ARE Multinationals REALLY GOOD For Us

Therefore these companies are owned by businessmen from the first world which uses effective principles to make as much profit as possible. What is so bad about this method of generating jobs in the third world? On top of creating jobs they even endorse worthy causes around the world. When one looks on the surface these companies seem dandy, but once you go below the surface and peel back the layers, one can really see the objective of these multinationals. More importantly we see deficiencies, inequalities and disadvantages that are created through their world affairs. What drives these companies is this phenomenon called Globalisation?

Globalisation has been in effect since the 17^th century whereby third world countries have been taken advantage of through imperialism and colonialism. It started when the British East India Company exploited India by controlling all forms of industrial production; and they have been followed by many other nations who have passed this mantle onto the ever-strengthening corporations.

In the developed world we receive manipulated messages via advertising encouraging us to buy the brand, whereas in the developing world the reality endured during the production is far different from how we associate with the brand.

One assertion for globalisation is that needed jobs are being provided in these third world countries, thus helping the weak infrastructure. However this unfortunate situation wouldn't be evident if it wasn't due to circumstances that these countries have been subjected to. For instance the Democratic Republic of Congo was a country rich with resources, but had its land raped by the Belgian Colonists, subsequently leaving the country in ruin.

Today the assets and money stay with the developed world who feed off the hardship of the developing world, a vicious cycle keeping these two regions poles apart. Because the locals don't have the money to buy the equipment or technique to cultivate the given resource, they are at the whim of those in the developed world. Here in New Zealand, the Chelsea sugar refinery gets most of their sugarcane from Fiji and then makes the raw sugar into the finished product. Then amazingly they sell the edible sugar back to Fiji for a greater price than was paid for the raw material!

It is one thing to take advantage of the resources of the indigenous populace, but when they put these people's lives in danger, the line has surely been crossed. Most of the world's diamonds come from Africa, an unstable region where violence is integral part of production. For instance, Sierra Leone is the world's poorest country yet diamond production strives here. This epitomises what is wrong with the industry, whereby a weak administration means illegalities can occur easily.

The process is started in Antwerp where the diamonds are cut, and then the diamonds are manufactured by large companies such as De Beers, ready to be sold to jewellery retailers worldwide. Those Africans have no hope in their war torn state, thus they are left with no choice but to mine the diamonds. Predominantly rich white girls and successful rappers effectively fund the atrocities. Unfortunately we are misled by the pristine looking diamond, when in actual fact blood and tears were shed for the finished product.

Globalisation doesn't only negatively affect the third world but also the working class in the first world. Since apparel brands like Nike are having their products made overseas in South East Asia, those jobs are no longer available in the United States, despite Nike being an American run and owned company. The competition from these third world countries is because people will work for a fraction of the cost due to their lower living standards and the fact that the demand for work outweighs the supply of jobs.

The effect in the developed world is workers are laid off as they have been outsourced. A prime example is Goodyear who has made 20,000 workers redundant with 8 plants closing since 1990.

An economist would say this is just the nature of the capitalist world; well yes that is correct. However this has been made so by overpaid CEOs who literally run the world as they have massive sway in the governments of the world's grandest countries. Politicians are forced to owe favours to those powerful individuals who fund their campaigns, meaning policy making is suited to the interests of these businessmen.

Sometimes the line between corporate and government can overlap, as a board member of a large company can also hold office in government. A prime illustration of such a situation can be seen with USA's current administration headed by George W. Bush. Bush's former chief of staff on the environment was Philip Cooney, he has a degree in business though knowledge of science is better suited for this role. He was previously a lobbyist for the American Petroleum institute, and now part of Exxon Mobil, one of America's largest oil companies. His most significant action before resigning was altering government climate reports to dull down the threat of climate change, so these corporations could continue to extract the efficiently as possible without concern for the environment.

Founder and chairman of Interface Inc Ray Anderson explains in ‘The Corporation' "that all of the earth's major life support systems are in decline, but because there is still so much abundance left, no entity is willing to make the changes necessary for sustainability."

Those who run the companies make unthinkable decisions in order to appease their shareholders; nothing else matters only the concept of making as much money in as little time as possible. Even if that means making peoples' lives impossible and destroying the earth we live on. This seems outrageous to a normal person, but that perceptibly isn't a problem for these people who dine in five star restaurants, live on multiple acre estates and will never encounter the hardship that has been suffered for them to afford such luxuries. How can I accuse such brilliant up-market men of such an evil? How can such a bold statement be made? Well it's quite simple - these executives are not in touch with the rest of the world because they are generally rich white men whereas the majority of the world is coloured and/or poor.

Another example that shows the disregard of these entities can be seen with the actions of a giant department store called Wal-Mart (America's biggest retail franchise and the multinational that makes the greatest amount of sales). Even though the CEO Lee Scott gets paid over 27 million dollars per annum, the average hourly sales employee makes under US$14,000 dollars, while the clothes produced come from Central American nations, such as Honduras and Guatemala, where their pay of a few dollars a day is barely enough to live on. Commonly the workers are young females, and are picked for their vulnerability as they can be easily controlled. What's more, the factories are setup in rural areas, hours away from where their families live, which means they have no support. Plus these factories resemble prisons more than work environments with massive walls that surround the workers in these oppressive factories. They also have no union rights which allow them to be forced into unfair working conditions, like having no healthcare.

It doesn't matter that the owners of Wal-Mart, the Walton family, are worth over 100 billion dollars, which seems not to hinder their spirits of amassing more wealth at the cost of anything. This is the nature of the globalised world, as manipulated by the devilish people who run these multinationals.

Globalisation in the world today has created a gap between the rich and poor which is vastly expanding. Though there is a huge amount of money being made in strengthening economies such as India and Brazil, the inequalities are still massive. In Brazil you have a dispersed society, where the wealthy minority live "the good life" on the beaches on Rio de Janeiro and in the metropolis of Sao Paulo. In the hills you have huge ghettos that are unsafe and unhygienic to live in. And though the drug dealers (in these cordoned off societies) are making decent money, they are surrounded by people who cannot afford basic necessities for human life, such as the right medicine to survive. Even in the ghetto there are disparities between people.

Basically the presence of these multinationals worsens world affairs. The living standards of billions is getting even worse, in comparison to a minute few on scale, and ‘the elite' are in complete control heading these hegemonic corporations. ‘The elite' have most of the world's money and control the world's resources (through their multinational entities), which makes them all powerful on a world scale.

Also a motif has been created, where most are unsatisfied due to the environment we live in, where clothes aren't just functional but a symbol of status as well. This creates a society where people will struggle to survive, while the ‘privileged' will consume and consume without questioning the well-being of our fellow man. Capitalism is built on this motif, and therefore we play into the hands of those who control us - the ‘Corporation'; we are in the palms of their all-encompassing grasp. And the nature of the ‘Corporation' is to look out for its own interests above all else, causing indestructible damage to the environment, the government, the civil population and thus the whole of mankind!