Essay About Periphery Countries And World Today

GlobalizationJoin now to read essay GlobalizationGlobalization is the increasing interconnectedness of people, places, and cultures throughout the world today. The effects of this homogenizing process that we call globalization can be seen in all aspects of life. From McDonalds being in almost every country, to the majority of North American clothes being made in periphery countries, to the technological ability that allows us to instantly communicate with people anywhere in the world, the effects are everywhere. Economically today, globalization has had both positive and negative effects around the world, with many similarities to colonization. Globalization has also led to increased poverty amongst the global periphery, and a specific group of winners and losers within this process of globalization.

In contrast, the benefits of world peace, security, agriculture, and other benefits have been neglected in contemporary global politics. The problem of globalism and our international response is that there are so many benefits from our being global, each with a different benefit (eg. better public health), yet there is still an economic incentive to be global and to act as we know that our actions will benefit the rest of humanity. There are also a number of factors that affect how many of us actually respond and the effectiveness of our actions. For example, many globalists try to deny that globalists live in an abstract ideal world, and that’s just by denying our reality. That way, many people think that we think like we don’t exist. Even more, they often do what I call “globalist apologetics.”

In conclusion, here are a few things I have learned from my travels and from my activism:

1)

I don’t think anyone likes a globalist approach to the world system as a whole. I’m trying to understand why.

2)

I think this makes people more globalists than they are usually intended to be.

3)

I also think that there are areas of globalism that are really misunderstood more often than others.

4)

Globalism isn’t just an idea. It’s often the “right way to do it” idea. When I look at the world from a traditional viewpoint, the world tends to focus on the one true cause/opportunity – “peace.”

5)

Globalists are wrong to suggest that only a few people can make an impact within the global population (eg. the people who will buy the food produced – or the people who will give the goods to the needy). The problem I see is that so many people believe that when something gets done on their own – not just in their communities they can (or can only do for their community – “peace”, “democracy” or, more recently, freedom of speech – to name a few). This is wrong, because people have built cities where everyone has peace within their community, and it never happens to any of us the same way.

So, what is globalism, exactly? I think the answer is a lot of things. When my group got started in 2011, I started noticing the effect that internationalism had on the global population. In that same year, my local council was the first to enact policies and legislations that took local and international people into account on some of these issues. One of these was the Universal Health Care Program, which is funded by the International Labor Organisation (ILO). This program promotes local health care across the land. According to this document, for every dollar that the ILO spends on it… [in 2010] it would pay for the right to universal health care on a national scale and that means that only those from rural areas would have access to that service. It’s an absolute failure.

1

Many people argue that universal healthcare doesn’t matter because the U.S. has limited health insurance. It doesn’t. In effect, it‚s a system where people have no benefits at all. On their face, it„s a “great idea”, and the U.S. is a great country. Yet in reality, the U.S. has made very little progress. The poor in cities are the first to walk through the gates in this country. In most cases, people walk home from work every day. It͆s the same with rural children. People tend to have kids in the first place because they are poor. In many rural areas, a child in a small town that lives in poverty cannot travel, they aren’t allowed to go to school, and they’re given only the basics. So poor families are usually out of diapers for weeks, they have food thrown away or are forced to live outside where they can get little supplies. They become second-class citizens, getting only a few hours of care and little training. At some point in the last five, six years, they have had to leave their home and have to leave their place of work so that they can’t access the care they need by themselves, and they have no way of finding help from their own families.

2

What sort of policies are there for working mothers, for working teenagers, or for people working as volunteers?

3

These are the things that have led the majority of Americans to a system of national healthcare under the ACA, with a very similar process to what is now well know to this day in many developing nations. But it͋s not the only things that have led to changes to the American system of healthcare. One thing that many people in this country have noticed is that there are very little programs being implemented nationwide or have been created outside of states. For instance, some of the most successful, universal health care programs are in states that are not funded with federal funds.

4

The most notable changes to these health care programs have historically been in the states. For the first time, states were provided with an option to provide coverage through federal programs, as if the federal government were a monopoly power over all health care, yet those programs were only offered to the states under very limited, ill-defined, and overly generous states. These were many times the states of the past. These are the states that have chosen to take on the federal government and provide a much greater amount of health care coverage, that the government of the United States is not in control of, and the federal government has a direct veto over all of our health care provisions, including universal healthcare.”

5

Another example that would illustrate how difficult it is for a nation to enact something with universal access is the massive rise in illegal immigration in the United States. From 2003 to 2009, the U.S. deported 2,000 citizens per week. Since then, the

You note, I’d like to suggest a few of those things.

First, internationalism tends to favor local and international people (I don’t think this is a correct description, but you must also be careful to distinguish between the two terms). And what you are looking at here is a sort of ‘community of people who live in the same country and are related by blood’, and you must distinguish between these different groups, not just between them. That would be the whole idea being, say, that ‘our community is more representative if it has local communities that share a common interest – so long as the people in an area who share your interest are different – that makes them feel more specialised’. And so, localism plays a part; but, let’s say that those are some of the other things that apply, right? I’m not sure, but I think many who are trying to take up internationalism, the people who like to read these writings, think that there’s a lot more people, as you said. On the other hand, I can’t put any price on this. So I don’t think my group is necessarily opposed to internationalism, to globalism, for that I still think it would probably be better to see for yourself exactly where people will buy their products from, without the globalisation of places (like I just saw for example here in the United States).

It seems to me that it’s more important to do something positive about the idea behind internationalism, in the sense that it can be implemented directly and effectively. I can’t really see a whole lot of positive things being done about that, but I think it’s fairly clear that internationalism has a much more positive side by which to promote international relations, at least in my view (and I understand your point there, but I think it’s more positive than negative), which is what you are discussing the next time you travel through the world, and maybe when you get there?

In my opinion, I have no particular idea yet that any one of those things will happen. I’d like to keep on discussing what else might work more creatively. It’s like the whole idea of “all in one”, which I see as quite a bad thing (just the concept of “all-in-one” is actually good). So, you’re saying that we can make universal health care everywhere and have this kind of universal experience, we can make the world less oppressive and more like a more harmonious place, just by doing things a bit more internationally so as to have fewer inter-cultural differences and more community interactions, and also to bring in smaller groups to share in something like that. And you’re proposing that we get involved in this way before I take these things to the masses, and that doesn’t sound like universal health care because they’re not good for you, but instead it’s good for your village (and maybe it would only be useful for your village if they were less oppressive as people do).

I think you also mentioned three important things as well. In the past, many

You note, I’d like to suggest a few of those things.

First, internationalism tends to favor local and international people (I don’t think this is a correct description, but you must also be careful to distinguish between the two terms). And what you are looking at here is a sort of ‘community of people who live in the same country and are related by blood’, and you must distinguish between these different groups, not just between them. That would be the whole idea being, say, that ‘our community is more representative if it has local communities that share a common interest – so long as the people in an area who share your interest are different – that makes them feel more specialised’. And so, localism plays a part; but, let’s say that those are some of the other things that apply, right? I’m not sure, but I think many who are trying to take up internationalism, the people who like to read these writings, think that there’s a lot more people, as you said. On the other hand, I can’t put any price on this. So I don’t think my group is necessarily opposed to internationalism, to globalism, for that I still think it would probably be better to see for yourself exactly where people will buy their products from, without the globalisation of places (like I just saw for example here in the United States).

It seems to me that it’s more important to do something positive about the idea behind internationalism, in the sense that it can be implemented directly and effectively. I can’t really see a whole lot of positive things being done about that, but I think it’s fairly clear that internationalism has a much more positive side by which to promote international relations, at least in my view (and I understand your point there, but I think it’s more positive than negative), which is what you are discussing the next time you travel through the world, and maybe when you get there?

In my opinion, I have no particular idea yet that any one of those things will happen. I’d like to keep on discussing what else might work more creatively. It’s like the whole idea of “all in one”, which I see as quite a bad thing (just the concept of “all-in-one” is actually good). So, you’re saying that we can make universal health care everywhere and have this kind of universal experience, we can make the world less oppressive and more like a more harmonious place, just by doing things a bit more internationally so as to have fewer inter-cultural differences and more community interactions, and also to bring in smaller groups to share in something like that. And you’re proposing that we get involved in this way before I take these things to the masses, and that doesn’t sound like universal health care because they’re not good for you, but instead it’s good for your village (and maybe it would only be useful for your village if they were less oppressive as people do).

I think you also mentioned three important things as well. In the past, many

What I mean by this is that local government is a national issue – not just because people from all over the world choose to live close geographically – but because, as we know, they are the ones who are on the front lines fighting the big pharma corporations at every turn

The start of globalization as we know it today came about in the 1980’s, when Nestle decided to push its baby formula product in the global periphery. This led to improper nutrition for babies, as it was expensive and had to be watered down with un-sterile water, causing many deaths. Eventually Nestle was boycotted, because it cared only about making profits, and not the effects that it had upon the global periphery. It was now too late though, and the birth of globalization, headed by the trans-national corporations (TNC’s) was in full swing. After the 1970’s, when our world become more interdependent, the 1980’s allowed for more intensification, and the driving factors of technology, international trade, and finance were facilitating globalization. The way in which globalization now operated economically was for the core countries to go into the periphery and exploit these countries for their cheap labor, abundance of primary goods, and lack of regulations. The TNC’s would now bring their western influences into the rest of the world, sending back cheap goods, while putting the periphery into deep patterns of poverty and debt.

One of the major reasons for these strong patterns of poverty and debt were the structural adjustment programs, or SAP’s. These were loans that were facilitated through the IMF, or International Monetary Fund, and given to periphery countries. Originally the SAP’s were to help colonized countries become independent and develop their own economy, but these loans led to huge debts instead. The conditionalities that these loans carried with them prevented these countries from progressing beyond anything except the export of their basic, primary goods. Also, certain quantities, prices, and other demands were required. This was because the western, core countries controlled the IMF and World Bank, meaning that they would want to profit from these SAP’s in some manner. So instead of helping these countries develop, they just end up exploiting them instead, leaving huge amounts of debt that these countries cannot pay back (HIPC: Highly Indebted Poor Country). A population of workers are trying to meet the demands of the loans, only to see their primary products prices fall lower and lower, due to synthetics, huge overstocks of these goods, and speculation of a low price elasticity. When this happens, not only can the countries themselves not pay their loans, but also their citizens are now making even less money than they started with. Only the western, core, exploiting countries gain an advantage.

Besides SAP’s, poor management of these periphery countries’ priorities and money has become a problem. Equity, as opposed to efficiency, has been emphasized throughout the countries that were first trying to become independent. Money was spread out through social programs such as schools hospitals, roads, jobs, and many other areas. While these areas are all essential parts of a growing country, there wasn’t enough money to spread around that thin, while still creating the enabling circumstances necessary to thrive. These enabling circumstances were necessary for any sort of success, focusing on privatization of business, minimalist government, de-regulation, and free trade. In turn this would create a devaluing of their currency, and the ability to export even more products. Instead, poverty has run rampant, leaving many countries in a vicious cycle of the poor becoming poorer, and the rich becoming richer. The $2 per day minimum for daily nutrition that a person needs is not being met in so many of the periphery countries now, leading to disease, death, and very little hope. This theme of exploitation has not only been a mark of globalization, but a major factor in the colonization of the periphery as well.

When western countries were colonizing countries in the periphery, the expansion of empires and imperialism of the west were thought to be the driving forces. Adam Smith realized, that in reality, it became the process of mercantilism, and exploitation. His 1776 book, Wealth of Nations, addressed these issues.

A man by the name of Cecil Rhodes led a ‘Cape to Cairo’