NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for globalization, or against it? Please state your reasons. Poll coming...

It already happened.

As far as I'm concerned, that's like asking 'Mass extinction of the Dinosaurs- Are you for it or against it?'

It happened a long time ago, it receded, and it's happening again. It cannot simply be turned off, and the cause of the previous recession and the consequences of it were dire.

It doesn't have to be a good or bad thing, if you address it correctly then it can be a good thing if not the negative side affects will take over. Although, it isn't really something that you can be for or against, it will happen it's the way we are progressing. You may think that the overall effect is negative but you can't really realistically be against it.

globalization can not be stopped.

attempts to stop it lead to the depression of the 30's.

I am for globalization, but not how its done now. Joseph Stiglitz points out a number of problems and possible solutions in his book Making Globalization work.

WTF? No Joke option?

I'm for it but I don't think we're there yet.

To me globalisation involves free movement throughout the world of goods, money, ideas and people.

We are a long way from achieving free movement of people.

I can travel 4,000 km from Melbourne to Darwin without any restrictions but the little bit extra to Jakarta requires getting through all sorts of hoops.

Moving permanently to most other countries is almost impossible.

I am against globalization. It has opened up countries to have their underclass continually downtrodden under a guis of increased free 'trade' with well-developed nations on the backs of new slave labor.

To me globalisation involves free movement throughout the world of goods, money, ideas and people.

None of this is achieved without free people. Globalization has just worsened it and open up the 'free in principle' countries to accept trade agreements from the politically oppressed elsewhere. It's colonialism without the added stigma since the jeans and diamonds are so cheap.

I am for it. Globalization does for the physical world what the internet did for the word of porn. Globalization turns the whole planet into a marketplace of ideas and goods and when people are trading they have a reason to get along and learn something about their neighbors. The alternative is isolationism and that breeds xenophobia, something I'm sure we can all do without.

I find it hillarious that the white, upper middle class kids that fight globalization in North America and Europe do so with the tools of globalization. If you use a cell phone or the internet to organize a rally then you are a part of globalization. If you use a car, bus or train that either wasn't produced locally or has parts that weren't local to get to your rally you're a part of what you're protesting against.

Are you for globalization, or against it?
Well, before we can get anywhere, what do you mean by 'globalisation'?

The term is bandied about these days, used to mean loads of different things: the expansion of international capitalism, greater interconnectivity between nations, the ability for individuals to free themselves from the nation-state, to name but three.

Definition, please.

I am for it. Globalization does for the physical world what the internet did for the word of porn. Globalization turns the whole planet into a marketplace of ideas and goods and when people are trading they have a reason to get along and learn something about their neighbors. The alternative is isolationism and that breeds xenophobia, something I'm sure we can all do without.

I find it hillarious that the white, upper middle class kids that fight globalization in North America and Europe do so with the tools of globalization. If you use a cell phone or the internet to organize a rally then you are a part of globalization. If you use a car, bus or train that either wasn't produced locally or has parts that weren't local to get to your rally you're a part of what you're protesting against.

Globalization is currently working because of corporatism, consumerism, materialism and apathy/ignorance, not the competitive market that capitalism provides. The ends to do not justify the means. Globalization is not inherently bad but the way it has gone is beneficial to the few over the many. The reason for the latter is that the oppressed working class elsewhere around the world are invisible with no rights. The argument of it's 'not our responsibility' to better their conditions all the while we utilize their slavery for our own pursuits is the true isolationism that you fear and speak of. One people one Earth, right?

It's a fact that both absolute and relative poverty have dropped massively since the rise of globalization and that the world has never seen economic growth as good as it has in the age of international interaction and commerce. Nothing else has come close to making these same gains in such a short span of time. Countries that were impoverished two decades ago have been transformed to rising global powers with ever-increasing wealth and living standards...that has simply never happened before.

Well, before we can get anywhere, what do you mean by 'globalisation'?

The term is bandied about these days, used to mean loads of different things: the expansion of international capitalism, greater interconnectivity between nations, the ability for individuals to free themselves from the nation-state, to name but three.

Definition, please.

The general definition used in political science (not the buzzword) is the process of increased interconnectedness in the world through economic, political and social interdependence. It leads towards global integration blah, blah, blah. That is assuming I remember correctly, it's usually what you use if you want to have an actual discussion vs a collective rant on how globalisation is the greatest thing ever or a horrible evil which we must avoid or else be thrown into absolute.... that type of thing.

I'm sorry, I'm rather tired, and answer to a post not directed towards me at all, did that make sense? I really should just shut up, but i'm too tired and my grammar, coherency and logic are all gone.

Globalisation is good, obviously. We are all made of the same shit, are concerned with the same shit and generally heading towards the same shit. We are all essentially the same, and we should all be a community.

Now the spread of international capitalism is a wholly different pile of shite, which, if anything, is stifling globalisation so it can profit off differences in wealth, expectations, aspirations etc.

Well it was inevitable so asking if you are for or against it misses the point somewhat. With the collapse of bourgeois protectionism and mercantile capitalism, 'free-market' capitalism was the inevitable result, just as socialism will inevitably follow this current mode of capital once it decays sufficiently.

Well it was inevitable so asking if you are for or against it misses the point somewhat. With the collapse of bourgeois protectionism and mercantile capitalism, 'free-market' capitalism was the inevitable result, just as socialism will inevitably follow this current mode of capital once it decays sufficiently.
Don't make me pull out that "In Soviet Russia..." meme to prove you wrong again.

It already happened.

As far as I'm concerned, that's like asking 'Mass extinction of the Dinosaurs- Are you for it or against it?'

It hasn't "already happened". As long as borders exist there is potential for increased integration and therefore it hasn't "already happened" but is currently happening. It is too late to go back now, we need to deal with it, that I'll agree with but it's not past tense.

Globalization is the only way to give the underdeveloped world a chance to compete. If we don't allow them to build their own economic structures, enact their own versions of labor law, deal with corporate power in their own way, then they'll never be more than an adjunct to the developed world - a source of labor and resources that never sees the benefit of their own work.

Globalization enables the workers to become consumers. When the owner of a sewing factory in Malaysia had trouble with workers demanding better rates, he used to simply fire them; more where that came from. Now, it's getting increasingly harder to do that - and soon, it will be easier and cheaper to give in. Throw trade unions into the picture and the process accelerates.

Yes, the big companies are making hay while the sun shines and reaping big profits. But exactly the same thing happened in OUR industrial revolution - which also was a temporary phenomenon.

The idiots and rent-a-crowds who attack Globalization have no leg to stand upon, economically, ethically or logically. If they actually had any compassion for the third world, they would NOT be trying to turn the clock back to a period when we economically exploited the third world far worse than anything happening now.

Don't make me pull out that "In Soviet Russia..." meme to prove you wrong again.

How so exactly? Socialism in the USSR ended in about 1960 in economic terms.

If they actually had any compassion for the third world, they would NOT be trying to turn the clock back to a period when we economically exploited the third world far worse than anything happening now.

As it happens, the only "anti-globalization" advocate who comes to mind as wanting to "turn the clock back" is John Zerzan... and he wants to turn it back quite a bit further.

So let's not deal with stupid straw men, please. People opposed to the present form of globalization are not interested in returning to a worse earlier form of globalization.

I believe in democracy, local autonomy, and not destroying the planet. As far as I can tell, global capitalism couldn't care less about any of the three. I'm not a fan.

Globalization as such... well, "ambivalent" is probably the best term, though I voted "for it." Ideally, I'm not really a fan--when it comes down to it, a global economy however you structure it is a significant threat to the capacity of individual communities to go their own way. Some degree of self-sufficiency is a good idea. In this world, it has the potential to reap massive benefits that can't just be thrown away, and in that context I'm willing to tolerate it... but not particularly gladly.

As it happens, the only "anti-globalization" advocate who comes to mind as wanting to "turn the clock back" is John Zerzan... and he wants to turn it back quite a bit further.

So let's not deal with stupid straw men, please. People opposed to the present form of globalization are not interested in returning to a worse earlier form of globalization.

Really? Everything I've heard (literally) about the anti-globalization protests indicates they want a return to protectionism and localised markets. If they have another agenda (or if they have any agenda) they've done a damned bad job of getting it out there.

Everything I've heard (literally) about the anti-globalization protests indicates they want a return to protectionism and localised markets.

Well, that tells us something about you, but I don't know if it tells us anything about them. ;)

If they have another agenda (or if they have any agenda) they've done a damned bad job of getting it out there.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard the words "fair trade"?

(The more radical anti-globalization protesters undoubtedly have problems with that framework, too, but only because they're against capitalism. Not because they think protectionism is a great idea.)

Anti-globalization movements do seem a bit ad-hoc and lacking direction, I mean if they truly understood globalization and wanted to oppose it they would all be Marxists.

globalization can not be stopped.

attempts to stop it lead to the depression of the 30's.

Stock manipulation caused that, mainly, by way of a new loan at the time, called a "Margin Loan".

Stock manipulation caused that, mainly, by way of a new loan at the time, called a "Margin Loan".

not so much.
If it wasn't for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act effectively ending international trade that just would have been yet another bump in the stock market. prior to Smoot-Hawley Tariff act the stock market was rebounding and unemployment was dropping.
so like I said it was the destruction in international trade that lead to the great depression.

Out of curiosity, have you ever heard the words "fair trade"?


Okay. So, what is unfair about modern Globalization? When the entire concept is about eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade, I don't see how it could get all that much freer.

When the entire concept is about eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade,

Actually, fair trade advocates point out that this framework is dominated by a double standard: protectionism in developed countries (agricultural subsidies, among other things) is not treated the same as protectionism in developing countries.

There are, of course, plenty of other issues involved in fair trade, but I'm a bit rushed right now, so....

I'm for it.

Free movement of people is good (i travel to far away lands safely and friendly), uniting in one society is good (less hate), and globalized production means more efficiency (let everything be done in most efficient way).

What's bad about it?!

[ok, i know the usual answer - people loose their jobs as economies restructure, but that is short term loss. Fundamentally it is all for greater good]

Okay. So, what is unfair about modern Globalization? When the entire concept is about eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade, I don't see how it could get all that much freer.

Except that countries like America advocate one-sided free trade, meaning they get unprotected imports but continue to subsidize the hell out of their agriculture. The first world wants to keep their poor 'sweatshop' export-zones for cheap consumer goods, but their rather picky when it comes to their own goods.

Even going by the arguments of the free-trade proponents, their is a massive hypocrisy because they blast their rhetoric at downtrodden third world countries but yet wouldn't dare upset the nationalism in their nice first world people.

I believe the opponents of globalization want fair trade, not protectionism.

Also, notice how the recent food shortages have only happened in the most trade-liberalized countries, mostly Egypt and Haiti? It's quite telling I think...

Actually, fair trade advocates point out that this framework is dominated by a double standard: protectionism in developed countries (agricultural subsidies, among other things) is not treated the same as protectionism in developing countries.

There are, of course, plenty of other issues involved in fair trade, but I'm a bit rushed right now, so....

So, the actual problem is that we haven't gone far enough?

That doesn't seem to make sense. The protestors do their best to prevent such things as GATT and G8 meetings taking place, despite that fact that those same meetings are the very things that can improve the process.

I'm sorry, the anti-globalization movement just seems entirely insane.

Except that countries like America advocate one-sided free trade, meaning they get unprotected imports but continue to subsidize the hell out of their agriculture. The first world wants to keep their poor 'sweatshop' export-zones for cheap consumer goods, but their rather picky when it comes to their own goods.

Even going by the arguments of the free-trade proponents, their is a massive hypocrisy because they blast their rhetoric at downtrodden third world countries but yet wouldn't dare upset the nationalism in their nice first world people.

I believe the opponents of globalization want fair trade, not protectionism.

Also, notice how the recent food shortages have only happened in the most trade-liberalized countries, mostly Egypt and Haiti? It's quite telling I think...

Actually, I would point more at Europe than the US on subsidies for food. The US has stated several times that they will drop their subsidies once Europe does, but the EU won't even discuss it.

And again, this is the sort of thing that GATT and the other various international bodies are there to try and deal with. Surely it would make more sense to help those bodies do that than try to make their jobs impossible.

Actually, I would point more at Europe than the US on subsidies for food. The US has stated several times that they will drop their subsidies once Europe does, but the EU won't even discuss it.

And again, this is the sort of thing that GATT and the other various international bodies are there to try and deal with. Surely it would make more sense to help those bodies do that than try to make their jobs impossible.

Also, we haven't even got into the thoroughly discredited history of the IMF.

concepts are not good or bad that is absurd but enough of me being a smart arse.

well there is allot to be said on the topic at hand I could go into international patents which is the last thing the developing worlds needs, rising transport costs to the enviroment from assembling goods all around the world, rising costs due to lack of ethical/environmental standards around the world, the erosion of democratic rights due to corporate demand, the creation of enormous international bodies with little in the way of accountability, a race to the bottom in the third world, Africa's case of industrializing before having an agricultural revolution...

really I could rant on and on

attempts to stop it lead to the depression of the 30's.

in the same sense that globalization caused WWI and Japanese expansionism no?

If we don't allow them to build their own economic structures, enact their own versions of labor law, deal with corporate power in their own way, then they'll never be more than an adjunct to the developed world - a source of labor and resources that never sees the benefit of their own work.

thats weird if you cut out the top bit I can have you do the talking for me ;)

Globalization enables the workers to become consumers. When the owner of a sewing factory in Malaysia had trouble with workers demanding better rates, he used to simply fire them; more where that came from. Now, it's getting increasingly harder to do that - and soon, it will be easier and cheaper to give in. Throw trade unions into the picture and the process accelerates.

or rather the factory owner just moves to a neighboring country that is looking to entice investment with lower standards

exactly the same thing happened in OUR industrial revolution - which also was a temporary phenomenon.

so that means a few centuries of extreme class segregation which is only broken by global conflict?

It's necessary. I'd rather not have autarkic warring states, thank you very much.

Okay. So, what is unfair about modern Globalization?

it needs regulation to make sure everyone is actually getting a fair deal out of it

Free movement of people is good (i travel to far away lands safely and friendly)

only it hasn't worked that way at all has it?

uniting in one society is good (less hate)

I don't think I want to live in a sociaty with continental slums and an equality level that would make North Korea blush

and globalized production means more efficiency (let everything be done in most efficient way).

wait, how does that work?

Also, notice how the recent food shortages have only happened in the most trade-liberalized countries, mostly Egypt and Haiti? It's quite telling I think...

whilst so called globalization golden boys like Brazil only got where they are today by pursuing an agricultural economy and then steadily shifting instead of this nonsense that goes on in nations within Africa

That doesn't seem to make sense. The protestors do their best to prevent such things as GATT and G8 meetings taking place, despite that fact that those same meetings are the very things that can improve the process.

which is precisely what they have done in the past

Actually, I would point more at Europe than the US on subsidies for food. The US has stated several times that they will drop their subsidies once Europe does, but the EU won't even discuss it.

because the agricultural industry isn't something that can operate trans-continentally

So, the actual problem is that we haven't gone far enough?

In a sense? Yes.

But where is it we are going, such that you speak of "far enough"? The point of the "anti-globalization" movement is that policymaking on these questions remains dominated by the wealth and power of the developed countries.

only it hasn't worked that way at all has it?



I don't think I want to live in a sociaty with continental slums and an equality level that would make North Korea blush



wait, how does that work?



Well, but globalization has worked regarding travel - now it is way much easier for me to travel than 10 years ago.

Well I do not know about your continental slums and inequality. I think globalization brings prosperity to all levels of society through increased efficiency. And by increased efficiency I mean that products and services are produced in a places where it is most efficient to produce them. Not to protect each nation's own farmers but focus on growing food in most fertile places. Etc. Growing food in most fertile places; manufacturing close to raw materials; etc.

in the same sense that globalization caused WWI and Japanese expansionism no?


WWI well the simple cause of WWI is the whole Austria's expansion in to Serbia then World War I would be caused by colonialism and Mercantilism.
In which case WWI was caused by a economic ideology opposed to globalization.

But more the cause of WWI or more precisely why it escalated into a global conflict was the end of British hedgemony and the opposition by Britain and France to Germany taking over that role.

Japanese expansion. Prior to WWI Japanese expansion was Colonialism and Mercantilist in nature. After WWI Japanese Expansion was caused by Japaneses adopting an Autarky economic model. As they expanded seeking raw materials.

to quote Frédéric Bastiat "If goods don't cross borders, troops will"

Anti-globalization movements do seem a bit ad-hoc and lacking direction,

That's because the some of the "anarchists" are fuckwads.


I mean if they truly understood globalization and wanted to oppose it they would all be Marxists.
Well, they aren't Marxists, and they are never going to be Marxists, or they are going to be shunned by anarchist movements, which seem to be basically the skeleton of the radical anti-globalization movements.

We are not here to watch promising young radicals get their worldview tainted by Marxism. Marxism is anachronism. It's soooo not this century...

Marxism just depresses everyone and breeds "leaders" who alienate other people in the movement.

Marxism just depresses everyone and breeds "leaders" who alienate other people in the movement.

shows what you know. everyone is rallying around chairman bob.

Well, but globalization has worked regarding travel - now it is way much easier for me to travel than 10 years ago.

I actually have no clue what you mean by this since by any means it is not airport security has tightened, immigration for eastern Europeans to West Europe is now much more difficult and governments are increasingly looking at your education on visas

the idea that globalization has helped travel is silly because technology is the major spur for that

I think globalization brings prosperity to all levels of society through increased efficiency.

why does increased efficiency mean an inherently good thing?

And by increased efficiency I mean that products and services are produced in a places where it is most efficient to produce them.

you mean heavy investment into automatized productions lines? guess that hasn't happened because cheap labour is stopping any reason to make such an investment even in term of quality control

Not to protect each nation's own farmers but focus on growing food in most fertile places. Etc. Growing food in most fertile places; manufacturing close to raw materials; etc.

which hasn't happened, rather we have impoverished miners and scavengers who ship good to manufacturing plants who must then send goods to developed nations for finishing in much the way China and Japan do business

WWI well the simple cause of WWI is the whole Austria's expansion in to Serbia then World War I would be caused by colonialism and Mercantilism.

I don't see the link myself, Germany gave what Austria perceived as unconditional support to stamp out its colonial breakup however Germany was not willing to risk war but where unable to restrain Austria once the ball was rolling without breaking apart the central powers

not colonialism rather ethnic nationalism surely?

But more the cause of WWI or more precisely why it escalated into a global conflict was the end of British hedgemony and the opposition by Britain and France to Germany taking over that role.

I think your over emphasizing Germany's role in this, for instance the crushing defeat Japan gave Russia had fundamentally altered the balance of power in Asia leading to the Tsar becoming more entangled in European affairs much like at the start of the Napoleonic wars, when you also then factor in the crumbling of Austria and the Ottoman empire you get a worldwide instability emerging fueled by a new wave of ethnic nationalism that was exploding due to colonialism (in the same effect as globalization)

Japanese expansion. Prior to WWI Japanese expansion was Colonialism and Mercantilist in nature. After WWI Japanese Expansion was caused by Japaneses adopting an Autarky economic model. As they expanded seeking raw materials.

pfft are we talking about the same Japan that had its ships built in British harbors? Japan from the start had only intended to avoid European colonialism through the creation of a strong empire hence why the war with Russia was of such pivotal importance to the empires ambitions, by the time of WWII Japan was already seeking to end the war with China only acting to attack the allies when the threat of oil starvation occurred.

Japan is of pivotal example because it shows the clear ethnic nationalism of the time which was leading to Fascist ideals caused in no small part by the intensely (I have heard more so than now) small world

or rather the factory owner just moves to a neighboring country that is looking to entice investment with lower standards

Which is why Globalization is superior to individual national advancement. With just a little luck, the next country over is developing the same standards as the one he's in - there's no advantage to moving.



so that means a few centuries of extreme class segregation which is only broken by global conflict?

A few centuries? The majority of the Industrial Revolution occurred from 1850 to 1910. Prior, you had a slow shift to industry, but the real flowering was a period of about sixty years.

This also coincided with the class segregation problems of the latter Victorian era, but causality is not clear. The fact that some nations, notably both Germany and Japan, managed their industrial revolutions WITHOUT severe social upset can be taken to indicate that the two events were co-incidental but not interelated. An alternate theory is that the strong class structures of those nations simply weathered the events better.

As to the Global Conflict, just wait until the resources start running out...

The point of the "anti-globalization" movement is that policymaking on these questions remains dominated by the wealth and power of the developed countries.

Well, let's face it, they're FUNDING it. If the undeveloped world could do that, they wouldn't be undeveloped.

multiculturalism, free movement of peoples, cultures, and ideas? good!

rising income/wealth gaps, unfair trade practices, and environmental degradation? bad.

multiculturalism, free movement of peoples, cultures, and ideas? good!

rising income/wealth gaps, unfair trade practices, and environmental degradation? bad.

Which is why Globalization is superior to individual national advancement. With just a little luck, the next country over is developing the same standards as the one he's in - there's no advantage to moving.

no because the nation hes just moved from starts fall to pieces what with the currency flight and suddenly learns its place

there is no shortage of desperate developing nations who will turn a blind eye after all

A few centuries? The majority of the Industrial Revolution occurred from 1850 to 1910. Prior, you had a slow shift to industry, but the real flowering was a period of about sixty years.

you seem to be underestimating the first industrial revolution, yes it involved less machinery but this was the pivotal period when people moved off the farms and into cities on the promise of a break from the poverty of before

just too bad labour laws where not in affect and wouldn't be for quite some time yet

This also coincided with the class segregation problems of the latter Victorian era, but causality is not clear.

I seem to think an income rocket for the high class and wage stagnation for the poor would indicate some link between an economic shift

The fact that some nations, notably both Germany and Japan, managed their industrial revolutions WITHOUT severe social upset

did you just gloss over the entire Meiji Restoration and the revolutions of 1848?!

As to the Global Conflict, just wait until the resources start running out...

so what your saying is WWI was caused by a lack of resources :confused:

Well, let's face it, they're FUNDING it. If the undeveloped world could do that, they wouldn't be undeveloped.

just because the bum will dance for my change doesn't make it right for me to do so

Okay. So, what is unfair about modern Globalization? When the entire concept is about eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade, I don't see how it could get all that much freer.

Because a free economy does not necessarily mean free people.

no because the nation hes just moved from starts fall to pieces what with the currency flight and suddenly learns its place

there is no shortage of desperate developing nations who will turn a blind eye after all

So, there's no point trying to help because the developing world will cut it's own throat?

And people say I'm cynical...


you seem to be underestimating the first industrial revolution, yes it involved less machinery but this was the pivotal period when people moved off the farms and into cities on the promise of a break from the poverty of before

just too bad labour laws where not in affect and wouldn't be for quite some time yet

I don't want to minimize the importance of the early IR; it set everything else up, after all. But it was not the society-changing experience that the second period was. For instance, in the period 1690 - 1850 10% of Great Britain's population moved from agricultural to industrial work - a massive shift. But in the following fifty years, a full 30% did the same - making the initial changes look paltry.

I seem to think an income rocket for the high class and wage stagnation for the poor would indicate some link between an economic shift

That would be your first impression, wouldn't it? It certainly was mine. But digging a little deeper, taking a look at the actual numbers, takes away some of the shine of that first blush. For one thing, the true "high class" didn't get much at all from the Industrial Revolution - their money was tied up in agriculture and land, not industry. It was the middle classes that benefitted most, the skilled workers and the overseers - they underwent a wealth increase that made the "bosses" look like pikers.

Did the lowest levels, the unskilled workers and artisans, get shafted? Absolutely and totally. But many of those very same people's neighbours and workmates made out exceptionally, despite technically being in the same social class.

did you just gloss over the entire Meiji Restoration and the revolutions of 1848?!

To a certain extent. In both cases, while we see them as massive and important, the man on the street didn't. Looking back, we can see that the Meiji Restoration was directly responsible for the rise and prosperity of Japan over the next forty years, but to the average shopkeeper all it meant was a change in who he paid his rent to.

It's easy to say what was and was not important with 20/20 hindsight and a 100 year gap. At the time, the price of toilet paper may take precedence.



so what your saying is WWI was caused by a lack of resources :confused:

Ah, no. What I meant was that once certain strategic materials start to run out (2025-2030, I estimate) we're in for an all-for-none bunfight that will make WWI look like a minor squabble.



just because the bum will dance for my change doesn't make it right for me to do so

No, but no one is forcing adherence to the GATT either. Let's face it, Globalization is AGAINST the developed nations' interests. They could go on exploiting the living shit out of the third world for another century with nary a qualm. Given that they are willing to try and set things right, I don't see it as wrong that they get a say in implementation.

I don't see the link myself, Germany gave what Austria perceived as unconditional support to stamp out its colonial breakup however Germany was not willing to risk war but where unable to restrain Austria once the ball was rolling without breaking apart the central powers

The ball was not Rolling until Germany preemptively attacked Russia.(which it did so because it had designs on western Russia).

not colonialism rather ethnic nationalism surely?

perhaps on the Serbia side of trying to resist being taken over. It is really hard to say resisting Colonialism is a bad thing.

I think your over emphasizing Germany's role in this, for instance the crushing defeat Japan gave Russia had fundamentally altered the balance of power in Asia leading to the Tsar becoming more entangled in European affairs much like at the start of the Napoleonic wars, when you also then factor in the crumbling of Austria and the Ottoman empire you get a worldwide instability emerging fueled by a new wave of ethnic nationalism that was exploding due to colonialism (in the same effect as globalization)

so losing their entire navy and suffering defeat made Russia stronger in relations to Europe??? The Russian empire was on the verge of collapse it is why the Germans were willing to invade Russia so quickly.

pfft are we talking about the same Japan that had its ships built in British harbors? Japan from the start had only intended to avoid European colonialism through the creation of a strong empire hence why the war with Russia was of such pivotal importance to the empires ambitions, by the time of WWII Japan was already seeking to end the war with China only acting to attack the allies when the threat of oil starvation occurred.

And if Japan was only seeking to avoid European colonialism why did they fight a war with China and colonize Korea,Taiwan, and Manchuria ??
Japan was seeking to break off the war with China in 1939 because they had already acquired Manchuria and the coal reserves they wanted. Thats generally when one wants to end a war after your objectives had been completed. It would be sort of like if the US fought a war with Iraq occupied the oil fields and then suggested that the rest of Iraq accept peace terms with them.
The threat oil starvation would never had existed if free trade and globalization had been maintained. neither would the Japanese expansion into Manchuria.

[quote]
Japan is of pivotal example because it shows the clear ethnic nationalism of the time which was leading to Fascist ideals caused in no small part by the intensely (I have heard more so than now) small world

You seem to tie ethnic nationalism in with globalization and free trade. This is incorrect the ideas oppose each other on many levels. Namely free trade says I should trade with who ever offers me the best deal regardless of which country he is from.

Globalisation happens if you don't impose limits on people based on the idiotic notion of a nationstate. As such it's a natural trend up to a certain point that government occasionally tries to hold back with violence.

As with most government actions, the costs of this are far greater than the gains.

The ball was not Rolling until Germany preemptively attacked Russia.(which it did so because it had designs on western Russia).
Actually, they didn't. Germany wasn't entirely clear on what it wanted from this war the whole time. Most of their motivations therefore weren't territorial, but purely political.

The best approximation of what Germany would have done if they won the war is the establishment of a sort of proto-EU as a German-led free trade zone, the annexation of various industry-heavy parts of Belgium and northern France, the establishment of a German-dominated Poland as buffer state to weaken Russia's influence in Europe, the odd colony perhaps and a deal with Britain guaranteeing Germany the right and ability to catch up on the high seas.

If they'd won in 1918 you could add absolutely crippling war reparations and probably forced industry relocations into Germany as well.

Anyways, long story short was that Germany wasn't after big conquests. They sorta fell into it because the military had gained too much of a say over the decisions of the top politicians, since the Emperor was such a tool. The main blame lies with the Austrians and the failure of the hardliners in Petrograd and Berlin to talk to each other. If Russia hadn't attacked Austria, Serbia might have fallen, but Germany wouldn't have called the Schlieffen Plan into action. The real preemptive attack wasn't against Russia, but France.

so losing their entire navy and suffering defeat made Russia stronger in relations to Europe??? The Russian empire was on the verge of collapse it is why the Germans were willing to invade Russia so quickly.
Not so much stronger as "more involved". Before then, Russia was expanding and directing its attention toward Manchuria and Korea. Then they got their arse kicked by the Japanese and looked the other way. Panslavism was a good way of restoring confidence.

rising income/wealth gaps, unfair trade practices, and environmental degradation? bad.
Fun fact: no link between trade and environmental damage (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1138) has been established. It's one of the green left's great coups to have been able to connect the two in people's minds.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/05/26/080526ta_talk_surowiecki
I also quite like this picture:
http://www.newyorker.com/images/2008/05/26/p233/080526_r17431_p233.jpg

As for income and wealth gaps...I have seen virtually no instances of people actually getting poorer because of globalisation, and basically all of those were in developed countries. The reason for greater inequality is that more people in poor countries are able to make a much better living for themselves. The gap exists because some are doing well as opposed to everyone staying poor. In such a case, I don't actually call that a bad thing.

So, there's no point trying to help because the developing world will cut it's own throat?

I'm saying that when one side has all the keys they get to control the locks or something whimsical like that

I don't want to minimize the importance of the early IR; it set everything else up, after all. But it was not the society-changing experience that the second period was. For instance, in the period 1690 - 1850 10% of Great Britain's population moved from agricultural to industrial work - a massive shift. But in the following fifty years, a full 30% did the same - making the initial changes look paltry.

however you accept that this was when the industrial revolution began and when social change should of taken place?

That would be your first impression, wouldn't it? It certainly was mine. But digging a little deeper, taking a look at the actual numbers, takes away some of the shine of that first blush. For one thing, the true "high class" didn't get much at all from the Industrial Revolution - their money was tied up in agriculture and land, not industry. It was the middle classes that benefitted most, the skilled workers and the overseers - they underwent a wealth increase that made the "bosses" look like pikers.

I want to see these numbers ta :)

I think your forgetting the (and this is where I start sounding like AP) capitalist who happened to be the one who could afford to finance these industries which though involving the previous middle class of London bankers was certainly full to brim with those who could afford it and had interest in its industrial application à la Canals and rail used to transport goods

Did the lowest levels, the unskilled workers and artisans, get shafted? Absolutely and totally. But many of those very same people's neighbours and workmates made out exceptionally, despite technically being in the same social class.

who then became reluctantly accepted just as the middle class of the middle ages, however point is an equal share was not given and the rich got even richer whilst income equality took a nosedive.

however the comparison of today is the new high-middle class consist of mostly developed background where all the money flows causing a drain on the nation wealth as such globalization has failed to fulfill its objective of developing the world and we end up with a rather bleak picture don't we?

It's easy to say what was and was not important with 20/20 hindsight and a 100 year gap. At the time, the price of toilet paper may take precedence.

what are you getting at? we now have hindsight from experience no?

Ah, no. What I meant was that once certain strategic materials start to run out (2025-2030, I estimate) we're in for an all-for-none bunfight that will make WWI look like a minor squabble.

yes and thanks to current water preservation policies in for example India this is only getting worse as such globalisms philosophy that doesn't take into account enviromental resources is dangerous

No, but no one is forcing adherence to the GATT either. Let's face it, Globalization is AGAINST the developed nations' interests. They could go on exploiting the living shit out of the third world for another century with nary a qualm.

all good then because that exactly what is happening (your bringing up the GATT treaty why?)

And if Japan was only seeking to avoid European colonialism why did they fight a war with China and colonize Korea,Taiwan, and Manchuria ??

because they needed to expand their military dominance over the region or risk eventually being colonized themselves, this is pretty simple stuff

Japan was seeking to break off the war with China in 1939 because they had already acquired Manchuria and the coal reserves they wanted. Thats generally when one wants to end a war after your objectives had been completed. It would be sort of like if the US fought a war with Iraq occupied the oil fields and then suggested that the rest of Iraq accept peace terms with them.

no Japan aimed to create and enforce greater east Asia co-prosperity sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere)

The threat oil starvation would never had existed if free trade and globalization had been maintained. neither would the Japanese expansion into Manchuria.

wait...so your saying the embargo placed on Japan wouldn't be done in a world of free trade :p

You seem to tie ethnic nationalism in with globalization and free trade. This is incorrect the ideas oppose each other on many levels. Namely free trade says I should trade with who ever offers me the best deal regardless of which country he is from.

you seem to miss how ethnic nationalism has been a reaction to globalization

Globalisation happens if you don't impose limits on people based on the idiotic notion of a nationstate.

or environmental or humanitarian standards?

As with most government actions, the costs of this are far greater than the gains.

like when the US refused to buy Venezuelan and Brazilian oil because it didn't fit clean air standards?

Fun fact: no link between trade and environmental damage (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1138) has been established. It's one of the green left's great coups to have been able to connect the two in people's minds.

completely ignores water pollution involved with global shipping though I do laugh at your silly ideas of a unified green left sinisterly like a shadow manipulating innocent minds


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/05/26/080526ta_talk_surowiecki

The reason for this is simple: free trade with poorer countries has a huge positive impact on the buying power of middle- and lower-income consumers—a much bigger impact than it does on the buying power of wealthier consumers. The less you make, the bigger the percentage of your spending that goes to manufactured goods—clothes, shoes, and the like—whose prices are often directly affected by free trade. The wealthier you are, the more you tend to spend on services—education, leisure, and so on—that are less subject to competition from abroad.

I will let that float in your mind and you tell me what it reads :p

The gap exists because some are doing well as opposed to everyone staying poor. In such a case, I don't actually call that a bad thing.

however capital flight kicks in which case its not some shady Kenyan businessman who is making money and keeping that wealth in circulation within the Kenyan economy but rather its flowing into the developed world

or environmental or humanitarian standards?
What do they have to do with anything? Attack globalisation, if you want. Don't confuse it with crappy governments in 3rd world countries.

like when the US refused to buy Venezuelan and Brazilian oil because it didn't fit clean air standards?
Yes, like that.

completely ignores water pollution involved with global shipping though I do laugh at your silly ideas of a unified green left sinisterly like a shadow manipulating innocent minds
It doesn't have to be a unified green left. But there is a unifying aspect to all green left groups, and that's their opposition to globalisation (ie leftiness), which runs parallel to their denial that environmental degradation actually has benefits too (ie greeniness). Combine the two, however erroneously, and you get a nice "green left" argument.

As for the pollution from shipping, I'd have to ask you to find me any evidence that its extent is actually great enough to warrant thinking about.

I will let that float in your mind and you tell me what it reads :p
It means that poor people buy imported things. Attacking free trade means replacing those things with American-made things, which are more expensive. Hence attacking free trade is worst for poor people.

however capital flight kicks in which case its not some shady Kenyan businessman who is making money and keeping that wealth in circulation within the Kenyan economy but rather its flowing into the developed world
I'm actually writing a literature review at the moment about banking failures and financial crises in developing countries. When it's finished, and you want it, I can send you a copy.

Suffice to say that capital flight usually has a cause, and that it is hardly a given - you seem to be talking about it like it's a necessary part of globalisation. And even when it happens the damage it can do is determined largely by domestic factors.

Oh, and since the capital is from the developed world in the first place, when it goes back technically we're just returning to the status quo. There's no taking advantage of poor countries in this case, and the only people who actually make money off capital flights are the ones who take on government-mandated currency pegs. And I don't blame them, indeed I'm planning on joining them.

Jesus Christ. That's like saying "are you for or against Uruguay?".

It's here. It's queer. Get over it. And since the British basically own every bank in the universe or something, and hence every country there is, it very much suits me.

I actually have no clue what you mean by this since by any means it is not airport security has tightened, immigration for eastern Europeans to West Europe is now much more difficult and governments are increasingly looking at your education on visas

the idea that globalization has helped travel is silly because technology is the major spur for that


This is so not true. I am from Eastern Europe (Latvia) and I have traveled to Western Europe and back quite a lot for last decade. And it has become significantly easier.



why does increased efficiency mean an inherently good thing?


Because it means icreased wealth, which means increased standards of living. And through globalization this could lead not only increased wealth for USA and EU, but also to other world (as we see examples in China and India now as well as others).


you mean heavy investment into automatized productions lines? guess that hasn't happened because cheap labour is stopping any reason to make such an investment even in term of quality control



which hasn't happened, rather we have impoverished miners and scavengers who ship good to manufacturing plants who must then send goods to developed nations for finishing in much the way China and Japan do business


First, heavy investment in manufacturing plants has taken place around the globe. Second, at least employing that cheap labour is a first step. Third, I do not argue that current globalization efforts have been all good or successful. But there have been many good things and the idea is worth aiming for.

The ball was not Rolling until Germany preemptively attacked Russia.(which it did so because it had designs on western Russia). This isn't true.

This isn't true.

please Russia mobilized its troops but with one rail line linking the eastern and western parts of the empire mobilization would have taken 6 months to one year.
It was meant to be saber rattling.

please Russia mobilized its troops but with one rail line linking the eastern and western parts of the empire mobilization would have taken 6 months to one year.
It was meant to be saber rattling.That's what the German OHL thought as well. Imagine their surprise when Russian soldiers marched into East Prussia as early as the 7th of August, only three days after Germany invaded Belgium in an effort to crush France.

...deal with corporate power in their own way, then they'll never be more than an adjunct to the developed world - a source of labor and resources that never sees the benefit of their own work.

This is a fancy way of saying non-interventionism is best while we reap the benefits of their slave labor. This still does not solve the problem of countries being ignored because they are not economically 'viable'. You throw trade unions around as if they are things that are easy to develop with a politically oppressed people. It took well over 70 years in the United States to develop trade unions: AFTER issues of Slavery, AFTER anti-renter movements, AFTER multiple industrial working class strikes GLOBALLY in industrializing countries that led Marx to write the Communist Manifesto, ETC. All of these issues come down to big business and an apathetic government. There is no desire to improve the plight of the working class when they have zero social mobility or prowess.

Yes, the big companies are making hay while the sun shines and reaping big profits. But exactly the same thing happened in OUR industrial revolution - which also was a temporary phenomenon.

Your statements are not backed by history. Big companies raking in the money was anything but temporary during our industrial revolution. These are issues alone found in the 19th century: Slavery, industrialization with a lack of unions, massive labor strikes abounding in the North East over appalling prices or poor working conditions, chinese labor building our railroad monopolies, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, ETC. Big business DOMINATED all of our industrial revolution. It took the Sherman Act and TR to get rid of this crap.

The idiots and rent-a-crowds who attack Globalization have no leg to stand upon, economically, ethically or logically. If they actually had any compassion for the third world, they would NOT be trying to turn the clock back to a period when we economically exploited the third world far worse than anything happening now.

Looks like someone needs to read up more on how things actually happened in history before they go around slandering people trying to point out people around the world are getting screwed by big business. Surprise Surprise :rolleyes:

Okay. So, what is unfair about modern Globalization? When the entire concept is about eliminating tariffs and other barriers to free trade, I don't see how it could get all that much freer.

Unlucky_and_unbiddable said it best: Free trade =/= free people. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Which is why Globalization is superior to individual national advancement. With just a little luck, the next country over is developing the same standards as the one he's in - there's no advantage to moving.

Globalization via businesses reaping huge profits on the poor is not a good thing. Business always go the path of least resistance to make a profit. Why do you think the GAP and Nike goods are successful? Do you honestly believe it is due to competition and the child workers receiving fair wages? People in the United States don't even get enough!

A few centuries? The majority of the Industrial Revolution occurred from 1850 to 1910. Prior, you had a slow shift to industry, but the real flowering was a period of about sixty years.

I wouldn't call slavery, massive labor strikes, and monopolies a 'flowering' period.

That would be your first impression, wouldn't it? It certainly was mine. But digging a little deeper, taking a look at the actual numbers, takes away some of the shine of that first blush. For one thing, the true "high class" didn't get much at all from the Industrial Revolution - their money was tied up in agriculture and land, not industry. It was the middle classes that benefitted most, the skilled workers and the overseers - they underwent a wealth increase that made the "bosses" look like pikers.


More historic revisionism or amnesia. I honestly cannot tell which at this point. The high class didn't get anything from the industrial revolution? What a horrible joke. Textile mills never happened then? Rockefeller? JP Morgan? Railroad lobbying?

Did the lowest levels, the unskilled workers and artisans, get shafted? Absolutely and totally. But many of those very same people's neighbours and workmates made out exceptionally, despite technically being in the same social class.


They must have really done well living in sewage-infested streets while labor unions were struck down by corporations and our own government. :rolleyes:

Globalization is AGAINST the developed nations' interests. They could go on exploiting the living shit out of the third world for another century with nary a qualm. Given that they are willing to try and set things right, I don't see it as wrong that they get a say in implementation.

They still are exploiting the living shit out of the third world and ignoring atrocities left and right. Is Saudi Arabia a free place? An extremely large part of Africa? What about China? The working class being oppressed is not limited to just the 3rd world. Governments have been fucking people over in pre and post-industrialized countries.

Because it means icreased wealth, which means increased standards of living. And through globalization this could lead not only increased wealth for USA and EU, but also to other world (as we see examples in China and India now as well as others).

Increased wealth does not mean those who earned it are getting paid for it. China and India are perfect examples. They both have extreme levels of poverty!

Second, at least employing that cheap labour is a first step. Third, I do not argue that current globalization efforts have been all good or successful.

Yeah, lets just do a cursory glance over employing cheap labour because it's convenient. :rolleyes:

Globalisation, perhaps.
Americanisation, no.

Increased wealth does not mean those who earned it are getting paid for it. China and India are perfect examples. They both have extreme levels of poverty!



Yeah, lets just do a cursory glance over employing cheap labour because it's convenient. :rolleyes:

Regarding China and India: Yes, of course there are. But due to globalization the poverty has significantly decreased. Due to globalization and outsourcing both these countries (and their people) have become significantly richer than before. Since, it has been fast development, urban part of population has become richer faster than rural part and equalities have increased. That is something that will be corrected in future. But in general these both countries are perfect examples how globalization increases wealth in emerging economies.

Regarding cheap labour: We do not cursory glance over. Employing cheap labour is the first step. First in undeveloped poor country there is massive unemployment (and people are poor). Through globalization, companies use cheap labour setting up there manufacturing (like in China) or service outsourcing (like in India). With influx of knowledge (people working get training or at least experience) and money (investments and salaries), economy grows and reorients from cheap labour to more specialized industries. My country (Latvia) also was cheap labour place for western Europe producers ten - five years ago, but no we are moving forward to more specialized goods and services. And Indian IT specialists that went out to developed economies are now returning home (so says article in Economist), because they now can earn in India comparable salaries to those in UK or in USA. That is globalization.

I'm saying that when one side has all the keys they get to control the locks or something whimsical like that

I get. But how far can we go? Third world countries above all else do NOT want us dictating policy to them - and given their histories, I don't blame them.

however you accept that this was when the industrial revolution began and when social change should of taken place?

When it began, yes. But "should have"? By whose lights? Societal change is caused by social pressure, not perceived direction. The governments and leaders of the 17th through 19th centuries had no way to foresee the changes industrialisation would bring - just as today, they were always playing catch up.

I want to see these numbers ta :)

The 1851 - 1901 figures are available from UK Census Online. Unfortunately, there's no online of the 1690 Census - I had to get figures from the British bureau of statistics. There was a 10 Pound surcharge back in 1982, it's probably more now. However, my results tally with those of British Bureau of Statistics for the periods.

I think your forgetting the (and this is where I start sounding like AP) capitalist who happened to be the one who could afford to finance these industries which though involving the previous middle class of London bankers was certainly full to brim with those who could afford it and had interest in its industrial application à la Canals and rail used to transport goods

Sure, those of the Upper Class who used their wealth and assets to take advantage of the new opportunities, generally did extremely well. But while they existed, they were a minority of their economic group. The "old money" of that era were highly conservative, as many such are in any era, and at any rate, were already extremely wealthy; there was less reason for them to expend their energy in possibly risky ventures or on untried technology.

It was the middle classes of the towns and cities that had both the money and the drive to use it that were the engine of growth. Many rapidly became exceedingly wealthy in their own right, but their starting points were often quite humble.



who then became reluctantly accepted just as the middle class of the middle ages, however point is an equal share was not given and the rich got even richer whilst income equality took a nosedive.

Entirely true.

however the comparison of today is the new high-middle class consist of mostly developed background where all the money flows causing a drain on the nation wealth as such globalization has failed to fulfill its objective of developing the world and we end up with a rather bleak picture don't we?{/QUOTE]

I'd say it's a little early to say what Globalization has or has not acheived. With barely a decade behind it, I can't say for sure what are long term results, and what are short term artifacts, and I don't think anyone else can either.

[QUOTE]what are you getting at? we now have hindsight from experience no?

No, we don't. We have hindsight from seeing the long term results.

Experience can teach us that if we do X, it will likely result in Y, and that's one of the most useful effects of studying history.

But here we are talking about a series of events unprecedented in human history, and which have not been repeated since. Experience gives us no guide here; a single data point is not a trend. We know what happened solely because we live after those events; should they repeat, we will still have no real idea of the outcome, until such time as a pattern becomes clear.

But my point was, what we see as a huge item of great historical significance, may have almost no impact on the people around it at the time. Suleiman the Magnificent ruled that, instead of being killed, the brothers of the ruling Ottoman Emperor should be locked up for the duration of his rule; at the time, a minor change to Dynastic Law caused by an excess of mercy; in hindsight, the beginning of the end for the Empire. We cannot expect the peoples of the time to find these things important, or even, at times, to know of their happening.



yes and thanks to current water preservation policies in for example India this is only getting worse as such globalisms philosophy that doesn't take into account enviromental resources is dangerous

Good insight. Short sighted policies regarding such resources can only make the coming crisis worse.

all good then because that exactly what is happening (your bringing up the GATT treaty why?)

It's easy shorthand. Much easier than saying "The Gatt plus the G8 plus the IMF plus the World Bank plus UNESCO plus..."

This is a fancy way of saying non-interventionism is best while we reap the benefits of their slave labor. This still does not solve the problem of countries being ignored because they are not economically 'viable'. You throw trade unions around as if they are things that are easy to develop with a politically oppressed people. It took well over 70 years in the United States to develop trade unions: AFTER issues of Slavery, AFTER anti-renter movements, AFTER multiple industrial working class strikes GLOBALLY in industrializing countries that led Marx to write the Communist Manifesto, ETC. All of these issues come down to big business and an apathetic government. There is no desire to improve the plight of the working class when they have zero social mobility or prowess.

You're doing a pretty good job of making my point for me.

Yeah, it took a long time, a lot of struggle and not a small amount of blood to chnage the way people and companies interacted. With a little luck, the developing countries can view our histories and avoid the most egregious of our mistakes; but what cannot happen is us fighting the battle for them. We are not wise enough or smart enough to adapt our solutions to their societies and problems; we can only advise them as they make their own transitions.


Your statements are not backed by history. Big companies raking in the money was anything but temporary during our industrial revolution. These are issues alone found in the 19th century: Slavery, industrialization with a lack of unions, massive labor strikes abounding in the North East over appalling prices or poor working conditions, chinese labor building our railroad monopolies, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, ETC. Big business DOMINATED all of our industrial revolution. It took the Sherman Act and TR to get rid of this crap.

The Sherman Act didn't get rid of anything; it just put another lock on a door that was built over the preceeding fifty years, and would be strengthened for the next fifty. Laws about hygiene and food standards; laws about corporate accountability; laws about wages and conditions, and eventually, laws about representation and labour unions. Remember that the big labour movements of the 1920s were still ahead. Sherman was merely a part of a much larger process.

And the age of boundless corporate power was indeed a temporary one, as was the revolution itself. The power of business was slowly circumscribed by law, custom, and simply what people would let them get away with. A long period, yes, but a temporary one when compared to the whole of our history.


Looks like someone needs to read up more on how things actually happened in history before they go around slandering people trying to point out people around the world are getting screwed by big business. Surprise Surprise :rolleyes:

No, I don't think so. Because I remember the Filibusters, like William Walker, and the support corporate America gave them to destroy latin America; and the fact the Chiquita company used US troops to enforce their monoppoly on various of those same nations. I remember the coffee companies that basically held East Africa to ransom for decades, and the Agro-Corps that made so much of Africa a dustbowl through unsustainable agricultural policies. I remember the cane growers of Queensland who stole the Kanaka peoples off their islands for slave labour in the cane fields, and the companies that basically stole entire islands to rip out the nitrate-laden soil.

DO NOT try to tell ME about how the various companies and corporations have screwed over the little countries and their peoples, sir!
Nor will I cease my ACCURATE charcterization of FOOLS who are attempting to sabotage these countries' one chance to choose their OWN destinies for a change!

You're doing a pretty good job of making my point for me.

Yeah, it took a long time, a lot of struggle and not a small amount of blood to chnage the way people and companies interacted. With a little luck, the developing countries can view our histories and avoid the most egregious of our mistakes; but what cannot happen is us fighting the battle for them. We are not wise enough or smart enough to adapt our solutions to their societies and problems; we can only advise them as they make their own transitions.


We are on the same path but meeting a different conclusion. The industrialized world will only hang onto globalization as long as it sees fit to use other countries as a means to cheap labor; after that period is over the 3rd world will be dumped again. There is nowhere near the amount of time for industrialization with the pending energy crisis which will act as a huge reset button to our energy dependence which has been exponentially growing for the past few decades. The jump countries will have to make will grow larger as the technology needed (Nuclear, etc) becomes harder to attain. I don't see nuclear energy taking hold after oil is gone with now industrializing nations still attempting to achieve wealth. I sincerely believe that given the types of government we are talking about overseas that the transition will not happen and that there will be a retention of status quo. The stepping block of fossil fuels as a means to industrialize will be replaced by a much more advanced technology that those countries do not have the infrastructure to support solely by means of the 'free' market.

The Sherman Act didn't get rid of anything; it just put another lock on a door that was built over the preceeding fifty years, and would be strengthened for the next fifty. Laws about hygiene and food standards; laws about corporate accountability; laws about wages and conditions, and eventually, laws about representation and labour unions. Remember that the big labour movements of the 1920s were still ahead. Sherman was merely a part of a much larger process.

All of these came about towards the end of the industrial revolution well after most of the civil strife had already taken place thanks to our government being a republic. Do you really think an oppressive regime will care? Certainly not, when market forces are already letting them stick in power. India holds together by a thread through democracy while China maintains a power grip while being rewarded by the world for it's shitty labor laws. If there is no incentive to change, there will be no change.

And the age of boundless corporate power was indeed a temporary one, as was the revolution itself. The power of business was slowly circumscribed by law, custom, and simply what people would let them get away with. A long period, yes, but a temporary one when compared to the whole of our history.

Corporations still wield huge power in our government today and it is nowhere near temporary. It still exists. The names have changed, as well as the nature of the businesses, but earmarking, lobbying, and pork barrel politics as always are the main focus of a government suffering from affluenza. There's a reason why Nuclear energy is not around stateside. It's been a continuous thing for roughly 150 years, hardly temporary. The history of our nation is to prod along the underclass just enough to keep them docile.

No, I don't think so. Because I remember the Filibusters, like William Walker, and the support corporate America gave them to destroy latin America; and the fact the Chiquita company used US troops to enforce their monoppoly on various of those same nations. I remember the coffee companies that basically held East Africa to ransom for decades, and the Agro-Corps that made so much of Africa a dustbowl through unsustainable agricultural policies. I remember the cane growers of Queensland who stole the Kanaka peoples off their islands for slave labour in the cane fields, and the companies that basically stole entire islands to rip out the nitrate-laden soil.

DO NOT try to tell ME about how the various companies and corporations have screwed over the little countries and their peoples, sir!
Nor will I cease my ACCURATE charcterization of FOOLS who are attempting to sabotage these countries' one chance to choose their OWN destinies for a change!

These two paragraphs of yours are mutually exclusive. I suggest you take a look at that.

All of these came about towards the end of the industrial revolution well after most of the civil strife had already taken place thanks to our government being a republic. Do you really think an oppressive regime will care? Certainly not, when market forces are already letting them stick in power. India holds together by a thread through democracy while China maintains a power grip while being rewarded by the world for it's shitty labor laws. If there is no incentive to change, there will be no change.
You're acting as if the very same stuff we see in China today hasn't already been witnessed in places like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia et al

Shitty labour laws are fine for people whose alternative is farm work. The kids of those factory works will have gone to school though, they'll have the skills and ambition to go beyond that. The question is whether those better jobs are then available. Korea established massive crony corporations, Taiwan attracted foreigners and established an industry of local contractors who learned and were eventually able to produce their own competing products, Malaysia had a bunch of MNCs settle in designated areas. China's state-owned or state-controlled corporations are getting the expertise through the government requirement that all investment in China has to be done in the form of joint ventures with local firms.

Funnily enough, after a while there is little if any sweatshop labour left in those countries, yet capitalism hasn't somehow abandoned them.

You're acting as if the very same stuff we see in China today hasn't already been witnessed in places like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia et al

Shitty labour laws are fine for people whose alternative is farm work. The kids of those factory works will have gone to school though, they'll have the skills and ambition to go beyond that. The question is whether those better jobs are then available. Korea established massive crony corporations, Taiwan attracted foreigners and established an industry of local contractors who learned and were eventually able to produce their own competing products, Malaysia had a bunch of MNCs settle in designated areas. China's state-owned or state-controlled corporations are getting the expertise through the government requirement that all investment in China has to be done in the form of joint ventures with local firms.

Funnily enough, after a while there is little if any sweatshop labour left in those countries, yet capitalism hasn't somehow abandoned them.

Capitalism, is an ideology, not a person. The foreign investors were pretty quick to abandon Indonesia to her fate in the late 1990's. Malaysia only escaped the same fate when her government imposed currency controls.

As for there being no sweatshop labour in these countries:

China - The whole economy is built on cheap labour. No secret there, nor much sign of things changing any time soon.
Korea - Actually no. Not much. Korea has become a well developed nation, though mostly without foreign "help"
Taiwan - Still has considerable wealth divides, particularly in the south.
Malaysia - Wages for many workers are still low. Many workers earn RM400 to RM500 a month, in a country where a none too fantastic flat in these same "boom towns" costs RM350 a month.

Let's be brutally honest, what's in it for an MNC to stay in a country once the cheap labour is no longer on offer? For a while, maybe, to recoup some money on plant, but eventually it's going to shift to somewhere new and cheap. When they do, their last set of workers can go hang, for all they care. Look how unemployment has become an increasing factor in Singapore of late, whilst companies set up shop in Johor...

These two paragraphs of yours are mutually exclusive. I suggest you take a look at that.

I would suggest you take a look at your assumptions. There is no conflict between my words.

Well, before we can get anywhere, what do you mean by 'globalisation'?

The term is bandied about these days, used to mean loads of different things: the expansion of international capitalism, greater interconnectivity between nations, the ability for individuals to free themselves from the nation-state, to name but three.

Definition, please.
That first part, the expansion of international capitalism.

No third option? :O

I can't think for myself so I'll just quote Chomsky:P

The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity - that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.

"The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system -- which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.

Globalization is nothing even relatively new. The fact that there are pagodas throughout Asia, pasta in Italy, horses among the native tribes of the Americas, Christian churches in northern Europe, mosques in Indonesia, arabic numerals world wide, spices from around the world in your local supermarket, and coffee/tea shops everywhere is just the most basic evidence of this.

to be "for" or "against" it is illogical. It has happened, and continues to happen.

Capitalism, is an ideology, not a person. The foreign investors were pretty quick to abandon Indonesia to her fate in the late 1990's. Malaysia only escaped the same fate when her government imposed currency controls.
Fun fact: most of the currency speculators during the Asian financial crisis were actually people from East Asia. They were the ones with the best information on what things were like in those economies and did the only reasonable thing by betting against governments that were running unworkable policies.

Malaysia's capital controls, by the way, didn't actually do much. They were only introduced after things were already over. Attempts to impose them during the actual crisis, such as in Thailand or Argentina, don't work out. People end up doing whatever they can, even if it means stuffing suitcases full of banknotes and smuggling them out of the country.

China - The whole economy is built on cheap labour. No secret there, nor much sign of things changing any time soon.
There are lots of signs. Do you think all these new middle class people along the coast will send their kids into sweatshops?

Korea - Actually no. Not much. Korea has become a well developed nation, though mostly without foreign "help"
That's plainly not true. The chaebols started as precisely the providers of cheap labour that I'm talking about.

Taiwan - Still has considerable wealth divides, particularly in the south.
And? I'm talking about economies moving away from a focus on cheap labour and towards other areas of expertise. That's happened in Taiwan, and there can be no doubt about that.

Malaysia - Wages for many workers are still low. Many workers earn RM400 to RM500 a month, in a country where a none too fantastic flat in these same "boom towns" costs RM350 a month.
So bad housing affordability in some places means that Malaysia is a 3rd world country?

Let's be brutally honest, what's in it for an MNC to stay in a country once the cheap labour is no longer on offer? For a while, maybe, to recoup some money on plant, but eventually it's going to shift to somewhere new and cheap.
I know precisely what there is, because my second uni degree is in international business.

An MNC would simply change what it does in that country. Rather than having cheap parts made somewhere, you move engineering teams over there to be close to production. Then they become permanent and start making suggestions for new products. Eventually the design arm of the foreign subsidiary will be contributing fully, combining knowledge of the local market with knowledge of production processes. And since the people in that country are now also making money, you'll also have marketing and the like move there to sell right there.

Depending on the sort of company you are, you'll also move more advanced manufacturing there. Taiwan started up making really basic circuits for really basic appliances. But the expertise the locals acquired allowed them to move on from that, and today they make CPUs and other microchips. Taiwanese companies that basically started out as subcontractors to MNCs, like Acer, are now marketing globally.

When they do, their last set of workers can go hang, for all they care. Look how unemployment has become an increasing factor in Singapore of late, whilst companies set up shop in Johor...
www.smu.edu.sg/research/knowledgehub/pdf/ResearchHubJan.pdf
http://www.iesingapore.gov.sg/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4x38wHJmMUbxBub6keiijiiCxgbhIKEDOKNPDz0fT3yc1P1g_S99QP0C3JDQyPKHRUB UpjCeg!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzBfMjRT?nID=6_9_FL&cID=6_9_FL&newsID=aa99c51e-644b-4242-b657-63bc4bb35493&newsType=1&title=Business%20News%20Today

And yet Singapore made the leap away from a location that competes on low wages several decades ago.

Anyways, you need to understand that this stuff is not a zero-sum game. Trade never is.

I just voted on an internet poll that I am against globalization. oh...irony.

I like parts, but it doesn't seem to be separable from western hegemony and international mega-corps run amok...