Cultural Homogenization

Regit, please do not personalise your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

Can you counter the point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackyyyy

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?

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

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