Check out this interesting article about attitudes on a variety of topics from countries around the world. Of particular interest are the attitudes about trade.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Global Perspectives Survey
Check out this interesting article about attitudes on a variety of topics from countries around the world. Of particular interest are the attitudes about trade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
If a foreign country believes that trade is effecting their culture, then they have a right to restrict it. Culture diversity throughout the world should be imporatnt to everyone since it distinguishes different people and shows everyone else their heritage and background. Of course, if we had open trade with everyone the economy would grow, yet the benefits of doing that, i think, would be less than the repercutions if it meant that cultural diversity became rare. Culture is important to individuals as well as whole nations, it sets the foundations for their standards of living. So why not protect that?
I don't think restricting international trade and immigration would do much to preserve "traditional" ways of life. A society that is not affected by outside influences will still change by itself; plus, completely cutting off or severely restricting trade would be articifical limits to natural processes that would do much more harm than good--culture is going to suffer if the economy is horrendous. Also, the article's author seems to have forgotten that international trade can help SPREAD cultures that are in danger of being forgotten (National Geographic?)
Losing cultural identity to globalization?
The fact that someone drinks Coke, eats at McDonald's, smokes Marlboros, and watches CNN does not mean that they want to be part of a global United States. It means that they enjoy the products, or have bought into the marketing. The person doing it could be a jihadi.
In the 5th century BC, Latin was just one of many Italic languages spoken in central Italy.
Rome gradually expanded its influence over other parts of Italy and then over other parts of Europe. Eventually the Roman Empire stretched across a wide swathe of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Latin was used throughout the empire as the language of law, administration, and increasingly as the language of everyday life.
So what of Latin now?
IMO, English has become what it is in the world because of America's strength following immediately behind the colonial power of England. If (and when) that strength declines so goes the language. People adjust in order to get along.
1. Look at the Soviet Union. Immediately after the break-up the individual states and regions returned to their native dialect and distanced themselves from all things Soviet. This continues in the Baltic states as they seek to remove signs of the Soviet occupation. This shift from a "globality" occured in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in several places. Czechoslovakia reverted to the Czech Republic and Slovakia....
2. Travel through Europe. Despite the close proximity of the nations there are distinct cultural differences. As far as language goes Germany is a great example of how there are multiple dialects spoken within the country itself as you travel from North to South.
Over time, cultural differences will become more distinct.
I agree with the three above.
By restricting trade just to preserve a culture is actually going to do more harm than good. The economy will suffer and the culture of an area will be confined. By confining the culture, it will slowly change and eventually disappear, whereas trade will allow it to spread. Thus, by rejecting globilization, nations will lose their cultural identity, rather than keep it
First of all, Id like to thank Brian Liu for writing another astonishing book, i have my doubts if this one will win the nobel peace prize,but there is always hope for the next blog. (Just kidding). Seriuosly though, I enjoyed this passage, It was interesting to see the stark diffences between the international mentality. It is actually ironic. Here you have these highly proclaimed European nations that we think are so sophisticated (France=arts and culture, Germans = mechanics and motors) and they are stricter on immigration policies. I for one thought we were amounf the shrewdest of all nations to let foreigners in and as this article informs me, we have actually grown more accepting of foreign immigration. I was supprised, but happy, because i think people are age often too many times do see our country as it really is. We are often missinterpreted as selfish jerks when really, I donot believe so.
On the terms of harming culture, I am on Amanda's side. Change is a naturally occruning thing in cultures. They grow, advance, and undergo certain "metamorphisis" if you will. Culture, in my opinion is an ultra-conservatives way of demoting change and reformation in dying cultures.
Ps: Im glad to see im not the only one who watches National Geographic! : )
PS PS: Dude Brian! I dont think we can call them Jihadis!! I wish but the liberal media might have a stroke if they saw Amercians undermining a culture aka a way of life( Some culture, terrorist pride themselves on killing Americans), but no they rights too...What ever, insurgents have the right to go straight to Guantanomo to be with my favorite US Marines. Ooo Rahh!!!
PS:PS:PS: Dont hate me, America Rocks!!!!
It's very interesting that people feel more threatened by trade than illegal immigration. It's also interesting (and completely understandable) that developing countries in Latin America and Asia are all for international free trade, while Western countries are starting to shy away from it. No one wants to be dependent on another country for income, but developing countries need international trade for things they can't make or produce themselves.
The immigration thing is kind of surprising. However, I can totally see why the Italians wouldn't want immigrants in their country. Italian culture is very traditional and very distinct. It's nature for Italians to want to preserve their culture and heritage. The same goes with the middle-eastern countries. Also, the clash of cultures could cause some sort of public outrage there. It seems everything else involving morals, values, God, and culture does.
Anyway...the international perspectives aren't dramatically different than what I was expecting. It all makes perfect sense if you think about it. My favorite phrase is "everything in moderation."
This article makes it seem like this is some new fad that's been happening for the past ten years. International trade (cultural integration) has been occurring ever since we learned how to carve wood into boats. Trade is never going to go away no matter how many "restrictions" you put on it. If there is a need for a good, someone's going to stick it to the man and trade it
Even if there was no international trade, cultures in coutries would still change. Even without the outside influences. Plus international trade helps the economy making it more diverse and stronger. I think that counties that don't want international trade will only end up hurting themselves in the end, because with out the trading the economy is very likely to go down.
Well, i guess based on the David Ricardo stuff we're learning about, it's not a good idea to restrict international trade. i don't think it should be restricted even if it is affecting the culture because the potential damage it could cause is greater than the benefits of preserving a nation's culture. Besides, cultures grow, change and develop all the time anyways, there's no point in trying to keep it exactly the same.
Restricting trade is not a bad idea. If a country feels it needs to be more reserved, then let them. If an influx of immigrants is affecting their culture why not put some restrictions? As long as they are reasonable and fair that should not affect their relationship with other countries.
Cultural diversity is important. It is intersting to travel and observe anothers way of life. If I go to some foregn country and see a starbucks around every corner what the heck?! I came to learn and see new things, not have a mint frapuccino or a big mac. A reason why a country should put reastrictions is to also show that respect should be at all times when entering their country. Spring break is crazy. Where do they all go? Cabo, Cancun, Puerto Vallarta. Why can't they be respectful? Whenever I go I am a tourist too, I no longer live there, but just because I am there to have a great time doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. I hate people like that. They need to learn that they are not superior to anyone.
Anyway, restricting international trade is ok, it will not protect a culture's wayy of life, but rules should be applied because no restrictions or many restricitons can affect a, economy, like Paige said "everyting in moderation".
Well, there's proof that Ricardo and his Law of Comparative Advantage are still being practiced and highly believed today, even if nations don't realize it. There is, in no way, a possitive outcome from trade restrictions, as past history and present day situations tell. For all nations to achieve prosperity, they must all unite and trade with one another.
The only way for a culture not to be shaped or changed is to be completely isolated. In no way do I believe that being completely isolated can have benefits. Cultures need other cultures. It is the mixing of strengths that combines to create some of the greatest cultures today.
I believe that cultures will change even without international trade. Cultures have changed and evolved for centuries with just its own people without the involvement of trade. International trade could only improve a culture in the long run by creating a more sufficient economy for itself. The potential damages of resticting trade is greater than preserving its culture.
Post a Comment