You and me, we are winners

Denis Waitley, an American motivational speaker and writer, and a best selling author preach about ‘winners’ in society:

“The winners in life think constantly in terms of I can, I will, and I am. Losers, on the other hand, concentrate their waking thoughts on what they should have or would have done, or what they can’t do.”

This man, which I do not know much about, has authored 16 books and has released hundreds of audio lectures to boost confidence and self-esteem to people that think, well they are, ‘losers’ in the society. He is probably a good man, but he is also one of the ‘winners’ within the world economy, and benefits from other individuals being categorized as ‘losers’. His income and well being is dependent on the fact that the society always will divide winners form losers, successful form the unsuccessful, is one humans victory based on another humans failure? Is that how we measure winners?

Winners in the global world economy are in my head associated with greed and stinginess, bit harsh? Well maybe… But that’s my opinion. Look at this image:

Image

This is the ‘losers’ of the global economy.

Do you think he ‘concentrate his waking thoughts on what he should have or would have done, or what he can’t do’?

What global world economy exclude is the fact that not everyone has the opportunities to succeed economically, and be involved in the global economy. As Donald Trump said in The Apprentice: ‘Everything in life is luck’. Why does the global economy have to increase the gap between winners and losers? One thing is the eager to succeed, but why does that have to involve exploitation of, as mentioned earlier on this blog, other humans? I do not have the answer to that, but I know that regardless this will continue to happen, we all know it and even if we are not aware of it we are all using the outcome of this exploitation at some level.

Do we need to have this structure of successful and non-successful people in the world economy?

Would it be possible for global happiness if everyone received the same goods and services?

I know the answer to that, even me with my socialist spirit and my tiny-tiny communist view on certain things, know that this is not possible in the world economy. But it would be a great thought wouldn’t it?

So if you don’t think you can make a change globally, just keep this in mind:

I believe we are ‘winners’ and privileged, we are the future of the global economy, pence by pence, use them wise.

For now, farewell, Mari Myrenget

Advertisements
Link

Glasgow 2014 and deprived Communities: Who wins and who loses?

Glasgow 2014 and deprived Communities: Who wins and who loses?

Glasgows-Clyde

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/11192poorest_glaswegians_will_real_losers_glasgow_2014

When I first saw that Glasgow had won the bid to host the Commonwealth Games it was an exciting development for the city. As a person who was born in the South-East outskirts of the city it is a real glimpse of opportunism for the city. As a child when I visited, my Grandmother and I would take the bus from Halfway to Buchanan Bus Station, one noticeable sight which always grabbed my attention was the Gorbals. The Gorbals is a notorious Scheme on the outskirts of the city centre which has been associated with violence and poverty. It was a giant, bleak symbol of poverty in Glasgow. Now the area has been redeveloped, there is a brand new swimming complex just in time for 2014.
The problem is who actually wins from these games? The residents of these deprived communities known locally as the Schemes, the games sponsors or the middle classes. The problem is with these sporting events having been the opportunity for the resident’s voices to be heard. London 2012 saw an Olympic games more concerned with appealing to the sponsors and in Brazil people are being turfed out of nearby Favelas to make way for the World Cup Stadium. Will these repercussions happen in Glasgow? I hope not.
In such areas like the Gorbals, Bridgeton and Govan, the areas have been long neglected and have felt the full brunt of poverty. Thatcher firstly shut the ship building in the Clyde and the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy had a drastic, negative effect on these communities. The point is that these areas have not seen opportunity and investment until now. Glasgow 2014 in many ways hopes by promoting the games as a cultural celebration of Glasgow it will appeal to tourists and create awareness of Glasgow to potential developers.
Glasgow is the most deprived and violence city in the U.K., It has one of the worst life expectancies in Europe as well. This has been due a toxic cocktail of unemployment, poverty, social exclusion and ill-health in these areas. These areas need development, they need positive publicity and they most importantly need opportunities for the local people. The portrayal of these areas by the media is also hampering the opportunities for regeneration and development. Referring to people in the Schemes as NEDS (Non Educated Delinquents), benefits scroungers, thugs, alcoholics and junkies is not going to improve Glasgow’s perceived “No Mean City” tag.
The Games need to better address these issues instead of concentrating on tourism. Glasgow 2014 brushes these issues aside to talk about Scottish culture. The beggar ban by Glasgow City Council is a further attempt to improve the city’s image for tourism. The Games help to bring Global attention to Glasgow but at what cost? Where do the people come in to the equation? I was born in this great city but the deliberate attempt to exclude the poor disheartens me. Glasgow’s poor are definitely the losers. However we should not forget that the poor have an impact on Glasgow’s History and Culture, they should be the one of the Winners instead of just corporations’ and the middle classes.
Amy Milliken

The Forgotten People

Tuareg

Isolated and deprived the effects on the Tuareg people by globalization have been disregarded. So who are the Tuareg people? The Tuaregs are the native people of the Sahara who live a nomadic pastoralist way of life; they were separated by French colonial power between Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso to the South and Algeria and Libya in the North. The Tuareg’s homeland straddles the biggest energy alluvium in Africa hence the presence of multinational mining corporations in the Tuareg’s homeland is prevalent.

So how is it possible that the Tuareg’s, whose land is naturally wealthy, be so impoverished? Firstly, the Tuareg’s are effectively expelled from their homeland; they do not possess a sovereign state due to French colonialization they are further prevented by France from their own independent state as it would jeopardize French economic interests. Hence when the Turaeg National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) declared the independent state of Azawad in northern Mali in 2012, Mali saw the return of its former colonial master: France.

France’s economic interest lies in the town of Arlit in Niger where the French multinational corporation (MNC) Areva, the world’s largest nuclear company, has two of its mines.  France is dependent on nuclear power for 75% of its electricity, more importantly it is dependent on the Tuareg’s indigenous land, now Niger, for its uranium. Areva has been mining in the country for over 50 years, in the process leaving 50 times more than normal radioactive waste. Waste that is exposed to desert winds hence contaminating local pastures and water meaning the Tuareg people, whose way of life depends on animals, are damagingly affected as the radiation causes the death of their livestock if they eat from local pastures.

Meaning the Tuareg are forced into further destitute; what is even more disgraceful and tragic is the fact that the radioactive waste from Areva is affecting the health of the Tuareg people who live near Areva’s mines deteriorating health and deaths have already been reported. So while France continues to grow prosperous the Tuareg people continue to grow ill and die. The Tuareg do not benefit from their ancestral land’s wealth instead MNC’s and France profit, to make matters worse France will double uranium production supply in order to provide itself and worldwide clients with nuclear fuel for 35 years.

The effects of this will be detrimental to the Tuareg people who inhabit the town as their local reserves will be drained and their land will become toxic. The exploitation of their land is simply an example of the North’s hegemonic power over the South and highlights that even though colonialism in the traditional sense may not continue, soft colonialism, still does this maintains the economic imbalance between the North and the South and prevents power from relocating away from the core. The soft colonialism of France can be seen in Niger’s decision to not allow full independent studies to be conducted regarding the impact of uranium mining. Why might that be we may ask, well perhaps it has something to do with the country’s president being a former head of Areva’s mine in Niger. This effectively illustrates that Tuareg’s well-being are subordinate to the profits of the MNC’s.

The victors currently are clearly Areva and France over the Tuareg as the wealthier Areva and France become the more into poverty the Tuareg’s fall into.

Marte Vokshi

Who run the World?

The “inspire me” part of this blog suggested the following:

Take a line from a song that you love or connect with. Now forget the song, and turn that line into the title or inspiration for your post.

So here it is.

Image
Who Run The World?  

Well I’ll tell you one thing, it’s not Beyonce (…yet.) So who run this motha-? Not Girls either, apparently.Today’s article from The Economist speaks of how there is still gender inequality in the Global Political Economy: this meaning, of course, that the male influence is still more dominant in offices, and in the International Divisions of Labour (IDL).

Isabella Bakker speaks of this gendered nature of IDL, where there are still an alarming number of women who turn to domestic work, or worse, sex tourism, as a last resort for an option of employment. This is however, when we speak of the worst-case scenario.

Image

 

Over the years, we have slowly but surely seen a movement away from the typical stereotyping of women through the change of portrayal of women in media. Advertisements such as the Goldieblox advert which went viral, showing how little girls don’t just like ‘pink toys and barbies’, to the simple yet impacting Shampoo advert that portrayed how a man and woman in the same position, employed in the same job, are differently labelled. So yes, things have improved, but there is yet much work to be done.

The gender issue is one of the more intricate and delicate issues in IPE, as it is not the division in class or division in production, but instead the division between a man and woman, that creates an unexpected and still highly undermined barrier to Globalisation.

Who are the winners and losers? Well in all honesty, if the importance of gender equality in the workforce is not considered a serious issue then we are all losers. How? If we are to make full use of the available labour force and enhance Globalisation, then individuals must purely be assessed and recruited based on their skills, experience and knowledge in the field in question, irrespective of their race, culture, ethnicity, and gender.  

Image

Believe me, if these gender issues weren’t still around, then Beyonce wouldn’t still be singing
  “Boy I know you love it
How we’re smart enough to make these millions
Strong enough to bear the children
Then get back to business
See, you better not play me”

So to end, again in the words of Beyonce: Who are we? What we run? The world. Now, ever wonder why she didn’t call it an EQUAL,GLOBALISED world? 

Some food for thought there.
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm253/clintcatalyst/Comment%20Responses/131017523LMofwpM.gif

Veera Lamichhane

The Value of Senegal’s Peanuts

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2014/01/peanuts-turn-profitable-senegal-farmers-201412883958750520.html Image

Since 2013, peanuts seem to have turned profitable for Senegal farmers as fast developing economies like China and India has taken a sincere interest in these ground nuts. Almost 50% of cultivated land is used to farm peanuts. China is the largest exporter of peanut products and has experienced a growing demand for the products as well as products for their domestic market. The peanuts were not worth much until the Chinese businessmen gained interest as the farmers previously relied on local mills to buy the crop. China informs that they have given a better option to boost their economy making Senegal able to improve the lives of its people by creating economic ties between the two countries over the next 10 years.

Although the turn seems to be positive for Senegal, the sudden interest has taken Senegal farmers by surprise which unable them to meet the high demand. Some farmers have become reluctant to sell their goods which have contributed to the closure of factories and loss of jobs; ‘a disaster for the whole region’. In addition, the double of the value of processed peanut oil have Chinese businessmen interested in buying plots from the farmers to build factories, taking the additional profit away from the farmers. The plots are ancestral land owned by farmers through generations by which farmers are reluctant to sell even for a huge amount of money – at least for the time being.

China has found a way to make the profits of the peanut their own, as it may only be a matter of time before farmers are tempted to sell for economic reasons. This may be an example of the much disputed and argued exploitation of 3rd world resources by the more developed countries as China has recently become the second largest economy in the world (World Bank, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview).

Winners or losers? Senegal farmers are definitely the losers.

Anette Stepanoski

Have we reached the end of globalisation ???

Have we reached the end of globalization?

 

 Image

This articles puts forward a series of arguments that suggests that we have indeed reached or are reaching the end of globalization. ‘Growth in global trade has dropped dramatically, to even less than GDP growth. The change leaves one wondering: has the incredible transfer of goods around the world reached some sort of pinnacle? Have we exhausted the drive toward ever-more-globalization?’. ‘Joshua Cooper Ramo points out in an essay in Fortune that localism is on the rise – local banking, local manufacturing, and even local sourcing for food and restaurants. Is this simply a pause or could it be more than that? The answer will depend on politics.’ Is this actual’y the case if so who are the winners and losers. Is it the corporations that previously have been enjoying the benefits of globalization, that are now facing unstable and unpredictable demand and business opportunities and their products quickly become commodities, leaving them little or no pricing power and under constant pressure by new competitors that undermine profitability. Or is it the people who these corporations employ that will now be faced with a uncertain future. To me the losers are definitely the people these corporations and transnational companies employ, if localism is indeed on the rise then does that mean the companies will pack and leave the countries they went to because of the cheap labour. If so they take the livelihood of many people.

Paloma-Nicole Dias Dos Santos 

Aside

Image 

Well this post will be about high street brands such as: Nike, Puma, Adidas etc. which dominated the Olympics in 2012, and those more exclusive brands (DKNY, Ralph Laurent and more).Now short question: do you thought about the production process or the conditions of workers who are producing your awesome Air Force Ones or incredible Ralph Laurent polo shirt? Of course you don’t, consumers do not care less (so do I, until I can pay less for a certain good, I’m happy). Anyway we all love to wear clothes made by the companies mentioned above, but this is not all that they have in common. According to the article in “The Guardian”, many of workers (100,000 of them to be accurate) in factories, where most of them are located in the PhilippinesIndonesia and Sri Lanka are not earning minimum wage and 76% of the workers are females, so the “globalised supply chain exploits women” so the women in the West can buy their new DKNY sweater for less (but not cheap). So you can say: take that feminists.  But getting back to the merits of the case: situation is getting worse than better, most of the workers are underpaid, working without contracts, and the overtimes are compulsory. Everything for the sake of productivity target (in Sri Lanka wages are paid only of the workers meet them). Anyway who are the winners? Corporation of course and maybe the consumers, so next time when you will go to the shop for a new pair of trainers take in mind how the product is made. For more details check: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/28/sweatshops-supplying-high-street-brands 

 

Jacek Bazis