One reason why women in rural areas of South Asia are caught in the energy poverty trap is due to the fact that they are at the bottom rung of the so called “energy ladder”. This “energy ladder” associates users of progressively clean and efficient sources of energy with correspondingly higher income. In this “energy ladder”, traditional biomass (dung, agriculture residues and fuel wood) is at the bottom rung of the ladder together with charcoal. Rising up the ladder, there is kerosene with liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity at the top.

Undeniably, women in the rural areas suffer from poverty and thus are only able to afford traditional rural energy systems which are characterized by the use of biomass, in the form of wood, plant residues, dung for cooking and human energy for motive power. In these areas, majority of household requires biomass energy for cooking. Human energy, measured in energy units, constitutes a small proportion of energy resources consumed compared to other sources. But the labour of women and children are indispensable in making the energy chain work, such as the collection of biomass to its transformation into an energy service such as heat for cooking.

Women in these areas are indeed responsible for the extraction, transport, processing, conversion and distribution of energy sources. This is according to the social norms which prescribe that such activities are the obligations of women. As such, being stuck in the poverty and restricted by social norms, women are unable to get out of the bottom rung of the “energy ladder”

Also, they suffer from energy poverty because they are at the bottom rung of another energy ladder- the energy ladder for motive force. In transforming energy, Women in the rural areas of South Asia usually depend solely on their own motive force without any other resources such as mechanical, electrical devices or animal power.

In some of these areas, it is women’s responsibility and obligations to do the repetitive task of energy transformations. Often, even when resources available for energy transformations are made available in the household, gender norms, relations of power and the division of labour tend to exclude women from the use and control of these assets. Clearly, energy poverty has a gender dimension in which women are disproportionally affected by the lack of access to these energy services and motorized equipments. As a result, women are trapped in energy poverty in which they lack the capability to break out from.

Consequences on being trapped in energy poverty?

Women who are in this energy-poverty trap encounter multiple social and economic problems. In this part of my essay, I will elaborate more on the impact of women who are in this energy-poverty trap.

Evidently, the low efficiency of fuel wood used by women to generate energy has a high emission of several harmful gases. The pollutants which are released are potential occupational hazards for women and their young children. Hence, women who are frequently exposed to indoor air pollution, smoke and particulates when cooking and are thus often victims of health burns, acute respiratory infections, lung disease and so on.

In addition, as women are obliged to carry out the task of gathering fuels for the family, they are extremely prone to injuries and fatigue. The long hours spent collecting water and firewood for food preparation as well as the other tasks that sustain rural livelihoods, leads to a further deterioration of their health.  

Also, the arduous and time-consuming nature of women’s activities in such energy systems has significant opportunity costs in terms of other activities. These are agricultural production and other productive and income generating uses of time and energy, as well as time and energy for child care, health, education, rest, social and cultural activities, recreation and personal maintenance.

Obesity, the condition at which excessive weight is gain through the accumulation of fat, can be explained by biological reasons; what happens inside the body after one has munched on Big Mac. However, it is equally important to determine the factors which tempt one to eat the Big Mac in the first place. Hence, adopting a sociological approach, I aim to answer the social causes of weight gain in my essay.

It is important to note that before globalization, the food people ate were local and seasonal. However, as globalization takes place, trade activities around the globe increases. People are thus able to gain access to a variety of food from across the globe. Take Malaysia for instance. As globalization makes it easier and quicker for trading to take place, Malaysians are thus presented with a wide range of food to satisfy their appetite from. They can easily locate Japanese, Korean, Mexican, French and many other foreign cuisines in their country.

Also as world income starts to increase, people are consuming more food as they are now better able to afford more of them. This increase in affordability accompanied by the growing range of food has led to a significant increase in the world’s food intake. This increase in consumption has indeed led to obesity.

Evidently, globalization has shaped the face of the modern labour market. In order to keep up with the pace of the expanding economy, workers in the 21st century have to work for longer hours. In addition, with the widespread use of technology, workers are required to be productive and efficient as well. The increase in working standards has brought about the hurried form of lifestyle which resulted in individuals settling for a more convenient form of meal- the fast food.

Also, globalization and technological advancement has systematically eliminated exercise from our lives. Workers commute by car from home to work in an office or factory, driving quite literally from door to door. Automobiles have eliminated daily walking and cycling. Elevators and escalators have replaced stairs. People are dedicating more time to work as well which has made them passive in leisure pursuits. Even if leisure time is available, most would spend it by watching television.

With globalization, caloric intake has climbed. Since gaining weight is a result of consuming more calories than are burned, with the caloric intake rising and exercising decreasing, people around the globe are no doubt putting on weight.

Migration of people from rural to urban areas has also led to an increase in people who are severely overweight.

Urban residents have vastly different lifestyles than rural residents. These lifestyles create their own patterns of food demand. People living in rural areas plant their own crops and gather their own food. Hence, rural diet includes food such as beans, fruits, fish and vegetables. On the other hand, people living in urban city areas are heavily reliant on fatty imported meats, rice, and sugar and fat-laden processed fast food. Hence, as people move from rural to the urban city areas, their traditional healthy diets are replaced by unhealthy food.

In Mexico for example, childhood obesity barely existed twenty years ago while they were living in rural areas. However, as they start to migrate and concentrate in the urban central city area, obesity rate shot up to 30 percent of elementary school children and 45 percent of adolescents.

The increase in consumption of fast food which contains a high level of total fat and saturated fat on a per-calorie basis has undeniably created the problem of obesity. In short, urbanization has led to a rise in the rate of people growing fat.

How spatial segregation aggravate the problem

1. unequal distribution of resources
2. concentration of the poor

As the title suggests, the main purpose of my essay is to explore whether large cities and metropolitan regions in particular have the unique features that propagate specific “urban problems”

Through my findings and research, I can conclude that many large cities and metropolitan regions are separated into two distinct spaces, the central city which is also known as the inner city and the suburban areas, located on the outskirts of the central city area.

Studies from previous chapters suggest that cities around the world experiences social problems such as inequalities and rising crime rate. Similarly, these social problems are also encountered in metropolis region that is spatially segregated. In the next part of my essay, I’ll elaborate more on the fore mentioned problems.

Before moving on, it is important to note that the spatial nature of large cities and the densely populated suburbs is not the cause of these social problems. Instead, spatial segregation aggravates the social problems faced. In my essay, I’ll explain on how spatital segregation aggravates these existing problems instead of giving rise to specific “urban problems”.

Firstly, the problem of inequality which exists in the metropolis region is amplified by the allocation and distribution of most of the country’s resources to the dense, built-up environments in the central city area. These large inner city areas which are usually the major centres of the global economy are the place where extreme wealth is accumulated. These resources are used to build luxurious housing estates, upscale shopping centres, high class restaurants, posh limousines and so on. Clearly, people in the city are leading luxurious lives with all their needs and desires being met.

Close by, in the concentrated space on the outskirts of the city, people are suffering from terrible consequences. Many are unemployed, living in poverty, homeless and are severely malnutrition. These people are poor, restless and are living in misery.

Inequalities were present in the metropolis to start with between the upper and lower class citizens. However, as a result of spatial segregation, the problem of inequality is worsened.

Due to this poor allocation of resources to the different spaces, the rich are able to derive maximum satisfaction in their lives as they are able to gain access to scarce resources with ease. On the other hand, the ghettos living in poverty do not have the ability to attain these resources and are left in a state of prolonged anguish. Thus, spatial segregation has in a matter of fact further aggravated the problem of inequality

Undeniably, the concentration of the ghettos in a specific space has intensified the effects of crime. Being trapped in the cycle poverty, the poor are often much deprived of basic necessities. As such, they are prone to engage in crime related activities to gain access to these resources. By concentrating the poor, the ghettoes themselves are constantly being subjected to crime organized by other members living in the same ghettoized region. Hence, when the ghettos who are living miserably in poverty become frequent victims of crime, breaking free for poverty becomes an uphill task. The impact of crime thus worsens.

Furthermore, the social condition of crime is aggravated when the concentration of the poor in the ghettoized region allows them to associate closely with each other, learn each other’s attitudes and have opportunities to collectively organize criminal activities as compared to if they are scattered about the metropolis region. As a result of concentrating the poor, crime rate increases significantly.

After the lecture on Thursday, I was set thinking about the globalized identity that we Singaporeans share. I was struggling initially as the identity that I thought off were previously mentioned in Professor Amir’s lecture, touching on the most basic points such as skin colour, birthplace, religion and affiliation. I was at a lost.

On my way home that day, I was still desperately trying to come up with possible answers. A group of students standing at the side of the cabin caught my attention instantly as I boarded the train. They were making such a din it was impossible to ignore them. Commuters were gradually showing signs of anger and irritation as the noise got louder. In the midst of their laughters and conversation I heard, “I’m hungry, let’s go makan now.”

Yes, that phrase stimulated my chain of thoughts.

Undeniably one of our national identities is our ability to mix different languages and dialects in speeches. Indeed, it is extremely common to hear “Jin tian hen hot” (Which means the weather is hot today in Chinese) or “Toilet di dou lou?” (Which means where is the toilet in Hokkien), and so on in our daily conversations.

As the world around us speaks in their own pure languages, with only a few of them speaking in these language-dialect mixes, our ability to mix the different languages clearly distinguishes us from the rest of the world.

Once when I was overseas, I heard a mother warning her son, “Don’t anyhow run, later you pua to and have big orh ceh then you know” (Stop running. You might fall and injure yourself). I smiled to myself as I realised that I had just met another fellow Singaporean in serendipity.

Clearly, it is this distinct identity has made us unique and indifferent.  

The creation of such national identity has allowed us to be different. However, being distinguishable might not be a good thing after all. Such noticeable identity allows uncertainty and mistrust to set in and it is of a huge disadvantage to the minority group.

Elaborating on Professor’s example given during the lecture, an Asian student studying in a western country will be perceived as having a different identity and agenda to the Western students. This would give rise to uncertainties in the westerners as both groups of students have different identity and agenda. As a result, suspicion and a sense of wariness would arise especially in the westerners towards the Asian students. The construction of boundary and the separation of identity hence take place. Ultimately, it is the Asian minority who loses out as they face being alienated by the majority.

The next national identity that most Singaporeans possess is a sense of rootedness and belonging to the country. A recent survey concluded that a huge number of Singaporeans possess a sense of identity and rootedness to Singapore. Significantly, this applies to our three main racial groups, Chinese, Malays and the Indians.

This sense of national identity is boosted by a sense of ethnicity. A majority are in support for Singapore having a multi-racial society, which also reflects Singaporean’s support for a cohesive society that allows for ethnicity and the representation of ethnic identity. This accommodation of multi-racialism is the prevailing practice here in Singapore.

Thus, the strength of ethnic identity enhances the likelihood of the development of a strong national identity. In an attempt to strengthen our ethnic identity, the government has ensured that equal treatment is given to all races and religious groups, be it in the area of housing, education or healthcare. In addition, national policies have been introduced to manage inter-ethnic ties such as ethnic quota and self help groups in an attempt to build a cohesive, multi-racial society in Singapore.

In the next part of my essay, I shall address the importance of creating a national identity, especially in a multi racial, multi ethnic country like Singapore.

Why creating national identity is important:

A single worldwide market for talents has been created due to globalization. In this worldwide market, capable personalities are in extremely high demand especially in this technological, fast pace era. In order for Singapore to progress, the government needs to select a core of its ablest citizens, possessing both the intellectual and social acumen, to play leadership role in the economy. It is important to note that this group of people is the driving force behind the Singapore’s economy. Without them, the society will not be able to perform to its full potential and the citizens are the one to suffer. 

However, in the process of globalization, these labours too become highly mobile. An increasing number of Singaporeans are moving abroad in search of better jobs with higher pay. Accompanied by the fact that Singapore is small with limited resources and land space, many adventurous entrepreneurs would move abroad to search for better opportunities. As a result, an increasing number of Singaporeans, especially those with exceptional talents are going abroad.

Unarguably, to keep these talents in our borders while encouraging those who are abroad to eventually return home, creating economic opportunities here might be useful but opportunities for people to develop their potential and express their human spirit is of utmost importance.

It is the responsibility of the Singapore government to help his citizens create an emotional attachment to not only the country but their family, schoolmates and friends then, can we maintain our own identity and sense of common destiny.

To answer the question above, having a deeper understanding of the relationship between globalization and democracy is essential. Thus, in the earlier part of my essay, I will touch on the relationship between the two processes while in the later part, I will move on to address the question on whether globalization or democracy has a part to play in the growing inequality throughout the world.

There are two differing views in which one can take when they consider the relationship between globalization and democracy.  Supporters of democracy may have the opinion that globalization is often opposed in the name of democracy while supporters of globalization agree that democracy is often bypassed as it slows down globalization. As such, their opposing views often leave them weary of each other. 

Supporters of Globalization: Globalization leads to democracy.

In addition to their beliefs that the state commonly bypasses democracy, proponents of globalization also deem that economic integration will bring democratization in its wake.

First, the technological innovations that arrive with globalization bring with it advances communication that enable citizens to pass along information more freely. This in turn helps to educate the society. Also, globalization helps the professional and middle classes grow. These two groups in turn, assist the process of democratization.

Supporter of Democracy: Globalization decreases or nullifies the democracy power of the state

On the other hand , Proponents of democracy argue that globalization is rendering democracy powers away from the state. Globalization is said to have increased the potential mobility of resources, goods and capital. As a result, economic actors start to set up firms globally. Eventually, countries become dependent on these actors whom possess abundance of resources and are in control of key commodities important in sustaining the state’s economic growth.

Undeniably, as the economy progresses, the citizens would associate the booming economy with the competence of the government and will continue to vote for them. At the same time, mobile economic actors become more powerful and are better able to avoid undesirable state regulations. This thus reduces the capacity of the state’s control to shape the conditions of the capitalist economies.

As discussed in the second lecture, according to Adam Smith and his theory of capitalism, the dominance of such economic actors would widen the gap between the rich and poor. In this market structure without any form of government intervention, firms would exploit the poor to profit maximize. Since the government does not have a say in the capitalist market, the poor continue to suffer while the rich will continue to reap economic profits and live in luxury.

Also, it is also evident that even though citizens can elect their own representatives, their representatives do not seem to have the governing power.

Globalization should be blamed for the growing inequality faced

According to the democrats, globalization should be blamed for the increasing inequality faced in the world today as mentioned above.

Globalization should not be blamed for the growing inequality faced.

However, from another perspective, we should not put the blame solely on the process of globalization. In the previous topics covered during lectures and tutorials, we have covered on how globalization leads to the unfair treatment of different groups. However, we should not pinpoint globalization as the root cause of such inequalities. Instead, we should question the role of the government.

Take India for example. Globalization is often a scapegoat for everything from starvation to the lack of necessities to death. However, by taking a different approach in understanding the cause of these problems would make one realize that the government body is also responsible for the problems listed above. One should consider this question: If more is not invested in basic necessities, is it because of the constrains of globalization or is it due to the state being captured by vested interests that divert these resources to their own good. Therefore, in this case, the government has to shoulder the blame for the inequalities faced.

Conclusion: Globalization and the democratic government should work together.

It is important to note that by allowing globalization and democracy to work hand in hand, we can minimize the effects of globalization in terms of the impact it has on inequality.

As discussed, globalization does lead to inequality. However, more often than not, these problems faced can be reduced if we elect an efficient government who is capable of dealing with these problems. Indeed, democracy is one of the most effective ways of bringing to light the vulnerabilities and problems that the nation-state needs to take into account.

Definition of terrorism

Traditionally, terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence by individuals to create and utilize the fear and intimidation caused by their actions to bring about socio-political change.

A revised version of Terrorism is defined as a systematic use of violence by actors who have a subcultural identity attachment –either subjective or objective. Terrorism is an attempt to bring about social and political change through fear and intimidation and a mean to assert the constitutive and regulatory subcultural norms of the actors onto the larger culture and other subcultures.

This subculturally based definition of terrorism takes into account several key concepts that are left out in the former definition. For instance, it places the terrorists in a certain context –subculture. It then provides an identity for the terrorist and his ideational. Also, it gives us an understanding of the disputes and grievances that needs to be resolved.  

Terrorism can also be defined as the weapon for the weak to use against a stronger enemy that could not be defeated in a traditional battlefield. This is especially true when the weak is deprived of the power which the strong possess.

A more known classroom based definition which I have found is – terrorism is the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing control over another human being.

However, since terrorism is ever changing and new forms of it are constantly on the rise, it is literally impossible to give precision to the definition of terrorism.

A new form of terrorism

The new era of terrorism includes what is termed- Cyberterrorism. As the modern economy becomes more dependent of technology, everything from electronic commerce to the generating of power supply is vulnerable to the acts of terrorism.

We often interpret Cyberspace as being virtual. Hence, many might think that Cyberterrorim is a “virtual” terrorism. Unfortunately, this cyberspace is taking place in a real place where real operations and functions are taking place. When Cyberterrorism sets in, real interests are at risk.

Although Cyberterrorism is still at its infancy and its method is primitive and unsophisticated, such terrorism method is exceptionally effective. This new phenomenon has allowed terrorists to reintroduce en element of mystery into the process of terrorism. They are able to conceal their identity and operate at a considerable distance. While the higher authorities try to calm the public through reassurance, the culprits are secretly laughing at them for being clueless and inefficient. It is important to note that we could have easily used “kidnapped”, “hijacked” and “hostage” in describing this new form of terrorism. However, terms such as computer viruses, trap doors, hackers are already being used. Evidently, this demonstrates that a significant amount of effort and time had been and is being placed in the study of Cyberterrorism.

A new form of war:

In lecture, Prof Amir touched on the emergence of wars from Limited War to Total War to Cold war and to the rise of terrorism.

In the following paragraphs, a new form of war will be introduced.

Many still suffer from the trauma of having witness the September 11 attack in 2001. It was a turning point in the history of political violence as the incident marked the start of the rise of terrorism. The Bali Bombings in 2002, Sinai Bombings in 2004 are terrorism acts which had followed.

The whole world responded with a declared “War on Terrorism” after having witness those dramatic events. This war was different from the wars we have witnessed and learnt in the past. This war, led by the United States, was waged using elite forces together with civilian security forces.

In the fight against terrorism, elite forces within a country have to work very closely and recognize that it is not possible to defend against every conceivable type of attack from terrorists. Therefore, the only choice is to take the battle to them.

Take Singapore for example. The authorities agree that the way to track down terrorist networks is to work hand in hand with superpowers like the United States through the sharing of intelligence and bringing up the elements of national power such that it will be more difficult for these terrorist networks to raise money, organize illegal meetings and carry out their acts of terrorism.

To conclude, I believe that the fight against terrorism is an endless struggle. Although waging a war against terrorism is required to maintain peace and order, war by definition implies finality. However, the struggle against it is never ending. It has existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future.

Globalization leads to benefits which does not benefit women à gender inequalities à want to obtain similar social status à join terrorist organization in an attempt to obtain similar social status à terrorism as a social problem

Globalization has brought about many benefits in the modern society but it is important to note that such benefits do not necessarily benefit everyone.

Globalization was set to help women in terms of job creation, greater access to education and so on. In addition, Feminist movements which started from the 1950s were aim at increasing women’s rights and create a more equal playing field between the sexes. Unfortunately, as emphasized in the previous tutorial, this playing field is not equal yet. Existing social problems pose to female such as the unequal chances to get promoted and higher barriers to get educated as compared to their male counterparts stimulates a sense of frustration and annoyance in women.

Significantly, both women and men held differing goals and expectations regarding social changes brought about by globalization. While men desire to climb higher up the social ladder, women on the other hand clearly wished for greater gender equality.

Hence, to attain greater recognition in the society, women became actively involved in religious activities which were previously dominated by males. Furthermore, females were eager to assert themselves in carrying out responsibilities right beside males. They believed that by getting involved in religious activities, they were able to prove their worth.

However, women’s participation in such activities were viewed as less authentic than men’s. Also, many argue  that since their involvement in such activities were influenced by relationship or structural factors such as inequality, they were not as deeply rooted to the religion itself and had poor interpretations of the religion with respect to men. As a result, only male’s participation in religious activity was widely recognized. In contrast, women were outcasted and their pleas to be treated fairly were dismissed.

Women, having to campaign against all sorts of inequalities in feminist movements to fight for their equality and being overburdened with work and family as the society progresses hence became more determined to reduce this inequality. Accompanied by the spread of education where they grew aware of the fact that they constitute half the available manpower resource in which a country cannot afford to neglect or waste, women began to participate, publicly in terrorist activities. They were convinced that by taking up central roles in such terrorist organizations, they were a step closer to achieving gender equality.

Women in these organizations have not only functioned in support capacities, but have also been leaders, recruitment and fund-raising. Not to forget, they were also tasked with carrying out the most deadly missions undertaken by terrorists organization –suicide bombings.

Evidently, women have been key figures of such terrorist organizations formed such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Third Reich as well as the notorious Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eealam (LTTE).

Their active participation in such terrorist activities clearly demonstrates their desire to be on the same social rank as men. They are desperate to prove that women can do everything men can do, if not better.

Terrorism is a social problem.

Terrorism has made us feel afraid of people and situations without knowing the reason why. People start to feel suspicious, wary and are in continuous lookout for hidden messages even though we don’t see or sense anything amiss. In short, terrorism has made us all extremely paranoid.

Undeniably, globalization does bring about both benefits and challenges to women in developing and developed countries. Globalization has open up work opportunities for women all over the globe, from Chile to China, Denmark to Dhaka. Evidently, over the past two decades, the number of women in the workforces has almost doubled.

The growing number of working opportunities for women have been both beneficial and disastrous at the same time. As more women are given the chance to work and dictate their own lives, having to juggle work and family poses a problem for them. Entering the global work force and become independent, be it financially or economically would mean that women do not have to depend on any man. However, the rising demands of the growing economy require women to work for longer hours with minimal wages, depriving them the rights to have a family or spend time with their family.

Even though more women now are allowed to work globally, the majority of them are stuck with mundane and repetitive jobs and are often poorly paid. It is evident that a rising number of new women workers are entering the service sector which was previously dominated by males. Such service orientated jobs like banking and computers used to be relatively well-paid but have been de-skilled and demoted in the job hierarchy.

Let’s take a closer look at the banking sector. New technologies are allowing banks to recruit young women who could be paid considerably less than traditional bank workers to carry out simple tasks. Significantly, there have been a growing number of women workers in the heart of 24-hour banking call centres all around the world. A typical female worker picks up 160 calls, if not more on an average day. Strict regulations are also imposed. All conversations with customers are recorded for security and random checks purposes. Also, a computer display on their work desk would show the number of customers who are being held in a queue. No customers should be allowed to wait for more than a certain period of time. Failure to follow the rules would bring about greater disadvantage to them. This is the type of job men would refrain from doing but women are often left with no choice but to take it up.

Furthermore, women not only in the banking sector but in general are commonly paid less than male counterparts in the same job. From the statistics I found on the internet, it states that there is a difference in wage gap between men and women in different occupations. The Buteau of Labor Statistics reported that in the financial sector, female financial advisors earned 53.7% of the median weekly wages of male financial advisors while female in sales earned 64.8% of men’s wages in equivalent positions. This clearly illustrate that women do not benefit as much as men in the process of globalization.

Globalization and its advancements in technology might have to a small extent help free women’s lives. Unfortunately, it is these same technological improvements which make their lives more stressful and taxing. Developments in technology might have help to reduce the physical workload of female workers. However, the availability of technology on the other hand has also made it easier for producers to monitor the productivity of their workers and make working more demanding.

In a capitalist society, the ultimate aim for all firms is to profit maximize. Firms have to thus increase their productivity and efficiency of their labour. Hence, women workers employed in such firms especially, have to operate at a tremendously fast pace. In addition, anyone who is not up to scratch will have to undergo excessive trainings. As such, with the increasing amount of time spent at work, women are deprived of the time they can spend with their family.

Below is a brief outline on what I have touched on above.:

1. Globalization à more job opportunities for women à however, they are stuck with mundane and repetitive jobs

2. Globalization à more job opportunities for women à however, they are not paid well or as well as their male counterparts.

3. Globalization à advancement in technology à however, it becomes increasingly more stressful and demanding for women.                                                                                     

The words free and fair are frequently used together, like neat and tidy or pots and pans. The last slide of Prof Amir’s presentation however proves otherwise- Free trade and fair trade do not go hand in hand. And all these while, I have always clung on to the idea that both terms are similar.

It is hard to believe that even with the World Trade Organization dealing with rules of trade between nations, the two are unable to coexist. In fact, they are different sides of a same coin. Free trade is often associated with big businesses, the opening of new markets and securing better returns for more exports in rich countries. On the other hand, fair trade is seen as looking after individuals who are involve in the production process especially in poor countries.

This commercial below highlights the social impact of free trade on today’s society. It brings out the point Prof made in his lecture slide on “what’s wrong with free trade”:

Looking at this commercial on YOUTUBE, it is hard to believe that while trade is taking place in our every day life –between buyers and sellers, workers in the production line are often exploited. While we as consumers can afford to choose from a large variety of coffees available in the market, workers struggle with their mundane and low-paying jobs. Such is the effect of unfair trade practices which places too much emphasis on the benefits gained by consumers but ignores the bitter conditions workers have to endure to produce the commodities.  

I remember when I was working at Coffee Club several months ago, a lady whom I was serving asked if the coffees we serve are from dealers who engages in fair trade. I nodded without hesitating, thinking that it would be impossible for people to engage in such unfair activities. Evidently, my thoughts exposed my naivety. I was clearly unaware of the social condition worldwide and oblivious to the fact that out of an average 6 dollars for a cup of coffee at Coffee Club, farmers of coffee beans might only receive a few cents while big organizations are reaping huge lumps of profits. I’m not saying that Coffee Club does engage in such practices but the advertisement actually got me thinking about it.  

Even though unfair trade practices are still happening worldwide, non-profitable organizations are eager to solve this growing problem. A few days ago, I chanced upon (http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/) while I was looking for information for this blog entry. It is comforting to know that solutions are implemented to reduce the exploitation of workers even though efforts might be and often are limited.

To prevent this problem from wide spreading, I believe other solution ought to be put into practice. For a start, a new world trade system needs to be built which is based on the principle of fair trade instead of free trade. To end extreme poverty, then we need to open up the markets of rich countries, while allowing poor countries to protect and subsidise theirs.

Since there were questions still left unanswered, I was motivated to source for more information.

1. The concept of Capitalism and Socialism was hard to grasp.

My findings:

Karl Max supported Socialism while Adam Smith was in favour of Capitalism. The views of both philosophers are at the extreme ends.

In simplified terms, Karl Max believed that to allocate resources equally, the government has to intervene in the market at a point of time. His theory thus explains that if an individual is interested in setting up a company, the company will be in the safe hands of the government. Companies would have to follow a set of regulations set by the government. Examples of such regulations include the minimum wages of workers and the conditions at which a worker should work in.

Adam Smith on the other hand reckoned that government intervention is unnecessary since individuals are responsible for their own lives. Using the same example above to explain his theory, the survival of the company is now in his own hands instead of the government’s. Companies do not have to follow the regulations set by the government; instead they make their own decisions on wages and the working environment.

2. The pros and cons of Socialism and Capitalism

The pros and cons below consist of both my own ideas as well as ideas found in books and the Internet which I went on to simplify and summarize.

My findings and views:

Karl Max’s theory of Socialism is morally right since Socialism is a social system at which all workers are treated fairly. Furthermore, they also have the power and ability to dictate their working conditions as well as their wages. On another note, Socialism is said to be an unjust and unfair system as everyone is given equal opportunity by the government to have a say on their lives irregardless of whether they have worked hard and deserve it.

Adam Smith’s theory of Capitalism is beneficial for individuals in the economy. As there are no barriers restricting the setting up of businesses, many will seize the opportunity to enter the market. Increasing competition from firms encourages firms to differentiate and improve their products. Hence, consumers gain as they have a large variety of top quality goods to choose from. However, under Capitalism, firms are driven by profit making motives. Since workers do not have a say in their wages, they are normally paid meagerly as firms attempt to maximize profits. As a result, inequality arises as rich owners become richer due to increasing profits while the poor workers becomes even poorer as they are continually being exploited.

3. How do Socialism and Capitalism lead to inequality and poverty?

I realized that for us to understand the relationship between Socialism and Capitalism to inequality and poverty, we have to make reference to its pros and cons.

Socialism, as illustrated above provides equal chance to everyone whether or not the person deserve it. The rich, very often with political power can sway policies made by the government for their own benefits. In addition, since the poor are normally not capable of influencing political decisions, they are thus left in the cycle of poverty.  

Capitalism, as explained above results in a growing divide between the rich owner and poor workers. If inequality continues to exist, it will be impossible for them to break out of poverty.