we shall take into account the views from before and use these to become a more harmonized global world. Interventions and revolutions are harmful ways of containing order in a specific geographical area. Thus, we must put into mind how we can effectively and properly execute peace among individuals.
Source:
Orford, A. (2009). What can we do to stop harming others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
This question is complicated to answer. It may be answered by two main approaches: Political and legal approach. The political approach asks what can be realistically and legitimately done to stop people from hurting each other? What main political organizations must play a role in preventing others from harming the people? It's a dilemma about the limits of lawful authority during times of emergency (Orford, 2009). There is what we call the Metaphysical account of law which was shown when NATO intervened in Kosovo in the year 1999. Many argued that the intervention was illegal but legitimate. It is in this law that the universal law is taken into account because this gives legitimacy to intervention itself (Orford, 2009). There's what we call the realist account of law where it comprehends the law as an expression of the interests and desire of states. Here, global politics and humans are expected act naturally and instrumentally (Orford, 2009). She also mentions that "the realist approach privileges bilateral relations as the heart of international order". She states that the third type of account of law is the Decisionist account of law which states that the primary role of the state is to protect its people and it shall survive depending on the life of a sovereign who can guarantee the values and law of the state (Orford, 2009). Lastly, there is a Democratic account of law which centers on understanding relations and commitments between individuals in terms of politics. Here, the claims to authority shall always be seen and contestable.
Though there are several views regarding the law and how our political and legal law affects how we see the relations of each entity in the society, the question stills holds valid and unanswerable. In terms of politics, in order to be effective in preventing people from harming one another, we should think about the possible measures that are required of the community in terms of humanitarian processes (Orford, 2009). In other words, it is up to us to change these political queries into our own understanding. These views must be challenged and geared towards our own initiative to participate in molding the circumstances in our lives and those around us.
Now we move on to think about how we can properly stop people from hurting others, in terms of legal means. This raises the issue of legal authorities and legal protocols but in the end, it is still in us and what we can do that can only be determined and justified by us alone. Our decisions about protection must be informed by a lawful and political concept. The law we know must be based on a common political order, which requires respect and obligations from each member of the whole community (Orford, 2009). As such, we can only stop people from violence and trouble based on how we see their actions, intentions and perceptions. It is based on out own minds to be able to think critically and know right actions from wrong.
In the light of the emergence of globalization everywhere, we shall take into account the views from before and use these to become a more harmonized global world. Interventions and revolutions are harmful ways of containing order in a specific geographical area. Thus, we must put into mind how we can effectively and properly execute peace among individuals.
Source:
Orford, A. (2009). What can we do to stop harming others?. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge
Thursday, April 1, 2010
How is the world organized economically?
The world is arranged in a way wherein countries are divided territorially, religiously, economically and politically. States are divided into geographical areas so each nation-state could have its own people, culture, traditions and resources. With the outbreak of capitalism and industrialism, the shift from being culturally focused transferred to being wealth focused. This means that countries now see the value of resources and riches that may be derived from their respective boundaries. Exchanging of goods and service or barter trade was the practice long ago. It evolved into different types of activities until it has reached where we are right now.
The Economics of how the world is organized involves several factors such as profits, the labor force or the law on demand and supply. The link between the world politics with economics has been though of ever since before. There were bright thinkers such as Adam Smith, there was also what we call the Marxist theory. Economics is everywhere in this world and as long as we live, it will always find ways to reach the highest peak of globalization.
One important approach in global politics is the liberal and neoliberal approach. The liberal tradition and its promotion by neoclassical economists associate the economy with free market policies. Assumptions such as markets are efficient and desirable practice of competitive advantage, growth will trickle down to the poor, etc were believed to occur in this free market society. Adam Smith was responsible for the "laissez-faire" principle which states that economies are self correcting in a way that government intervention is not necessary for it to function well. He promoted the free market society and thought of each individual to be responsible enough to do what is right for all.
The Marxist approach that came from Karl Marx attempts to develop and improve more structured explanations of how markets, corporations and governments should interact with society. The Marxist way takes firms seriously and detailed. Here, the company is analyzed in relation to power differentials. This theory focuses on cultures and offers research on organizational changes in the production, divisions of labor, regulation dynamics and the class and geopolitical hierarchies. Marxists believe that capital accumulation is based no only on profits derived from formal mechanisms of exchange and production but also from profits through non-capitalist means (Peterson, 2009).
Inequalities such as the gendered division of labor, the costs of exclusion, etc have been present long ago. Peterson (2009) states that the inequalities associated with production and labor did not come with neoliberalism. The hierarchies of "difference" were already institutionalized, and the difference from capitalism before and capitalism today is that now, it has the capacity to reach markets abroad, or markets beyond its reach long ago. The world has been functioning years back, and the same economic factors are still present up until now. The drive for profits and the maximization of firms are still the key components of capitalism and business owners nowadays. Inequality will not be eliminated at an instant and some problems before are still dilemmas now. However, what matters at the present is the bigger picture.
What is the bigger picture? Well, for me, what we must consider is the ability of economic concepts and practices to be present in every market nowadays. Capitalism has widely contributed to economic growth and these corporations have gone international- the ability to transact beyond its borders. The concept of International Economics is familiar to us and it is currently one of the most important economic stimulators in the world. Countries increase the exports to be competitive and to carry the products of their country. In relation to this, governments consider the foreign exchange appreciation since it hurts exporters. They have to consider imports as well. The country's trade openness is very crucial in an economy and the world is now evolving into a more advanced system where markets merge as one.
Though countries have their own boundaries, international economics plays an important role in its development. This is where globalization enters, because without the interaction and transactions with foreign markets, states will lose its way towards globalization. What I am saying here is that markets are designed to be interactive, and the more this occurs, the more globalized our world becomes, which is a great thing. Globalization involves the advancement of anything and everything. Hence, economics is taking its course towards this modernization that will benefit each and everyone of us living in earth.
Source:
Peterson, V. (2009). How is the world organized economically. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
The Economics of how the world is organized involves several factors such as profits, the labor force or the law on demand and supply. The link between the world politics with economics has been though of ever since before. There were bright thinkers such as Adam Smith, there was also what we call the Marxist theory. Economics is everywhere in this world and as long as we live, it will always find ways to reach the highest peak of globalization.
One important approach in global politics is the liberal and neoliberal approach. The liberal tradition and its promotion by neoclassical economists associate the economy with free market policies. Assumptions such as markets are efficient and desirable practice of competitive advantage, growth will trickle down to the poor, etc were believed to occur in this free market society. Adam Smith was responsible for the "laissez-faire" principle which states that economies are self correcting in a way that government intervention is not necessary for it to function well. He promoted the free market society and thought of each individual to be responsible enough to do what is right for all.
The Marxist approach that came from Karl Marx attempts to develop and improve more structured explanations of how markets, corporations and governments should interact with society. The Marxist way takes firms seriously and detailed. Here, the company is analyzed in relation to power differentials. This theory focuses on cultures and offers research on organizational changes in the production, divisions of labor, regulation dynamics and the class and geopolitical hierarchies. Marxists believe that capital accumulation is based no only on profits derived from formal mechanisms of exchange and production but also from profits through non-capitalist means (Peterson, 2009).
Inequalities such as the gendered division of labor, the costs of exclusion, etc have been present long ago. Peterson (2009) states that the inequalities associated with production and labor did not come with neoliberalism. The hierarchies of "difference" were already institutionalized, and the difference from capitalism before and capitalism today is that now, it has the capacity to reach markets abroad, or markets beyond its reach long ago. The world has been functioning years back, and the same economic factors are still present up until now. The drive for profits and the maximization of firms are still the key components of capitalism and business owners nowadays. Inequality will not be eliminated at an instant and some problems before are still dilemmas now. However, what matters at the present is the bigger picture.
What is the bigger picture? Well, for me, what we must consider is the ability of economic concepts and practices to be present in every market nowadays. Capitalism has widely contributed to economic growth and these corporations have gone international- the ability to transact beyond its borders. The concept of International Economics is familiar to us and it is currently one of the most important economic stimulators in the world. Countries increase the exports to be competitive and to carry the products of their country. In relation to this, governments consider the foreign exchange appreciation since it hurts exporters. They have to consider imports as well. The country's trade openness is very crucial in an economy and the world is now evolving into a more advanced system where markets merge as one.
Though countries have their own boundaries, international economics plays an important role in its development. This is where globalization enters, because without the interaction and transactions with foreign markets, states will lose its way towards globalization. What I am saying here is that markets are designed to be interactive, and the more this occurs, the more globalized our world becomes, which is a great thing. Globalization involves the advancement of anything and everything. Hence, economics is taking its course towards this modernization that will benefit each and everyone of us living in earth.
Source:
Peterson, V. (2009). How is the world organized economically. Global politics: A new introduction. London: Routledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)