LOADING

Type to search

Globalization defined by the economist Helenano Berghodge

Cultural

Globalization defined by the economist Helenano Berghodge

Share

Fiorella Carolo

In 2000, Helena N. Hodge published a book that is read all over the world. The important title “Ancient Futures” tells of her experience as a Westerner and bears witness to having lived in the country at the foot of the Himalayas called Ladakh for over 20 years. In the first years of their stay, the area lived to the rhythm of the millennials, which guarantees its residents dignity even in a modest life. Life was characterized by agricultural activity, and agriculture ensured self-sufficiency, community life, redistribution, barter with neighboring communities and the spirit of the community. Even in this remote country, with the advent of globalization, this life is not only being messed up but also being replaced by less sustainable ones.

In 2011 Helena co-directed and co-produced a documentary entitled “The Economics of Happiness”. This is a great success internationally. The award-winning documentary is a detailed and well-documented review of the impact globalization has on our world. Helena was part of a pool of experts appointed by the King of Bhutan to study and propose an alternative economic system proposed by Western democracy. Instead of measuring GDP (Gross Domestic Product), this new economic system takes into account the well-being of all citizens and IPH, an internal product of well-being.

Many criticisms of the effects of globalization come from the experience of scholars such as the Swedish economist, analyst and linguist Helena Noberghodge, who spent 35 years in the Himalayan region of Ladakh. In the late 1970s, the western economy reached these remote areas of the Himalayas and for a long time Swedish scholars

Fortunately, experienced with my own eyes, the transformation of an isolated rural society in contact with globalization is sustainable and not sustainable. Western influence over these communities was like Swedish scholars questioning themselves and the assumptions of the Western economic system that they took for granted. She also began to question the Western approach to globalization towards distant communities. In the course of this transformation, Helena was able to see how this actually had a negative impact on communities that had lost their cultural identity and traditional lifestyle and, unfortunately, their younger generation as well. Indeed, young people can see themselves, their communities and their way of life under the very attractive influence of material products that can be obtained by adopting a way of life completely different from Western education and community. The eyes of the westerners and suddenly the happy, simple and sustainable way of life became poor, without comfort, without supplies or money.

Over time, even these young people had to admit that it was an illusion. Furthermore, narcotics were absent from traditional communities, but they are widespread in the western world, leaving traces of victims and ruining young people for generations. It was.

There is no doubt that globalization is still a very successful economic system, but what is globalization?

The definition of the dictionary says “a universal system that makes it possible to move goods and finances easily without rules”. When has this started?

If a European ship colonized and enslaved most of the world 500 years ago, it could be viewed as a new form of colonization.

Countries of the non-industrialized world. But what is the inconvenient truth of globalization? Mental illness is certainly an increasing and visible effect, and the prolonged drought of the past decade has made depression endemic in parts of the United Kingdom and United States, as well as Australia. Consumption has impacted the planet’s natural resources, but globalization continues to fuel it, producing huge amounts of waste that cities cannot handle. In poor countries, rural exodus to the cities continues relentlessly, increasing rather than reducing poverty. Globalization is causing climate change in systems that transport goods from distant countries to consumers. Developed countries export the same amount of every product they import. At all times our planet is traversed by products that go from one country to another. It is perfectly normal for European countries to produce enough to import and export the same amount of butter. The same goes for meat and milk.

Globalization promotes life in the city, so it is the small farmers in the countryside who first lose their jobs and thus become unskilled, precarious jobs that serve industry. Tens of thousands of Indian farmers committed suicide from the loss of land and their own support. The same thing has happened in Australia, Europe and the United States for decades, despite the reality of silence.

Contaminated companies can only act because they benefit from government subsidies. Without subsidies, you cannot be in a free market that you are constantly referring to. Big polluters are wrongly owed this tax exemption, those who want globalization, those who demand not to pay taxes, those who demand not to pay the obligation to trade. People who compete. These big polluting industries can only exist thanks to continued state support that prevents the state from supporting small businesses, artisans, small business owners and smallholders.

Companies are forced to pay taxes they don’t pay and instead are faced with the unease of climate change and the pollution of industrial mass-produced waste by urbanization and pollution companies. ..

As I said above, the solution that a lot of people prefer is localization to globalization. This includes getting rid of the tax cuts that financial and business giants are currently enjoying. Localization means reducing our reliance on imported products and instead relying on in-house production. This is a measure that is declared as isolationism, protective trade, to protect the internal market. The government will end most of its support for large corporations and look back on funding.

Large food companies claim that in an increasingly dense world, the food industry is the only one that can meet the needs of a growing population. But the reality is that a small producer has flexibility on its side that large companies cannot. Small farmers in particular employ more workers because they use machines, because they are not mechanized like large companies and instead have to save labor. I am. In addition, few people know, but the reality is that small farmers can produce many more vegetables per square meter than large companies. Reason? Soil fertility is high because fertilizers and herbicides are not used in industrial quantities for forced use by large farmers. The biodiversity of small plots is greater and is not grown in a single culture as in agriculture. The productivity ratio is 3, 4 or 5 times. Energy sources also work decentrally and thus cover the required amount of energy.

The UK’s Transition Town movement has been described as the fastest experiment to be carried out in terms of the local economy. So far it has spread from the United Kingdom to Europe, the United States, and Australia.

Source: “The Economics of Happiness” video co-producer Helena N. Hodge 2011

Tags:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *