For the Mexican people, this indicates a conflict in the claims and realities of globalization. The investment of greater capital and production into the Mexican labor market has promised to bring jobs, wealth and economic robustness to the developing economy. But the opportunity to cut production costs by entering this venue where environmental regulations are weak or in some areas non-existent has inclined the pollution of Mexican air, water and soil. This has not only had terrible effects on the population of Mexico, but it has created a self-perpetuating resistance to the adoption of environmental improvements. The prospects of a global standard in the area of environmental protection is obstructed by the will of those nations and companies which have so much to gain by exploiting contexts such as Mexico. The greatest victim of this behavior are the citizens of nations such as Mexico, which have little to no say in the manner in which their communities, resources and sources of sustenance are being treated.
When firms in Mexico cause pollution that crosses the border, U.S. residents along the border are damaged. That Pollution is an external cost, since the U.S. residents have no way to extract payment for damages from the Mexican polluters. What policies should the United States pursue to reduce this pollution?
The reality of the corporate abuses which have caused so much ecological devastation in Mexico is that these are not simply limited to Mexico itself. The perspective held by many of the American-based companies which have crossed the border to conduct business without the encumbering regulations of the American marketplace is that this impact is acceptable when levied upon Mexicans. However, this perspective is not only inhumane, it is also highly unrealistic. The presumption that America's own border towns could be spared the environmental degradation resulting there-from is to conflate political borders with real geological circumstances.
The broader environmental reality here implicated is that pollution and environmental abuse are global problems and their scope is far larger than the relationship between any two nations. Therefore, where Mexico, the United States and all countries engaged in globalization are concerned, there absolutely must be an emphasis on created strong, meaningful and achievable global standards on pollution, emissions, global warming parameters and other proven areas of ecological necessity. This should create a framework within which to restrain the activities of corporations throughout the world and to invoke consequences on a global basis for those who do engage in such actions.
Why do the citizens of some countries seem to prefer big government, while the citizens of other countries prefer a smaller government? What factors might prompt the citizens of countries with big governments to change their preferences in the direction of smaller government?
The discourse over preference for either 'small' or 'big' government is to a large extent a rhetorical debate, waged over support or divergence from certain philosophical ends. As a capitalist nation, the United States will tend to characterize itself as espousing 'small' government, invoking the conservative political dictum that the government cannot be allowed to become too determinant in the activities of the people lest it be given the power function tyrannically. By contrast, a nation which is governed by an interest in 'big' government will tend to express an interest in socialist principles that filter public moneys largely into state-run commodities, corporations and even media outlets.
There are, of course, drawbacks and hypocrisies evident in either orientation, with the United States claiming small governance and yet spending extraordinary sums on such endeavors as military empowerment. On the other hand, such factors as might prompt 'big government' nations to alter preferences are those which are evident in a nation like North Korea. Taken to its approach by a view toward communist oversight of a vast array of social, economic and political affairs, North Korea is an example of government becoming so big as to invade tyrannically every aspect of Korean life. So too is this evident in an Iran rippling with the desire for revolution, an indication that the public is no longer content to allow this big government to shape their affairs to violently and inhumanely.
Sources Used in Document:
references are those which are evident in a nation like North Korea. Taken to its approach by a view toward communist oversight of a vast array of social, economic and political affairs, North Korea is an example of government becoming so big as to invade tyrannically every aspect of Korean life. So too is this evident in an Iran rippling with the desire for revolution, an indication that the public is no longer content to allow this big government to shape their affairs to violently and inhumanely.