So you think trade liberalization is better for human health

To keep the music chat from being un-interupted send all political opinons here. This is fortwayneMUSIC.com after all.

Moderators: MrSpall, bassjones, sevesd93, zenmandan

Post Reply
Bjart Sod
Regular
Regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:32 am
Location: FTW
Contact:

So you think trade liberalization is better for human health

Post by Bjart Sod »

If you think globalization is helping to improve human health and increase equity, take a look at this three part article by two researchers from the University of Ottawa.

Globalization and social determinants of health: Introduction and methodological background (part 1 of 3)
Abstract wrote:Globalization is a key context for the study of social determinants of health (SDH). Broadly stated, SDH are the conditions in which people live and work, and that affect their opportunities to lead healthy lives.

In this first article of a three-part series, we describe the origins of the series in work conducted for the Globalization Knowledge Network of the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health and in the Commission's specific concern with health equity. We explain our rationale for defining globalization with reference to the emergence of a global marketplace, and the economic and political choices that have facilitated that emergence. We identify a number of conceptual milestones in studying the relation between globalization and SDH over the period 1987–2005, and then show that because globalization comprises multiple, interacting policy dynamics, reliance on evidence from multiple disciplines (transdisciplinarity) and research methodologies is required. So, too, is explicit recognition of the uncertainties associated with linking globalization – the quintessential "upstream" variable – with changes in SDH and in health outcomes.
Globalization and social determinants of health: The role of the global marketplace (part 2 of 3)
Abstract wrote:Globalization is a key context for the study of social determinants of health (SDH): broadly stated, SDH are the conditions in which people live and work, and that affect their opportunities to lead healthy lives.

In the first article in this three part series, we described the origins of the series in work conducted for the Globalization Knowledge Network of the World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health and in the Commission's specific concern with health equity. We identified and defended a definition of globalization that gives primacy to the drivers and effects of transnational economic integration, and addressed a number of important conceptual and methodological issues in studying globalization's effects on SDH and their distribution, emphasizing the need for transdisciplinary approaches that reflect the complexity of the topic.

In this second article, we identify and describe several, often interacting clusters of pathways leading from globalization to changes in SDH that are relevant to health equity. These involve: trade liberalization; the global reorganization of production and labour markets; debt crises and economic restructuring; financial liberalization; urban settings; influences that operate by way of the physical environment; and health systems changed by the global marketplace.
Globalization and social determinants of health: Promoting health equity in global governance (part 3 of 3)
Abstract wrote:This article is the third in a three-part review of research on globalization and the social determinants of health (SDH). In the first article of the series, we identified and defended an economically oriented definition of globalization and addressed a number of important conceptual and metholodogical issues. In the second article, we identified and described seven key clusters of pathways relevant to globalization's influence on SDH. This discussion provided the basis for the premise from which we begin this article: interventions to reduce health inequities by way of SDH are inextricably linked with social protection, economic management and development strategy.

Reflecting this insight, and against the background of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), we focus on the asymmetrical distribution of gains, losses and power that is characteristic of globalization in its current form and identify a number of areas for innovation on the part of the international community: making more resources available for health systems, as part of the more general task of expanding and improving development assistance; expanding debt relief and taking poverty reduction more seriously; reforming the international trade regime; considering the implications of health as a human right; and protecting the policy space available to national governments to address social determinants of health, notably with respect to the hypermobility of financial capital. We conclude by suggesting that responses to globalization's effects on social determinants of health can be classified with reference to two contrasting visions of the future, reflecting quite distinct values.
I would stick around to throw in my 2 cents, but I'm going to do my part in the foreign-vs-domestic car debate by riding my bike.
[i]Bound his hands, slit his throat
Three Masons stole his life away
And dumped him in the cold Ontario[/i]
bwohlgemuth
Addict
Addict
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Huntington, IN
Contact:

Post by bwohlgemuth »

#1. Where is their final observation? They point out their methodology quite well, but the thing is damn hard to read.
#2. This thing reads worse than stereo instructions.
#3. Where are the competing sources? Most of the items they reference are materials written in the same vein.
Bjart Sod
Regular
Regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:32 am
Location: FTW
Contact:

Post by Bjart Sod »

1) "Final observations" don't happen in the real world. With this sort of paper, the best you can really hope for are reccommendations for future studies. The methodology is only in part 1. Read the other two sections.
2) It's a literature review in an academic journal and it's covering an incredibly complex topic with evidence from a number of domains and sources.
3) Competing sources? If you mean sources that reach differing conclusions, they're cited throughout and where to find them are listed under the works cited. They get some of their numbers from those sources too, but frequently criticize them for ignoring other relevant dimensions. Hell, they even mention a few changes where industrialization has improved the average person's health (e.g., in areas where people rely on municipally supplied electricity for heat instead of animal dung or other fuels, respiratory illnesses have been diminished). If you want even more sources, try combing through other academic journals and searching relevant databases.

If you're looking for easy answers, pick another topic. Neither the authors of the article nor I are going to argue that trade liberalization is 100% evil. But if you want to claim that an international free market is the best way to distribute health care globally, you need to start reading the serious criticism that's out there and looking at the numbers of what's actually happening. (And no, reviews of Sicko don't count as serious criticism.)
[i]Bound his hands, slit his throat
Three Masons stole his life away
And dumped him in the cold Ontario[/i]
bwohlgemuth
Addict
Addict
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Huntington, IN
Contact:

Post by bwohlgemuth »

#1. Actually, they do. I can think of several scientific papers which can reach some sort of conclusion. While this is technically a "social science", sociologists have always used statistics to try to put some reality into their findings.
#2. And they do an incredible job of taking a complex topic and wrap it up in unnecessary language. No, I am not a literary grad, but as a Master's student who reads quite a bit, that document is a load of crap.
#3. That's what Google Scholar is for, but then again, I have a number of other items to do research for my masters program. When I graduate, then I will think about it (or if I decide to go on for the PhD in Econ....something that seems more and more likely every day).

It's funny, but I always thought Occam's razor and other "simplistic" views of the world do have significant merit. There are no easy answers of course, but there are easy observations to make.

#1. Industrialization of food production has dramatically improved quality and supply.
#2. Communication has dramatically increase overall educational levels.
#3. Specialization in non-food producing activities has improved overall personal wealth.

I would like to see those three issues disproven, since I feel at least two of them (#1 & #3) should have a significant impact on their studies.
Bjart Sod
Regular
Regular
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:32 am
Location: FTW
Contact:

Post by Bjart Sod »

I'm just going to respond to that #1 point on industrialization of food production, and then I'm done, as this is going nowhere fast. Feel free to get the last word.

From what data can be gathered after imperialism has swept the globe, the emergence of intensive agriculture appears to have actually diminished human health. If the average health among agriculturalists is high now (and I'm not sure it is), it's only a recent phenomenon.

Second, the world food market is flooded with cheap food items from countries like the USA. This has seriously disrupted local agriculture and family and social structure in rural areas, and has overall negative effects on human health in liberalized countries that do not place controls on food imports or subsidize local farmers. Trade liberalization also has a strong tendency to increase economic inequality, compounded by privatized health services. If you want a good example, look up information on Mexico, corn, and its rural poor.
[i]Bound his hands, slit his throat
Three Masons stole his life away
And dumped him in the cold Ontario[/i]
bwohlgemuth
Addict
Addict
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Huntington, IN
Contact:

Post by bwohlgemuth »

From what data can be gathered after imperialism has swept the globe, the emergence of intensive agriculture appears to have actually diminished human health. If the average health among agriculturalists is high now (and I'm not sure it is), it's only a recent phenomenon.
I think it's obvious when you compare the efficiency in agriculture within the United States as opposed to other countries. When you look at fields in the United States, they easily grow several multiples of crop as compared to other countries. This efficiency has created a overabundance of food, which allows people to not worry about their own production, or to be dependent on local conditions (a drought in China will not starve a billion Chinese, as the US and other parts of the world can pick up the slack). While there may be studies that show human longevity may be decreased, changed, whatever; the average life-span will improve due to improved nutrition and survival.
Second, the world food market is flooded with cheap food items from countries like the USA. This has seriously disrupted local agriculture and family and social structure in rural areas, and has overall negative effects on human health in liberalized countries that do not place controls on food imports or subsidize local farmers.
But isn't this what is also happening in the United States with electronics and other labor intensive products? Or did this not happen in rural communities as well? Here's an example.

Jose has a large family. They plant their crops every year, and then manually pick their crops. They grow enough to support themselves through the year, and is something goes wrong, bad things happen.

Manuel has a burro and a plow. Manuel doesn't have a large family, but can plant the same amount of corn as Jose's family in about half the time. Since the burro and he can plant the corn quickly, this gives Manuel more time to perform other tasks. While it takes Manuel longer to pick his crops by himself, he does not need a large family to plant or maintain his crops (he can also use the burro to take the crops to town). Now if the burro dies, bad things happen. But Manuel makes enough money to maybe purchase a second burro, or to hire people to help him pick the corn.

In those two cases, a technological change took place. While it is minor to us in our world-view, to Manuel and Jose it would be monumental.

Getting back to prices, of course this puts inefficient farmers out of business. That's just how life is. Seriously. We all demand higher quality/lower prices, whether vocally or through our actions. Firms or people that fail to meet these demands don't sell their items and then fail.

Now, in a small community, it may be possible to avoid these pressures, but as I have said before, these communities cannot support anything more than themselves when put into an isolated situation.

I am sorry you are ending this discussion, but I would like to know where my points are "invalid", since I try to question my own beliefs regularly.
AlyaNash

Re: So you think trade liberalization is better for human he

Post by AlyaNash »

IAmaster wrote:Talking about health, do you know that the best remedy for pain which I know is CBD oil? And if somebody wanna try, here you can read charlotte's web hemp oil reviews and then decide if that's suitable for you or not. For me it was really helpful and I hope that it will be so for you as well.
I do not think that your product is good, because I have read a few reviews about it and I would like to recommend the one I use with my friends. It is https://bestpot.ca/ - the place where you will find a lot of different kinds of products for a good price, really good variety! And I swear God quality is 10/10, just trust me!
Omen Kador

Re: So you think trade liberalization is better for human he

Post by Omen Kador »

CBD Capsules are a quick and simple approach to process cannabidiol. Makers made these capsules with the goal that they are as easy to devour as some other pill. You might be astounded to discover that there are various sorts of best CBD capsules.

A CBD tincture is a dietary enhancement that comes in fluid structure and has an extremely powerful cannabidiol content. CBD tinctures for sale are made by soaking CBD-rich hemp blossoms in high-proof grain liquor, at that point cooking over low warmth for various hours. Vinegar or glycerin can be utilized in lieu of liquor, yet liquor truly produces the best tincture at last.
Omen Kador

Re: So you think trade liberalization is better for human he

Post by Omen Kador »

And Buy CBD only from license shops!!!
bxddha

Re: So you think trade liberalization is better for human he

Post by bxddha »

I strongly agree with you. Only a license online drugstore can give high-quality product. Here it is https://premiumjane.com/topicals/2oz-to ... 600mg-cbd/ I often buy from here and the service is the best. Also, there is a pretty big assortment of goods of different types so you will find all you need.
Post Reply