Westernization of East,as bad as Easternization of West

[Left Now]

Okay what do you think about it?

Enlightening : By terms "Westernization and Easternization" I do not mean loaning some advantages to each others,I mean complete overwhelm of one by another as many people from both sides have tried to execute it anf those of West have been more radical to do this,encouraging the radicalization of Eastern ones too.

[Judean Zealot]

I hate it with every fiber of my being. The west has much to offer, and I feel we should take from that, but to just superimpose their commercialized universe onto ours is just a bad deal.

[Living For Love]

Thankfully, there's no such thing as "Easternisation of the West", not yet, at least. I can understand how frustrating it would be to see my country being "invaded" by hateful Western values if I lived in an Eastern nation, though, but I don't think being picky is the best solution in cases like this. You either embrace globalisation or you're out of it, and if you can't beat them, then join them.

[Stronk Serb]

Fuck globalisation. It's a cancer. I agree with you, trying to enforce western values on eastern nations andvice versa is bad.

[Miserabilia]

Fuck globalisation. It's a cancer.

why though?

[Stronk Serb]

why though?

Globalisation is economically and socially detrimental to Serbia. It's detrental to anyone who doesn't have an international more than a billion dollar industry (try Africa, parts of Asia and Eastern Europe).

[lliam]

It's up to us whether globalization is just based on economic aspects.

The fact, you call this cancer is actually already an indication that people started to realize that economy is not everything. I'll deliberately ignore the social aspect for now.

Until globalization become what it could be, namely a cornerstone of a quite balanced connecting culture for people of this world - I believe centuries of hate, wars and whatsoever will passing by.


It's still an ongoing progress since centuries ago.

We aren't able to overlook it, I guess. And it began as European nations, started to discover "the world" in their high-handedness. They discovered a "new World" where far older and also "higher" cultures coexisted.


The fact we usually tend to date globilization to the 20. / 21. century, means in my opinion, that we haven't learned a bit from our history.


Currently, the Western culture dominates world affairs. The East on the other hand is just the counterweight as a corollary of dominant world politics of the West. And what emerges from both, may determine the survival of the whole humanity ... perhaps IDK in thousand years?


Of course, my reasoning is based on a certain idealism. I didn't taken into account the fact, that we actually are inherently very silly ... unpredictable stupid beings with a penchant for self-destruction.


Oh yes. With regard to that "Westernization of East" - "Easternization of West" topic - in my opinion, both does not occur.

The reason is that both are long completed processes. What we are witnessing is the dissolution of both phenomena.

There now is no longer East or West. It's about the whole world. Only we don't have the foresight to recognize that or really to realize it.

Who still mourns the loss of their own culture, doesn't understand that cultures always have risen and perished ...

.. or in the ideal case transformed from ancient cultures in newer forms of coexistences.


I hope that globalization means that the last version takes place.


Oh, I forgot, the culture is already there. A platform of this culture is so called Internet.

[Sir Suomi]

While I think each culture can openly exchange ideas with one another, I have my doubts that Western and Eastern culture can fully incorporate each other. There are simply too many clashes in ideology that prevent it.

But yeah, if we could stop being dicks to each other, that would be great.

[lkc413]

Ok, here is the deal, I personally think that westernizing is a good thing, simply because western societies have been proven time and again to offer more personal freedom and produce greater things.

That being said, we should only try to westernize or easternize a nation if the people of the nation genuinely want it. Some nations have deeply embed history in their stance.

It all really depends on the people in the nation and what they want.

[Judean Zealot]

Ok, here is the deal, I personally think that westernizing is a good thing, simply because western societies have been proven time and again to offer more personal freedom and produce greater things.

That being said, we should only try to westernize or easternize a nation if the people of the nation genuinely want it. Some nations have deeply embed history in their stance.

It all really depends on the people in the nation and what they want.

If they want it they'll do it without your help.

[StoppingTom]

Globalization, in that it is harmful to small countries like Serbia as mentioned before, I definitely see how that is a point of contention and why people would be against it. However, when I think long term, if we are to expand past our planet and colonize space, I think we'd HAVE to globalize because countries claiming individual planets instead of the Earth as a whole claiming planets can lead to some major consequences IMO.

[Stronk Serb]

Globalization, in that it is harmful to small countries like Serbia as mentioned before, I definitely see how that is a point of contention and why people would be against it. However, when I think long term, if we are to expand past our planet and colonize space, I think we'd HAVE to globalize because countries claiming individual planets instead of the Earth as a whole claiming planets can lead to some major consequences IMO.

Well, I guess colonies would be UN protectorates with the UN keeping the order

[Vlerchan]

Globalisation is economically and socially detrimental to Serbia. It's detrental to anyone who doesn't have an international more than a billion dollar industry (try Africa, parts of Asia and Eastern Europe).
In what manner is globalisation economically harmful?

I can recall going over Serbia's political-economy since it opened its markets to the world and it seems fine.

---

On a cultural level, I can understand that there's a viable critique of globalisation. Like contained in the point Judean Zealot raised.

[Porpoise101]

I don't know how harmful globalization is to small economies, but I do know it can inadvertantly spread bad ideas. For example, now that Americans have started to be concerned about the environment and health, the world still has clung in to the previous belief that trees are good and pizza is bad. I guess you could take India as an example where you have more and more deforestation and obesity due to pizza's popularity.

[Stronk Serb]

In what manner is globalisation economically harmful?

I can recall going over Serbia's political-economy since it opened its markets to the world and it seems fine.

---

On a cultural level, I can understand that there's a viable critique of globalisation. Like contained in the point Judean Zealot raised.

Before globalisation, look at Yugoslavia, every Serbian village had a profitable cooperation, every town had profitable factories. If you would put logos of brands made in Serbua all over the Federal Republic of Serbia map (same as today's Serbia but without Kosovo), you would only see them and nothing else. Now you can see everything except the logos. Also how it ruined us is best seen in poorer regions, they are so poor they sell cigarettes by piece, not pack. Also foreign products are pushing out our domestic products causing unemployment.

[Capto]

Japan's done great with incorporating western culture and ideals.

[Left Now]

Vlerchan,that was exactly what I wanted to say.


Enlightening : By terms "Westernization and Easternization" I do not mean loaning some advantages to each others,I mean complete overwhelm of one by another*

Every culture has many good advantages that it can shares with others,but when it comes to one trying to overwhelm the other,it will only ruin things.During last century personally I have not sensed Western cultures trying to peacefully share their advantages with my own culture,but radically trying to force their own elements on mine,that has caused many social and of course economical problems for Iran.At the same time this matter has also caused the reverse idea to be also radicalized in many other countries.


I am not against global cooperations,but global uniculturalism,does not make sense.

Capto,that is an established fact,but let us not forget that you had resisting elements against forcing cultural overwhelming of your own culture no so long ago which today are not so visible anymore that has caused your country's population to be affected by "Welfare Stroke",as we call it in our own language which is one of the reasons of your population decline in last years which can end in a crisis if not something is to be done about it.

Welfare Stroke is one of the consequences of radical westernization of one the aspects of your country's culture,as it is also happening for mine.All I am emphasizing on is that cultures should share their experiences with each others instead of trying to overwhelm and take the place of each others.

[tonymontana99]

I don't care. As long as there is cool new technology, transhumanism and advances in science, I could be living in an Islamic world for all I care. I kinda dig Sharia Law.

[Vlerchan]

Before globalisation, look at Yugoslavia, every Serbian village had a profitable cooperation, every town had profitable factories.
The economy grew considerably more open, and Yugoslavia has, for a country of its size and per capita income, an extremely high level of foreign trade.

Duboy, V. (1975) Development with decentralization (English) Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1975/01/1561194/yugoslavia-development-decentralization)

Let's ignore that though. Let us concentrate on the fact that Stronk Serb here is attempting to cite some form of continuation between Yugoslavia in it's prime and Serbia. Ignoring that economy literally imploding during the 1980s, the impact of the civil war, the debilitating sanctions, and so on. I, personally, think those might have been a larger contributor towards the general impoverishment.

If you would put logos of brands made in Serbua all over the Federal Republic of Serbia map (same as today's Serbia but without Kosovo), you would only see them and nothing else.
You'll need to explain why this is a potent indicator of the health of Serbia's economy.

Also how it ruined us is best seen in poorer regions, they are so poor they sell cigarettes by piece, not pack.
Ok. But I'm looking for how it ruined yous in terms of how it actually happened.

Also foreign products are pushing out our domestic products causing unemployment.
I'm sure that it shut some factories down. But this doesn't demonstrate that new forms of employment weren't created in distribution (etc.) and thus the impact was balanced out.

[Stronk Serb]

The economy grew considerably more open, and Yugoslavia has, for a country of its size and per capita income, an extremely high level of foreign trade.

Duboy, V. (1975) Development with decentralization (English) Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1975/01/1561194/yugoslavia-development-decentralization)

Let's ignore that though. Let us concentrate on the fact that Stronk Serb here is attempting to cite some form of continuation between Yugoslavia in it's prime and Serbia. Ignoring that economy literally imploding during the 1980s, the impact of the civil war, the debilitating sanctions, and so on. I, personally, think those might have been a larger contributor towards the general impoverishment.


You'll need to explain why this is a potent indicator of the health of Serbia's economy.


Ok. But I'm looking for how it ruined yous in terms of how it actually happened.


I'm sure that it shut some factories down. But this doesn't demonstrate that new forms of employment weren't created in distribution (etc.) and thus the impact was balanced out.

Well, it's not all in economic growth, look at China, fastest economic growth yet some areas (the farther you go from the coast) are so poor that people there live in huts like their ancestors did.

Of tons of factories we had (every town had it's few factories) the only ones that survived are the oil industry (we have small amounts in Vojvodina), a handful of food product factories before they were bought off and one beer brewery. Our tobacco industry got bombed, most if not all factories worked during the civil war and after during the Milošević regime as Serbia proper was never a battlefield, battles were fought in Bosnia, Croatia and on Kosovo. Also, I read up on a bit what some of our economists think about globalization. I found this (http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/eao/eao200903/eao200903-06.pdf), this (http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=9861191030220751060940080651080070220080230300350910560911160170 64004024078127068117026035013044039111007015102016095013015031007007000016092108 00603007900209108109103705103606711909310807109109701600508300608600207111611307 6020019084007092073004090121&EXT=pdf) and this (http://www.ien.bg.ac.rs/images/stories/download/contemporaryissues_ch1.pdf) document. It's in English, so don't worry. I would be open to globalization if it did not ruin my country's middle-class (my parents and soon to be me). I agree that it doesn't solve poverty problems which is my greatest concern. I mean, big businesses are shipping off their production overseas because there they can exploit a cheap labor force. Also the Americanization of the world is of utmost concern because to me, a people without it's identity is a people that ceased to exist.

[Vlerchan]

Well, it's not all in economic growth, look at China, fastest economic growth yet some areas (the farther you go from the coast) are so poor that people there live in huts like their ancestors did.
Please note that the areas of China that are poorest tend to be the areas least integrated in the global economy.

Of tons of factories we had (every town had it's few factories) the only ones that survived are the oil industry (we have small amounts in Vojvodina), a handful of food product factories before they were bought off and one beer brewery.
OK. Like I mentioned last time - I'm more interested in a discussion of the causes.

There's also no reason to believe that de-industrialisation of sectors within economies or within economies as a whole is a for-certain evil.

Our tobacco industry got bombed, most if not all factories worked during the civil war and after during the Milošević regime as Serbia proper was never a battlefield, battles were fought in Bosnia, Croatia and on Kosovo[.]
The point I was making was that the bombings cost Serbia in the range of 30 billion dollars.

Srboljub Antic, a Yugoslav economist, said: "Due to Nato's intervention, Serbia lost 40% of its gross domestic product. We also lost 44% of our industrial production.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/476134.stm

Please note that Mr. Antic is just referring to the costs of Nato bombings here.

Of course, it also matters that fighting occurred on other republics of the Former-Yugoslavia since these countries would have been major trade partners of Serbia.

Not to mention the sanctions that resulted, the hyperinflation, and so on.

I found this, this and this document.

Let's have a look:

The architects of globalization are right that international economic integration is not only good for the poor, it is essential. No country has developed long-term without trade.East Asia is the most recent example. Since the mid 1970's Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China and their neighbors have pulled 300 million people out of poverty, mainly through trade.

Djordjević, M. and Stoiljković, S. (2009) Globalisation and the Challenges of the World Economic Crisis, Economics and Organisation, v. 6(3), pp. 262. (http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/eao/eao200903/eao200903-06.pdf)
N.B.

But:

But even those who protest are right, because no state has developed long-term under the rules that are now imposed on the third world countries by institutions that control globalization. The USA, Germany, France and Japan have become rich and powerful countries thanks to protectionism. East Asia has built its export industry by protecting its market from foreign competitors and by demanding that foreign investors buy local products and develop local knowledge and skill. These are all practices that today make the rules of trading illegal or discourage them.

Djordjević, M. and Stoiljković, S. (2009) Globalisation and the Challenges of the World Economic Crisis, Economics and Organisation, v. 6(3), pp. 262. (http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/eao/eao200903/eao200903-06.pdf)

Interesting. Let's check the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/magazine/18GLOBAL.html?pagewanted=all). It spends a lot of time attempting to pull broad economics rules out of the outcomes of a number of handpicked economies, ignoring the economics-termed 'noise', for the first number of paragraphs. I'll get back to this in a moment.

But the protesters are also right -- no nation has ever developed over the long term under the rules being imposed today on third-world countries by the institutions controlling globalization. The United States, Germany, France and Japan all became wealthy and powerful nations behind the barriers of protectionism. East Asia built its export industry by protecting its markets and banks from foreign competition and requiring investors to buy local products and build local know-how. These are all practices discouraged or made illegal by the rules of trade today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/magazine/18GLOBAL.htmlpagewanted=all
Ok. So there it is. It's an unsourced written a decade before the paper op-ed itself but for fun let's pretend it matters.

I more-or-less agree that Germany and France and the United States built there economies behind protectionism. Back in the 1800s. Before communications and transportations technologies existed to near the same extent. It doesn't seem a valid example to me.

On Japan it's difficult to deal with the vagueness with prior knowledge of policies involved. It's a fair point though I think because in terms of imports as a percentage of GDP it does seem to be below the average of developed countries. Of course - evidence that Japan managed to grow without major integration with other economies isn't evidence that globalisation is negative. Like I implied a moment ago - I'll manage on to the econometric evidence on that in a moment.

It's hard to deal with criticisms of East Asia when the criticisms are placed so vague. But:

http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/south-korea-balance-of-trade.png?s=kotrbal&v=201509151158h&d1=19150101&d2=20151231&url2=/south-korea/exports
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/singapore-balance-of-trade.png?s=strde&v=201509181557h&d1=19150101&d2=20151231&url2=/singapore/exports
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/hong-kong-balance-of-trade.png?s=hketbot&v=201509241126h&d1=19150101&d2=20151231&url2=/hong-kong/exports
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/taiwan-balance-of-trade.png?s=taiwanbt&v=201509081906h&d1=19150101&d2=20151231&url2=/taiwan/exports

Our export-orientated Asian tigers all maintained quite even balances of trade during their take-off growth - that is: 1975 - 1995 - as exports rose. Even in the periods after this though the actual balance of trade is either negative - flat - or quite small. In other words: we're looking at quite open economies.

The moment we've all been waiting for though. Let's look at the econometric evidence ignored in the article Djordjević and Stoiljković cited.

We investigate the effect of trade openness on economic growth in transition countries using a transparent statistical methodology that leads to data-driven case studies. In particular, we employ synthetic control methods in a panel of transition economies and compare GDP growth in treated (that is, open) countries with growth in a convex combination of similar but untreated (that is, closed) countries. We find that trade liberalization tends to have a positive effect on the pattern of real GDP per capita. One of our most robust results shows that making the transition without opening up to trade considerably hampers growth.

Nannicini, T and Billmeier, A., (2011) Economies in Transition: How Important Is Trade Openness for Growth?, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 73(3), pp. 287 - 314. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2010.00626.x/abstract)

[...] Econometric estimates of past trade and related effects of the GATT/WTO are then examined, before turning to estimates of the benefits of WTO accession and of potential benefits from WTO-sponsored trade facilitation. The paper concludes that while it remains difficult to attribute reforms directly to the GATT/WTO, the overall body of evidence presented supports the economic profession's consensus that this institution has contributed substantially to global economic welfare.

Anderson, K., (2014) CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE GATT/WTO TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC WELFARE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, Journal of Economic Surveys. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joes.12087/abstract)

The second article relates to claims from the articles about the ineffectiveness of GATT and WTO rules. However I'll add at this point that I do agree that there could be some major improvements made to the process and Western countries to impede the progress that trade liberalisation creates, eg., the US failing to dismantle agricultural subsidies post-NAFTA. I am also ignoring the second and this parts of that article as a result since I agree with the authors - in their regurgitation of Stiglitz - that international bodies can undermine economic progress.

I don't see the point of the argument surrounding Serbia as it exists in-line with the purpose of the topic. I agree that the Great Recession was bad - and I'm not shocked that FDI into Serbia was halved. Sure I agree that there's negatives of being integrated in other economies but as is more-or-less stated Serbia growth prospects were deflated by the extent that other economies propped them up.

Then it criticises 'neoliberalism'. I feel there's no need to address that.

I'm then not seeing the argument of Redzeoagic and Dukic in [i]Serbian Place In The Process of Globalisation Toward the European Integration[i] (http://www.ien.bg.ac.rs/images/stories/download/contemporaryissues_ch1.pdf) [sic]. It doesn't criticise globalisation until in the conclusion in throws in a remark about it not solving general impoverishment. It doesn't mention this otherwise. Of course - that doesn't matter: if it's true: because if we can determine that globalisation results in increased wealth in a state then it's possible for a government to engage in the transfer of wealth.

Grujic et al. in Impact of Globalisation on Vegetable Crops in Serbia (2000-2012) (http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=1600860920660700650660820950961181190060190330780690201101170681 22084092093003070073037033029008062055124092102099004017000124053027061051031000 10806506709002410002201004203810312006701610700211606502712112709511710708709311 8090001027093002011006108065&EXT=pdf) also aren't too relevant. For some strange reason it also seems to make no attempt to account for the noise of the Great Recession. Regardless it seems to demonstrate a negligible decline when accounting for population movement - as accounted for in the article - with the exception of potatoes: and it would seem that's the case because potatoes had a bad harvest in 2012 [harvest was down 33% from 2011]. It concludes with the claim that Serbian agriculture is inefficient compared to the global average.

I mean, big businesses are shipping off their production overseas because there they can exploit a cheap labor force.
This happened in Ireland. We responded through building human capital.

Also the Americanization of the world is of utmost concern because to me, a people without it's identity is a people that ceased to exist.
Sure. But I'm just here to talk economics.

Ice Cube - No Vaseline (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvRc7pwnt0U)

[Capto]

Well, it's not all in economic growth, look at China, fastest economic growth yet some areas (the farther you go from the coast) are so poor that people there live in huts like their ancestors did.


My mom's side of the family is from Manchuria.

When we visited her hometown in Minjiazhen in Manchuria, it was nothing more than a couple of dirt roads, some brick houses, and a whole load of farms.

Nowadays, it's a thriving town with lots of Chinese corporate businesses and a decently sized main stretch of road with some fine commercial enterprises.

This is at the smallest scale in one of the shittiest provinces of China. Currently, the provinces long neglected save the cursory Revitalize the Northeast program has shaken of the stigma of industrial backwaters and infinite farm towns to become modern, globalized areas with significant urban agglomerations in their own right.

For heaven's sake, I couldn't even recognize Yushu when I visited last, much less Changchun.