What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

[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?do...2726&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.