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