# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Cultural Homogenization

## Union Jack

Given the trend of globalization, I believe it would be valuable to consider the possible facets of cultural homogenization. As nations open up more and more, and the spread of information and ideas increases, markets are being flooded with foreign goods and concepts. Many ecnonomists/ sociologists predict that this will lead to a "dumbing" down of individual cultures, and produce a new, global culture.

The question, Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? If so, what are the possible pros and cons.

Some would tend to aurgue that the loss of our diverse cultures is a bane to our eclectic world. Yet others would counter that this thought process is nationalistic, and even facist, and would aurgue that a cultural homogenization would be a boon for our world, and would serve to alleviate many of the racial, cultural strifes inherent between sepearte beliefs and nations.

----------


## kilted exile

I have no problem with global cultures mixing to form on culture which includes some of the customs of each. As an example the town I live in currently has a large number of immigrants from different areas of the world (Eastern European, North American, UK, mediterranean, and middle east) I enjoy the fact that when out walking I pass shops selling merchandise/food from all the different original areas.

I do worry however, that globalization of culture often really means americanization and the MacDonalds/WalMart culture.

----------


## Bandini

_The MacDonaldization of Society_ by George Ritzer is a good read.

----------


## Union Jack

Well I do not believe that this "americainzation" is forced upon other countries, As America functions on capitalisim, the goods flow towards the demand. The reason MacDonalds moves overseas to places like China, is due to the demand in that area. MacDonalds would not attempt to sell its product in an area devoid of interest.

----------


## Bandini

No - but they do not consider anything but profit. I think that is a problem. Demand for a product does not always make it morally acceptable to sell it. A crack dealer moving into a neighbourhood were people desire crack is not morally sound is he? 

Incidentally, a MacDonalds 'big wig' some years ago stated that if the Japenese ate MacDonalds rather rather than fish and rice, they would grow taller and become whiter.

----------


## Union Jack

That's a hilarious quote, good point. 

But, unfortunately, morals do not enter into economics, and they shoudn't.

----------


## Virgil

That's an interesting question Union Jack that I've considered in the past and discussed with people. First you should consider that all peopole of all cultures are never static; they are always evolving. Sometimes as an outsider (or even an insider) we get the impression that this or that culture has been that way for centuries. But it's not true. There are changes within a culture, despite what the most conservative (and I don't mean this in a political sense) members may claim. 

Now as to globalization, yes the interaction through mass modern communication has spread certain traits across the world. And cultures that might have evolved differently might be evolving toward, let us for now call it western values, but it's not necessarily only western. Nor is western all homogenized. There seems to be in human nature two opposing drives of identity (if that makes sense to you), the drive to bond together and the drive to divide apart. There will always be some dividing apart, and cultures (groups of people who have bonded together) will distinguish themselves over time. So, no, I don't think we will be one homogenized world culture. 

Hopefully we can take what works to make society better (modern medicine, industrialization, human rights) and share that, and if people wish to pick up on it so be it.

----------


## Union Jack

Thank you Virgil, you bring up a good point, that cultures are not static. I do not believ that "western" culture would necessarily dominate others in the future. Perhaps nations would merely adopt western economic systems ( capitalism) and retian their heritage, identity, and political setup. 

Is that a bad thing? Would the we be better of with a "world" culture than many smaller ones? Would it end divisions and strife? What are the benefits and losses?

I'm honestly not sure where my opinions lie on this topic, I'm hoping for others to participate so that I may weigh the value of many opinions, and perhaps agree with one, or maybe combine some, or reject them all and develope my own view.

----------


## chmpman

My Am. Lit. professor made an interesting statement considering a like topic; that it is now impossible, if one is exposed to these mediums of communication, for an author to create regionalized literature. So therefore, we should no longer consider what has been referred to as American Literature by this name; rather we should call it World Literature written in the English language in America.

What are your opinions on what globalization will do to literature, and whether or not an author can still create regionalized lit.?

----------


## Union Jack

Oh truly, it is very hard to nail any of our thoughts down to being purely "Americain" or in my case, purely "British." 
We live in a global world, and many other cultures have influenced our thoughts and opinions, so I would say that it is near impossible to write a "purely Americain novel" containing Americain ideas and characters.
Enviornemnt plays a huge part of our developement, and our enviornement is the world, not just one culture.

----------


## Virgil

> Thank you Virgil, you bring up a good point, that cultures are not static. I do not believ that "western" culture would necessarily dominate others in the future. Perhaps nations would merely adopt western economic systems ( capitalism) and retian their heritage, identity, and political setup. 
> 
> Is that a bad thing? Would the we be better of with a "world" culture than many smaller ones? Would it end divisions and strife? What are the benefits and losses?


In my opinion, it would be a good thing. Nations whose economic systems are interconnected are far less likely to develop strife. Look at Europe? Can one imagine a major war between any of the European countries as Europe currently stands? Countries (free and democratic, of course) who risk major economic down turns by going to war will usually find solutions to their conflicts. Prosperity depends upon it.

----------


## Bandini

> But, unfortunately, morals do not enter into economics, and they shoudn't.


What?? They don't cos, as a world, we worship Mammon! But surely they should? And doesn't 'unfortunately' and 'they shouldn't' make your statement a little paradoxical?!

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

The saddest thing about the 'McDonaldisation' of cultures is that the Big Mac, like most things that are (allegedly) bad for people but rather moreish (drugs, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, as other examples), does not need to be 'pushed' on to other cultures; it is instead, actively pulled. It hurts me to say it of my own race, but a lot of people would genuinely prefer a McOffalburger with fries and a shake to a three course meal in a 'proper' restaurant.

----------


## Union Jack

> What?? They don't cos, as a world, we worship Mammon! But surely they should? And doesn't 'unfortunately' and 'they shouldn't' make your statement a little paradoxical?!


Ha Ha, I'm glad you got my irony Bandini. What I said reflects the views of many economists, or buisiness people.

----------


## chmpman

Virgil,
I see a difference between your analogy about Europe now being so interconnected that it is unimaginable to see them going to war and the globalization of the entire world. Europe has been steeped in the Western tradition of thought for many centuries. The problem with globalization may not be the outcome, but rather the process, with the confliction you see between very different cultures. 

I wonder if this homogenization of cultures will mean not only that it is impossible to create regionalized literature (I don't necessarily think regionalized lit. is bad), but that it may become impossible to read past literature without making judgements on it under our globalized viewpoint. I think we'll be losing a lot of literary merit if this occurs. (sorry if this sounds rather vague)

----------


## kilted exile

> Look at Europe? Can one imagine a major war between any of the European countries as Europe currently stands? Countries (free and democratic, of course) who risk major economic down turns by going to war will usually find solutions to their conflicts. Prosperity depends upon it.


No an intereuropean war is highly unlikely now. However the larger integrated Europe also has created numerous problems in the individual countries due to some of the policies forced on member states with regards to freedom of trade.

Countries now have limitations on how they are allowed to subsidise their industries, which in cases leads to the inability to compete pricewise with products made in other places. This is turn results in bankruptcies, job losses etc.

Also there is the issue of fishing areas which used to belong to individual contries but are now fished by people from all areas of europe.

I think it would be far better if we didnt have war because we were all acting in a socially responsible manner, instead of because we are too scared of the effect it would have on the economy.

----------


## jackyyyy

Aye, if there is no interest, McDonalds will CREATE it. Great stuff, Unnamable! I have a few pics of my own I would add, but yours took the whole box of biscuits.

----------


## Bandini

The 'artefacts' won't show on my PC Unname. Can you describe them?

----------


## Virgil

> Im all for global homogenisation. It results in such beautiful cultural artefacts as these:
> 
> Given the astronomical sums of money spent on advertising, do you think that demand might possibly be _stimulated_.


Simple answer - No. I see a ton of car adverstisements. I don't go and buy a car every day or every year, not even every five years. I don't know what the market place is like in China as far as other options, but for me in the United States I almost never go to MacDonalds. I see them all over the place. I see their advertisments. It has no effect on me. I don't know for a fact, but in my travels through Italy I did not see all that many of that type of place. Italians value good food, even when it has to be quick. The culture doesn't support it. In my discusssions with my cousins and other relatives in Italy, none of them thought of MacDonalds as anything but junk. My parents never, never once took us to one growing up here in the U.S.. It's culture dependent. The logic of what people here are saying is that one can sell dog crap on a bun and with the right advertisement people will flock to it. I'm asking you personally, not in any hypothetical situation, how many of you would under certain conditions of free will, buy dog crap in a bun? And if the answer is no, what makes you so special? Are you some superman and everyone else sheep?

So tell me, how many of you go to MacDonalds? And is it by choice or control?

----------


## The Unnamable

> Simple answer - No.


Virgil, McDonalds alone spends over two billion dollars a year on advertising. Just think  they could instantly transform all that into pure profit if they accept your view that advertising has no impact. Why do you think that companies spend so much money on advertising if it doesnt work? No, I never eat McDonalds but that doesnt mean that advertising doesnt work, nor does it mean I am special (there seems to be a contradiction in your argument here  are _you_ Superman and everyone else sheep?). Nevertheless, they have become a part of my minds landscape, a part of the irritating background noise of modern life. The McDonalds arch is reckoned to be as recognisable as the Christian cross. I remember visiting the Pyramids a number of years ago and noticing that the golden arch was less than a mile away. The homogenisation of global culture doesnt simply mean that everyone eats McDonalds or drives the same car! It affects our physical environments, even our language. What I found interesting about the second photograph is that both the male and female are supposed to be Thai. Yet, like most Thais used in advertising here, they are very westernised Thais. Rocky, of course, is a popular Thai name  most of the Buddhist monks out here are called names like Rocky, Rambo, Jed and Master Skywalker.

Your reduction of the issue to the two simple alternatives of free choice or control is frighteningly simplistic. Even if you dont want to get into a discussion about the workings of ideology, would you mind at least explaining why companies continue to waste such enormous sums on advertising when it _doesnt_ stimulate demand?

----------


## blp

A small addition to Unnamable's argument: most of McDonald's advertising is aimed at children. Because of the free gifts McDonald's offer, they're now reckoned to be the largest toy distributer in the United States. Most children aren't in a position to make a rational choice about the nutritional or cultural implications of going to McDonald's.

----------


## blp

> Well I do not believe that this "americainzation" is forced upon other countries, As America functions on capitalisim, the goods flow towards the demand.


I'm sorry, Union Jack, but this is an incredibly idealised vision of capitalism and quite shockingly ignorant about the way it actually functions. Organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund are incredibly aggressive about getting 'developing' nations to 'open up their markets' to foreign investment and imports, while America, which wholly backs these initiatives, is hypocricitally protectionist about it's own agriculture and industry, often keeping it afloat artificially through state subsidy and barring entry to foreign competition. The first thing to learn about most 'free marketeers' is that they only believe in free markets when it suits them.

Edit - actually, since this is a literature forum, I'll recommend a book: _Globalization and its Discontents_ by former World Bank president Joseph Stiglitz.

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, McDonalds alone spends over two billion dollars a year on advertising. Just think  they could instantly transform all that into pure profit if they accept your view that advertising has no impact. Why do you think that companies spend so much money on advertising if it doesnt work? No, I never eat McDonalds but that doesnt mean that advertising doesnt work, nor does it mean I am special (there seems to be a contradiction in your argument here  are _you_ Superman and everyone else sheep?). Nevertheless, they have become a part of my minds landscape, a part of the irritating background noise of modern life. The McDonalds arch is reckoned to be as recognisable as the Christian cross. I remember visiting the Pyramids a number of years ago and noticing that the golden arch was less than a mile away. The homogenisation of global culture doesnt simply mean that everyone eats McDonalds or drives the same car! It affects our physical environments, even our language. What I found interesting about the second photograph is that both the male and female are supposed to be Thai. Yet, like most Thais used in advertising here, they are very westernised Thais. Rocky, of course, is a popular Thai name  most of the Buddhist monks out here are called names like Rocky, Rambo, Jed and Master Skywalker.
> 
> Your reduction of the issue to the two simple alternatives of free choice or control is frighteningly simplistic. Even if you dont want to get into a discussion about the workings of ideology, would you mind at least explaining why companies continue to waste such enormous sums on advertising when it _doesnt_ stimulate demand?


I don't have time right now. Simple answer: they are in competition with each other. If they weren't, they would not need to advertise. I'll refute your other points later.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Simple answer: they are in competition with each other.


Once again, Virgil, you are confusing simple with simplistic. Pepsi has to advertise because Coca-Cola does  even though no one is persuaded by either! This is obviously nonsense. If you are genuinely interested in finding out a little about how advertising works, try this very readable link:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hzi9403.html

Its a reputable site belonging to the University of Wales (no jokes, please).

It seems to me that what *Union Jack* is failing to see is the extent to which global homogenisation is a part of the process of cultural imperialism. 

Here is an extract from a Media Studies essay (cant remember the source, sorry). It offers one answer to chmpmans question about what will happen to Literature in a homogenised world:

The apparently world-wide appetite for Spielberg films, Big Macs, and Michael Jackson music, to the detriment of indigenous cultures, has been created by the familiarity with American culture disseminated by the Western media. Cultural imperialism is not only a problem for the Third World. In 1993 the conclusion of the GATT talks was stalled when France insisted on measures to protect the European film industry from Hollywood. France believed that protection for Europe's cultural industries was necessary because Hollywood movies - Jurassic Park in that year - were attracting massive audiences, while their own films struggled to make a profit. 

It is possible that France had taken note of the example of Canadian television and feared that the same might happen in Europe. In the 1950s the Canadian Government could have chosen either to develop a publicly regulated broadcast system or to model their system on the deregulation that existed in USA. They chose the latter, with guarantees from the private broadcasters that local programmes would be shown. In the event, these guarantees were broken and although Canadian television offers more channels than the public option would have provided, there is less diversity. Canadians can see a great many US TV channels and virtually no Canadian-made television.

The larger number of channels there are the less money is spent on programmes because there is only a finite amount of advertising revenue. American programmes tend to be the cheapest to buy because it is easier for them to recoup their costs in the huge home market. The obvious option that financially restricted television stations have throughout the world is to fill their air-time with cheaply bought American products. The popularity of Hollywood films has also made it easier for US television to sell its programmes abroad. Even where programmes are not from the USA, there is a strong likelihood that they will be American-inspired in style and genre, leading to a homogenised mass culture.

The increase in international co-productions is another indication of the trend towards a global television marketplace. A programme which attempts to address an international audience cannot be culture-specific unless that culture is American  the production must aim to be the Coca-Cola of media production. Even BBC classic dramas are made with one eye on American co-producers or sales: Dickenss anti-Americanism in _Martin Chuzzlewit_ was glossed over in the TV production.

----------


## jackyyyy

> Simple answer - No. I see a ton of car adverstisements. I don't go and buy a car every day or every year, not even every five years. I don't know what the market place is like in China as far as other options, but for me in the United States I almost never go to MacDonalds. I see them all over the place. I see their advertisments. It has no effect on me. I don't know for a fact, but in my travels through Italy I did not see all that many of that type of place. Italians value good food, even when it has to be quick. The culture doesn't support it. In my discusssions with my cousins and other relatives in Italy, none of them thought of MacDonalds as anything but junk. My parents never, never once took us to one growing up here in the U.S.. It's culture dependent. The logic of what people here are saying is that one can sell dog crap on a bun and with the right advertisement people will flock to it. I'm asking you personally, not in any hypothetical situation, how many of you would under certain conditions of free will, buy dog crap in a bun? And if the answer is no, what makes you so special? Are you some superman and everyone else sheep?
> 
> So tell me, how many of you go to MacDonalds? And is it by choice or control?


Virgil has a solid point. Countries in shock of the new, and the heavy investment that a huge corp. will throw at it, will absorb it, which is why McDonalds is apparently successful in these countries. I say, apparently, because I am always questioning their ROI (return on investment), and I do wonder how fragile an enterprise it is when the locals could put their own verson in a nice bag too, if they wanted to. A country like the United States, which has seen the likes of McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's Jimmy's Drive-in, blah blah blah, literally 100s of them since the horse and wagon soup kitchens, is mature to it, and it's advertising. Another point here is cost. In the USA, I can get a burger for a buck, its cheap car food. Anywhere else, its almost a luxury item, to the extent its a once a month extravagance, or a kid's birthday party (Blp), which McDonalds exploits to perfection. Actually, the kids drag the parents to eat there, or whine all day (reverse education). Domestically engineered food 'cooked food', is often less expensive, especially for more than one person, but it takes more effort. Excepted, people who are lazy or no time for cooking, or dumb about what they are ingesting on a 'regular' basis, people are price conscious. This is actually a marketing challenge for McDonalds, which is why their strategically placed, heavily invested, food wagons shine in comparison to local restaurants. Once they added their 21 grams of lettuce and tomato, they could argue its nutritional value versus price - just for those people that need a futher persuasion. And what did the rest of the food industry do, well, Italian restaurants put their prices up.

To answer Virgil's question, I go to McDonalds a lot when I am in the USA, and less anywhere else, if I am concerned about money. If I am not concerned about money, I go there a lot when its exactly where I turn off on the highway or, my daughter MUST eat there. There are 100s of reasons either way, and especially, the meat is kinda tasty, the health deparment says its okay, and but, I would actually prefer Wendy's if it was exactly on that bend by the gas station. Bottom line is money.

----------


## jackyyyy

An addition and slight correction to my theme, having just seen Unnamable's post. Yes, investment can force it, which is why the United States has been able to more easily infiltrate other markets, but, I don't believe that investment alone is sustainable in the long run. With regard to globalization, the United States, and due in large part to common language, has a 10 to 1 advantage across the board with Canada. To the point, ( and I did not write this ) they might as well call it all one country. South America could fit in there too. Regionalism in the World is taking hold, while a financial globalization is somewhere inevitable, down the road. Size of market; Europe, North America, Asia, has divided the World up into money zones. Cultural globalization has been going on since well before the Vikings, and could arguably be influencial in forcing ideological change, but not the bottom line. Reference, two World wars.

----------


## blp

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Jackyyy. 'Investment alone' not sustainable? It sort of just depends on whether you keep getting a positive ROI really, doesn't it? 

As for treating the US and Canada as one country, well, there's always the North American Free Trade Agreement. Pity it's not really that freeing, the US being happy for it's companies to open factories in Mexico and exploit the local lax labour market regulations, but not at all happy to have Mexicans come into America to try to get a better employment deal. 

Cultural globalization since the Vikings? I think this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term globalization. It's a difficult and multifaceted concept, but it's at least partly about companies becoming truly transnational rather than belonging, culturally or for the purposes of regulation, taxation and production, to any one country. This is rather different from the kind of cultural cross pollination that's been going on for centuries due to things like the spice trade or missionary work or even colonialism. Among other things, the speed of electronic communications now allows markets to operate much faster and with much greater reach than ever before.

----------


## jackyyyy

> I'm not quite sure what you mean, Jackyyy. 'Investment alone' not sustainable? It sort of just depends on whether you keep getting a positive ROI really, doesn't it?


The essential 'product', regardless of advertising is what will sustain ROI. In McDonalds case, there are a huge number of variables, which is credit to their marketing really - to foray into other World markets the way they have. They must equate billion dollars of advertising to billion+ dollars of revenue. 
Selling gas to a country, which does not have gas, and never will have gas, is an easier ROI decision, warranting the billions in investment, but zero advertising.


> As for treating the US and Canada as one country, well, there's always the North American Free Trade Agreement. Pity it's not really that freeing, the US being happy for it's companies to open factories in Mexico and exploit the local lax labour market regulations, but not at all happy to have Mexicans come into America to try to get a better employment deal.


That FTA is exactly that, an agreement. Its as good for one party while the other party receives something about equal somewhere else, and dropped (re-re-re-ratified) the moment its lacking an about equal advantage. I cannot qualify an FTA the same as the European Union, which, to me at least, is putting people, ideologies, businesses, money, into the same box, and is much less droppable.


> Cultural globalization since the Vikings? I think this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term globalization. It's a difficult and multifaceted concept, but it's at least partly about companies becoming truly transnational rather than belonging, culturally or for the purposes of regulation, taxation and production, to any one country. This is rather different from the kind of cultural cross pollination that's been going on for centuries due to things like the spice trade or missionary work or even colonialism. Among other things, the speed of electronic communications now allows markets to operate much faster and with much greater reach than ever before.


I reduced to less words, mean't merely, the movement and situation (free or forced) of people, ideas, tv shows, etc, around the planet. I agree, its about companies too, but I would add that even multi-nationals are not entirely globalized, else why do I think McDonald's is an American company and Nissan is Japanese. Marrying the US to Canada, legally and corporately, offers a lot of financial benefits.

----------


## blp

> I reduced to less words, mean't merely, the movement and situation (free or forced) of people, ideas, tv shows, etc, around the planet.


I know. But my point was that I don't think we have a term like 'globalization' or, er, 'globalisation' just because people and products don't stay in their own countries. 




> I agree, its about companies too, but I would add that even multi-nationals are not entirely globalized, else why do I think McDonald's is an American company and Nissan is Japanese.


Solely because those are the place where they started. 




> Marrying the US to Canada, legally and corporately, offers a lot of financial benefits.


To whom?

----------


## jackyyyy

> I know. But my point was that I don't think we have a term like 'globalization' or, er, 'globalisation' just because people and products don't stay in their own countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

There are several interpretations for globalization, but, using my own words, 'its the removal of borders (or restrictions)'. That embraces companies, culture, etc. Incidently, I feel good to indicate it precludes an FTA. (It may look like it, but nope, because the borders stay up)


> Solely because those are the place where they started.


Then McDonalds is a Russian corporation of American origin, is correct.


> To whom?


Ha, I might ask French farmers the answer to that. Personally, I think both. Also, I believe NA, including SA, could end up with a little Europe going on if they don't unionize properly one day, but that would be an ideological nightmare. Good reasons for harmonization are the dollar$, IMF and Asia/Europe, we discussed in short earlier.

----------


## blp

We're in danger of going way off topic. But look, this removal of borders and restrictions is new. That hasn't been going on since the Vikings.

----------


## jackyyyy

Nargh, the Romans trampled right on through it and put a new one up at Hadrian's wall. I agree, someone needs to get this onto a track.

----------


## Union Jack

Clearly the demand is stimulated, but that is not a bad thing. The important thing is that there is a flow of money and goods, without out this an economy flounders. If there is no market, companies are completely within their rights, and abilities to create one. You can influence people all you want, in the end it is their choice whether or not to utilise your services.

Clearly there is a moral bankruptcy among MNCs these days, but they do not need morals, morals do not make money. They are fulfilling their goals using the tools at their disposal, evil? Some call it survival ( in the competetive world of buisiness.) Companies cannot consider how their intrusions will afffect a society or culture, because they need to intrude, in order to pump the market and make money, before others do.

----------


## Virgil

> Once again, Virgil, you are confusing simple with simplistic. Pepsi has to advertise because Coca-Cola does  even though no one is persuaded by either!


Yes, it may be a tad more complicated than I project, but not by much. I'm a little simplistic for two reasons: (a) this is a short post, I'm not about to elaborate and (b) I don't have a degree in Business. You know, there are people with Masters and PhD degrees and who write text books and teach courses and work in the business world with real businesses and write business plans and start real businesses. I don't have any of that expertise. I take it that everyone here talking about the complexities of business world has some of it. Or are they just talking out of their blank.

The life of businesses is knowing what the customer wants. There are market surveys, interviews, trial experiments with customers. A company needs to know what the customer wants, because the customer decides what he will buy. Businesses will prioritize customers desires. Let me just speculate for MacD. The customer wants to be filled (heavy foods), eat tasty (fat enriched) foods, quick, and cheap. MacD is going to strive to find the right balance in all that. The company that finds the best balance is going to be the most succesful. Yes, it is slightly more complicated than that, but that is the core and the complications are tangentials. If you don't get the core right, you can forget about everythng else. Look these fast food places have tried certain things around here the last few years. I remember Burger kKng (I think it was) tried serving customers at their table as if it were a restaurant. It didn't work. People didn't care, and despite the advertising it went no where. Recently they all have tried to get on the health food band wagon, and I think almost all of them put out a line of healthy foods. It went no where. Hardly anyone goes to these places for healthy foods. That's not what the customer wants. Advertisement doesn't change that. People have free wills.

Where I work, we don't make products for the general public, but we do know very distinctly who our customers are. We all distinctly know who our number one customer is and who our number two customer is. We try to bend over backwards for them. And it also works in reverse. We have vendors who supply us materials. Here's a real example. We have a need for a specialized nylon that is not commercially available. We've had this nylon company supply us this particular nylon for years. The had to make a special batch. A couple of years ago they decided to modernize their equipment, which wound up altering the properties of the nylon we needed. They couldn't get the properties we wanted no matter how they tweaked and tried. Well, we went to another company who still used the old type of equipment and taught them how make the product we need. Now we don't go to that first company anymore, and they've lost a good deal of business.

The point of all this is that the customer chooses what he wants. If people go to MacD it's because they want to go.





> there seems to be a contradiction in your argument here  are you Superman and everyone else sheep


How is that a contradiction? I'm questioning why advertising doesn't control your mind but yet it seems to control all the sheep that frequent MacD. The contradiction is on your part, not mine.




> McDonalds alone spends over two billion dollars a year on advertising


There are something like 6 billion people in the world. That's like 33 cents per person per year. That doesn't sound so outrageous to me.

----------


## Regit

> But, unfortunately, morals do not enter into economics, and they shoudn't.


Could you please explain why morals do not enter into economics?
Could you please explain why morals should not enter into economics?

----------


## Regit

> Clearly there is a moral bankruptcy among MNCs these days.





> but they do not need morals, morals do not make money.





> They are fulfilling their goals using the tools at their disposal, evil





> Some call it survival ( in the competetive world of business.)





> Companies cannot consider how their intrusions will affect a society or culture, because they need to intrude, in order to pump the market and make money, before others do.


These statements are not only one-sided, they are also extremely unsupported, inaccurate, and wrong. If you stand firm on the no-research-no-evidence position, can you at least provide some kind of explanation or argument to support these things you said? Thanks.

----------


## The Unnamable

> There are something like 6 billion people in the world. That's like 33 cents per person per year. That doesn't sound so outrageous to me.


Congratulations, Virgil; I think you have managed to find the weakest argument in history.

----------


## Union Jack

> These statements are not only one-sided, they are also extremely unsupported, inaccurate, and wrong. If you stand firm on the no-research-no-evidence position, can you at least provide some kind of explanation or argument to support these things you said? Thanks.


As I said in a previous post, these statements do not reflect my views, it' simply the way many MNCs tend to look at their affairs. I am not presenting my view, simply trying to represent their aurgument in hopes of a counterpoint to it.
Can you counter the point?

----------


## jackyyyy

> Given the trend of globalization, I believe it would be valuable to consider the possible facets of cultural homogenization. As nations open up more and more, and the spread of information and ideas increases, markets are being flooded with foreign goods and concepts. Many ecnonomists/ sociologists predict that this will lead to a "dumbing" down of individual cultures, and produce a new, global culture.
> 
> The question, Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? If so, what are the possible pros and cons.
> 
> Some would tend to aurgue that the loss of our diverse cultures is a bane to our eclectic world. Yet others would counter that this thought process is nationalistic, and even facist, and would aurgue that a cultural homogenization would be a boon for our world, and would serve to alleviate many of the racial, cultural strifes inherent between sepearte beliefs and nations.


I wanted to repost this to straighten the theme. I feel there is an error in the question, 'Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely?'. As far as I see it, its always been going on, is as deterministic as life itself. If people are presenting it as a new notion, then okay, and I want to create a new verb (not so new really); "yogurting", "to yogurt". We are doing it right here, so its natural. 

I agree that complaints are on the whole nationalistic, even individual (selfish (in the natural sense)) and that its a 'boon', though the word 'boon' does not impress on me the cost that detractors actually have to pay, including there, the oft times insensitive, selfish side to marketing. But then, humanity paid a price every step of the way anyway, didn't it. We isolate MacD, which is simply a trader, doing what any business does, however on a much larger scale. The essentials are exactly the same at your corner store, or the street person selling his fake Rolex watches in every country on this globe. We would not have quality of television if 'economies of scale' left the invention of television in the backyard of that inventor, or the invention of the lightbulb, or medicines, and so on. Economics is 'underneath' the homogenization of the Arts; something fundamental. An artist cannot paint without paint.

Back to my Vikings (apologies in advance for all the quick examples, there are sooooo many), Brits complained when they snook off all the beautiful women to Iceland (I think), French farmers complain when its their chicken coop being reduced or their language being relegated, Americans did complain when the Beatles first landed their strange music, and the Russians did not complain when MacD created jobs in Moscow, and Nigeria did not complain when it received medicines.

Of course, ideologies will try to put walls around theirs, but they cannot support those walls unless they can also support themselves within those confines. Bottom line is, people on this planet need each other, so homogenization is not only 'likely', has always been present, and is inevitable.

I can only offer what I see is common blank. I put forward that resistance is futile, could go on about creating an homogenized World Yogurt, but I am really not sure I want to join the Borg, just yet.  :Banana:

----------


## Regit

> As I said in a previous post, these statements do not reflect my views, it' simply the way many MNCs tend to look at their affairs. I am not presenting my view, simply trying to represent their aurgument in hopes of a counterpoint to it.
> Can you counter the point?


This is not _your_  view, but it's _their_  view? How do you know their arguments? How do you know that what you said is the way many multinational corporations look at their affairs? Do you work for them? Do you own one? What?

I can't counter something that does not make any economic sense or any common sense to me.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Yes, it may be a tad more complicated than I project, but not by much. I'm a little simplistic for two reasons: (a) this is a short post, I'm not about to elaborate and (b) I don't have a degree in Business. You know, there are people with Masters and PhD degrees and who write text books and teach courses and work in the business world with real businesses and write business plans and start real businesses. I don't have any of that expertise. I take it that everyone here talking about the complexities of business world has some of it. Or are they just talking out of their blank.


If I understand this correctly (or even at all), then you seem to value the authority of academic credentials. How about this from media analyst Dr. Jean Kilbourne:

"The average American is exposed to at least 3,000 ads every day and will spend three years of his or her life watching television commercials Advertising makes up about 70 per cent of our newspapers and 40 per cent of our mail."

"Almost everyone holds the misguided belief that advertisements don't affect them, don't shape their attitudes, don't help define their dreams. What I hear more than anything else as I lecture throughout the country is 'I don't pay attention to ads...l just tune them out...they have no effect on me.' Of course, I hear this most often from young men wearing Budweiser caps. In truth, we are all influenced by advertising. There is no way to tune out this much information, especially when it is carefully designed to break through the 'tuning out' process.

"The fact is that much of advertising's power come from this belief that advertising does not affect us. The most effective kind of propaganda is that which is not recognised as propaganda. Because we think that advertising is silly and trivial, we are less on guard, less critical than we might otherwise be. It's all in fun, it's ridiculous. While we are laughing, sometimes sneering, the commercial does its work."

----------


## Regit

> There are something like 6 billion people in the world. That's like 33 cents per person per year. That doesn't sound so outrageous to me.


It's a wonderful thing, Economies of Scale. If you are willing to spend money on marketing on each and every person in the whole wide world, you must be entitled to a little discount  :Smile: . Though that doesn't mean that it isn't an enormous amount of money and an ambitous investment.

----------


## Union Jack

> This is not _your_  view, but it's _their_  view? How do you know their arguments? How do you know that what you said is the way many multinational corporations look at their affairs? Do you work for them? Do you own one? What?
> 
> I can't counter something that does not make any economic sense or any common sense to me.


HaHa, actually I did intern at Dell ( the computer company) for several years, and as such was privy to much boardroom discussion on this very topic. My boss, Charles, have a favourite saying, when asked "But sir, can we do that, is it right?" he would respond with "Right, right my ***, nice doesn't make money!"

And yes, lets try to get back on topic, Jackyyyy brought up a good point, that cultural homogenisation has been going on for a while, what could some of the potential outcomes be, when(if) we reach such a point that cultues become intermixed to a degree that separation requires historical analysis and tracing?

An example, most people are aware that St. Patrick's Day is traditionally an Irish celebration. However, other cultures ( notably America) also celebrate this day. Is it possible that in the future, everyone could celebrate other cultures/ countries occasions, and not relate the celebration to the original cultural signifigance, ie: it's no longer Irish, it's a world holiday?

----------


## Regit

> HaHa, actually I did intern at Dell (the computer company) for several years, and as such was privy to much boardroom discussion on this very topic. My boss, Charles, have a favourite saying, when asked "But sir, can we do that, is it right?" he would respond with "Right, right my ***, nice doesn't make money!"
> 
> And yes, lets try to get back on topic, Jackyyyy brought up a good point, that cultural homogenisation has been going on for a while, what could some of the potential outcomes be, when(if) we reach such a point that cultues become intermixed to a degree that separation requires historical analysis and tracing?


Back on topic? I don't think I strayed off topic for a second; the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential to answering your original question. 

You make me laugh; you really think that I would let your thoughtless statements go because you had an internship at Dell and, apparently, remember a quote from your boss. You surprised me (in a good way) and got my hopes up when you said that you worked for Dell; but then you disappointed me again because it seems that this hasn't really help your answers to make anymore sense. Tell me, apart from the extensive argument brought forth by your ex-boss, do you have any *actual* explanations, perhaps drawn from your experience at Dell, for why you stated that "morals do not enter into economics" and that morals "should not" enter into economics? And I would also love to hear any expansion on the "evil" of MNCs. Thank you.

----------


## jackyyyy

> An example, most people are aware that St. Patrick's Day is traditionally an Irish celebration. However, other cultures ( notably America) also celebrate this day. Is it possible that in the future, everyone could celebrate other cultures/ countries occasions, and not relate the celebration to the original cultural signifigance, ie: it's no longer Irish, it's a world holiday?


  :FRlol:  If we mixed-in all the mandatory holidays from every country, we would never work again, eh, cool! Homogenization must include harmonization; melding of people, economies, ideas, and so on, so we are not replacing or taking anything away (unlike the Vikings), but putting them together somehow. However, something has to change because we cannot have **8000 bank holidays in one year, and this is actually choking governments for decisions, rules and guidelines, and causing certain politicians to seek advice from lady friends. As for historical tracing, not sure it will be relevant, rather nostalgic. Successive generations may look back fondly, and thats about it. Language, education, money and table manners aside, the disparities on this globe must be addressed, and if yogurting is to be a good mix for everyone. 

** This number was totally invented by myself, please do not book holidays because of it.

----------


## Scheherazade

Regit, please do not personalise your arguments.

----------


## Union Jack

> Back on topic? I don't think I strayed off topic for a second; the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential to answering your original question. 
> 
> You make me laugh; you really think that I would let your thoughtless statements go because you had an internship at Dell and, apparently, remember a quote from your boss. You surprised me (in a good way) and got my hopes up when you said that you worked for Dell; but then you disappointed me again because it seems that this hasn't really help your answers to make anymore sense. Tell me, apart from the extensive argument brought forth by your ex-boss, do you have any *actual* explanations, perhaps drawn from your experience at Dell, for why you stated that "morals do not enter into economics" and that morals "should not" enter into economics? And I would also love to hear any expansion on the "evil" of MNCs. Thank you.


Please refrain from personal attacks, if you must be so juvenile, use private messaging.

----------


## Regit

> Regit, please do not personalise your arguments.


You are right. My apologies. I will rephrase:

I did not think that the "discussion" that I was having with Union Jack was off topic, because "the large bodies of politics and commerce are most responsible for the speed of globalisation, and understanding how they operate is essential" to answering his original question. Therefore I did not think that I needed to be reminded where I was.

As for my questions for Union Jack:
You stated earlier that "morals do not enter into economics", and "it should not". These statements contradict with many things that I was taught in school. Thus, I was wondering if you could elaborate on these points that you made so that I can understand them further, and so that we could have further discussions on this topic. Because you involved "economics", I assumed that you made these remarks with scientific intentions. Thus, I am curious as to how you have derived your conclusions and with what evidence. If my assumption was wrong, and you were only making these remarks without any scientific intentions, then please let me retract all my questions regarding this matter. Thank you.

----------


## Union Jack

Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?

----------


## blp

> The point of all this is that the customer chooses what he wants. If people go to MacD it's because they want to go.


Virgil, you do have a point about how demand shapes markets - and fortunately, it means that, as demand for healthier foods increases, McDonald's is beginning to do less well, at least in Europe and America. Still, you could argue that that's a result of the other side, the likes of Morgan Spurlock, getting its message out about the harmful effects of that food more effectively - engaging in a sort of counter-advertising if you like. You also haven't answered my point about how McDonald's advertising targets children.

----------


## blp

> Clearly the demand is stimulated, but that is not a bad thing. The important thing is that there is a flow of money and goods, without out this an economy flounders. If there is no market, companies are completely within their rights, and abilities to create one. You can influence people all you want, in the end it is their choice whether or not to utilise your services.
> 
> Clearly there is a moral bankruptcy among MNCs these days, but they do not need morals, morals do not make money. They are fulfilling their goals using the tools at their disposal, evil? Some call it survival ( in the competetive world of buisiness.) Companies cannot consider how their intrusions will afffect a society or culture, because they need to intrude, in order to pump the market and make money, before others do.


Wait, I'm a bit lost. Which is your view and which is just the view of transnational corporatism? Isn't it you saying it's not a bad thing if demand is stimulated? And how does 'not a bad thing' square with your assertion (with which I'd tend to agree) that large corporations have to use 'evil'? 

Sticking with this use of evil, your argument seems contradictory. Just having a bunch of companies using evil in a country is not automatically good for its economy. It's actively bad for it if those companies are just there to plunder what they can get from the economy.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?


Jack, I will also ask you not to personalise your arguments. I am not sure how where Regit studied is related to the on-going argument. If you would like to discuss more personal matters, please feel free to send PMs.

This is one of the more interesting discussions going on on the Forum at the moment; however, please note that off-topic, personalised comments does little in the way of pushing the argument forward and might be deleted.

----------


## Regit

> Can you counter the point?





> Well first I ask, what were you taught in school concerning economics and morals?


Why do you ask and insist on withholding your argument until you have heard mine? Perhaps you didn't really know what you were saying? Or perhaps you need something to argue against, because you do not have your own argument? - again, these are questions, not personal attacks.

But, yes of course, I will give you a brief answer. You would understand if I will not put effort into expanding my points, since you have not answered me as to whether you have any scientific intentions behind your arguments.

"Economics and Morality" was a major unit of my course (believe it or not, economists actually think that economics is a *good* thing for the world). Morality not only has fundamental influence on culture and _social behaviour_, it is also the fundamental element of modern _legal systems_  and modern _politics_. And social behaviour leads to consumption behaviour, which create the personality of what we call "the market"; legal systems lead to regulations and definitions of what we call "trade" and "commerce", which in turn create and define concepts such as "tarrif", "contract", and "tax"; and politics lead to what we call "economics policies" which defines the economic structures of each nation and each international organisations. These and more, are all essential concepts of the science of economics. In other words, briefly but surely, there is no economics without morals.

There, your canvas. Will I finally get an answer?

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil, you do have a point about how demand shapes markets - and fortunately, it means that, as demand for healthier foods increases, McDonald's is beginning to do less well, at least in Europe and America. Still, you could argue that that's a result of the other side, the likes of Morgan Spurlock, getting its message out about the harmful effects of that food more effectively - engaging in a sort of counter-advertising if you like. You also haven't answered my point about how McDonald's advertising targets children.


I don't know the specifics of whether MacD is doing less well or not, but I know that their healthier food experiment here in the U.S. faled. They keep a token item on the menu, but I can't help feel it's for political correctness. Actually I haven't been in one for quite some time, so perhaps my perception is off.

As to targeting children, I think you're right with the give aways they have. I think you raised it as a concern somewhere. Lots of companies target kids. I'm not sure what the concern is. It's not cigarettes, where I do have a problem. I don't have kids, so can't say what the pressure is for parents from first hand experience, but my mother never had a problem telling me no.

----------


## blp

> I don't know the specifics of whether MacD is doing less well or not, but I know that their healthier food experiment here in the U.S. faled. They keep a token item on the menu, but I can't help feel it's for political correctness. Actually I haven't been in one for quite some time, so perhaps my perception is off.


My point was that McD's now feel themselves under threat because the increased demand for healthy food. That's why they're suddenly selling little slices of apple (Apple Dippers) and the like. But yeah, of course they're own health food initiative failed. For one thing, none of their new healthy options were very healthy. Their salad dressing had more calories than a Big Mac or something.

----------


## jackyyyy

Actually, I recall in certain countries I will not name here, they introduced the salad thing (forget the name of it) and it was a big seller. Another point, any food is healthier than no food, the market does exist in poor and rich countries. The thread question is to do with homogenization, and while MacD is a multi-national, its the local marketing people (working for MacIndia) that put the Delephant on the wrapper, being an Indian corporation, an' all. That is their own morality doing it, and I guess they could have said 'no'.

----------


## Union Jack

> there is no economics without morals.


But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?
This is just one case, but it disproves your absolute staement. You cannot make absolutes, there is (usually) always an exception to them. 
The fact that they teach this material in economics classes implies a need for the subject. If everyone practiced moral business ehtics, then why would they need to teach them?
Clearly not a complete aurgument, I'll be back later to extrapolate.

----------


## blp

> Another point, any food is healthier than no food,


Which means what exactly? That McDonald's is suddenly some benevolent provider of food (however crappy) to the needy?

----------


## jackyyyy

No, and rather it is convenience food, for poor and rich alike, and it actually makes economic sense to certain people in certain cases.

----------


## blp

With all due respect, that's nonsense. Eating lentils, rice and vegetables makes economic sense. Eating stuff that gives you heart disease does not.

----------


## jackyyyy

I apologize for my nonsense, you're right, though I have not seen any of those type of drive-in yet. I know what you mean, but people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.

----------


## blp

> people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.


It's funny isn't it? But maybe the partial answer is that, as was demonstrated in _Supersize Me_, McDonald's food is actually more like an addictive drug than actual nourishment.

----------


## jackyyyy

Humanity has a will that only humans will. I just this minute took a drive to my local flogger and was muttering to myself what it would be like to cart an oven, microwave and chip pan around with me. I would still need a napkin and some plastics. We do it to ourselves, falacy of the educated to presuppose common blank. It is funny to conceptualize a lentil drive-in; not very macho for the guy behind the wheel of his ferrari, nor the mother raised to understand good wholesome lentils dressed up with a drop of ketchup, a piddle of peas, and that side of apple is actually not bad either.

----------


## Regit

> You cannot make absolutes, there is *(usually) always*  an exception to them.


Although I do not really understand what you meant by "make absolutes", I can find where you might have contradicted yourself: "Morals do not enter into economics." I don't know about you, but this sounds kind of "absolute" to me. 
I did not "make absolute" in the sense that economics is *only* about morality; I said that it does * involve*  morality. In fact I mentioned politics, legal systems, and social behaviour, and also that morality is a "fundamental element" (not the only element) belonging to these concepts. That's four different branches of social science for you- so, no, I did not make absolute.
And "usually always"?




> But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?
> This is just one case, but it disproves your absolute statement.


Could you please point me to my statement that contradicts this case. I cannot seem to find an absolute statement I have made suggesting that there are no immoral *business* practises. Perhaps you meant this one: "there is no economics without morals." Unless you missed the explanation that comes immediately before this statement, you would understand that it means: *without morality, the science of economics would not exist,* or at least not be what we know it. Furthermore, do not confuse _business_ with _economics_; there are a lot more to economics than business practices and their good and evil. And do not confuse _moral_ with _good_ and _nice_. Here's some help for you from my dictionary.

*Economics*: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth/ The branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
*Moral* -Origin Latin, from mos 'custom': standard of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.

If you made your statement: "Morals do not enter into economics" with these definitions in mind, then I hope you have realised clearly why you are wrong. If you did not have these in mind, then you did not have any scientific intentions at all; because both concepts "moral" and "economics" have a great deal of science behind them.




> But there are immoral economic practices, Enron scandal? Do you think that these CEOs who lied, cheated and stole to gain more money, had the best moral principles in mind?


Yes, Enron was a business with many illegal practices. But those CEOs were also prosecuted, weren't they? Does not the fact that they were punished show that the legal, political, and economic systems to which they belong do not tolerate their behaviour? Yes, that means that there are imperfections within an economic system; but it does not mean that morals "do not enter into economics."




> The fact that they teach this material in economics classes implies a need for the subject. If everyone practiced moral business ehtics, then why would they need to teach them?


Because "moral" is the key concept to major branches of philosophy, many of which involve fundamental mathematics and economic ideologies. Without the reasoning on morality of Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx, etc, the science of economics would not be like it is today. Thus, they teach it in school(University) because if you do not study it, you do not know it. And if you do not know it, you cannot help developing it; and you would also make fundamental mistakes when you choose to employ such science to support your arguments.




> Clearly not a complete aurgument.


We agree on this point. Moreover, I did not ask to be corrected; I asked for an explanation of this:


> morals do not enter into economics, and they shoudn't.


 To which you have avoided replying for a while. But if you wish not to comment further, I will respect it and will not ask you further questions regarding this statement. Thank you.

----------


## Union Jack

> Although I do not really understand what you meant by "make absolutes", I can find where you might have contradicted yourself: "Morals do not enter into economics." I don't know about you, but this sounds kind of "absolute" to me. 
> I did not "make absolute" in the sense that economics is *only* about morality; I said that it does * involve*  morality. In fact I mentioned politics, legal systems, and social behaviour, and also that morality is a "fundamental element" (not the only element) belonging to these concepts. That's four different branches of social science for you- so, no, I did not make absolute.
> And "usually always"?
> 
> Could you please point me to my statement that contradicts this case. I cannot seem to find an absolute statement I have made suggesting that there are no immoral *business* practises. Perhaps you meant this one: "there is no economics without morals." Unless you missed the explanation that comes immediately before this statement, you would understand that it means: *without morality, the science of economics would not exist,* or at least not be what we know it. Furthermore, do not confuse _business_ with _economics_; there are a lot more to economics than business practices and their good and evil. And do not confuse _moral_ with _good_ and _nice_. Here's some help for you from my dictionary.
> 
> *Economics*: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth/ The branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
> *Moral* -Origin Latin, from mos 'custom': standard of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.
> 
> ...


The absolute I referred to was when you said there is no economics without morals. I will clarify my meaning, I am not aurguing that economics occur completely esoteric of morality, no. I am aurguing that there are immoral economics, however "immorality" is subjective and varies from person to person. Example, drug trade is economic, but is it moral?_ Morality is a subjective term_, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics) whether a practice is _"right or wrong" is entirely opinion based_. 

And AGAIN I reiterate, when I said "morals do not enter into economics" I was merely throwing an idea out there, I have heard some people voice this thought. I am not aurguing that the statement is true, rather I was hoping for reactions which either disproved or proved it, I do not support it in any way. So yes, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is express an opinion of the statement. And you managed to disporve it as absolute, thank you. However the statement itself is not an aurgument, and certainly not my aurgument.

So I do believe that companies can carry out their economics immoraly (such as by invading foreign markets, and possibly damaging the local culture) but this immorality is subjective, and the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action cannot be standardised.
That is my aurgument.

----------


## Bandini

Must...obey...must...obey...

----------


## Regit

> The absolute I referred to was when you said there is no economics without morals. I will clarify my meaning, I am not aurguing that economics occur completely esoteric of morality, no. I am aurguing that there are immoral economics, however "immorality" is subjective and varies from person to person. Example, drug trade is economic, but is it moral?_ Morality is a subjective term_, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics) whether a practice is _"right or wrong" is entirely opinion based_.


 You are repeating bits of my post and bits of your old argument. Did you even read what I wrote? The statement I made was my statement, thus I explained it to you. You don't have to explain it back to me. I believe that all the problems you just raised I have already attempted to answer. "Right" or "wrong" is entirely opinion based, correct. But the term "moral" means the principles of right and wrong. It does not mean either right or wrong. Why don't you look it up yourself if you don't believe me?




> Morality is a subjective term, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics).


Again, *economics* is not a practice, it's a name of a branch of social science or a branch of knowledge. And I really really do not understand this statement.




> And AGAIN I reiterate, when I said "morals do not enter into economics" I was merely throwing an idea out there, I have heard some people voice this thought. I am not aurguing that the statement is true, rather I was hoping for reactions which either disproved or proved it, I do not support it in any way. So yes, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is express an opinion of the statement. And you managed to disporve it as absolute, thank you. However the statement itself is not an aurgument, and certainly not my aurgument..


Right. So you are saying that the statement you made was soundly disproved, but it was not your statement. Great. How did you clarify that it was not your own opinion? It's hard for me to know without being notified; because in a dicussion, when someone contributes I assume that the argument they express is the argument that they are willing to support. But I should have anticipated this response. Anyway, there might be others who expressed what you meant to say; but no other who expressed it using terminologies as loosely and as incorrectly as you did. You don't want to be responsible for the idea put forth? Sure; but you are solely responsible for the way it was expressed in your statement, which was wrong regardless of whether you believe in its meanings or not.




> So I do believe that companies can carry out their economics immoraly (such as by invading foreign markets, and possibly damaging the local culture) but this immorality is subjective.


Companies cannot carry out their *economics*! They can carry out their business, their business plans, their business campaign, their economic duties, but not their *economics*. *Economics* is a branch of social science. You can't fit a word into your sentence and hope that its new context would make up for the inaccuracies of your previous statements. Forgive me, but I have to assume that you either have not read my post at all, did not understand it, or have forgotten it by the time you were making this reply. Why did you quote my post in your reply if you have no intention of actually considering its content whatsoever?





> *the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action cannot be standardised.*That is my aurgument.


Be careful now. You have made another "absolute" statement; and this time you have clarified that it is YOUR argument. Are you sure that it is your argument? I would like to comment on this statement also. Perhaps tomorrow.

And please, with all due respect, the word is ARGUE.

----------


## Union Jack

I was wondering, since America has been strongly influenced by immagration, and many cultures have "crossbred" to form an "Americain" culture, is this a microcosm of the possible future of our world given the trend of globalisation?
Oh and Regit, AURGUE, AURGUE, AURGUE, lol lighten up man.

----------


## Regit

> Oh and Regit, AURGUE, AURGUE, AURGUE, lol lighten up man.


Union Jack,
Please don't mistake the content of my reasoning for my anger. I am not arguing because I am determined to bring you down, I just want to express my understanding of the matter and, through it, my opinions. I really did mean it when I said I like how you approach economics and sociology problems; and I certainly do not hold any grudges against you. Though you would understand if evidence is always more persuasive than just thinking. I'm light as air  :Smile:

----------


## Union Jack

Well hats of Regit, I concede the aUrgument, you win and all that. You proved my point wrong, and my aurgument weak and points ridiuclous. *Waves White Flag* Lets move on to other discussions, good job, you deserve it.  :Smile:

----------


## JBI

It won't happen in our life time regardless. In order for complete change it would require generations of interracial marriages to create a species that all looks the same.

Not likely.

Not likely in our lifetime.

Not likely ever because we will naturally regionalize unless travel becomes so simple as taking the super-shuttle-plane to the supermarket in Africa.

----------


## blazeofglory

I am very happy that we slowly are emerging globally forgetting that we have eclectic cultures. 

I want that cultures are slowly getting lost. 

One culture should remain and the rest must disappear into the thin air.

----------


## Jozanny

For the most part, I dislike the major anti-utopians like Orwell and Huxley, and this dislike translates into an inability to believe that *corporacy* models, to paraphase a word from David Mitchell's _Cloud Atlas_ will lead to a worldwide homogeneous society. Humans are exceedingly provincial at heart, and the space earth orbits and occupies is fragile. It would not take much for technologies to fail, (aerospace, Internet, nuclear) to throw our species back to localized regions where evolution would continue what it started before our feet got the better of the process. 

Take China as an example. I will not make a fool of myself by spelling out the names of the ethnic minorities who the Hu'an Chinese (I think) dominate--but this is a homogeneous society which isn't all that homogeneous underneath the state controlled market of today, if one really takes a close look at modern China.

And, our species is pushing the limit in terms of sustainable population. Either massive die-offs or a drastic drop in birth rates will toss the notion of "one global culture" out of the window.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Given the trend of globalization, I believe it would be valuable to consider the possible facets of cultural homogenization. As nations open up more and more, and the spread of information and ideas increases, markets are being flooded with foreign goods and concepts. Many ecnonomists/ sociologists predict that this will lead to a "dumbing" down of individual cultures, and produce a new, global culture.
> 
> The question, Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? If so, what are the possible pros and cons.
> 
> Some would tend to aurgue that the loss of our diverse cultures is a bane to our eclectic world. Yet others would counter that this thought process is nationalistic, and even facist, and would aurgue that a cultural homogenization would be a boon for our world, and would serve to alleviate many of the racial, cultural strifes inherent between sepearte beliefs and nations.


Cultural homogenization is something I can not subscribe to in point of fact. I do not think it is possible that we can live in perfect harmony with one another if we stick to our cultures. 

Some aspects of cultures are not bad but most are corrupting. Today we live in a world rampant with cultural conflicts.

----------


## Leabhar

My opinion is that globalization elevates cultural/ethnic conflicts by bringing different peoples physically closer together. While it eventually may bring them together in a harmonizing way (or maybe it is a pipe dream), I doubt it will be any time soon. One culture is impossible. In fact a global culture would not be a culture at all. And while different cultures feud and wars/crusades/jihads and what not result, if there were no separate cultures and ethnicity, then we would not have amazing pieces of literature like the Odyssey or Shakespeare.

If there were no Greeks or Trojans, and no Latin and Germanic language mixing to make English, then these pieces of literature would not exist. American literature continues to be American, Arabic literature continues to be influenced by Islam, etc, etc. I do not see anything wrong with being different and maintaining that difference. That is real multiculturalism.

----------


## yanni

"Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? "

Most people think global warming will take care of things and thats the reason why so few bother to learn chinese.

----------


## blazeofglory

> "Do you think this cultural homogenization is likely? "
> 
> Most people think global warming will take care of things and thats the reason why so few bother to learn chinese.


I liken cultural homogenization to a mirage.

----------

