Soccer and Selena Gomez Fandoms

In How Soccer Explains The World, Foer describes the impacts of globalization which led to gangsterism and its nihilistic violence. It began with fans asserting their manhood because they no longer had a way to assert their independence in the workforce. The downsized men sought thrill through violence that was apparent and practiced in movies, music, and fashion. The violence associated with soccer fans is extreme; this is similar to the violence practiced among young fans admiring a famous idol. Fandom and idolization has been intensified through the globalization of social media and international pop sensations. While the globalization of social media and music has brought the world closer, just like soccer, it has introduced to society other facets of violence.

While reading How Soccer Explains the World, I could not help but notice how painful the violent acts were as metal poles were taken against an opposing team's fans. The interesting thing is I have the same reaction when I see kids attack other kids on social media websites such as Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter.

The lack of morality is comparable in both cases. Is the spread of technology to blame for the cruel acts taking place? Would this have naturally occurred on a typical day at school? Are we not setting up an environment for our children to be easily exposed to violence and oppressed by it as well? The spread of the internet has allowed our ideas and discoveries spread at what seems like at an immeasurable pace. The second something is shared it’s permanently bleeding through the internet. Whether or not it is truly deleted, it was easily seen by thousands if it was shared on a public website. It goes without saying that words can be just as harmful as physical pain. Because of the spread of the internet and technology, cyber bullying has become a place for those willing to hurt others to congregate or in other words, a gang of obsessed fans to attack others.

For example, I searched a top 40 hit by Selena Gomez on Youtube. I did not really put any thought, but I knew to expect some sort of expressed hatred towards Ms. Gomez. Selena Gomez fans love to destroy and compare Selena Gomez to another singer, vice versa. The dialogue between the two can be quite captivating because these fans can appear passionate and dedicated. The name calling and reputation trashing lasts for about 44 more back and forth posts.

Although the spread of movies and fashion do not really affect the dangers of cyber bullying in a direct manner, the spread of the internet and the spread of fame for an idol can ultimately lead to the same harmful, violent actions soccer fans practice. The virtual life held by children becomes a subculture that has the potential to become an overbearing culture leading to a moral demise society unexpected. Is this simply another psychology study? Is this another phase of our children that they would grow through? The downsized men lost their patriarchal presence. Perhaps, these children lost their innocence when constantly exposed to technology which obviously has its own evils.

The Spread of Ronaldo

 Franklin Foer discusses in his book, How Soccer Explains the World, how soccer has been globalized with teams like Real Madrid. I think Real Madrid does a great job of explaining how one, unique characteristic in a company or team can lead to the spread of its popularity across the world. This one, unique characteristic Real Madrid has is Cristiano Ronaldo. I believe this characteristic, whether it is the Nike swoosh or Ronaldo, helps the company or team in terms of revenue and popularity.

            Real Madrid is a sports team I used to never watch. I am not a soccer fan so I had no reason to watch them. However, I have discovered over the last few years that Real Madrid has a unique feature: Cristiano Ronaldo. I discovered who Cristiano Ronaldo was due to his incredible athletic ability and his marketable personality. As I saw more and more of this soccer player, I started to investigate. I would stop switching the channel when his highlights would come on. Eventually, I got to the point where I watched my first Real Madrid match. The marketing effort put forth by Real Madrid had finally worked. I never thought in a million years I would ever watch a soccer match, but because of this widely popular figure, I am now a staunch Real Madrid fan. I am not the only one who has this story. There are many people in the U.S. and across the world who have jumped on the Real Madrid bandwagon because of Ronaldo. In result, Forbes recently reported that Real Madrid posted the highest annual revenue ever in the history of sport.[1] I do need to emphasize that Ronaldo is merely the “logo” in this scenario. Real Madrid has plenty of other talent and ability to make it a great product.

            Nike is a similar example to Real Madrid’s situation. Nike arguably has the most recognizable logo/slogan in the world. The Nike swoosh with the words “Just Do It” is engrained in billions of heads across the world. I believe that this logo and slogan helped a company that started off with the name “Blue Ribbon Sports” become one of the most successful business in the world. However, like Real Madrid, it is not all about the logo. Nike makes high quality shoes, shirts, and now even golf clubs. I have friends from Florence, Italy whose wardrobe almost entirely consists of Nike apparel. There are plenty of other brands for them to buy in Italy, but they stick with Nike. This must be due to the imagery that the swoosh represents all across the world: excellence and success.

            I believe the spread of a good product across the world is beneficial for everyone. I benefit from watching Ronaldo because I, along with many other Ronaldo fans across the world, are entertained and amused by his great skill, and Ronaldo and Real Madrid benefit because they make lots of money and win championships. Of course there are losers in this example of globalization. These include lesser-known players who are Ronaldo’s competition such as Leonardo Bonucci. However, globalization provides insight to the world which product is truly the greatest because only the best ones can spread internationally.

---

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/09/05/real-madrid-posts-highest-revenue-in-history-of-sports/

Why a Micky Ds in Every Country is Good for the World

        Most American travelers would not be surprised to find some of their own nations flavor (in the form of a McDonald's meal) in whatever country they are visiting. It's astonishing how many countries McDonald's and other large food corporations are branching into. McDonald's currently is in 119 countries (other than the US) with over 34,480 restaurants.  However not everyone finds this type of globalization to be a good thing. Montenegro has banned McDonald's in their country in an effort to fight globalization. The idea behind this move is that McDonald's and other giant food corporations are dominating the market and causing small local businesses to be chased out. I believe that globalization will in the long-run benefit the world. A McDonald's in every country would create a better world because countries' economies would benefit, it would help unite different cultures and better the United State's reputation.
        I believe the point made by the Montenegro government regarding McDonald's is not accurate. McDonald's offers a completely different service and good and would not cause a burden to other food businesses. Firstly, the service. It is super fast-food and most restaurants are completely unable to compete with McDonald's from that standpoint. Because other restaurants especially small local ones cannot compete in terms of speed they are offering a completely different service.I do not believe that the consumer wishing to sit down to a meal with family and friends would consider McDonald's as an alternative to local brands and restaurants. Secondly, the food they offer is Western food. Although, McDonald's and other large chains that have globalized attempt to adapt their menu's to local culture the food is still Western. McDonald's might cause increased competition to American/Western restaurants in foreign countries but if you look at the big picture very little restaurants would be affected by McDonald's because their services and goods are so different.
        McDonald's and other large chains tremendously benefit a countries economy. They open up many jobs to unskilled workers. Finding work is such an issue in so many countries especially for the uneducated work-field. McDonald's provides good jobs to local unskilled workers. The job's are stable because they are backed by a large corporation so employees do not need to worry about going unpaid. They also open up opportunities to local entrepreneurs to start their own McDonald's chains. McDonald's food is generally in high demand. If their is a high demand for a McDonald's in a foreign economy it will be profitable and benefit the local economy.
        Having similarities has proven to benefit countries. It is the whole basis of "The Democratic Peace Theory". When countries have commonalities (such as franchised restaurants) it creates a partnership. Countries are forming working relationships through shared resources. What benefits the other countries will benefit the United States. McDonald's and other chains create a partnership and allow for countries to work together. This shared venture causes a co-dependence between nations. The co-dependence in turn allows for countries to create peace. Any sort of war with countries that possess shared resources would undoubtedly cause problems because they would be hurting the profitability and/or sustainability of those shared resources. The partnerships that are created by globalization of companies like McDonald's are only improving the reputation of America. Not only is America giving these countries an economic boost but the co-dependence they create allows for foreign nations to peacefully collaborate and work with large American corporations.

     
         

How Capitalism Explains the World

Globalization is the phenomena seen when different countries around the world interact with each other more and more. It involves the spread of cultures, ideas, and languages. Capitalism has been one of the ideas that has been spread largely because of globalization and while other ideas are also being spread, capitalism has most been impacted by globalization. I believe that modern 20^th/21^st century globalization can almost be seen as a way of furthering capitalism.

Capitalism has benefited the most from globalization and has spread the most under globalization. With modern globalization, capitalism has been spread further and the number of countries with other economic systems has declined. China has a largely capitalist economy and the Soviet Union was unable to maintain its socialist system. Modern globalization has most helped capitalism and has challenged all the other economic systems. Modern globalization and globalization in general has provided a way to lower prices on products and has tried to get cheap resources to make cheap products. When a country like Bangladesh can produce textiles at a cheaper rate than the United States, this type of globalization most benefits the capitalist system. While globalization in the past has benefited other systems such as mercantilism, this modern globalization has mostly spread capitalism further. I believe that in this modern global economy, it is beneficial to have a free-market capitalist system and that if globalization were to continue at this rate, much like China, every rational nation would set up a free-market economy.

Capitalism and capitalist countries have benefited the most from modern globalization. Countries like the U.S.A., Japan, or Germany have been able to spread their culture further through their companies and products such as Microsoft, Toyota, or Adidas. Countries without major companies and products did not benefit as much from modern globalization. The U.S.S.R. although a powerful state, did not have any company that could rival U.S. companies in the global market. For this reason, the Soviet Economy lagged behind the U.S. economy, which led to the decline of the Soviet Union. Globalization, in general has always given certain countries more power than others. Modern globalization benefits the capitalist countries and allows countries such as the U.S., China, and Japan to gain more soft power and in the long run, hard power.

Franklin Foer in his book, How Soccer Explains the World, discusses how the globalization has affected the world’s largest sport, soccer.  In one of the sections, he discusses how soccer how globalization has driven Brazil’s soccer structure to a more capitalist system. In order to compete with European leagues, Brazil’s league has adopted a more capitalist system. Many people believe that globalization has brought a more capitalist approach to football, which will benefit Brazil in the long run. Whether this has benefited Brazil’s league or not, it has created a new system and shows that modern globalization has most benefited the spread of capitalism. It will end rule of the cartolas in Brazil’s most popular sport. Brazilian star Pele went to New York and began to embrace the capitalist system of the MLS and became the embodiment of modern capitalism in Brazilian soccer.

Modern globalization revolves around capitalism. It had spread mostly capitalist ideas and has most benefited countries with a capitalist economy. It has been evident in the world economy and the world political situation and is even seen in the most popular sport in the world. Today’s globalization goes hand in hand with capitalist ideas.

How Bad is Bad?

     At a glance, the idea of free trade is appealing. It’s trade without restrictions like tariffs and taxes, and ultimately enhances the comparative advantage. The bad definitely outweighs the good in this case. The negative impact leaves less affluent countries “losing” more than “winning” when compared to more established countries. The international organization such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had beneficial intentions, but have yet to prove useful.

     Referring to the political cartoon, one can see how bad the bad can get. Past president Bill Clinton intended that NAFTA would create a million jobs in the first five years of its existence. Later in his acknowledgement, Clinton said that is more jobs than the jobs that would be lost. He clearly was wrong. It is easily said that the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has led to almost a million US jobs lost. The US worker is whipped to the ground by NAFTA because of the impact on the US economy. Most of the jobs lost were high-wage positions in the manufacturing industries. The free trade agreement is obviously a deal gone awry. It not only affected the US economy, but contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed production works wages, weakened workers power to collective bargain, organize unions, and even reduced fringe benefits. The Corporate America’s power had the wrong interests in mind.

     WTO also had good intentions by ensuring that trade among the nations flowed smoothly and freely as possible. Depending on whom you ask on their opinion on WTO would reflect either a glimmering light or a bleakness. More than likely if you’re wealthier, WTO would lead to more riches. The bias favors the wealthier nations and the multinational corporations. Because the financial situation of the affluent already benefits their economic state, it leads to these countries’ success in maintaining quotas and the production of products. However, it’s like taking a sledgehammer between the rich and poor. There’s a stronger divide between the groups because the developing countries are forced to open their markets. Many other aspects are overlooked because there is such a focus on free trade. The rights of workers, democracy, the environments, and issues with labor are major issues being neglected. The assurance for swift trade among the countries hold priority over the interests of those not related to the rich – working families, smaller communities, and even the environment. It’s just altogether a bad idea when all the focus is directed into a monetary state that neglects and continuously impacts those who already have a smaller, weaker voice.

     To even give NAFTA the benefit of the doubt for a few moments is overwhelming. The slightest of benefits included that NAFTA did decrease the tariffs in the countries participating and the trade among the US, Mexico, and Canada increased. WTO’s benefits without a doubt more free trade around the world and creates standards to have effective and efficient trade. Regardless of these positive outcomes from the agreements and the international organizations, the history of each ultimately proves that free trade is not a win-win situation.

     Reflecting on the political cartoon above simply depicts that free trade mocks democracy. It does not help the people, give them a voice or even give them a decent wage. It taunts workers and possibly leaves them without a job. All ideas definitely have the potential to go awry, but free trade proves to be biased. The losers really lose and the poor get poorer. (That’s worse than bad; it’s terrible!)

Deterrence Strategies that correlate with MAD theory

        Mutually Assured Destruction theory (MAD) is a military strategy that states that two countries with strong enough nuclear powers could destroy each other if one side ever launched a nuke. The theory is perfectly feasible and should be a theory considered when planning a deterrence strategy for any state. I will discuss what MAD leads us to believe are the most effective deterrence strategies.

        MAD suggests that two countries of similar nuclear powers would draw a stalemate with each other if the countries went to war and launch a nuclear weapon. Therefore, flexing muscle is an important factor in avoiding conflict. In order to deter potential attacks it is important for states to show their powers. The greatest power of nuclear weapons is the threat they establish which acts as a defense mechanism. Countries with nuclear weapons enforce potential consequences to any country who attacks or wrongs them. As MAD suggests if nuclear weapons are launched, chaos would ensue and countries would be obliterated. Countries who have nuclear weapons should not hide it. If other countries do not believe they have nuclear powers, given MAD it makes the country more susceptible to nuclear attacks and weaker. Countries with known nuclear weapons are super-powers. Having nuclear powers automatically puts states on the top of the latter in terms of power because of the destruction they can cause. So few countries possess nuclear weapons and even fewer are allowed to possess them. MAD explains what could happen if every country had nuclear powers. Although it suggests that any leader would be reluctant to launch the weapons it also suggest that nuclear war and world destruction are plausible. Restrictions on nuclear weapons should continue to be tight and any country developing unlawful nuclear powers should be stopped. All the countries who hold nuclear weapons through treaties are allies and are in cooperation with one another. Nuclear weapons automatically puts a country at the top of the totem poll in terms of power; so it makes for the best deterrence in protection against foreign enemies because of the threat it creates. 

        Another deterrence strategy that can be considered given the idea of MAD, is creating foreign allegiances. Having foreign allies causes a secondary defense against foreign enemies. Firstly, countries who cooperate are less likely to go to war. Countries who are selfish and do only what they believe is in their best interest are naturally more prone to foreign conflict. By having many allies it establishes a diplomatic nature and that makes the country less prone to conflict, attack and war. Secondly, countries with allies provide an additional threat. It gives potential opponents the thought that if they mess with one country they might be messing with a host of other countries. It makes a country significantly more powerful because of the threat that allied countries can aid in any warfare. When less powerful countries create allegiances with world powers it significantly increases the strength of the country because of the allied countries power. Given MAD, a country with more allies will be able to end conflict sooner. If it is two or three countries firing nuclear attacks against only one country the group of allied countries will be able to destroy the other country quicker. 

       Good and bad reputations is a deterrence strategy that is beneficial and detrimental to countries given MAD. A country with a bad reputation specifically a reputation known to be unpredictable creates a predicament. Rational leaders resort to nuclear weapons as a last line of defense. Irrational leaders might use nuclear weapons as offense or more sparingly than rational ones. This unknown and unpredictable nature of irrational leaders imposes a giant threat to all unfriendly countries. It establishes the thought that rational countries need to have nuclear weapons pointed in the direction (not literally) of potential irrational opponents as defense . Irrational leaders can develop nuclear powers without the consultation and approval of other countries. Because of this it makes countries who do not have nuclear powers to want to defend from the unknown threat of attack. In turn countries with bad reputations leads to more countries producing nuclear weapons to defend against them.  A good, diplomatic reputation shows reliability and rationality. Even with conflict, countries with good reputations do not impose a giant risk for nuclear attack because their leaders act rationally and therefore pose a small risk of nuclear warfare because they use it as a last resort. 

The Dark Side of an Advantage

A 2014 article published in Forbes magazine discusses the recent decline in Chinese manufacturing, a market in which the United States had been losing out on for quite some time. The reason these manufacturing jobs moved from the US to China, and now to countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines is because they have the advantage. If all of our tech items and clothing items were manufactured in the US they would cost an astronomical amount more. In order to have cohesive global trade, countries must accept what they do and do not have the comparative advantage over, and sometimes this can show the overall dark side of an advantage.

We see the impact of comparative advantage everyday even if we do not realize it. Often it effects are condemned, but nothing is really done to drastically change it. Mainly because if a shirt made in Taiwan costs $5, but if it were made here would put a $30 dent in our wallets, we could choose the Taiwanese shirt, every time. This is because we are rational consumers, and not every product should be made on our shores.

American Apparel is a clothing company that manufactures all of its items in the United States. That means they pay their workers fair wages, they work reasonable hours, and receive healthcare benefits if they qualify. Because of this, their clothes are substantially more expensive, than something I could easily purchase at Forever21, a retailer that relies on manufactures Asian countries where labor laws are less strict. Because of this, Forever21 has a higher profit margin because they rely on unethical labor, whereas American Apparel suffers because they have to hike up their prices in order to cover labor costs. What I am mainly asking is one retailer taking the benefits of comparative advantage too far?

We produce clothing and technology in other countries for a reason, as Americans we would not like to pay the price of fair labor. This is a hard truth to accept, but it is the harsh reality of what comparative advantage can also do. Yes, in some cases one country really does find news ways to manufacture a product that is far superior than another country, but in terms of auto-manufacturing and clothing, are there really Americans who could not perform? Overtime we have moved these jobs overseas because it is simply more cost-effective. The next iPhone will be born in Silicon Valley, but it will be manufactured across the Pacific.

The United States actually invented the concept of sweatshops, something that gives countries such the Philippines and Indonesia the advantage because they did not have the safe-labor revolutions that we had in this country. Ford also revolutionized the auto industry by implementing the assembly line in his car manufacturing plants. But, auto and clothing manufacturing has not changed in modern times, just changed locations.  The United States simply lost it’s advantage in manufacturing. This has not hurt our country overall, but has actually harbored healthy trade relations with other countries.

Comparative Advantage overall harbors a healthier global trade economy This, however, does not detract from the dark side that sometimes sees the light of the media, but we are too busy reaping the benefits to really change the system and subsequently lose out on an obvious manufacturing advantage.

Forbes-Manufacturing Beyond China

Forever21 Cheap Manufacturing