My first ever blog post was my original definition of globalization.  I defined globalization as the domination and evolution of one central culture, and the science of how that culture spreads throughout the world.  I remember strongly disagreeing with the class definition; I thought the class definition was too complex and contained too many components.  During the first couple of weeks of class, I thought globalization was a lot simpler than everyone was making it out to be. However, after reading The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman and having great class decisions, I now realize that globalization is extremely complex.  My blog postings reflect my evolution of thought over the course. 

In the beginning of the semester, I was mainly concerned with the relationship between globalization, its components, and happiness.  I felt that people our class and even Professor Greenlaw believed globalization and wealth were more important than happiness.  If a culture or society is perfectly happy being isolated from the world, I did not think that was a problem.  Our culture does not have the authority to judge or change other cultures.  I personally believe happiness can only come from within and globalization cannot increase other’s happiness.  I found it ironic that the United States of America is one of the most depressed and unhappy countries in the world and yet is the wealthiest and most advanced.  After reflecting on happiness and globalization, I started thinking about technology and its role in enabling globalization.  I eventually started to analyze the relationship between happiness and technology.  Everyone in our class seemed to praise technology; however, I became curious as to whether technology improves people’s standard of living and happiness.  To me globalization and technology are worthless if they make people less happy, but improve living conditions.

About half way into the course I finally understood globalization’s complexity and influence.  My posts, but more importantly my thoughts, started to analyze every aspect of the world that globalization touches.  I started asking myself more questions, relating to more components of globalization.  Economics really started to interest me, as well as what the future will unveil.  I realized how manipulative the nature of globalization is; companies, individuals, governments and even the United Nations are all competing with each other, battling each other with trade, treaties, resources and even the environment. 

I personally found blogging interesting and even fun, however, the fact that I had never blogged before made it harder for me to blog consistently.  Since blog posts were never graded or due at any point during the course, I easily forgot to blog.  I naturally reflect about class decisions and globalization, however, it was surprisingly hard for me to blog about my thoughts.  If our blogs were graded or incorporated into our class decisions, I believe other students as well as myself would have blogged in greater quantity and more consistently.  If I ever have a class similar to FSEM100J, I know I will be better prepared for blogs and respond positively to blogs.  I think the most influential, thought changing and helpful experience in this class was not my blog, but my expert study.  The expert study assignment opened my eyes to the complexity and uncertainty of globalization, but even more importantly it taught me a lesson on how to formulate and defend an argument.

Will increased globalization cause greater consumption of the earth’s resources?  Could the depletion of raw materials slow the advance of globalization?

            Globalization is not only spreading ideas and culture, but it is industrializing and modernizing many previously agrarian countries.  Countries like India and China are gaining more knowledge and wealth due to globalization.  These countries now have the capability to purchase more materials with their newly acquired wealth.  This directly translates into more cars, more fuel consumption, more consumer goods, more of everything.  Increasing trends of consumption in the world could conceivably cause shortages in natural resources.  According to scholarly models, natural resources have a finite limit which will eventually influence global population, energy output and consumerism.  Low availability of raw materials might not be in the near future, but if globalization continues to modernize countries at a steep rate, accessibility to resources may become an issue in ten to twenty years.  The demand for oil will eventually super secede oil supplies.  Since the world economy is dependent on oil and globalization is dependent on trade, the depletion of oil could reverse globalization.  To a large degree the pace of globalization will directly correspond to the consumption and depletion of natural resources. 

            Could technology and globalization help solve resource problems caused by globalization?  Globalization could be helpful when a serious shortage in raw materials arises.  Since globalization connects the world and allows the exchange of ideas, more people should be able to help solve problems associated with natural resources.  For example, more scientists from around the world would be able to work on a common goal.  Communication caused by globalization would theoretically decrease the time required to solve dilemmas.  Therefore, given enough time globalization could help solve the world’s problem.

As I was writing my expert study, I came across a very interesting loophole in the Kyoto Protocol.  Under this United Nations treaty, specific industrialized and modernized countries are expected to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.  However, no Central American, South American, Middle Eastern, African, or Asian countries, with the exception of Russia and Japan, have limitations set on their emissions by the Kyoto Protocol.  Many of the countries with limitations set on them are simply offshoring their industries to unrestricted regions of the world.  So even though many countries are decreasing emissions, global emissions are not decreasing.  The Kyoto Protocol is promoting the relocation of industries rather than the reduction of global emissions.  The greenhouse effect is not going to be alleviated by the Kyoto Protocol.

A couple weeks ago I saw a very interesting segment on Iran by the Discovery Channel.  I was shocked to learn that Iran has a huge population of bloggers.  Iranians are able to share their opinions and easily communicate via blogs.  This is very surprising because Iranian society is very repressive.  I did not expect blogging would be very popular.  According to the segment I saw, many younger Iranian women use blogging and the internet to flirt with men.  The internet can act has an outlet for a lot their repressed feelings. 

The Iranian government censors blog postings.  However, the sheer volume of blog posts allow many opinions and ideas to be expressed, before the government can censor them.  Blogs permit freedom of speech for a brief amount of time.  It will be interesting to see how blogging will affect Iranian society. 

There are some very interesting Iranian blogs at: http://blogsbyiranians.com/

Viking Range Corporation, Bobcat, Schantz Organ Company and DePuy Inc. all have similiar qualities, which enable them to avoid out-sourcing or off-shoring their manufacturing. Time, product specialization, product quality, profit margins and location are the five major factors that determine the success of domestic manufacturing.

Examples:

Bobcat: “the company usually can deliver any of the hundreds of attachments it sells for its machines to a customer within four days, a feat almost impossible and certainly costly for any company with long supply lines stretching overseas.” Time and Location

Viking Range Corporation: “Beyond the upscale mystique, a big reason Viking can afford to keep expanding its U.S. manufacturing is the way it produces its products. Every stove and other major appliance made inGreenwood is made to order, which means the factories don’t produce it unless there is a customer for it.” High profit Margins and High Quality.

Schantz Organ Company: “The organ maker’s secret rests in its highly skilled work force. Nearly half the company’s 92 employees were raised on farms, including two former Amish. That background gives them exposure to woodworking and other mechanical skills needed in organ building, not to mention deep community roots, which tend to reduce turnover.” Oversea manufacturers lack necessary skills.

Schantz Organ Company: “But even then, workers spend years becoming proficient at their jobs, many of which are unique to this tiny industry. It takes four to five years to become a good pipe maker, for instance, while the company’s seven “voicers” each spend up to seven years as an apprentice learning how to tune each pipe by hand.” Quality and Skill

DePuy Inc: “While major orthopedics companies are looking overseas for cheaper places to produce items such as basic bone screws and metal plates, the U.S. retains a firm grip on the industry.” Profit Margins

QualityDePuy Inc: “‘The reason this business is in Warsaw and not Mexico is because margins are 70% or better,’ says Ron Clark, an orthopedic surgeon who founded his own company in
Fort Wayne.” Profit Margins

Another major similarity between these businesses, is their importance in towns.

Examples:

“Viking is by far Greenwood’s largest employer, with 1,300 local employees. An additional 100 employees work elsewhere. About 65% of the company’s work force is African-American, reflecting Greenwood’s population.”

“Today, about 60% of the workers who live within seven miles of Warsaw are directly or indirectly engaged in orthopedics manufacturing,”

“Literally, half the residents here work for Bobcat, the maker of the machines.”

I love pizza and other Italian cuisine, so I naturally purchase a lot of food from Vocelli Pizza, a local pizza parlor.  I normally walk acroos the highway and physically place my order.  Recently, however, I have been placing delivery orders with my cellphone.  I have been having late basketball practices, and the dining hall is normally closed when I get out. 

Whenever I place my order over the phone, I always end up having to wait at least three minutes for the person on the other end of the phone to verify the ten percent University of Mary Washington student discount.  I could not understand why I had to wait everytime.  UMW is right across the street from the pizza shop, so why wouldn’t the workers know about the discount.  Whenever I physically go inside the store, the employees immediately uphold the discount.

While I was on hold yesterday, I thought the person taking my order should make a sign next to the phone, stating the discount.  Then the next time I a place an order the employee would not have to ask the manager to verify the discount.  However, when I proposed my idea to the person taking my order, I was informed that she was taking my order from a call center.  I immediately thought of globalization and Indian call centers.  Before she hung up the phone I made sure to ask her where the call center was located.  I was surprised to hear that its location was not over seas, but in Pittsburgh, PA. 

As a result of Vocelli Pizza in-sourcing its delivery orders, I am going to have to be on hold for at least a couple of minutes each time I place a delivery order.  I was on hold for seven minutes last time I placed my order.    

Recently, I cannot stop thinking that your class and culture place too much emphazise on technology.  Students in our class would rather IM each other than have a verbal conversation, even though they are sitting next to each other.  People seem to be consumed by technology and are starting to forget how to live without it.  Everyone I know owns a cellphone (expect for my dad and grandmother), I am the only person in our class without a laptop, my roommate is constantly playing video games, I am writing a blog at this moment…  Technology is everywhere and now it is connecting the world like never before. 

However, technology is also isolating people at the same time.  I could potentially never go to my globalization class because everything I need for the class is posted on this odd thing called a wiki.  I could stay in my room all day and only leave to eat.  My point is technology can replace humanity and should not consume to much of our lives.

I personally do not want to be spending the majority of my day in a small room, staring at a monitor for a huge portion of my life (the office).  However, many people think the ability to do just that, which is pretty much nothing, is an great advancement in human ingenuity.  Globalization is obviously going to increase people’s reliance on technology, and therefore reduce physical human interaction. 

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics by Tom Tietenberg

This source is primary, scholarly, and fact.

The book gives completely unbiased views and counter views. 

I was able to find this book via a catalog search.  I was unaware that it was a popular book.

According to http://www.aneki.com/academic.html India has 8,407  universities compared to America’s 5,758.  However, India only has 6,060,418 students compared the America’s 14,261,778 students.  So although India is becoming m0re and more educated, America is still producing more scholars.  However Indian universities maybe more demanding than American univerisities.  Globalization will increase job competition especially between Americans and Indians.  As Indians continue to create more unverisities and scholars, one Indian college graduate could conceiveably compete with two American graduates.

The majority of our class decisions elaborate on the economic and technological impacts of globalization, however we rarely discuss globalization’s impact on countries standard of living or happiness.  I think farther globalization would be rather useless for mankind if it does not improve the world’s standard of living.  According to http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm the top five happiest countries are 1.Nigeria 2.Mexico 3.Venezuela 4.El Salvado  5.Puerto Rico, the degree of globalization in these countries is generally never talked about in class largely because globalization is minimal.  Although these countries are the happiest in the world, they are barely given any praise in class.  However countries like China and India are constantly being applauded for their recent economic growth.  Should we as a class and as a culture prefer wealth over happiness?  Is globalization increasing the world’s wealth and not its happiness?