Essay Instructions: Media Analyses about Commanding Heights DVD #3 globalization
Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy attempts to trace the rise of free markets during the last century, as well as the process of globalization. It takes its title from a speech by Vladimir Lenin, who used the phrase "commanding heights" to refer to the segments and industries in an economy that effectively control and support the others, such as oil, railroads, banking and steel. You were watching DVD #3 on globalization.
The earlier volume DVD takes the thesis that, prior to World War I, the world effectively lived in a state of globalization, which they term the "First Era of Globalization."
The authors define globalization as periods where free markets predominate, and countries place few if any limits on imports, exports, immigration and exchanges of information. Overall, they see globalization as a positive movement that improves the standard of living for all the people connected to it, from the richest to poorest.
According to the authors, the rise of fascism and communism, not to mention the Great Depression, nearly extinguished capitalism, which rapidly lost popularity.
After World War II, the authors believe the work of economist John Maynard Keynes came to be widely accepted in Western economies. Keynes believed in government regulation of the economy, and the authors underline this as Keynes's great influence and prestige. In the authors' opinion, these so-called "commanding heights" were often owned or severely regulated by governments in accordance with Keynes's ideas.
The DVD discusses how the political change of the 1980s ushered in a change of economic policy. The old trend changed when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of the United Kingdom, and when Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. Both these leaders supposedly parted ways with Keynesian economics. Rather, they were more in the tradition of the work of Friedrich von Hayek, who opposed government regulation, tariffs, and other infringements on a pure free market, and Milton Friedman, who emphasized the futility of using inflationary monetary policies to influence rates of economic growth.
While Thatcher, Reagan, and their successors made sweeping reforms, the authors argue that the current era of globalization finally began around 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since then, they argue, countries embracing free markets have prospered on the whole, while those adhering to central planning have failed. This is the main start of our tape.
While strongly in favor of this trend, the author’s worry that globalization will not last. More specifically, they believe that if inequality in economic growth remains high, and if Third World nations are not offered the proper opportunities and incentives to support capitalism, the movement will end just as the first era did. The events of the last year and the increasing inequality in our US and global economy are certainly issues that must be addresses.
The reason the authors place so much emphasis on narrowing economic gaps is because they believe, against many of the people they interview, that there is no ideological support for capitalism, only the pragmatic fact that the system works better than any other. Is this view now shown false?
The market also requires something else: legitimacy. But here it faces an ethical conundrum. It is based upon contracts, rules, and choice -- in short, on self-restraint -- which contrasts mightily with other ways of organizing economic activity. Yet a system that takes the pursuit of self-interest and profit as its guiding light does not necessarily satisfy the yearning in the human soul for belief and some higher meaning beyond materialism.
Explore the positive and negative features of globalism that you see in this tape. How will globalism impact the future of inequality? Will capitalism adapt or will it create more problems that it can solve and what will this lead to—ethnic strife, more wars, increasing inequality, more gaps between the rich and poor?
The paper should not be a mere summary of what you saw in the film, although you may summarize material when pertinent to explain what you are talking about. You must demonstrate your ability to think critically and draw insights from the lectures and your text.
Students have asked if the analysis can include personal statements, experiences, opinions, etc. The answer is yes, by all means, BUT make sure there is at least as much review from lecture and readings, too. We are really looking to see that you can connect scenes from the movie to concepts from readings and lectures. Personal thoughts can help, but are no substitute for course material.
Some style pointers: be as clear as possible. Identify specific theories, concepts, ect. If the terms you are using are vague, make sure you explain how you mean them.