Do You Think American Businesses Impose Business On Foreign Countries?

1. 0

   SonQuioey10posted 11 years ago

   I get a lot of people from all over the world saying America ruined their culture. We ruin their youth with our influences etc...
   
   American businesses have been established in other countries and I know we didn't just barge over there. If we did, those businesses would be destroyed in fires, bombs, etc...
   
   It is the rich and wealthy of those foreign countries that invest in products sold here for themselves, their middle classes, and upper middle classes. The governments overseas would've never allowed this if they didn't want some form of economic gain.
   
   So the question is, do you think we barge in and take over the country with our western influences? If so, how?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When i was a child the biggest influence US business had on us personally was Coca Cola, nobody made us buy it, nobody forced it down our throats we loved it, it tasted different to the fizzy drinks we had and we thought it was cool.
      The same happened when the first McDonalds appeared in the UK and as with many things that come from the US the youth think its cool.
      Its all about image and the image of such companies appealed to the masses from around the world, that is why they are some of the wealthiest companies in the world.
      Now things are changing. people want value for money, image has changed with people buying more and more from companies that import product from the new emerging economies.
      The US still holds some sway ( a nation of power always will) but the Youth of the world are turning away from the image of the free, powerful US to the image of a power hungry imperialistic state.
      
      By the way America hasn't ruin our culture immigration has.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yes of course our high streets are full of shops run by immigrants, all our television is full of programs for immigrants and by immigrants.
         
         Immigration has enriched our culture, the US has diluted it.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         How in the hell can immigration ruin a culture? Because there are immigrants around do British people just abandon their culture? If so it must have been a very weak and useless culture to be abandoned so easily but somehow I doubt that happened at all.

         replyreport
      3. 0

         SonQuioey10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In regards to cultures ruined I'm speaking of the talk of American culture on other countries cultures.
         What I'm saying is, somebody in other foreign countries invest in an American Business and has it established over in their country. The culture that they use to brand the product is the foreign nation's own culture.,

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Depends where you are, in the Philippines for example America took it as essentiall a colony and then defeated the Philippine rebellion when it attempted to gain independence, in South America the US aided, sponsored and placed into power dictatorial regimes that forced an unwilling populace to allow US products, businesses etc. into their countries.
      
      Guatemala for example had United Fruit who when asked to leave by the government of the time instead used mercenaries and US aid to overthrow a democratic government and replace it with a dictatorship.
      
      So sometimes yes sometimes no depends where they are from.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SonQuioey10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         In the early 1900s and all, yeah there were a lot of take-overs from all types of countries on other countries.
         
         I'm talking about from the 60's and upward, during this time, we don't just show up and conquer. It's against peace treaties, ally treaties, the law here etc... So how do we impose today?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah that sort of stuff went on until the 80s and now those companies that got in there using dishonesty, violence, oppression etc. are still there. Bolivia is in the process of completely kicking CocaCola out of it's country, while it was there CocaCola did massive ecological damage and was responsible for the murders of several union leaders.
            
            Often these companies get in on undemocratic governments, this is being done now in Africa for example, companies set up sweat shops where people work sixteen hours a day for a non living wage without the approval of the people but with the approval and protection of the dictatorships in power.
            
            Often people just don't realize what it entails, they invite American companies into their countries hoping for jobs and instead find that the companies quickly corrupt their political system, perpetrate atrocities and turn their governments against them with bribes. (As in for example the wiki-leaks Shell scandal in Africa) once they realise the horror they face the companies are too powerful to be removed, protected by private armies of armed guards and the corrupted police or military.
            
            So yes often businesses barge in and do massive harm without the permission or desire of the population.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               "people work sixteen hours a day for a non living wage"
               
               Won't work; while the idea of a worker putting in 16 hours a day for pennies sounds wonderful, it leaves no time to grow a garden or find supplemental work.  If the wage isn't enough to live on the worker will soon die, leaving a corpse at the assembly line, whereupon the product no longer gets made.
               
               Or do I detect just a slight exaggeration here?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Given that people who work in sweat shops actually have a lower life expectancy than those who don't in countries where the life expectancy is already terrible yeah. It's also worth noting that in these places the children will be working, begging etc. during these hours and the employee soften will only sleep four hours a day to fit in a second job allowing them to survive for some time even on the non living wage.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Can I assume from the talk of lower life expectancy (from disease, no doubt) and children begging (irrelevant to the question of a living wage unless you meant that a single wage should support an unlimited # of people) that it was, in fact, an exaggeration?
                     
                     (I have to add that I've worked 7/18 weeks; it can be done but only for a very short period.  Less than a month.  I've also know others that tried to work 80 hours every other week; every one failed after only a few weeks.  I simply do not believe that anyone can work 20 hours per day for anything but very short periods)

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Living wage is a wage that is capable of maintaining a normal and reasonable standard of living (according to the dictionary) and this wage does not do that by any standard.
                        
                        I worked more than 85 hours a week as a fifteen year old in a mine for several months, truly I don't think people in the first world have any concept of what their bodies can do when pushed, one of the first workplace laws in the UK limited work hours to less than 70 hours a week for children less than 13! it's possible but yes it kills you over time hence the lower life expectancy. 80 hours was considered a pretty common workload during the industrial age and this is with brutally malnourished weaker people than the average American.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           There's a part of our difference; I consider a "living wage" to be one that puts a roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your belly.  Not some arbitrary and ever changing "normal and reasonable" wage that includes a cell phone, satellite fed big screen TV and a car to get you to the movies twice a month.  A living wage provides the necessities for life, not all the additional entertainment and luxuries we associate with a normal life.
                           
                           I agree - 80 hours per week is possible though difficult, and I've worked many 7/12 weeks.  The problem my friends had was that it was from one job working 4 tens and a second working 5 eight hour days.  Between the two, and including a half hour commute between work and home, that's 20 hours per day and impossible to sustain even with weekends and half of Friday off.  They were also all single, meaning they had all the household chores to do themselves as well.

                           replyreport
            2. 0

               SonQuioey10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You're dancing around the truth.
               
               The government and wealthier citizens invest in a company over here in America and bring it to their foreign nation. No one is barging in destroying the way one lives there, taking over the minds of the people, and saying conform to our standards; this is what I'm saying.
               
               The powerful government officials and wealthy of Bolivia protect that company, Coca Cola, their investment and profit. And Bolivia can be in the process of trying to kick someone out, but if the new government could they would've done it already. They can't, they need to satisfy their wealthy there, their business owners of their nationality there, like we sort of need ours over here in America, at least until we find a replacement.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  That is not generally what happens, generally Americans take their company to other countries to exploit their cheaper manpower or resources. They do indeed barge in often without the approval or desire of the people (the myriad ways this can be done was listed above).
                  
                  Then they corrupt the government with their money to prevent anyone from ousting them, if they do attempt to oust them they pull a united fruit type maneuver and attempt to overthrow the government.
                  
                  And no Bolivia is getting is getting rid of CocaCola as of next month they will be fully expelled.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     SonQuioey10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Well if there's one thing I've learned from asking this question, is that people will definitely play blind to their advantage.
                     
                     Coca Cola has been around for decades. It doesn't need to sell to any foreign country overseas to make any money. If it's gonna close there then I hope it does and never ever returns.
                     
                     You talk of minimum wage but no American is running the businesses overseas. It is a person from the native country who runs the business, has control of the labor, and it is the law of the country that decides the minimum wage.
                     
                     You think if you had a foreign business, in which you would get investors to invest in over here, sure you can build your business on this soil and market it definitely, but you can just change the minimum wage. And you will pay it or suffer lawsuits. Business owner, logo owner, investor, company brand owner or not, nobody can change anybody else's law.
                     
                     It's the same thing over in foreign countries. If their minimum wage says this much and they want to be paid more, it is a thing to take up with your government. If your government says I don't care or negotiates one thing that doesn't benefit the people, then that becomes the people's problem. It's sad, it's unfair, but it's something an American business can't change.
                     
                     I just wouldn't establish my company anywhere else but here. Being ruled by dollar signs is more trouble than it's worth.

                     replyreport
2. 66

   Astra Nomikposted 11 years ago

   Look at Ecuador, look at Afghanistan. Look at Indonesia. Oil and Gas. Natural resources. I think that is what you are driving at. In these cases - the answer is a simple yes.
   
   There is one thing in having a few businesses expand abroad, but there is a huge conversation and debate about Imperialism on the other side. There are many sides to this subject.
   
   No one can impose themselves on others without the others permission. But some others don't have a choice. Such as when they are given lots of money to develop or grow their economy but instead fall into debt. Then the indebted country is being controlled by the ones owning the debt. This could be seen as another version of Imperialism.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SonQuioey10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No my question is, can someone place property and cultural products and services in a foreign country whenever they feel like it? Barge over and just start and run a big corporation or business, what do you think?  It doesn't surprise me that almost everyone believes this is what happens.
      
      They have a choice. We don't own the land that those natural resources sit on, someone in Indonesia, Ecuador etc...does, and is selling it for profit to the US and possibly other countries. A wealthy person sells his property's product in a place where there is no real economy to maintain his wealth.
      
      We owe debt, does anybody control us? Business is business. Imperialism is governmental. A business can't control anything without the backing of the government, something they can't have. Something that if they wanted to pay for, they still can't have it. Our military isn't a gang to be hired.
      
      Every man gets to talking big, telling lies when they can't get what hey want. The truth is, debt is money owed, that's it. The American business just lost money and can't be paid back overseas, pack up, close up shop and return here, end of story. No one can control anyone, not really.

      replyreport