What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

[coberst]

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

[Ajahn]

If trade between Iowa and California is good, then how can trade between Iowa and Spain be not good?

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
If trade between Iowa and California is good, then how can trade between Iowa and Spain be not good?

[/ QUOTE ]

When asked "what is jazz?" Louis Armstrong the great jazz musician said "If you gotta ask you can't know".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If trade between Iowa and California is good, then how can trade between Iowa and Spain be not good?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see how much worse off North American countries became as they expanded?
Or how the trade collaboration in europe has put those countries in the third world?
Coberst has evidence from Jazz that proves it. cheeez.

luckyme

[Ajahn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If trade between Iowa and California is good, then how can trade between Iowa and Spain be not good?

[/ QUOTE ]

When asked "what is jazz?" Louis Armstrong the great jazz musician said "If you gotta ask you can't know".

[/ QUOTE ]


You know you're onto something when the other guy starts saying non-related jibberish.

[tame_deuces]

A relaxed moral attitude would be my take. Trade is a healthy way to interact. You might want to take action here and there to avoid exploitation (post-colonial Africa when corporations continued in the good spirit of the colonial powers come to mind), but apart from that its all good in my book. Few things create peace and healthy cultural interaction more than trade.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
You know you're onto something when the other guy starts saying non-related jibberish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love ACers.

[tomdemaine]

Define Globalism.

[Thug Bubbles]

I don't know why I'm doing this, but I'll bite.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If trade between Iowa and California is good, then how can trade between Iowa and Spain be not good?

[/ QUOTE ]

When asked "what is jazz?" Louis Armstrong the great jazz musician said "If you gotta ask you can't know".

[/ QUOTE ]

He's basically asking: why is an American you don't know or have any relationship with more important than a non-American you don't know or have any relationship with?

Because one "is", and another "isn't", does not constitute a logical answer. We are programmed to empathize with our fellow American over "them", but I try to think that nationality is an anachronistic formality, rather than a utility to segregate. If somebody in another country is a moral person, and wishes to trade with me, so be it.

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
Define Globalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is what you see in the papers and on TV about trade around the world.

[Phil153]

I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas.

I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple).

The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better.

I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality is best determined by likely consequences.

[Ajahn]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas.

I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple).

The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better.

I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality of the action is determined by its likely consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]


omg wow

Thinly veiled racism, eugenics, empire, class warfare, fascism??

wtf

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
omg wow

Thinly veiled racism, eugenics, empire, class warfare, fascism??

wtf

[/ QUOTE ]
racism - no
eugenics - no
empire - no
class warfare - of a sort
fascism - no

I'm talking about voluntary trades between nations, and whether they should be encouraged. I'd be interested in hearing what parts of that you think are unreasonable or incorrect.

[tame_deuces]

While I disagree with a good portion of Phil's post, it is pretty clear you don't know the true meaning of the majority of words you used in your criticism.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true in the very short run. In the long run (i.e. more than a year or two) it is completely, totally fallacious. Do you see why?

Try this:

[ QUOTE ]

From the farm workers view the negative side of tractors is that the standard of living of many farm workers will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to tractors.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas.

I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple).

The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better.

I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality is best determined by likely consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]

The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future.

[/ QUOTE ]
Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics.
[ QUOTE ]
Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation.
[ QUOTE ]
For two, it harms their local environments significantly.

[/ QUOTE ]
How?
[ QUOTE ]
For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
People aren't going to have enlightenment until they have enough wealth to care about something besides survival. This is socio-economics 101.
[ QUOTE ]
And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged.

[/ QUOTE ]
Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them.
[ QUOTE ]
The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's why we didn't give boatloads of money to Europe and Japan for industrial development after WW2....

[Borodog]

I like the cut of your jib, NE. But not in a gay way. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Disagree. Tibet comes to mind. Also, our aid, loans and trading with Africa doesn't seem to have had much impact. I'm a great believer that social development must come from within.

[ QUOTE ]
How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? I can't tell. The populations of the second and third world have exploded because Western technology and know how has given them the ability to support many times the population they could otherwise. I mentioned Asia's green revolution which came from the advanced Western technologies of pesticides, better rice strains and crop management. Consider the scenario where Europe had never established forced empires or traded technology with the rest of the world. The population of many regions would be a fraction of what it is today in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
For two, it harms their local environments significantly. How?

[/ QUOTE ]
Overpopulation again. Most of the world will breed like rabbits until all of their natural resources are consumed. We see this in just about every third world country, from China to India to Brazil to Africa. Population pressures are the cause of most of the environmental damage in these countries - most forest destruction is done via slash and burn agriculture for example, done by peasant farmers in overpopulated areas.

[ QUOTE ]
Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, lack of resources incentives resource wars. The industrial development of the second and third world - based almost entirely on Western inventiveness, know how and technology - is going to put a serious strain on world resources. The oil situation alone (it's looking very much like we've peaked already), combined with the rise of fascist China which is funded by US consumers and US know how, is likely to make the future rather ugly.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's why we didn't give boatloads of money to Europe and Japan for industrial development after WW2....

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no trouble with giving money and trade to the advanced and responsible civilizations I mentioned.

[NasEscobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you disagreeing with? Are you disagreeing that-
[ QUOTE ]
Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because if so you're disagreeing with every sociologist and psychologist ever. If you're disagreeing with
[ QUOTE ]
Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I'd like to hear how restricting competitive advantages doesn't economically hinder a nation. Taken to it's logical consequence it hurts me anytime I do anything with the help of anyone else. I should grow my own food, build my own house, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation.

[/ QUOTE ] The populations of the second and third world have exploded because Western technology and know how has given them the ability to support many times the population they could otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of overpopulation comes from not having enough resources to cover the population. If you can now support more people, how can you call it overpopulation?

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the world will breed like rabbits until all of their natural resources are consumed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, there isn't any possible reason not to just constantly have kids, such as you know, having to pay for them.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them.

[/ QUOTE ] No

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It’s a logical truth. The easier it is to get something peacefully through trade the less likely you are to kill people for it. If you don’t understand this then this discussion is worthless.

[ QUOTE ]
The industrial development of the second and third world - based almost entirely on Western inventiveness, know how and technology - is going to put a serious strain on world resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the fact that some poor dude that you're keeping in poverty could find a more efficient way to use a resource, helping the rest of us. You're logic leads us to the best case scenario being one with the least amount of people which isn't true. What do you think your standard of living would be like if you were the only one alive?

Or put another way your logic basically says that wealth is bad because more wealth = more people which = less resources.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no trouble with giving money and trade to the advanced and responsible civilizations I mentioned.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, and Europe was very responsible right? It’s not like they haven’t you know, been waging war throughout all the world for the last few hundred years or so before hand.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a great believer that social development must come from within.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the best historical model of social development, in your view? That is, what is actually prerequisite for social development in the modern era?

Clearly it's more than just having access to the right ideas, education, and technology. Because these commodities, as you say, are very attainable compared to the past.

I can't think of a good answer.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. HTH.

Americans should be very glad about globalisation. They very much benefit from it. It's swings and roundabouts on the manufacturing things. Yes, you don't have jobs making fridges, but at the same time, that means you buy them for relatively little. With money your country has borrowed from China. Which has the money because... etc etc etc.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas.

I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple).

The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we call them Americans.

What a [censored] nerve!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about voluntary trades between nations, and whether they should be encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! Unfortunately the US understanding of trade liberalization is much more confined and one-sided. The US doesn't seem to understand liberalization as going both ways. I think Australia ended up been bullied in a free trade agreement with the US that wasn't to Australia advantage, as have been most US trades agreements with other countries. Correct me if I am wrong.

My first question why do the US feel it has to be negotiated, if it is a "free" trade agreement?

[Ajahn]

[ QUOTE ]
My first question why do the US feel it has to be negotiated, if it is a "free" trade agreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

The United States government couldn't care less about free trade. All it cares about is mercantalism and protectionism.

And ofcourse it does all this under the guise of free trade, to bamboozle the public and to further the doublethink.



Robert Murphy - Five Most Common Myths about International Trade
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6539529787216552726&hl=nl

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about voluntary trades between nations, and whether they should be encouraged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed! Unfortunately the US understanding of trade liberalization is much more confined and one-sided. The US doesn't seem to understand liberalization as going both ways. I think Australia ended up been bullied in a free trade agreement with the US that wasn't to Australia advantage, as have been most US trades agreements with other countries. Correct me if I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much true, although it's more true to say that the Aussie government scratched the back of some interest groups and threw others under the bus.

[ QUOTE ]
My first question why do the US feel it has to be negotiated, if it is a "free" trade agreement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they should be called "freer" trade agreements.

[BigBuffet]

The big problem with globalism is that a few (relatively)global corporations have become economicaly and politically powerful to the extent that they are the dogs that wag the tails of national governments.

They negatively influence culture.

They provide employment to third world workers, but the pay and working conditions are the same as 19th century industrial conditions in the US and Europe. Most of them can't afford to buy what they make.

Last but not least, the close-knit group that controls global corps and national governments have for many decades caused wars and genocide for profit.

[hitch1978]

Slight sidetrack, I admit, but many 1st world workers cannot afford to buy what they make.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of them can't afford to buy what they make.

[/ QUOTE ] Is the fact that they are making things they can't afford bringing them closer to or further from being able to afford the things they make?

[ QUOTE ]
Last but not least, the close-knit group that controls global corps and national governments have for many decades caused wars and genocide for profit.

[/ QUOTE ] How do wars and genocides in the Dem Rep of Congo or Sudan or Guinea-Bissau relate to globalism? These are some of the places LEAST affected by globalization in the world.

I think establishing a general rule is futile here.

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
How do wars and genocides in the Dem Rep of Congo or Sudan or Guinea-Bissau relate to globalism? These are some of the places LEAST affected by globalization in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If wars during the past sixty years were restricted to places like those, you would have a point.

However, I believe most wars have been planned by globalists. There is big $$ in munitions, destruction of infrastructures and rebuilding of infrastructures.