Ch 64, NYT, & WP Article

In Ch 64, Paul Wapner discusses the impact of transnational environmental groups, specifically Greenpeace, and their impact in global politics. The author's analysis of Greenpeace and their structure as  is meant to demonstrate their operations of a global organization, as well as their reach. One thing that stuck out to me was the author mentions that Greenpeace is best known for is their act of "bearing witness." Their non-violent, but eye-catching tactics of causing disruption within these environmentally toxic operations, and documenting them for the world to see helps them to bring attention to these global issues and their large network of coordinators and project directors allows them to tackle specific problems that affect different communities worldwide. I do find it interesting that he refers to the internet as "communication technologies" and the "mass communication system," when talking about how Greenpeace uses technology to their advantage. There is also mention of Greenpeace using more dated technology such as fax machines and telephones to relay information to their home offices. 

The Washington Post article about graphite pollution highlighted the detrimental effects of graphite production on the environment in China, as well as various companies failure to make any effort to address or fix the situation. Most companies, when asked questions about the pollution in nearby villages responded with the same vague promise to make their operations more eco-friendly. All the while the people living in places like Jixi are breathing in these toxic graphite particles that pollute the drinking water and poison their food. The insufficient response from both the government and the graphite manufacturers conveys that larger problems that communities have been facing due to China's global dominance in the graphite industry. 

The New York Times article "The Barbados Rebellion" discusses the financial crisis in Barbados and how it overlaps with the impact of climate change across the Caribbean. Much like in the documentary about Jamaica, Barbados is in an "economic purgatory" where they are forced to borrow money from larger countries, effectively indebting themselves to the rest of the world. This greatly limits how effectively small countries like Barbados are able to provide for their citizens and develop as a country while under the thumb of organizations like the I.M.F. and World Bank.  

 

Chapter 64 and Articles

 In Chapter 64, author Paul Wapner discusses Greenpeace, an organization that "uses peaceful protest and creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green, just, and joyful future." (Greenpeace.org/usa). Greenpeace is a nonstate organization. A nonstate organization, the way I understand it, is an institution that works outside of the government, like NGO's, and works to fill in and help with the holes that governments leave behind, particularly in rights and overall development. The chapter discusses the main functions that Greenpeace hosts, being a protesting group that focuses on bettering the general public's well-being and livelihoods. Greenpeace manually tries to alter the prevailing social norms and values, by attempting to change the public's "conceptions of reality." The organization hopes that this will allow people to take "more respectful" action that is most ecologically beneficial for the earth itself.

While reading through the NYT article, about the Barbados Rebellion in 2018, seeing the phrase: "Barbados was out of money" made me stop and think 'how can an entire country be out of money?' And then that thought train led me back to Jamaica and its (relatively) recent financial situation. While Barbados is in financial debt, sitting at around $8 billion, Jamaica is in an even worse spot, at nearly double. This made me further read and research the reasons for Barbados' debt, being a Caribbean island nation like Jamaica: the natural disasters that frequently strike on these areas. In addition to the overshadowing of much more powerful countries, like the US and England, which were kind of the reason for Jamaica's downfall, the climate / weather is another big player in the spiraling destruction of smaller nations. They have little in terms of fortification against such events, which leads to unstoppable destruction, such as the hurricane that made landfall in October of last year.

(couldnt access washington post article)

CH 64, NYT and WP

 The readings of this week were very informative and cleared the environmental subject even more. By reading the pages in introduction, I could start to see the relation between the climate and globalization. It shows the two sides, one where globalization makes damages like consumerism and industries, but also the good part were it allows cooperation and activism internationally. It is a great start to the paper of environmental movements, like the NGOs, and give these movements grow trans-nationally once we figure that the environmental issues do not see borders and don't affect only countries that are pollutants. 

In chapter 64, Paul Wapner talks about Greenpeace, one perfect example of the organizations mentioned above. He explains that Greenpeace works across borders, in a global effort to heal the environment. They use media campaigns and their propaganda to pressure governments and corporations to change policies. Wapner talks about them as political globalists, working for the world and not just a state. 

Then, the Barbados article puts together these ideas, and was one of the greatest news that I read in a while. The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, literally made a revolution in the talk about climate and globalization, defending her State but bringing ideas that can change the world. She saw her country drowning in debt, always rebuilding because of natural disasters and always renting money to do it. The problem is that this disasters are becoming more often because of climate change, and the debt is rising and turning into a cycle, that can end with the country breaking. She, with the help of scholars that study recovering from debt, proposed an idea to IMF and World Bank, financial institutions that rent the money and in harder conditions to small countries like Barbados. For Mottley, these institutions together with the wealthy countries should contribute more to the adaptation to climate disasters, with cheaper financing and debt relief. Bridgetown Initiative, her proposal pushes the idea that the countries that are less harmful to the environment are paying the price for the climate change, and the world should see this and not make a profit of it. 

To end, the China article continues in the idea of the environmental vs profit, in this case, with the lithium-ion batteries and graphite. We use them everyday in our electronics,  and their massive production in China is causing pollution in the villages around. People living there expose that black dust covers their homes, clothes and farms, killing crops and poising water. The article show that although electric cars and electronics can bring clean energy, the cost of it it's dirtying a lot of populations' environments. 

Chapter 64, 2 articles

 Chapter 64 is telling us that transnational environment groups are influencing politics by shaping public opinions about environmental protections rather than looking toward the government for help. Paul Wapner explains the idea that politics can happen outside of states due to social movements that influence norms, ideas, and everyday behavior. Environmental groups like Greenpeace works to spread the idea Wapner calls "ecological sensibility" where everyone has a shared sense of responsibility, and awareness for protecting the earth. This sensibility is like a set of laws we uphold our selves to that influence behaviors through our beliefs rather than what the government tells us what is right and wrong. The organization has grown so large that is has many offices in many countries, thousands of staff, and enough influence to participate in campaigns talking about toxic waste, and ocean ecology. To spread their message, Greenpeace uses media to influence their cause. They take actions like confronting wailing ships, or protesting at polluting factories. By doing actions like this and going to social media to spread their message, they are publicizing environmental destruction and inspiring public concern to shape global awareness and influence people and organizations to act in a more environmentally friendly way. 

This situation relates closely to the ideas discussed in Chapter 64 of The Globalization Reader. The chapter describes how environmental problems are increasingly addressed by organizations that work across national boundaries. Groups such as Greenpeace draw global attention to environmental issues through protests, media campaigns, and other public actions. Because these organizations include members from many countries, they can raise awareness about environmental problems occurring in different parts of the world and link them to broader global challenges. The chapter also highlights an ongoing debate about how environmental change happens. Some believe governments must lead efforts to protect the environment, while others argue that public awareness and activism are what ultimately pressure governments to take action.

The New York Times article “The Barbados Rebellion” presents another perspective on how global systems influence smaller nations. Barbados is facing serious financial difficulties while also coping with climate change impacts such as stronger hurricanes and periods of drought. The country’s prime minister has criticized international financial institutions for providing aid that comes with strict economic requirements. These conditions can make it more difficult for Barbados to rebuild and pursue policies that best serve its citizens. The article illustrates how smaller countries can have less control over their economic choices when powerful international organizations and investors play a major role.

Taken together, these readings demonstrate how environmental challenges, economic structures, and political power are deeply interconnected in today’s global system.

Ch. 64 & 2 articles - TYLER PRIVLER

The Washington Post article “In Your Phone, In Their Air” shows how global demand for technology can create environmental problems far away from the people using those products. The article focuses on graphite mining in China, which provides materials used in electronics like smartphones. While the industry generates a lot of money, the mining has polluted the air and environment in nearby villages. Residents have complained about the damage, but their concerns are often ignored by local officials. Some villagers who try to speak out even face intimidation. The article suggests that the profits from the graphite industry make the government less willing to step in and regulate the mining, even though it is harming the communities living nearby.

This situation connects well to ideas discussed in Chapter 64 of The Globalization Reader. The chapter explains how environmental issues are increasingly being addressed by organizations that operate across national borders. Groups like Greenpeace try to bring international attention to environmental problems by organizing protests, media campaigns, and other public actions. Because these organizations have members from many different countries, they are able to highlight environmental issues happening around the world and connect them to broader global concerns. The chapter also discusses the debate about where change should begin. Some people believe governments need to take the lead in protecting the environment, while others think public awareness and activism are what push governments to act.

The New York Times article “The Barbados Rebellion” shows another side of how global systems affect smaller countries. Barbados is struggling with large financial problems while also dealing with the effects of climate change, including stronger hurricanes and droughts. The country’s prime minister has criticized international financial institutions for offering assistance that comes with strict economic conditions. These conditions can make it harder for Barbados to recover in ways that benefit its own people. The article highlights how smaller nations can end up with limited control over their economic decisions when outside organizations and investors hold significant power.

Together, these readings show how environmental issues, economic systems, and political influence are closely connected on a global level.

CH 64, NYT, WP

The Washington Post article gives important information about the true cost of everyday electronic items. Most people look at an electric car or cellphone as a use of clean energy, but that is far from correct. Places providing the materials needed have to suffer for providing them. Villages desperate for job opportunities deal with graphite dust in their air causing unsafe air to breath, crops covered in graphite, and anything you can imagine ending up polluted. The water can end up unsafe to drink, wildlife can die off and citizens have to choose between living in a society like that or job security. This article shows us that products considered to be “green” aren't really that good for the environment. This does not apply to every product, but shows that exploitation can be hidden even when things this bad are happening.

The New York Times article shows the true effects climate change can have, and how it is not only the environment that can suffer. The example used is the country of Barbados who is at constant risk of major weather events, and rising seas. Barbados is in need of constant investment to fight these vulnerabilities. The issue is being able to afford these investments with their debt constantly growing.This raises the issues with organizations like the IMF who are less likely to support these countries with less money because of their lack of ability to make a return. Larger powers like the US can more easily borrow funds from the IMF when areas like Barbados suffer. 

In chapter 64 the Greenpeace is talked about which is a global organization that focuses on environmental issues. They will challenge government decisions, large corporations, and institutions. Greenpeacee is able to do this by the power they have built up by globalizing and building a worldwide network. This shows how globalization can be used to have a positive impact on regions, when usually we just see the damage so many large companies cause.

Ch. 64, NYT, WP

 Chapter 64 discusses the role of  NGOs like Greenpeace in shaping environmental policies in the world. The first thing that stood out to me is the complex system by which Greenpeace is organized. It is structured similarly to how a state's government would be, or to that of a large corporation. This is important because these are the two bodies that and organization like Greenpeace would be going up against over policy issues. Having a similar organizational structure means they can cover just as much, if not more ground and get their message across in a more efficient manner. The second thing that stood out to me was their aggressive marketing techniques, which center around media attention and the ue of stunts. I think that condcuting some sort of eye catching stunt like parachuting from a polluting smokestack is a great way to draw public attention to something that they otherwise may not want to pay attention to. It is even more effective when their stunts actively disrupt the operations of those they are fighting against, such as getting between the whalers and the whales in dinghies. The ability to draw the attention of people who aren't initially inclined to pay attention to pro-environemnt organizations is a very strong ability to have, especially in this day and age.

The NYT article discusses the financial troubles that Barbados has faced over time, especially in the wake of rampant climate change impacts. Barbados is a Caribbean country, meaning it is highly susceptible to tropical storms and hurricanes, which bring flooding in turn. These natural disasters destroy the economy of the country, and have become more prevalent over time because of climate change. The part of this that stands out is that Barbados's economy is not one that makes climate change worse, yet they are the ones who feel its effects. The countries that do make it worse are the ones they have to turn to for financial help. Another thing that stood out to me was Mottley's willingness to cut the budget of the country and raise taxes if they were to receive support from the IMF. This is something we've seen other countries struggle to be willing to do in other cases we've read about so far this semester, and it usually doesn't turn out well. Hoowever, the inclusion of the hurricane clause was an important development because it means that Barbados could defer some of its payments in the wake of a major climatic event that cripples its economy. This is significant because it is an example of a country with a smaller economy being able to push back against the dominant forces that control and take advantage of those who struggle.

The Washington Post article talks about the Graphite industry in China. Graphite is a main component in the lithium-ion batteries that are used to make phones, vehicles, and other forms of technology. The byproducts of the inductry in Chinese towns is that their environments, homes, and bodies become contaminated. There is widespread environmental degradation that resulted from polluted water and air, and graphite gets in the food, which means people ingest it through eating, drinking, and breathing. The aspect of this problem that I found most significant was the unwillingness of both corporate and local authority in solving some of the problems. While the corporate responsibility issue is less surprising since they do not reside in these areas, I find it interesting where the local governments align with. The issues that come from graphite production are more close to home for them, yet they still choose to side with the corporations because they are economic proponents of the area. This is yet another example of people on the bottom of the totem pole having to bear the weight of mistakes made by people at the top.

Chapter 64, Barbados Rebellion, Chinese Graphite

 This week’s reading was about how capitalism and climate change are intertwined. Chapter 64 explained how Greenpeace is organized and how they determine who is in charge of the campaigns they run. They preach about non violent protests and bearing witness to climate atrocities. Some of the protests they’ve run are pretty ballsy, and the people involved put themselves directly into the metaphorical (and literal) line of fire. I’ve seen a lot of headlines about “crazy climate change protesters,” but are they really that crazy if it works? 

The Barbados Rebellion article was a super interesting read for me. How climate change affects the politics of countries is another one of those things that I knew about but didn’t realize how much deeper the issue goes. I was frustrated to read that many investors didn’t want to sign a contract with a hurricane clause, even though it benefited both parties involved. It felt like the equivalent of someone telling me, “well that’s just the way things are done,” and my response to that is always, “why can’t we change the way things are done?” I admire Motley’s determination to make her country better, and her commitment to finding the best way possible to do it, even if it requires waiting and waiting until someone finally accepts a hurricane clause. I was disappointed to read that she later regretted making a deal with the IMF. Although, her leadership in Barbados affected all the other countries in the Caribbean, and that’s an important part to remember. 

The article about graphite mining in China was disappointing, but not surprising. While reading specifically about the graphite industry was new information for me, the story closely mimics others I’ve heard before. Lax environmental protocols leading to extreme crisis for those who live near industrial plants. You’d think after hearing the same story over and over again that big companies and governments would learn. When will we stop putting profits over people?

Ch 64, WP, NYT

 In Ch 64, it spoke about the various transnational enviromental groups making changes in politics. It specifically makes the claim that these groups bring change to the enviroment by bringing awareness to global concerns about the enviroment. It also talks about how certain people think the government needs to change first for improvements while others think that people need to make the change first for the government to make the improvements. The chapter specifically mentions Greenpeace, an international agency that oversees various enviromental issues. Members are from all over the world which helps bring light to different issues. One of their main goals is bringing these issues to light, from media to protests, they all show these problems to the common person. I think this is the best strategy, get enough eyes on something, its hard to hide it away an longer. Political pressure is the strongest pressure, and if enough people in an area are against a certain thing hurting their enviroment, a lot of people in power will try to satisfy them.

The Washington Post article talks about graphite mining in China. This mining is hurting the villages and causing damage to the area. However, the government doesn't listen to the locals, and intimidates these small villages through various means to try and silence them. The reason is the large amount of money these graphite mines are generating for China.

The NYT article talks about Barbados and the finacial problems its facing. Part of this is global warming, which is causing droughts, hurricanes, and various other issues. The prime minister is trying to fight against organizations that are preventing Barbados from recovering from these finacial problems in healtier ways. These organizations are trying to invest in Barbados while giving demands that hurt Barbados in the long run. These companies are doing whatever they can to make a profit, even if it ends up ruining an entire company to do so.

NYT, WP & Chapter 64

I found the article about the Barbados rebellion really interesting because it shows how unfair climate change can be for different countries. Mia Mottley argued that small island nations like Barbados themselves are facing the worst effects of climate change even though they have hardly contributed to causing it. Things like stronger hurricanes and rising sea levels threaten their economies and communities due to their size, these countries are often heavily in debt and do not have the money to protect themselves. In my opinion, this clearly shows an inequality in the global system. Wealthier countries became rich through industrialisation and fossil fuels but now poorer countries are expected to deal with many of the consequences. I think Mottley’s argument that institutions such as the IMF and World Bank should help provide more financial support makes a lot of sense because climate change is a global problem and the responsibility should be shared out fairly.

The article about graphite mining pollution in China made me realise that technologies we often think of as “green” are not always as environmentally friendly as we expect. Lithium-ion batteries, which are used in phones and electric cars, rely on graphite that is mined and processed in large industrial facilities. According to the article, some of these factories release dust and pollution that contaminate the air as well as water and farmland. People living close to these factories have reported serious impacts on their health and livelihoods. We also saw this in the documentary in class. I think this raises an important question about the global supply chains behind the technology we use every day. For example, although electric cars and rechargeable batteries are supposed to help reduce climate change, their production can still cause environmental damage elsewhere. I would say that this shows that solving environmental problems is more complicated than simply switching to new technologies.

Chapter 64 ‘Greenpeace and Political Globalism’ appear to focus on how organisations such as Greenpeace influence environmental politics around the world. What I found most interesting is the idea that political change does not only come from governments. Greenpeace works across many countries and uses protests, campaigns and social media coverage to raise awareness about environmental issues. Their strategy often involves dramatic actions that attract attention and encourage people to think differently about environmental problems. Personally, I think this approach can be very powerful because it helps bring issues into the public eye that usually get ignored. I think by spreading awareness and encouraging people to care about the environment, organisations like Greenpeace are able to push governments and companies to take more environmental protection more seriously.

Overall, reading these pieces made me think more about how complex environmental issues are in a globalised world. For example, things like climate change, resource extraction and activism are all connected across different countries and societies. I found it quite frustrating to see how unequal the impacts of environmental problems can be, especially when some communities suffer the most despite contributing the least to the problem like Barbados. Overall I would say that these readings made me realise that addressing environmental problems will require not only technological solutions but also fairer global systems and more awareness of the consequences of our actions.

64, WP, and NYT

 Chapter 64 discusses the impact of transnational environmental groups on civil politics, especially Greenpeace.  He discusses the fact that these groups are able to effectively and efficiently establish communications across borders, establishing important connections in different locations.  One way an organization can do this is by using media, such as narrated news and television stations.  I think that since this book was written, media and use of technology has become increasingly effective in marketing your ideas across larger differences.  Using it in an effective and eye-catching manner is a key point in getting attention, and sets you apart from others if done well.  How they're using nonviolent action is key as well.  Nonviolent actions are also key in protests against major companies, as they are effective in getting your voice out, as well as opening less doors for a potential lawsuit.

    The New York Times article focuses on how smaller countries, such as Barbados, are impacted by globalization and the IMF.  The article showcases a prime example of organizations, such as the IMF, being strict with their loaning policies.  Even with financially supporting Barbados, there's a big problem.  The IMF isn't offering a grant, but a loan, which would extend the repayment period.  Repaying of investors doesn't completely address the debt issue, just stretches it out. 

    The Washington Post article discusses the impact that graphite mining has in rural areas of China.  Graphite, being one of the key minerals in batteries, is an important industry in which could not stall easily.  The rapid growth has caused expansion into small villages, in which the mining itself has negatively impacted the surrounding areas.  Pollution of both the air and water set the tone for the issues, and villagers are not oblivious.  While it may be hard to stop or slow down graphite mining overall, better management of pollution is key to creating a safe area for Chinese inhabitants.

64 and 2 articles

     What I first noticed after reading these two articles is how much smaller nations get affected while trying to conform to the new expectations that come from climate change. These nations don't have the economies to afford to both change their power producing technologies to new, renewable technology which would help reduce emissions, but they then also have to deal with the consequences of climate change. These nations are forced to create retaining walls to protect their communities from storm surges caused by larger storms which occur more frequently due to the new, quickly intensifying climate. I think this whole situation causes a stalemate, and without help from outside forces, these nations will continue to spend the money they could use to change from fossil fuels to renewables into defensive measures to protect against the thing they are helping to cause. This isn't their fault in my opinion, as these nations really have no other options, and forced into this really difficult situation between trying to make a change to help prevent the one thing that they are forced to spend money to stop from effecting them.

    I also really liked the article about China, as it really goes into something I've always argued, that all these new "environmentally friendly" alternatives to fossil fuels, tend to be worse for the planet than just using fossil fuels. The digging for the raw materials that are needed to make batteries and micro-chips and everything else that is needed is horrible for the climate, but people, from either purposeful or blissful ignorance, refuse to accept this fact and believe they are making a significant difference because they drive a tesla. I don't believe that as a singular individual you can make any significant change, as any difference you will make will just instantly be canceled by America bombing an oil facility in Iran, or Exxon spilling millions of barrels or oil into the ocean.   

Ch 64, WP, and NYT articles

 In chapter 64 of our textbook, author Paul Wepner does a good job of explaining that laws do not cause change but instead it's the social norms and ideas that cause the creations of the laws that, in the end, cause the change we see in the world. Wepner then goes on to talk about how the organization Greenpeace does this. Greenpeace is a global organization whose goal is to help the environment. I find it really interesting how they have many different committees and people in order to make decisions and they have different people to lead different aspects of their mission. I also liked how they have campaign coordinators who are meant to make sure that all their different projects support each other along with their overall goal. Fighting on so many different fronts even if they all fall under the same umbrella of environmentalism seems like a crazy undertaking and I am amazed that they make it work. I also love that they invested money in a hot air balloon in order to fly it over nuclear testing sites.

The NYT article written by Abrahm Lustgarten is a very in-depth look into the prime minister of Barbados and how she is fighting against organizations including the IMF in order to both gain the funds necessary to pull her country out of possible economic collapse without instilling harmful policies that those organizations want her to follow. The IMF has a consistent record of giving financial help to countries struggling economically but forcing them to follow policies that will in the end ruin any help the money provided. They offer short term solutions while causing long term problems.

The Washington Post article written by Peter Whoriskey talks about the effects graphite mining has on the small villages in China where the graphite is located. Their government is constantly ignoring them and the problems the mining creates in order to gain a big check by the companies who use that graphite in the technological products they produce. Through a mix of intimidation, failed clean up projects, and little to no fines given out the problem persists. The companies buying these resources, the companies they then sell those products to (mostly batteries), and the amount of pollution makes this issue a global problem that is only complicated more because of the global supply chain it is a part of. 

Chpt 64, WP & NYT articles

Paul Wapner's article explains to readers how certain environmental institutions (such as Greenpeace) contribute to political globalism. When I first read the name 'political globalism, I first thought it would be about how politics play a role in globalization, and the author described it as exactly that. He argues that politics is shaped by non-governmental organizations that exert pressure on state governments. I found it interesting that Greenpeace can influence environmental issues among the public, even though it is not officially part of the government. To do this, they use campaigns, protests, and social media to raise awareness. I think these are all great ways of promoting environmental protection. After reading this chapter, I better understood how globalization and activism come together. 

The Washington Post article explains how graphite has destroyed many areas throughout China. These graphite factories are used to create lithium-ion batteries, which cause many serious health and pollution problems. The Heilongjiang Province ("the city of graphite") holds many of these workshops. I was surprised to see such a large city commonly called "the city of graphite". The area seems like a place I would want to avoid, since the name sounds like a very unhealthy place to live. As the name suggests, it seems it's a very polluted and unhealthy place to be residing. The graphite wasn't just creating pollution in the air; it was also harming water quality, crops and plants, and people's everyday lives. I couldn't imagine living in this type of environment. 

On the NYC news, I would watch reporters report on accidents caused by lithium-ion batteries. That was really the only thing I knew about the dangerous device. After reading this article, I learned how they are used to create products from large companies such as Apple and Samsung. 

The communities in China that had to live with graphite dust struggled daily. The writer interviewed several members. They described how they were never able to wash off the dust of crops, and how much dust would fill the house. If you left the window open for fresh air, many people would be exposed to hazardous water quality. Those who worked in these graphite factories were exposed to all of this dust never had good working conditions. Those who were interviewed believed there has been an impact all across China, and that something should change. However, they don't. share their true opinion publicly, as they are afraid it would get back to their boss, and they'd be fired. 

The New York Times article talks about Barbados' financial struggles and how the country is attempting to combat this deficit. Global warming has also had a huge impact, as they've been experiencing longer, drier droughts, more hurricanes, and less water supply. I was a little surprised that the country has been experiencing longer periods of drought, since the country is surrounded by water. Many poor nations heavily impacted by global warming tend to be in some sort of financial crisis. This didn't surprise me, as the effects of global warming can be costly. According to the World Bank, climate change has driven up damages and made it difficult for Caribbean economies to rebuild. Mottley then looked towards the IMF for assistance, as they've been helpful for many other nations. They landed a deal; however, once that deal was locked, Mottley realized this was an illusion. It was unfortunate that they never realized this before securing a deal with the IMF. Over time, the country did its best despite its struggles. My favorite line in the article was "For Mottley, the fact that Britain was swimming in vaccine doses for months while Barbados had to beg China for a few thousand vitals was a prime example." It showed the difference between how bigger countries are doing vs much smaller ones. Once the war in Ukraine picked up, the country had to reset. The end of the article leaves readers with a question: Will they ever recover?

CH 28, 30, NYT

This parts of the book aligned with the article were very interested, all connected to the idea of globalization and its consequences. In chapter 28, the author argues how countries are losing power of decision because of the global flow. Sometimes this States needs to focus in keep multinationals rather that keep citizens protections and prices. Tariffs and corporations' demands can shape countries economies more than their own politicians, and for me this is a enormous problem that gives us almost no hope of change in the international system. 

In chapter 30, the subject continues, and now the author goes more to the consequences of this system, like lowering workers' rights to attract foreign investments. It show again how globalization has its good parts, but can be a bad actor for the populations that are vulnerable to it. In this chapter it is argued that more regulations and policies would make things more fair, which I totally agree and believe it's the way of make things better. Finally a chapter of hope, but now, the question is: what policies would be effective and accepted? 

Finally, the NYT article about China presents a tentative of policies to use globalization as a good actor, like bringing commerce to a "nowhere". It can increases a State economy and transform their environment. However, in the same chapter we see that many human rights are still cause of concern in the region, even with economic advances. So, again, globalization can be powerful and amazing, but without requiring policies and regulations to protect humans, this economy growth can have big costs. 

Intros, Chp 28 & 30, NYT

Pages 220-223 discusses the topic of political globalization. It begins by describing a few terms we have learned already, like what "the state" is and sovereignty. I found it much more interesting when continuing reading, especially when the author begins to touch on the WTO and the IMF. Lechner talks about the differences between these NGOs and others, as these two specifically help manage the world economy. I also was interested when he was talking about how many of these TNCs have become larger economic forces than certain entire countries. I might be the crazy one here, but how does this sound like a free market trade? That certain corporations have gained so much money and power that they rival and routinely overpower countries? Lechner goes on to describe how Susan Strange, a British international relations scholar, argued that technological change was forcing states to do the bidding of corporations. Yeah. I do not really know what insightful comments to add to this, because she is completely right. We have seen this and talked about it in discussion, particularly when discussing the sweatshops and textile industry in certain Asian countries that depend on this industry for economic purposes. 

Pages 300-303 discusses NGO's like Doctors Without Borders and how they are organized, what they plan/hope to do, and how they go about it. I really liked this excerpt from the reading, "Barlow challenges the oft‐repeated claim that the international human rights regime was a Western creation, pointing out that the original proposals for a UN Charter barely mentioned human rights and both the United States and Britain resisted the establishment of a human rights regime. Many non‐Western countries pushed successfully for an explicit rights declaration, and non‐Western countries were a majority of the members of the first Human Rights Commission," as it challenges the earlier part of the textbook where it discussed how many people see globalization as essentially "western cultural dominance"

Chapter 28 presents the idea that companies and corporations have taken over the idea of the state. As the corps. grew more powerful, the state lost its power. This has continued until, as the book states, "Where states were once the masters of markets, now it is the markets which, on many crucial issues, are the masters over the governments of states," This chapter is a great, if not slightly hefty worded, description of the power that these corporations now hold. Lechner goes on to mention cold war stuff with puppet states, which we have covered pretty extensively. I found the section on mutually assured destruction particularly interesting. The idea that technology has gotten so good that its mere existence is threatening the existence of the state as the existence of the bombs themselves have simultaneously guaranteed/prevented nuclear destruction... it's like the world's most stressful example of Schrödinger's Cat. And we get to find out whether the cat is kicking or not within our lifetimes. How fun!

Chapter 30 finally addresses what I have been wanting to get to all along. We have talked about all the ways globalization is bad for us, the economy, and the world, but there have been no solutions or remedies discussed until here. I think the second to last section, "Do not use 'competitiveness' as an excuse for domestic reform" is really insightful, and that certain politicians should have a read. Any economic issues can not be traced back to a separate country as the issue, and they should instead have reform within their own economy to instead promote domestic production. People are stubborn. Many will not want to change their ways if it is simply to show up another country. 

The final part, the NYT article, was an insightful read. It may not have been the main focus of the article, but I enjoyed reading about Nunur, the farmer and taxi driver (who did not want his last name included for safety reasons, but approved his first name, face, occupations, and general location...) Anyways, the article discusses the Belt and Road Initiative in China, which is a plan to connect many of the already established economic corridors that run through the three major continents over there, with the goal of improving trade times, cost, and safety through the region. This idea is still mostly just an idea, but the proposed scale of the plan is impressive. If this was able to be pulled off, and if it was able to stay productive, it would make trade much easier in those regions. Of course, this does not come without its drawbacks. Would it be China if there were not egregious human rights violations? I don't think so! I have heard for years of China's violations against the Uighur people, and seeing here that it is still talked about so nonchalantly is heartbreaking. It is another scenario where the curse of technology is present, where we see horrible things happening to people on the other side of the world, with no way to improve their situation. Many such cases arise in pursuit of the reward of a dollar. The greedy simply do not realize how much a dollar can cost.

Chs. 28, 30, & NYT

Chapter 28 discusses the processes that have led to the state losing more power and authority over time. One point that I found interesting was when the author explained how advances in technology have made people less reliant on the state for defense. Since the weapons development carried up to the point of the creation of atomic bombs, parties on either side of a conflict hit a celing when it comes to how much destruction they can cause. The idea of mutually assured destruction also prevents them from actually using the weapons, which means that advances in technology essentially crippled the state's ability to defend us as much as they used to be able to. 

Chapter 30 offers explanations as to why globalization can cause issues and how those issues can be avoided through government actions. There have been chapters in the past that leaned into the concept that globalization may not be all that great, but this is the first time where an author actually addresses solutions to those problems. The last paragraph in this chapter talks about countries having to conform their practices to fall under an abstract definition of "fairness" that actually seems to make things a little unfair in circumstances. I think this can be tied back to our recent discussions about economic fairness in the cotton and garment industries, where "fairness" was a concept that was used to strengthen imbalances.

The NYT article discusses China's Belt and Road Initiative, or B.R.I. This is a proposed plan to connect multiple economic corridors throughout Asia, Africa, and Europe, with the goal of imporving trade and other conditions. The actual details of China's plan are not available to the public, but Khorgos port in Kazakhstan will play a major role in it. This is an example of a scenario in which globaliztion could hypothetically drive economic connections into the future, but as with all of the other example we've discussed, there are drawbacks. The level of human rights violations that have been linked to this project and China's policy of detaining people who speak out against them give the project a negative light.

Ch. 28,30 NYT Article

 Chapter 28 discusses how nation states are losing their authority to the market. Government intervention in people’s daily lives is increasing, while more and more societies want their own nation state. Tech is creating major changes previously unseen, and politics is becoming a common activity practiced by people other than just politicians. I can definitely say that my entire life seems to be surrounded by political conversations — it’s almost entirely unavoidable. Although, I feel like people have more power than ever in politics as well. Something I see a lot is activism that follows the saying, “put your money where your mouth is.” Boycotting brands that support political endeavors you disagree with and focusing your money and brands that you do feels like the most effective way to initiate change. Chapter 28 mentions that power over outcomes is exercised by the market, specifically who buys and who sells. This, I couldn’t agree with more. I’ve been a participant in “buy nothing” days I’ve heard about over social media, and subsequently read the articles that say the brands boycotted had their lowest 24 hour revenue period in history. In a world defined by money, the common person’s main source of power is where they spend their hard earned cash.

Chapter 30 discusses the drawbacks of globalization on laborers. While the chapter makes sense to me, I find myself asking a lot of questions that start with “why.” We can’t really undo globalization. We can discuss the downsides all we like, but why aren’t we discussing how we can change things? What actions can we realistically take to make things better? I read so much about the goods and bads of globalization it just feels repetitive. What can people, or governments actually do?

The NYT article has me questioning whether consumerism on the BRI is worth the safety risks. It doesn’t seem like anything sold in the market is a once-in-a-lifetime buy, so why do people who are at risk shop there? If there is a chance that you could be taken and imprisoned by the Chinese government, why would you even think about going there? Although, for the people who go there because it is the only place that they can see their family on the other side of the border, I completely understand the risks. 

The readings this week have me feeling really nihilistic about capitalism. We put consumption over safety and security.

Ch 28, 30, NYT

 Ch 28 discusses the idea of the power of the nation-state is slowly waning as the power of global organizations start to increase, even overtaking the power of certain nation-states. While nation-states used to control the markets, global organizations are starting to make decisions for nation-states. These international organizations have so much economic power they have gained in turn strong political power, which depending on who you ask could have very scary consequences.

In Ch 30, the main idea is the consequences of globalization and if the negatives have started to outweigh the positives. An example is how workers can be subsituted for workers with lower wages in other countries, causing workers to get less benefits and wages because of how low their competition is. Trade also causes conflict from differing cultural views and social norms and causes governments to start to be have difficulties giving social insurances. Unfortunatly, many countries are not combating these negatives which cause globalization to be seen as a bad thing and making it hard to see any postive benefits for most people.

The NYT talks about the border between China and Kazakhstan and how important it actually is. While seemingly insignifigant, it actually is the connection between China and the rest of Eurasia as it houses roads, railways, and other forms of transportation to create a massive market hub. However, this area also houses concentration camps and forced labor, which to me conflicts with the idea of mass economic growth, as the ones working don't see that money. 

Ch. 28, 29, & NY-Times

 In "The Declining Authority of States," Susan Strange argues that nation-states are losing power to global markets, technology, and international finance. She points out that businesses and investors can move resources across borders quickly, forcing governments to adapt their policies to attract investment rather than fully controlling their economies. Technology, including computers, satellites, and AI, further weakens government control by enabling instant movement of information, trade, and financial flows. This shift of authority from states to markets and global systems presents challenges for governments in regulating global activity.

Dani Rodrik discusses the tensions that arise from globalization, noting that while it can bring economic growth and increased trade, it also creates winners and losers. Skilled workers and large companies often benefit, while low-skilled workers may struggle with job losses and lower wages due to increased competition between workers across different countries. Globalization can also lead to conflicts between economic goals and social values, as countries with different labor laws and environmental standards compete. Rodrik argues that globalization needs to be managed carefully to ensure that its benefits are shared more fairly across societies.

The NY Times article highlights China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its impact on Kazakhstan. The BRI aims to connect Chinese factories with countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa through infrastructure projects like railways and ports. In Kazakhstan, the construction of the Khorgos "dry port" facilitates the transfer of goods from China to Europe. While the BRI has the potential to create jobs and promote economic growth in Kazakhstan, it also raises concerns about unstable employment and unequal distribution of benefits. The article also touches on the political and human rights implications of China's influence in the region, mentioning the detention camps in Xinjiang and the trial of Sayragul Sauytbay, who spoke out about them. This illustrates that China's presence in the region extends beyond trade and business, encompassing political and human rights issues as well.

Chapters 28, 29 + NYT Article

Ch. 28 --    "Where states were once the masters of markets, now it is the markets which, on many crucial issues, are the masters over the governments of states." This sentence right here pretty much summarizes the future of governments. This also somewhat explains the ideas behind the Neoliberalism push that had started in the 1900s. The climbing dominance of markets over the government has both its benefits and detriments; for benefits, it can improve economic growth and can reduce trade barriers between countries. A big con of this is that it can create massive inequalities due to the privatization of public goods.
The paradox involving the decline in authority in the more powerful countries/states, as well as the growing amount of "states-to-be" as I'll call them, seemed initially very confusing to me. But as I read on, I understood more about what Strange was saying in their statement. There is an ever-expanding want of statehood among states-to-be, but at the same time, the value of a state being a state is declining, government and all.

Ch. 29 --   The focus of this chapter, (clearly) is crime; more specifically organized crime. As the article shows frequently, organized crime groups have to adapt to the globalizing world. In the adaptation to the newly emerging systems, crime groups had found ways of "exploiting the growth mechanisms of globalization."

--Unfinished--

28, 30, NY Times

Chapter 28 the argument against the idea of the nation states holding full control of the global system is brought up. Nation states’ power is declining with the rise of multinational corporations gaining larger influence on global powers. These multinational corporations are making decisions that in the past governments would have been making. With the interconnection of governments and international corporations, governments are not fully independently acting on global decision making. 

Chapter 30 points more towards offering explanation to the impact these international companies and markets have. Even though there are positive impacts surrounding globalization, more often than not the negatives are not put into thought. With a main point being the labor industry, we see many labor industries pushed around to where it can be done the cheapest, completely destroying communities that allow cheaper labor. There are also forces acting making governments dependent on their export labor industries to keep these prices low even if it comes at the cost of their own citizens. 

The New York Times article explains the importance of the China and Kazakhstan border, because this border is the separation between China’s different political structure and the rest of the world. The Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility is the furthest place from any ocean in the world, but is extremely important for the connection of Asia and Europe through land. The town of Khorgos which is there has become a major zone for processing shipments from Asia to Europe. I think this gives a good example to how globalization can completely change an area that may be seemingly useless to the world, building it in a place that the global economy would struggle without.

Chapter 28,30 & New York Times Article

Susan Strange’s article “The Declining Authority of States” argues that governments are not as powerful as they used to be. In the past national governments had a lot more control over their economies and societies. However today, global markets, technology and international finance often have more influence than politicians themselves. One idea in the article that stood out to me is that markets now have a huge amount of power. Businesses, multinational companies and investors are able to move money and resources across borders very quickly. As a result of this, governments often have to adapt their policies in order to attract investment rather than fully controlling their own economies. In my opinion, this makes sense because companies today operate worldwide while governments are limited to their own countries.

I think another important aspect highlighted within this chapter is the use of technology. Over the last century, advances such as computers, satellites, global communication networks and most recently AI have helped to connect the world more than ever before. These changes make it harder for governments to control information as well as trade and financial flows because money, data and business transactions can now move instantly across boarders through digital systems. This means governments have less time and ability to monitor or regulate what is happening within their own economies. I think technology has definitely made life easier but it has also made it more difficult for governments when it comes to regulating global activity.

Overall, Strange argues that authority is shifting away from states and towards markets and global systems. I think this is a convincing argument. Governments still play an important role, but they clearly face new challenges in a globalised world where economic power often crosses national borders in an instant.

Dani Rodrik discusses the problems that can come with globalisation. While it can bring economic growth and more trade between countries, Rodrik argues that it can also create tension within societies. Some people benefit a lot from global markets, especially skilled workers and large companies but on the other hand, other individuals such as low-skilled workers often struggle to compete and may lose jobs or face lower wages. One key idea is that globalisation has the ability to increase competition between workers across different countries. This is because companies can move production or outsource jobs abroad meaning that workers in wealthier countries may find it harder to negotiate higher wages or better working conditions. In my opinion this is one of the biggest challenges of globalisation itself because it can make people feel insecure about their jobs and futures. Rodrik also explains that globalisation can create conflicts between economic goals and social values. Countries have different labour laws, environmental standards and social protections. When trade increases, these differences can cause disagreements especially if people feel their country’s standards are being undermined by global competition.

Overall, Rodrik does not say globalisation should stop, but he argues it needs to be managed more carefully. Globalisation has clear benefits such as economic growth and international cooperation but governments must make sure that the gains are shared more fairly so that entire societies are benefiting and not just a small group of people.

NY times article:

The article explains how China is expanding its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative, which focuses on building new roads, railways and trade routes across Asia and Europe. In Kazakhstan, China has built a huge “dry port” called Khorgos. This is where goods from China are transferred onto trains and sent toward Europe. The believe the goal is to create a modern version of the Silk Road and make it faster to move products between countries. I thought it was interesting how this project could help Kazakhstan grow and create jobs but it also raised some concerns for me. Some of the jobs around the border are official, while others are unofficial and not very stable which creates risk and shows not everyone benefits equally.  I found it particularly interesting about the young boy who was a senior in high school deciding which job he should take. The article also talks about the trial of Sayragul Sauytbay who was a woman that fled China and spoke about detention camps in Xinjiang during a court case in Kazakhstan. Her story made me realise that China’s influence in the region is not only about trade and business, but also about politics and human rights. Politics is present so much more than I had ever realised. 

28,30, and NYT Article

    What chapter 28 is looking at is how confused some of the political leaders and heads of governments about how much they influence things such as economies and national societies.  Artists and illustrators have pointed out flaws such as these in political figures as of recently with an increasing amount of bitterness.  It also says that states used to be the masters of markets, although that has changed as of recently, with markets gaining increasing authority over states.  How I see this happening is that some larger markets have a more global reach than some states do, as well as a larger economic standard in some circumstances as well.

    Chapter 30 talks about the possible harm globalization has caused, and if its outdone the good factors.  The issue that stood out the most to me was how globalization has made it much more difficult for governments to provide social insurance.  This isn't saying that the government is the sole provider of this.  What I do think is that globalized markets shouldn't negatively impact to this degree the social insurance that should be supplied, and heads of government should be able to create alternate plans in order to give most people this opportunity.  Having a global institution impact an entire country in terms in social insurance standards is incredibly concerning.

The New York Times article discusses the border between China and Kazakhstan, and the importance it carries for China.  It's part of what's called the 'new Silk Road', one of China's premier efforts to increase global reach and overall economic stability.  The author of the article discusses stories about his experiences with locals, including a driver named Nunur.  He discussed that in order to provide for himself, he was forced to work in tractor repairs, becoming an expert mechanic.  While this may not seem like low-tier work to the naked eye, his parents had to work on a collective farm.  The article implies that there are serious political and human issues regarding globalization, one issue being human rights.  The new Silk Road promises prosperity, but hardly delivers on it.

Chapter 28 and Chapter 30 in The Globalization Reader both talk about how globalization affects economic development and the balance of power between countries. Chapter 28 starts by explaining how globalization can change places that used to be fairly isolated by connecting them to the global economy through trade, investment, and industrial growth. Governments and corporations often try to bring development to these regions by building infrastructure, factories, and new industries. The idea is that this will attract businesses and create jobs for people living there. In theory, this kind of development should improve living standards and bring more opportunity. At the same time, the chapter makes it clear that the results are not always equal. Some areas grow quickly and benefit from new investment, while others struggle or end up depending heavily on outside companies. One thing the chapter points out is that globalization is not just something that naturally happens on its own. It is often shaped by decisions made by governments and businesses that are trying to guide economic growth in certain directions.

Chapter 30 focuses more on the power behind globalization. It explains that global trade and financial systems are often influenced by the countries and institutions that already have the most economic power. Wealthier countries and large multinational corporations tend to have more control over trade rules, investments, and markets. Because of this, it can be difficult for poorer countries to compete or build strong economies on their own. The chapter also talks about how globalization does not always reduce inequality between countries. In some cases, it can actually make those gaps even wider. Some countries end up mainly providing cheap labor or raw materials while wealthier countries capture more of the economic benefits. After reading this chapter, it seemed like globalization can help economies grow, but it can also keep the divide between richer and poorer countries pretty wide.

The New York Times article “Can China Turn the Middle of Nowhere…” connects well with these ideas. The article looks at China’s attempts to develop remote regions by building factories, infrastructure, and even entire cities in places that previously had very little economic activity. The goal is to create jobs and encourage companies and workers to move there so that economic growth is not concentrated only in the biggest cities. However, the article shows that these projects do not always succeed. In many cases, businesses and workers are hesitant to relocate to remote areas, which can leave factories underused or create what people sometimes call “ghost cities.” This example reflects a lot of what the chapters talk about. Even when governments invest huge amounts of money into development, the results are not guaranteed. Economic growth still depends on whether companies and people actually see a reason to move there and build their lives in those places.

Chapter 28, 30 & NY Times article

 Chapter 28 goes against the idea that nation-states are in control of global systems. Susan Strange argues that as time moves on the balance of global powers of a nation-states decline as more international corps continue to join the global markets. Decisions that nation-states would normally make, are being dictated by international corps that make decisions for that nation-state. With this, Strange implies that economic power is shifting from the states to corporations meaning that because of globalization the economic power of a nation transferred from the government of that state to the corporations that decide to come into those states. Susan's argument highlights how interconnected financial and political systems can limit a government’s independent authority.

Chapter 30 dives deep into the topic of if the rapid growth of if the international market has more negatives than positives. The author looks towards the US and Europe as an Example. International trade between the US and Europe had some complications, but also over time, established stronger cooperation between the two nations. Another point this chapter brings up is that nations would constantly change labor laws for sweatshop workers to stay commutative in the global market at the expense of that nations people. With nations constantly changing labor laws at the expense of their people, this shows that the nations economy cannot act freely because they have to react to the international competition from other countries. Ultimately, the chapter suggests that unchecked globalization could undermine the very advantages it is supposed to provide.

The New York Times article describes the remote border region between China and Kazakhstan, near the Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility, and explains its importance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although the area appears isolated, it has become strategically significant due to infrastructure projects designed to connect Chinese factories to markets in Europe, Asia, and Africa through railways, ports, and highways. The town of Khorgos in Kazakhstan has developed into a major transportation hub, illustrating how quickly globalization can transform overlooked regions. At the same time, the article discusses Xinjiang, a Chinese region under strict government control where minority populations have faced serious repression. Despite the seemingly quiet landscape shown in images, the political realities behind the development are complex. Additionally, Kazakhstan has faced economic challenges in managing its growing relationship with China.

28, 30, nyt article

     The first thing I noticed while reading is the power that nation-states seem to have. The author really gives them this appearance that they are all powerful, and have the ability to control so much of the global market. This, to me, is a scary thing to think about, as it leads to many of these nation states being able to have this feel that they are above the law, allowing them to basically do whatever they'd want. This can lead to these companies circumventing the laws and regulations that are in place to protect the workers and products that get sent through the factories within these nation-states. Again this is scary and there needs to be some way to prevent this from happening.

    When I think of all the good globalization has done, I think of how it connects us in ways we have never had the ability to be connected, and gives everyone on the planet the ability to experience cultures and ways of lives that they would never see or experience if it wasn't for globalization. Even with that the harm it has done might completely eclipse the good it has done. It has forced many smaller economies to force harsh and inhumane conditions on it's workers to attempt to cut costs, allowing them to stay in this globalized economy. This is a horrible thing that comes out of it, and is an extreme, many of the negatives come from economic tensions and political rivalries that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for this increasing competition over chasing an increase in your market share.

    The boarder between China and Kazakhstan is so much more important than I have every thought. Because of the political differences between China and most of the world, specifically Europe, I always kind of assumed all trade coming out of Chine was through ships, as it would leave a sort of buffer between China and the rest of the world. But it makes a whole lot of sense that its not the case, and that a land based shipping super center on the boarder between China and Europe exists, as it must lead to a much cheaper and easier solution to the mass of products coming out of China. 

Chpts 28, 30, & NYT article

In chapter 28 of The Globalization Reader, readers learn about the power of nation-states and why the author, Susan Strange, is arguing against it. She describes nation-states as a dominant source that is weakening globalization at its core. Global institutions have now begun to take over the role that was once controlled by the state's government. It made me realize that the government isn't always the one with the most power. Nation-states have begun to weaken other countries and institutions globally. 

Chapter 30 provides readers with a question: has the rapid expansion of international markets given us more harm than good? The author addresses the question by bringing up social and political tensions between other countries (such as the US and Europe). I didn't know governments felt pressured to bring labor costs down to stay in the global economy. It never occurred to me that there are limits to governments' competitiveness. The author argues that if this is pushed too far, it could undermine the true benefits of globalization. 

The NYT article presented me with what the border between China and Kazakhstan looks like. It's a very remote area alongside the Eurasian Pole of Inaccessibility. The EPI has been a major benefit for the BRI. I was shocked that this place was characterized as "the middle of nowhere" when there are over 1,000 concentration camps and centered as a big foundation project. Khorgos, a small town in Kazakhstan, has now become a major shipping hub connecting China to European countries and beyond the Atlantic Ocean. The BRI movement focuses on connecting Chinese factories with other countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This could be done through trains, ports, and highways. Later on, I read about China's Xinjiang, an area that's controlled by the government and has targeted minorities. In the pictures provided, the small town didn't look like much of a harm or threat. I also learned that Kazakhstan, at the time of the article's publication, was experiencing economic struggles in its relationship with China. 

T Shirt — Ava Guglielmi

Part 3 of the book discusses what happens after the shirt is made and makes it way back to America, and part 4 is about the life of a t shirt once it is no longer worn by American consumers. One of the things that really stood out to me was all the rules about how to get clothing to fall under the duty-free category of imports. The rules are so specific, it’s insane. I have no idea how they came up with these or the logic behind it. I was also surprised to hear that politicians routinely make promises that they don’t intent to keep when it comes to the textile industry. I know with politicians lying is a tactic used often, but the fact that it’s so common place is wild.

Part 4 really has me thinking about just how much Americans over-consume when it comes to fashion. We donate so many clothes that there aren’t even enough people in the US to buy it all, so we have to ship it overseas. One interesting thing to me was that people in Africa prefer the clothing that is wrinkly and musty, because it means it was worn a lot and was liked by the previous owner. If the clothes are too clean or smell nice, they get passed over. This is definitely the opposite of what I would expect.

Travels of a T-shirt - Part 2

 For the second part of the book, the author continues the path of a t-shirt, now back to the U.S. Rivioli explains that the retailers like Walmart are the powerful, not the factory owners. They can buy more supplies and request for lower prices, once they can always relocate to other factories if the price is not good for them, and the factories tend to accept since they can't lose big companies like that. She talks about the end of the Multi-Fiber Arrangement, a system that used to regulate the textile market. I feel that this type of initiatives can turn the global market more fair, and when it ended, China became the most concentrated production, making it harder for other nations. She emphasizes that this is another example of how politics influence the flow of goods, and not just the "free" market forces. 

Then, she brings the argument of the re-utilization of clothes, and how the West it is not only a villain, but donates tons of clothes to other countries, especially in Africa, and encourage small markets, instead of just burning the used clothes. It's a opportunity to have what to wear, to create trade, and to make a good thing, even if these countries lack money for clothes because of the West's policies, sometimes. 

To end, she talks about the IMF and World Bank, and how they encourages liberalization and contribute to the decline of Africa's textile markets. She offers a dual vision, showing that is not simple to say who is good or bad, but reaffirming that in globalization, some will loose and some will win. 

Reading Travels of a T-Shirt in a Global Economy

 Part 1 of The Travels of a T-Shirt in a Global Economy starts with the beginnings of how a t-shirt is made. Rivoli travels to a cotton farm in Texas to see where the cotton is grown that is then later turned into the t-shirt. This turns into a discussion as to why the U.S. has led the cotton industry for so long. The main reasons why the U.S. has managed this according to Rivoli are slave labor, subsidies, and governance. The U.S. used slave labor as a way to avoid market risks and was the reason they could produce enough cotton to meet British demand, subsidies after slave labor helped to keep cotton farmers income high to allow them to keep farming, and the way other countries governed allowed for the U.S. to take the role as the world's main cotton supplier instead of someone else.

Part 2 of the book focuses on what happens to that cotton when it is sold and taken to China. Rivoli also talks a lot about China in general, the politics, and the secrecy they have over what they do. The race to the bottom talks a lot about how different countries are trying to buy and sell the products for as cheap as humanly possible in less and less ethical ways. Then Rivoli covers the poor working conditions in Chinese factories and how China makes working there so desirable for its citizens. I think this book is very interesting and I enjoy how Rivoli shares the differences between when she wrote the first edition of the book compared to the most recent edition. I can't wait to read the epilogue to get more information about the biggest changes between now and then. I wish she had more plans to continue editing it because I would love to revisit this topic in ten years and see what's happening now with seemingly China overtaking the U.S. in many ways. 

T-Shirt - Dekai Averett

 The first half of this book goes into aspect of the apparel production industry, namely cotton production for T-shirts and related items. The book begins in Texas and explains the ways that the state was incredibly important in the production of cotton, specifically in the city of Lubbock.

I find it interesting how much the US has put into subsidizing the production of cotton and other goods, particularly in Texas, as this action almost inherently clashes with Neoliberal ideals. In an ideal Neoliberal world “the invisible hand” is the ultimate decider of market value, however when large powerful countries like the US can freely subsidize certain aspects of their economy or aligned economies, it goes against this ideology. Out of all things to be critical of the United States for, I think that the cognitive dissonance around being a country that champions freedom and open trade while also being heavily involved in the matters of countries around the world is one of the most significant. While I agree that it is important to prioritize building an American workforce and industry, it often feels like US foreign policy is based off little more than what’s convenient at the moment.

In the latter chapters the book touches on societal changes in working standards and corporate control, and how historically society has eventually gotten large companies to reform aspects of their practices. This implies an optimism about the future in regard to the abusive business practices, however it must still be recognized that these reforms too don’t always remain as societal values change.

Travels of a t-shirt

     After reading the first half of travels of a t-shirt, I was very surprised to find out just how damaging a simple, cotton t-shirt can be or the environment, and how exploititive the process of making one can be for the workers who are almost forced to make them. While it starts in the u.s., where cotton famers in places like Texas receive heavy subsidies, which allow them to produce cheap and also relativity in-exploititive labor. Even with this, cotton farming can still harm the environment. I think this is such a surprising thing. I would've guessed cotton farming would have been done in countries where labor is cheap, but the government subsidies really do a lot for the labor pool in America.

    We then see the cotton get sent over to primarily places like China, where clothing companies exploit cheap labor to produce cheap and cotton t-shirts. I can see from a business perspective why companies would do this, it saves a couple extra dollars per t-shirt, but ethically this is a disgusting act, which really shows how small of morals these companies have. the people making these shirts work in in-excusable conditions and get pair an incomprehensibly small wage for doing this terrible work. In my opinion, this book really shows how terrible these companies are and how much they focus on the bottom line rather than any sort of ethics.

Travels of a T-Shirt 1-140

 Looking at things from a different perspective can often change your opinion, and looking at globalization through the eyes of a t-shirt is certainly a good example of that.  The book starts in a city called Lubbock in Texas, one of the largest cotton hubs in the world. I figured this made sense, as parts of Texas are especially flat, which are more preferrable for growing cotton and other crops.

    One other part that stood out to me was when they talk about the farmers themselves having to sell their own cotton.  Most farmers aren't properly trained in being able to market their product, but they had to anyway to make sure it got sold at all.  In the example of west Texas, it was even more difficult for farmers to sell their cotton due to its reputation for poor quality.  Reasons for this include the fiber generally being shorter and weaker.  It's generally suited to survive in Texas, not to thrive on the open market.  It makes a good transition from this to the next step, however, as most Texas cotton is exported to places such as China for production.  To me, marketing in your own general state/area seems particularly easier than marketing for foreign exports.

    The last sections of the reading cover the process of manufacturing goods with the exported cotton, specifically in China.  It was clearly hinted at throughout these sections that China was becoming one of if not the major clothing manufacturers in the world.  It cites the lower cost of labor and sheer population as the main contributor to becoming a manufacturing giant.  What saddens me is the fact that China had established things called hukous, which required one to stay within a specific region.  It was almost certainly a highly restrictive lifestyle which most would consider inhumane, but it was a major factor in China's producing income.  Although hukous have majorly slowed down, it's still difficult for people who live in rural areas to find accessible goods in urban regions, only giving them the illusion of making life work outside of rural life.