The initial paragraph

Globalisation (n) is the “process enabling financial and investment markets to operate internationally, largely as a result of deregulation and improve communications” (Collins) or from the US  to “make worldwide in scope or application (Webster).

In the late 1980s, something that was globalized was an entity that  had more than just an economic impact on the parts of the world it touched. There are many anti-globalisation arguments that argue against the methods many big businesses use in attaining globalization such as low paid labour, sweatshops selling off state-owned property to qualify for loans and many are worried about the low input of the public on big business decisions.

So here's the paragraph we wrote at the beginning, how does everyone feel about it now? Personally I think that this barely even scratches the surface, there's so much more that we didn't even consider at the beginning that we've learnt now. I also think Globalisation is pretty much impossible to define!

- Claire

MRI scan, apple as religion

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/05/17/bbc-loving-apple-looks-like-a-religion-to-an-mri-scan/

Secrets of the Superbrands was a BBC3 documentary that aired last year and revealed something really interesting,
When put in an MRI scanner, brands stimulate the same part of the brain as religious imagery does.

Unfortunately, as the programme was aired over a year ago it is no longer available to watch. :( But still I find the concept really interesting.

- Claire

Leading article: The gruesome reality of sweatshops...

It took years for campaigners to persuade the world's top sportswear manufacturers that they should take responsibility for the conditions in which their products were manufactured overseas. When Nike, Adidas, Puma and the rest grudgingly came round, it was hailed as a turning-point in the relationship of these companies to their sub-contractors in the developing world. Five years ago this newspaper spoke of "the ethical revolution sweeping through the world's sweatshops". It seems we spoke too soon: what was really under way was a revolution in these companies' public relations departments. As our investigation published today reveals, conditions in hundreds of the factories in which the West's favourite sportswear brands are manufactured remain highly unsatisfactory or appalling.

None of the companies has committed to paying overseas workers a living wage, the paltry sum required for a worker to keep himself and his family in conditions of the most rudimentary decency. Many workers do not even make the derisory local minimum wage, which in China amounts to only two-thirds of a living wage. Some factories continue to use bonded, indentured, prison or child labour. Women working in others are subjected to compulsory pregnancy tests; if they prove positive, they are summarily sacked. Supervisors terrorise workers into submission. These are the shocking facts revealed by a detailed examination of the reports submitted by the companies themselves – but as Puma breezily admits, the truth is certainly far worse than that, because some of the sub-contractors lie systematically about their employees' conditions of labour, and in particular about the amount of overtime they work. Special software has been developed to falsify the records of working hours.

The contrast these findings make with the codes of conduct the firms have embraced is startling. "Our vision is for everyone in our supply chain to share a common set of values", declares Adidas. Nike's code of conduct proposes that "high ethics means success". It exhorts its workers "to lead balanced personal and professional lives", and insists that "Nike will strive to pay fair compensation". In the context of the gruesome shopfloor reality, these fine words are contemptible. Instead of trying to dazzle Western consumers with meaningless rhetoric, these firms must divert some of their vast financial muscle into bringing real improvements to the misery of the sweatshops. The industry's pledge to reform remains dramatically unfulfilled.

this article shows the truth behind the brands we love and also the seriousness of the subject in matter as our brands are unwilling to change their ways all because of power, greed and turnover.

- Ben

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_D-azUogg&feature=fvst

Just did a simple search in a youtube and this was the 'most hit' video,
despite the cheesy song choice the facts and imagery, are quite mind blowing in the sense that
how young the workers are, how little they get paid, their conditions and most strange to me the companies that use them. I see the big brands such as nike as these very powerful brands that have impacted the world in a good way allowing sporting athletes to be at their best in global events however they hide away their darker side.

I never knew how deceiving brands were in their image.
I've further gone on to realise that change doesn't look evident as even a recession can't stop us from indulging in products and brands merchandise.

Its all very worrying.

- Ben

Sweatshop List, are you surprised???

Here's a list of where sweatshops are undergone in order to fulfil our demands. Shoes and more spesifically athletic shoes are a very high factor relying on sweatshops to produce their high demand?

Does this surprise you in any way?
and are you willing to give up wearing your favourite shoes in order for equal rights?

even though some say yes verbally, in honesty i personally highly doubt many peoples words will lead to action... just an opinion.

-Ben

SweatShops all because of globalisation...

I've been quite attached to this blog recently and feel that its morals are very to the point and more importantly fundamentally correct. Although again, its a blog by I'm assuming one individual, so its mainly opinionated; but this person has taken a lot of time to research and presented concrete information on a very difficult factor involving globalisation.

My opinion

Sweatshops are morally wrong, we all know that but if we give higher pay to the workers will the brands we all love be limited in some parts of the world? or if a company is using sweatshops should we shut them down? however if they are shut down the workers will lose all income compared to there measily wage? some is better than none right?

Comment please, as i am confused as to what the right solution is, it may seem obvious to up the workers rates however does this mean the brand companies will be come more niche or possibly become bankrupt?

- Ben

I've looked at what globalisation was and what it is today. It's debatable when it started, some say millions of years ago, with the advent of man, some say the 1970s, it's all really indecisive. What globalisation actually is seems uncertain as well. To some it is as simple as google puts it:

globalization: growth to a global or worldwide scale; "the globalization of the communication industry".


But lots of people seem to think it is more to do with the individual - more of a mentality than figures of how many shops in a country or whatever. Acceptance of races and traditions and disregard of your own origins is a major theme.

I thought I want to look into the future of globalisation; where we can possibly go from here. I assumed it was just a case of lesser developed countries will get more developed, more urbanisation, etc. but I've found some anti-globalisation viewpoints that argue that globalisation will destroy itself (and has already begun to do so).

The Twin Tower collapse is cited a lot - and very convincingly. For globalisation to work, there has to be compromise. If, instead of separate nations, we effectively become a planet-state, then common ground has to be found.

The basis of this argument is that it can't be found. People are intrinsically greedy and demanding and we will never compromise. A common prediction is that world-changing events (such as 9-11) will doom globalisation before it can ever be realised.

Looking into this more - it's sick as

Fionn

This is one of my favourite written pieces ever... and it's written by my favourite graphic designer Tibor Kalman. The first time I ever read it, it gave me goosebumps. It really is an essential read!

FUCK COMMITTEES
(I believe in lunatics)

It’s about the struggle between individuals with jagged passion in their work and today’s faceless corporate committees, which claim to understand the needs of the mass audience, and are removing the idiosyncrasies, polishing the jags, creating a thought-free, passion-free, cultural mush that will not be hated nor loved by anyone. By now, virtually all media, architecture, product and graphic design have been freed from ideas, individual passion, and have been relegated to a role of corporate servitude, carrying out corporate strategies and increasing stock prices. Creative people are now working for the bottom line.

Magazine editors have lost their editorial independence, and work for committees of publishers (who work for committees of advertisers). TV scripts are vetted by producers, advertisers, lawyers, research specialists, layers and layers of paid executives who determine whether the scripts are dumb enough to amuse what they call the ‘lowest common denominator’. Film studios out films in front of focus groups to determine whether an ending will please target audiences. All cars look the same. Architectural decisions are made by accountants. Ads are stupid. Theater is dead.

Corporations have become the sole arbiters of cultural ideas and taste in America. Our culture is corporate culture.

Culture used to be the opposite of commerce, not a fast track to ‘content’- derived riches. Not so long ago captains of industry (no angels in the way they acquired wealth) thought that part of their responsibility was to use their millions to support culture. Carnegie built libraries, Rockefeller built art museums, Ford created his global foundation. What do we now get from our billionaires? Gates? Or Eisner? Or Redstone? Sales pitches. Junk mail. Meanwhile, creative people have their work reduced to ‘content’ or ‘intellectual property’. Magazines and films become ‘delivery systems’ for product messages.

But to be fair, the above is only 99 percent true.

I offer a modest solution: Find the cracks in the wall. There are a very few lunatic entrepreneurs who will understand that culture and design are not about fatter wallets, but about creating a future. They will understand that wealth is means, not an end. Under other circumstances they may have turned out to be like you, creative lunatics. Believe me, they’re there and when you find them, treat them well and use their money to change the world.

Tibor Kalman

New York

June 1998

Josh.

Religions vs. Corporations

They promote sets of ideas and rituals, often in clearly branded structures, have income streams and clear marketing processes.


Is this a reference to religions or to corporations? Can it be applied to both? 
The cross is arguably not just a religious symbol but a 'logo', as is the star of David and the Aum (Hinduism), just as much as the golden arches of McDonalds or the Apple logo. Religions have clear marketing aims - to provide their product as many people as possible.
Is this not the same aim as a corporation?


Or is it the motives behind the actions that define the two?


Are Jehovas witnesses to religion what doorstep salesmen are to corporations? 




Religious corporations are usually listed under one persons name.
Legally, business corporations are treated as a person in themselves - they have their own motives etc.

How do religions/corporations spread?
In a discussion between Christopher Hitchens and a religious official (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w) Time - 1.20 to 1.50) He asks if the church believes that Christianity was spread more by holy spirit or because Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of Rome.


http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/as-corporations-grow-more-powerful-they-should-become-more-transparent-358733/


An extract from this article by Ralph Gomory and Leo Hindery Jr. in response to huge corporations in America, states:
"As a nation, we have reached a point where we must decide how much power we will allow large corporations and the extremely wealthy to have over our lives and our political system. Making their activities transparent is a first step toward ensuring that we don't become a nation for the rich but rather one that works to provide for all."


Can this apply to religions as well? As it is not only corporations that monopolise certain areas.


What is it that distinguishes religions from a corporation?


- Claire

Religious Corporations?

In America, there are such things as religious corporations, which are non-profit organisations that are incorporated under the law. They are usually recognised only by an individual state or province government and they are usually regulated be a Secretary of State.

Because they are RELIGIOUS non profit organisations, they have less rigorous reporting and filing requirements then other tax-exempt organisations. Also, depending on which state they are in, they are also exempt from inspections and regulations that govern non-religious groups that provide the same services. These corporations are usually in the name of a single person.

Is it right that because an organisation is religious, it is not liable to follow the usual regulations? Should they be checked up on? Or should they be trusted as religious officials to follow the requirements?

[edit]

Stark Vs. Wayne

Saw this and felt I should post it :) Enjoy!
- Claire

McDonalds Prayer

A video of a bit by comedian (whose name I can't find anywhere) done in kinetic typography.

Thought it was an interesting look at corporations as religions

http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm

So I was looking at this. It's a bit black and white, and doesn't seem very well supported, but one really stood out:

"Increased likelihood of economic disruptions in one nation effecting all nations"


I hadn't really thought about this before. It's listed in the "disadvantages" section, though I can see a positive side to it too. It treats humanity as a whole rather than viewing it as separate colonies. As destructive as globalisation can be at times in regard to losing local culture and shops or "brainwashing" people, I think it is worth remembering that, in a money-hungry, hamfisted way, it does bring humanity together as a whole.

With cheap air travel, countries seem closer together, and there's no problem going to another country for a long weekend. As long as local culture can be preserved, I think this is a great think for people as a whole - it brings a sense of inter-connectedness.

Fionn

Tescopoly: A bit of a shock?

This is a map showing the number of Tesco Stores in the Uk. It excludes over 580 Tesco 'One Stop' Convienience stores and was made in 2006.

There do seem to be certain cluster spots, as well as some completely bare spots. Any ideas why?

Tesco also have stores in China, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand and Turkey.

They have withdrawn from France, Taiwan and America (as they could not compete with Walmart) and have plans to expand into Italy, India and Portugal. 

It would seem that Tesco is planning a global takeover?

- Claire

Tescopoly

Got this book a few days ago, may take me a while to get through it, but am finding it interesting so far, 

the blurb-


You can shop anywhere you like, as long as it's Tesco


The inexorable rise of supermarkets, particularly Tesco, is big news, but have we taken on board what it really means for our daily lives, and those of our children? In this searing analysis Andrew Simms, one of Britain's leading experts on this issue and the person who introduced the term 'Clone Towns' into our language, tackles a subject that none of us can afford to ignore. 


Simms traces the supermarket disease back to its American roots and charts the moment when the promise of choice turned into something altogether different.With Tesco leading the way, he shows how supermarkets are draining the life from our town centres, creating a commercial nanny state that knows more about you than you think, profiting from shelves full of global plunder and unpicking the fabric of our communities. 


But there is change afoot. The consumer tide is turning and the backlash spreading, with international campaigns gaining ground. Simms ends with suggestions for change and rethinking big business to safeguard our communities and environment - all over the world.



So what does everyone think about that description of supermarkets? Are they really a disease, draining all life from our culture? Pirates, profiteering off global plunder? If so, what do you think should be done to change this?

Does anyone not shop at a supermarket?

- Claire

A corporate quiz

I thought I'd make a mini quiz to see how corporate logos match up against religious symbols, I'll be posting it on here for everyone to do, as well as asking others.
So here goes; first name these 12 corporations from their logos:

Now name these 7 religious symbols:

Post your answers as a comment :) 

- Claire

Ambleside

During the holidays I took a trip to Ambleside and took these photos. With all the old fashioned shops, rural setting and a really, really old cinema, I never expected a giant Tesco express in the middle of the town.

I was surprised at how few corporate shops there were. The few I saw were the Tesco, a Boots, a Costa and a Greggs. I wondered why corporate shops haven't broken into these markets, is it because it's only a small town and they don't see a profit? Or is there just no demand in these places?

What does everyone think about this? Is it a good thing that corporations haven't expanded out everywhere? Or would you rather see/feel there is need for certain shops everywhere?

-Claire

A very interesting piece on misrepresentation in the media, and how global corporations are using the news media to provide a narrower range of viewpoints and create a biased public opinion.

Josh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6279679.stm - An interesting article, but because it's on the bbc it's quite easy to make sense of. Josh

A very short look at how globalisation can work for some and cause turmoil for others. In this quick article about free trade deals from the US, it shows that a lot of work will be created, but in the countries that are being undercut human rights are being breached and laws are being broken.
Josh