Honestly, I had to read this editorial piece by George F. Will at least two times to understand the several concepts he proposed to us.
If I am wrong in any way...please let me know
Quotas (backed by republicans) are bad and increase the price of the good. For example, in the editorial he talked about sugar quotas. Because sugar quotas raised the price of sugar in the United States, U.S. candy companies took their work to another place.
Protectionism (backed by democrats) is bad because it could "flatten somewhat trajectory of America's rising prosperity" I don't understand the concept of protectionism. When I further researched protectionism it said that protectionism is an anti-globalization policy to stop foreign takeover of American companies. HOWEVER a method of restricting trade through protectionism is by tariffs and quotas. SO are protectionism and quotas intertwined? If so, then wouldn't both ideas be anti-globalization and free trade?
Harnessing Our Power as Consumers: Cost of Boycotting Sweatshop Goods Offset the Benefits
After reading this article I was shocked by the United Nations statistic- 25 million children under the age of 14 are being inhumanly exploited in third world sweatshops.
Furthermore, I liked how he pointed out that there are some distortions of foreign labor in developed countries like..."some politicians, business leaders and academics argue, if we boycotted goods made by underpaid foreign workers we would be depriving them of their livelihood, as meagre as it may be." Stop trying to rationalize 25 million children in inhumane conditions. It's not acceptable!! BECAUSE the same kind of reasoning, as he points out, was by conservatives to oppose the apartheid in South Africa with economic boycott. Today we realize we made a GOOD decision to do this. I agreed with his logic.
I am going to skip over the cartoon.....It was funny.
THE NEW COLOSSUS: WAL-MART!!
the first statement that struck me as humorous was John Edwards, before he bit the dust...HAHA ironic.
Wal-Mart is crassly American.
I felt the author of this article brought up so good points of why wal-mart is good.
At the end, I like how he pointed out all those quotes about Europeans. In the European work force, they normally don't hire young people. Actually, I am quite sure that its a law that if you work for an employer for one year and you are under the age of 27...that employer can let you go for no reason at all. So when he brought up the point that wal-mart is anti-European and how Europeans hate our "wal-mart" type jobs...it really struck a chord. I liked this point alot and it made sense logically.
Wal-Mart is the epitome of globalization, but its help keep our economy afloat and has produced alot of American jobs. Is this a contradiction or an actual good point about globalization?
The last article is like a COUNTER argument to Jay Nordlinger's article "The New Colossus: Wal-Mart"
When she points out wal-mart is destroying factory jobs in America...well isn't that the nature of capitalism and competition. I don't understand why everyone is so against the nature of our capitalistic economy. Companies will beat out other companies and put them out of business. That's the economic process.
Additionally, Jay points out in his article...what have the mom n pop stores done for their workers in terms of health care and benefits? if 90% of all wal-mart workers have health care...isn't this a good thing? But she points out only 38% have health coverage.
There is a difference...what encompasses health coverage?
In order for both of them to make these claims they need to have fully detailed research on employer demographics, wages etc. I don't buy into either arguments, but I am leaning more towards how wal-mart is good...I mean I go there...I don't know anyone who Doesn't go to wal-mart. its convenient, cheap, and has become part of our culture.
These readings brought up some really interesting points and I am excited to discuss them more in depth in class.
:)
No comments:
Post a Comment