Onto the next part of the failures of globalization, we have the winners and the losers: the

distributive consequences of trade. I want to go back to one disadvantage of globalization we

learned about before, yung the fruits of globalization are not evenly distributed. Which is exactly
what this is saying (NEXT SLIDE) the promises of globalization were not fully realized. Lets go
to trickle down economics. It’s the notion that if you give benefits to the wealthy it will eventually
trickle down to the masses kaya sa picture fountain sya, pinupuno ung taas in hopes na bababa
den sya and lahat ng areas mapupuno. Obviously that didnt happen.

Trade became freer, tariffs lowered, regulations are loose which allowed countries to trade with
one another more comfortably pero syempre hindi nmn mga merchants ung nagttradan,
companies, corporations sila. Academics hoped and believed na once these corporations
gained enough and became the so called winners of globalizaiton, tutulungan nila yung mga
nasa baba, right? Syempre hindi yun nangyari. Sinabe nga ni President Kennedy noon na a
rising tide lifts all boat, but sadly hindi nmn tyo lahat naiangat, nalulunod na nga yung iba

Next we have skilled and unskilled wages. Skilled wages come from jobs that take a specific
skill set like being a technician, mechanic, or doctor while unskilled wages come from jobs that
usually dont require a college diploma such as yung pagiging farmer, janitor, among many
others. So ano relate neto? Sabe, globalization destroyed more jobs than it created. Pano? Let’s
say I’m a country. I want to employ people to do a certain unskilled job. Instead of hiring my own
people, I can just have people from other countries to do it since its way cheaper and the
regulations are looser which can mean that I earn more. So yung mga sariling tao ko, nawalan
pa ng opportunity to get those jobs. Kaya nga sabe dito the unskilled wages of advanced
countries kagaya ng US bumababa ksi they employ people from other countries like china, to do
unskilled work, like assembling products in a factory.

Since nasa notion na tyo ng imports and exports, may tinatawag den tyong PROTECTIONIST
mindset wherein naglalagay ng restrictions when it comes to trade and mga countries to protect
themselves from the competitive consequences of globalization, for example ayoko tumanggap
ng rice from elsewhere ksi if i do bababa demand ng rice production dito samen

Anyways, speaking of: now that these corporations have the choice to opt for cheaper labor in
china or mexico, wala nang bargaining power ung mga workers ng corporation na yun.
Normally, to get higher wages, workers go on strike and threaten the company na aalis sila if
they dont raise the wages, and companies listen because they need the workers. But now, the
workers have less bargaining power ksi the companies say na you can either accept these low
wages and poor conditions or we can just move the factory to china and hire different people.
And its because of that that unskilled wages in advanced countries go down. Bumabalik nnmn
dito ung race to the bottom na sinasabe wherein corporations for the sake na makatipid at
maging mura yung produkto, they compromise quality. Pamura ng pamura ang presyo papanget
nang papanget ang working conditions at pababa nang pababa ang quality

Now you might be thinking, why isnt the government doing anythingto protect the working
class? Well, in america, theres a democratic party responsible for doing just that but the
problem is, elections are getting more and more expensive. Mahal mangampanya. So, to fund
themselves, they make friends with sources of money like bankers and tech entrepreneurs
which are funny enough, one of the so called winners of globalization, yung mga nakikinabang
sa unfairness na nangyayari at sa exploitation ng mga workers. So why would these politicians
speak up against their friends, their pockets are full for as long as their friends and their
companies are happy. Kaya nga pinapayagan pa yung corporate welfare, which are subsidies
given to banks and corporations, doesnt matter if it’ll trickle down to the working class or not

We have this concept of free trade where we think it literally means countries are free to trade
however and whenever they please parang free for all, no boundaries and all that but free trade
doesnt necessarily mean FREE trade. Sabe nga sa reference na policy makers name policies
the exact opposite of what they really are. So instead of actual free trade, its actually just a
balancing act for special interests within advanced countries. Even when you say free trade, it’s
still managed in such a way that allows for winners and a lot of losers

Skeptics say na hindi lng nmn globalization yung mas cause ng mga disparities na to, may
factor den dito yung advancing technologies. Yung mga automatic machines sa factories make
certain jobs redundant na kaya nauubusan ng trabaho. We can also see this happening in real
time where companies make use of AI instead of employing actual people to write scripts,
design ads, or even film movies. Totoo nmn na may hand den ang technology sa mga
nangyayari pero technology and globalization is linked is it not? Technology paved the way for
links between countries, tapos globalization nmn den ang cause kung baket certain tech trends
reached lots of places

Going back to the unfairness of it all, lets talk about NAFTA or north american free trade
agreement. Its allowed for free trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada by lowering tariffs.
Nagbaba nga ng tariffs all sides pero sa US, they got to keep their corn subsidies, which is
basically support from their government sa corn industry nila. Keeping that in mind, since may
free trade na between US and Mexico, nakapasok ung US corn sa Mexico and sino yung
natamaan? Yung mexican corn farmers, ksi they cant compete with the american corn na
AGAIN subsidized by the US government. Trump hates on Mexico a lot, on of his reasons being
na mas marami ung exports ng US kesa sa imports ng Mexico, may trade deficit daw. 63B.
Totoo nmn pero mas malaki ung trade deficit ni US with China 347B and Germany 65B. Kaya
bakit kay mexico lng si trump nag iinet? (racism)

Anyways, that was a good example in showing na FREE trade doesnt mean panalo lahat.

Let’s move onto the World Trade Organization (WTO). in a world where uso na ung free trade,
having these trade agreements means that as a country, u give up a part of your sovereignty ksi
you’re letting people in eh and you’re opening yourself up to others. Naturally, pwedeng
pagmulan yan ng away ksi agreements only work if both sides respect the terms. To avoid such
conflict like trade wars, nagkaroon ng WTO. sila yung nagssettle ng disputes of such nature, for
example pag nagaaway si US and China and US decides to increase tariffs to 45% para ipitin
sila, bawal yun, kaya as per the rules, pwedeng mag retaliate ang China with equivalent tax
increase den. So far this system works, but again, ayaw ni trump yung sistema na yun

In line with trade agreements, a country doesnt form one JUST for the sake of trade.
Sometimes, its a political strategy, to form alliances, to put pressure on certain countries, or to
even reduce immigration among other things. Makikita at makikita mo na free trade is not as
free as you think. Laging may agenda, may panalo at may mga talo.

Recently hindi na tariffs yung focus ng mga agreements kundi ang mga regulations for example
regulations regarding emissions of pollutants or safety. Hindrance daw yung mga iba’t ibang
regulations sabe ng mga corporations, thats not very free trade of you daw, but in actuality
gusto lng nila mawala yung regulations so they can make more money. In europe, these
regulations are supposed to be created by the level closest to the people called subsidiarity,
pero ayun nga yung mga makapangyarihan lng yung may chance makaupo sa decision making
table and in the end the decisions made are those that benefit only them

I agree with the author wholeheartedly especially how they highlighted the fact time and time
again na free trade is shady, it doesnt benefit everyone. It lines the pockets of the powerful and
whenever there is an attempt made to regulate these inequities and disparities, nadadaya lng
den ng mga makapangyarihan. As much as trade is free it is unfair and cruel.

I can relate this to the nursing profession by reminding everyone that medical supplies,
medicine, patents, and even man power such as us nurses are considered as goods. Assets.
Globalization and free trade can affect the flow of these things within our country and health
care system lalo na when we consider na the medicine we have in the country right now isn't
completely from the philippines. Any sort of disruption can and will affect the health disparities
we have now in the country