I want to see how ppl react to globalization with the recent craze of anti-globalization going on around the US. I want to see why ppl support/oppose Globalization. Is Globalization in your mind a good or bad thing? And for who? Remember Globalization has its victims and its winners.

Good and bad aren't at issue since globalization is inevitable.

Ok that is an opinion, Globalization to me is stoppable. It requires a economic contract btwn the North and the South, btwn the ppl of said country and the companies of said country. Public support is essential for the survival of Globalization IMO. The power is in the hands of congress, and there is a tinge of anti-globalization happening. But you missed the purpose of the thread, it was whether or not Globalization is good or bad, regardless of its momentum, do ppl benefit or do they suffer.

Ok that is an opinion, Globalization to me is stoppable.

I don't think so. Maybe now, maybe 10,000 years from now, but this system cannot help but become more and more integrated if the species is to survive. Technological advancement and increasing populations are gonna make it pretty much impossible to stop I think.

It requires a economic contract btwn the North and the South, btwn the ppl of said country and the companies of said country.

The borders will become more and more gray the more time passes, even if you try to draw them more clearly, they will eventually spill over, as population is gonna

Public support is essential for the survival of Globalization IMO.

Globalization will continue because companies benefit from it. It's simply economics really, resources are all over the world and demand will seek the most convenient route to it. That will inevitably cross cultural/country boundaries. Even if you make policies against it, black markets form. It is best to try to manage it. You can't really stop it unless you stop technological advancement and population growth.

The power is in the hands of congress, and there is a tinge of anti-globalization happening.
Everything is on a pendulum, but sometimes it's being wound up. This one is on the way up. Can't stop it I don't think. It'd be bad to try to really completely stop it. Controlling the pace is about all that can be done.

But you missed the purpose of the thread, it was whether or not Globalization is good or bad, regardless of its momentum, do ppl benefit or do they suffer.

Oh did I? Are you sure? You simply don't understand the issue.

It's a little insulting when people just assume you don't understand eh?

People will always both benefit and suffer from whatever happens. Regardless it is not a question of "is it good or bad". The question is: "since globalization is eventually inevitable, how to we get the most out of it for everyone along the way?". I'd say, by embracing competition and capatalism and providing the social infrastructure to support the labor base (medical, housing, etc.).

Its inevitable that another baby will be raped.
That doesn't mean you can't make a judgement on whether its good or bad.

What exactly is globalisation anyway? ... :ashamed:

Its inevitable that another baby will be raped.
That doesn't mean you can't make a judgement on whether its good or bad.

Sure but he's asking if it's good or bad for people. It's like increasing population in a way. Is increasing population good or bad? Well, you might say bad but really that depends on how it goes down eh? You can't really stop it, but you can manage it.

What exactly is globalisation anyway? ... :ashamed:

I see it as the "increasing interdependency of political/economic entities (on the global scale)" or something to that effect.

I dunno, I suppose you could stop globalization, but only through what I would consider excessively draconian measures. I doubt the motivations to undertake such measures will ever overtake the economic advantages of allowing "nature" to take its course.

I don't think so. Maybe now, maybe 10,000 years from now, but this system cannot help but become more and more integrated if the species is to survive. Technological advancement and increasing populations are gonna make it pretty much impossible to stop I think.

Technology has separated us as much as it has integrated us. It all depends on how we use it. I don't know if humanity can really give up on labels, nationalism is dead imo or is dying. But with terrorism fascism is soon to follow, and the globalization that we have enjoyed could be stifled.

The borders will become more and more gray the more time passes, even if you try to draw them more clearly, they will eventually spill over, as population is gonna

I concur that nations will merely become nothing more then nominal states. So you at least know where you are, the question is how much power is society willing to give up going on to the next stage of history?

Globalization will continue because companies benefit from it. It's simply economics really, resources are all over the world and demand will seek the most convenient route to it. That will inevitably cross cultural/country boundaries. Even if you make policies against it, black markets form. It is best to try to manage it. You can't really stop it unless you stop technological advancement and population growth.

Companies do benefit, but the premise of this thread is do people benefit, that is why I think you lost the premise.

Oh did I? Are you sure? You simply don't understand the issue.

Must you always be confrontational? I understand my own issue. The issue is ppl not companies, or nationalism.

It's a little insulting when people just assume you don't understand eh?

But you didn't, don't continue this discussion to merely save face.

People will always both benefit and suffer from whatever happens.

Who does, the proletariat or the bourgeoisie?

Regardless it is not a question of "is it good or bad".

It is always a question of good or bad, we wouldn't do something if it were bad. Psychological hedonism dictates as such, this is why I call Globalization, Utilitarianism on crack. The question remains is Globalization good or bad for all? Or is it good for a select few who are in control?

What exactly is globalisation anyway? ... :ashamed:

Globalization is mostly economic integration of states. But it does take many other forms:

-environmental globalization
-social globalization
-cultural globalization
-political globalization
-financial globalization

There are more certainly, but globalization is the process of making us into one world. The only thing is that instead of states which have been the benchmark for the last 300 years, we are going into a corporatist society.

I agree with undecided here. The question is; is it good or bad for people?

It depends on your perspective. Some are threatened by the ideal of globalization because of its 'one world' concept - all of us living happily ever after in a global community driven to consume and feed the corporate machine. But how will that look? Can other societies preserve their cultural identity in a world fuelled by Bic-Macs, television and stylish clothes? Can ones political and/or religeous beliefs survive this kind of shift? Ultimately, some people see a price to be paid for a 'one world' concept, a price that's too high, so they oppose it.

Some are not threatened in the least by a 'one world' concept. More often than not, the supporters of globalization (or one world concept) are people who stand to gain from it - expand their resource base, expand their economic base and expand their cultural base. The only threat to pro-globalization zealots are the ones who oppose it.

The dichotomy between these two ideologies is hardly reconcilable. One side feels threatened by the consequences, and the other feels threatened by its opposers - its clear to me there "IS" a line here.

It freightens me to think that globalization is a machine in of itself that will chug ahead regardless of political or social intervention. Why is it that this phenomena is acceptable in a world that values free speach and the will of the people - Democracy? Apathy for this prevails in those who have nothing to lose.

A side note....

I recall a prof. telling me that, "Rights only exist for those who don't need them." It took me years to figure out what the hell he was saying, that was until the pro-globalization movement started.

Globalization is good for the majority of the world's population, who are way below poverty level by our standards, including the sizeable portion of them who are downright destitute by anyone's standards, lacking such necessities as weatherproof shelter, clean water, and basic medical care. An integrated planetary economy including job distribution to low-wage countries raises the per capita GDP of those countries. Of course they have to go through the "sweat shop" era on their way from the "abject squalor" era to the "prosperity" era, but so did all of our countries, and sweat shops are a vast improvement over no work at all.

Globalization is good for the environment. Prosperous people have more GDP to allocate to what were formerly considered luxuries, such as clean water and clean air. They are more efficient at food production so they don't need to convert forests into farms. Their lands become attractive to tourists (including their own more mobile population) who will pay to see the exotic flora and fauna, making them worth preserving.

Globalization is good for civilization. Prosperous people can afford education and become less easy for religious and political leaders to manipulate. They travel more and become conscious of the brotherhood of all humans. They understand their mutual economic reliance on other countries and have a personal stake in avoiding wars.

Globalization is hard on wealthy nations, but only in the short run. America is currently undergoing a painful lesson in the quotient of the total planetary GDP divided by the total planetary population. Our incomes are dropping and many of our jobs are moving offshore -- to people who have no employed relatives to move in with, no government social programs to make poverty survivable, and no still-robust economies open to an entrepreneur with a good idea. This will normalize eventually. In my youth we complained about the job loss to Japan, but now their wages and cost of living are similar to ours and they buy lots of stuff from America. The same is happening in South Korea and India, and will happen next in China and Indonesia.

The long-term picture is rosy. Nanotechnology promises to double the planetary GDP within 15 years, and to add two or three zeros to it by the end of the century. Just as the computer revolution increased the total wealth by creating jobs that require virtually no resource consumption, the nanotech revolution will do the same thing only on a grander scale. And just as the computer revolution spread that wealth around more evenly than an industrialist could have ever imagined, the nanotech revolution will bring about even more parity.

Yes, my focus has been entirely on economic issues. Prosperity will make the solution to all of mankind's other problems more attainable, as I have noted in a couple of the above examples. We live in an age when absolutely everything is measured in monetary units, but there's no good reason that this standard measure should prevent humanity from fulfilling its dreams.

UUmmm, Fraggle rocker, are you sure you arent being sarcastic in the above post?
Right, well take it in the short term, ie next 50 years or so. Longer than that, in "the grand scheme of things" globalisation might actually be good in the way youve just said, but then again, maybe not, and you and i wont be around to find out.

"Globalization is good for the environment."
Not really, look at all the previously pristine places pollute dby tourists, eg CAncun. Or various rivers in the mexican MAquiladora. Or much of China, which thanks to globalisation of trade, has mountains of waste from manufacturing piling up.

"Globalization is good for civilization. "
In some ways yes, in others no. Many cultures get destroyed, and all the other uneconomic stuff that economists like to denigrate cos they cant measure it. Others are preserved because of their uniqueness. Mutual economic reliance? Well, that actually almost is right, but it doesnt necessarily need globalisation for that to work.

"Nanotechnology promises to double the planetary GDP within 15 years, "

WTF? Where are you getting your figures? And which nanotech are you talking about? Working nanotech is decades away, unless your talking about stuff using nano sized particles, which has been around for over 80 years.


"Just as the computer revolution increased the total wealth by creating jobs that require virtually no resource consumption"
You know, I'd like to agree, but then look at the way our total resource consumption has increased regardless. And the amount of paper in the paperless office. ;)


"the nanotech revolution will bring about even more parity"

ermmmm, no. Couldnt agree less. The key question here is who owns the technology? Will it be like biotech in the hands of oligopolistic players? Probably.

'Globalization is good for the majority of the world's population, who are way below poverty level by our standards, including the sizeable portion of them who are downright destitute by anyone's standards, lacking such necessities as weatherproof shelter, clean water, and basic medical care. An integrated planetary economy including job distribution to low-wage countries raises the per capita GDP of those countries."

except that in the opening up of the ocuntries, they arent even getting out of the sweatshop very well now, are they, because companies move to the next cheapest place. Look at Mexico. Indeed, look at attempts to create local growth and economies, destroyed by the forces of globalisation, because its cheaper to import stuff than grow it locally, eg corn in Mexico. What im trying to say is these people often had work, then globalisation destroyed their jobs. Can you name a country that has developed to anywhere near modern western standards with properly open borders and a real free market economy?

Fraggle...

Do you recall engaging me in a similar conversation a little over a year ago, maybe two? I don't want to turn this into a 'your opinion' against 'my opinion' thread. I respect your position. But there are inherant problems with our present economic system - its benchmarks and measuring tape.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) yard stick does not give a true reflection of good or bad but rather, is an economic tool used to determine the 'wealth' of a country - not its 'health'. GDP does not incorporate true resource value, state of the environment, the value of human life(or the condition of the human being), nor does it truly reflect the Standard of Living. But the proponents of Globalization consistantly use GDP to re-enforce their claims that 'life' will be better. I personally don't see the connection.

The Exxon Valdez spewed millions of gallons of oil off the shores of Alaska yet the US GDP rose that year because of the clean-up costs and other spin-offs. There were jobs, media attention and millions of dollars in fines levied - not to mention replacement costs of the oil spilled. The damage done to the environment, the loss of the natural resource(oil) and the damage done to another economic sector(fishing)was never factored in. According to the GDP the Exxon Valdez disaster was a good thing.

The GDP net benefits is not a true measure of value, therefor not a good premise to base a pro-Globalization argument on.

EDIT: the value system in other less fortunate countries is not anchored in dollars and cents as much as ours is - afterall they have no dollars and cents. To impose our value system - GDP - on a country with a different value system is modern assimilation, not globalization.

Good: COMPLETE globalization is the only way to 'eventually' stop the people of certain countries from being used at the expense of their health/well being. As long as it is mostly economic globalization, these problems will persist.
Bad: I think cultural diversity will mostly vanish, although this depends on how globalization occurs.

Globalization is a vague word used by the ruling elite who control most of the world's media to bring about world government. It doesn't matter if you call it the New World Order, global conquest or world government, it leads in the same direction; the masses will be at the mercy of the ruling elite who are now promoting this vague idea.
Communism was the same, just packaged differently. It was never intended as a workable ideology, just a means of usurping existing powers. It didn't work out exactly as planned so now it's "Globalization".
No thanks. I got a good whiff or the New World Odor and I don't like the smell.

I basically agree with Fraggle, but the changes due to the opening of societies can be more or less painful depending on how its handled. Improving labour mobility and access to information are two crucial elements that could make the transition easier - imagine a poor society that is blessed with a democratic government that encourages freedom of information and directs foreign aid into improving the infrastructure, allowing the citizens to more accurately and efficiently distribute themselves where the work is, versus a closed traditionalist poor country with an authoritarian leadership where the citizens end up crowding in cities and working for a pittance because they've been told that there are plenty of jobs there - and once they're there, they're stuck, allowing companies to exploit their lack of freedom and distorting the free market. I would like to think we can learn something from the Industrial Revolution and that sweatshops are not an inevitable part of industrialisation. Even if that's too optimistic, it can certainly be mitigated.

Personally, I would rather that people in the third world knew more about the wider world before they are thrown into it, because otherwise the myth that the rich countries are exploiting them and/or hording wealth will cause a lot more unnecessary bumps in the road.

Good: COMPLETE globalization is the only way to 'eventually' stop the people of certain countries from being used at the expense of their health/well being. As long as it is mostly economic globalization, these problems will persist.
Bad: I think cultural diversity will mostly vanish, although this depends on how globalization occurs.
I'd almost agree with the first sentence, except I am not sure if its actually possible or desirable anyway, at least under the present global economic system. Even if every country was as well developed as the USA, money would still slop about the place, there would still be massive concentration of resources and people, and of course, GDP and suchlike would have a harder time growing. It also depends upon whether nanotech etc can deliver before I retire 9in about 40 years)

AS for the cultures stuff, I think that to some extent it will occur no matter what kind of globalisation occurs. But if its "the right" kind, then new cultures will arise out of the ashes, maybe in as great a numbers as the ones that are killed off just now. Or if "the wrong kind" occurs, then yes, its off to grey goo heaven.

Globalization is inevitable. That is not up for debate.

Now if you want to discuss how current and future governmental policies of the various governments of the world can have positive or negative influences on the inevitable spread of globilization, then let's talk about that.

The thread headline is akin to asking "Sunlight, good or bad". The question simply cannot be asked in that manner without certain qualifiers. Is globilization going to be a good thing for the average Canadian? Is globilization going to result in a better or worse quality of life for the average Bangladeshi? Will globilization significantly reduce the spread of militant religious fanatics? These are examples of a fair question with regards to globilization.

On a personal level, globilization will most likely be a "bad" thing for me as a middle class American. "Bad" meaning that my standard of living will most likely not be as high as that of my parents, relative to the rest of the world. John Lennon probably wouldn't see this as an inherently "bad" thing, but that's another topic. I don't think that I will have a poor standard of living by any standard, but with the current re-distribution of wealth spreading at an alarming pace, it's impossible for anyone to forecast what my potential standard will be in ten, twenty, thirty years from today. There simply isn't an applicable economic model for this circumstance.

I see it as a bad thing for me and my family in many respects, but on a global level, I hope that it will bring light where there has never been anything but darkness. What is it they say? Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Globalization is something imo that is necessary for mankind to get out of the squalor that we live in today. Globalization is more then mere economics, and everything is going to change. You here about the "death of the UN" but in reality the UN should be becoming much more powerful year by year, it is the only body that can really set global policy. I think that we as a global community must get rid of the vestiges of a bygone era. You know that thing called nationalism that has killed about 180 million persons in the last century, yes that should be gone. I think humanity has always tried to have this globalization, and one thing about Globalization that scares ppl is that any form of "NWO" requires one culture, and one ethic to preside over all of us, and we as a human beings have tried usually through violent means to achieve this. From Alexander the Great, to Caesar, to Hitler this has been tried by all. Today principally you hear democracy is essential to the Globalization that we enjoy. I think we have seen that it is not, China for instance has been a main beneficiary of globalization. Ever since China went from backward economic policies of the Mao era, into a capitalist one we noticed that the country has experienced an unbelievable jump in living standards. 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty in China. But this doesn't come with a cost, the environment has suffered, and today there is a huge income disparity btwn the coastal regions and the west. But nevertheless the powerhouse of this century will be China and India. The US, Europe, and Japan will have to lose jobs, and economic power in order to prop up this NWO. I think that (as a catholic) God or logos has indeed made it so Globalization works. If you look at the pop. projections of Europe and Japan together over the next 100 years their pop. will decline from 800 million in Euro to 300 million, and Japan from 120 million to 60 million. Which allows corps. to move the excess jobs to countries that need them. The deaths of around 560 million ppl is a good thing for millions more. Living in the West I recognize that we will be going down the road of deflation we have to, the 3rd world has to come up (inflation) and we have to come down to create the synthesis economy that this world needs. Our living standards will come down, but it won't go down to the point of barbarism.

But is all peachy keen? Of course not, and as long as we have nation-states Globalization will never be able to play itself out. Self interest will drive humanity for a while to come. Already in the US gas prices are going through the roof, and for a reason. India and China and sucking more and more Middle East oil, leaving less and less for the US. The world's resources are getting tight. China in 20 years has increased her consumption of oil from 4 million bbl/day, to around 6 million. China used to be self-sufficient in oil, not anymore. Already I can see a great game in the Middle East btwn these powers. Another big what if is water, that simply is not available everywhere, some say that Egypt and Ethiopia could go to blows over the Nile. Turkey isn't making many friends with Syria and Iraq because their extensive damming/irragation projects in Kurdistan. The list goes on and on with water. Unless desalination and better use of water (i.e. drop irrigation) it [water] will become a very precious commodity this century. Which leads to a critique of Globalization, things that we would consider should be barred from private hands are going into those private hands. Power companies all over are being privatized and in return customers have to option but to pay the outrageously high bills. But I believe that Globalization will give us a solution, firstly we should become self-sufficient in terms of energy production. But a solar panel on our houses, not only do we save the environment, and we save money. The Hydrogen revolution does not seem to far off, as Iceland is striving to be the first Hydrogen powered nation, totally independent of oil imports. So there will be wars over resources, which does add the question is Globalization really that good for nations?

For ppl the average joe, or Xia, whomever. Their lives will be better off then today. Arguably not in North America, especially the US. They have a naturally growing population and thus the shortfall of jobs will make the American Joe suffer to his cheaper brethren Xia in Shanhai. But in Canada, Euro, Japan, etc which declining pop. Outsourcing jobs is a good thing indeed. The ppl in the 3rd world country will benefit, already wages are going up. Trade is increasing, and HDI figures are going up for just about everyone who has embraced Globalization. The stats are showing a betterment of ppl's lives. So I say yes Globalization is a good thing, but we in the 1st world will have to give up a little to make up for the rest.

So I say yes Globalization is a good thing, but we in the 1st world will have to give up a little to make up for the rest.
Well this is one option. It would be fairly easy for us to equalize world to an early 1900s quality of life. Very few of us would actually have to work. The thing is that we are constantly advancing technology (one of the arguments why we will always have jobs, as advanced as we get). What I'm hoping actually happens with globalization, is that the 1st world countries (namely the US) is unable to keep up it's current pace of growth.... giving the rest of the world time to catch up. Not really a step back for the 1st world... more of a delay and equalization.

I totally agree the 1st world has to stop growing and deflate in order for other nations to get up to par. Already you are seeing European nations are growing at 1% or even less and it has been that way for quite a while now. Will the West's GDP actually decline? Yes, but per capita will actually increase, so who knows... if someone does do tell.

So who do you think will be in command of the New World Odor? All nations, sovereighnty, races, monetary systems, religions and cultures supposedly melded into one if people are gullible enough to submit to the idea of voluntary defeat. Or will one race, a master race be immune fron assimilation and dominate the others?

http://www.policestateplanning.com/id19.htm

The lure for the gullible is "all the good things that could be done". What in the world do you think the elites have gone to the trouble to acquire most of the mass media in the world and set up several secret societies like the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral commission, the CFR, the Bohemian Grove, etc..? So they can look after your best interests? How childish can you guys get?

One world government and one media means no accountability for the elites. I can't wait till I get my chains.

Travis

I share your fears, that is why I believe the UN should be that organization. Which is totally independent of corp. influence and financing, and democracy. I am by nature an internationalist and I resent the notion of seperationism. It caused more damage then what could possibly be done in a NOW (WWI,WWII,Cold War, etc). Maybe we are gullible, maybe there are powers that be we have no idea about. But what difference is there about these powers today and tomorrow? I don't think cynicism is the way we should be looking at this. There are tangible results, and those "powers that be" want to see ppl's living standards increase so they can make more money. Globalization is such a synthesis of interests that it is hard to confront.

Undecided,
I don't know what in the world makes you think TPTB want to improve the people's living standards but they sure seem to have put the hook in your lips.
The vigilant always appear cynical or negative to the gullible. If you want to see what world government is going to look like you should read The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. It was written 100 years ago and describes fairly accurately what has happened since then. World goverment is for the master race to rule, not for the benefit of the people of the world. The same powers that fermented and financed most of the wars that paved the way to sell the idea of benefits to world government.

Well that is your opinion and I'll leave you to it. I tend to disagree with those statements, but hey what do u want me to say? We can't predict the future now can we. I think that we will be living in a world of corporate honchos making the decisions. That's why I believe in a impartial organization like the UN.

And the hopeless cynics always claim that everyone else is gullible. What's your point?Do you actually have a valid concern or are you just afraid that this master race (whatever it is you mean by that) is just trying to gain control?

Regardless of other influences, globalization is inevitable because of the benefits it can provide. For the corporation it means larger markets. For the people it means more jobs and cheaper products.

Now if you have valid complaints, please explain them and not talk pseudo-political gobly-gook which is only designed to worry people. If you are going to claim that which you are claiming, at least TRY to be specific.

Well that is your opinion and I'll leave you to it. I tend to disagree with those statements, but hey what do u want me to say? We can't predict the future now can we. I think that we will be living in a world of corporate honchos making the decisions. That's why I believe in a impartial organization like the UN.

What makes you think UN officials can't be bought? Heck, insiders will place themselves in these positions by being overqualified. With elite control of the media, manipulating and planting politicians is a piece of cake. Wake up to the real world.

Regardless of other influences, globalization is inevitable because of the benefits it can provide. Marketing. When the elites have total control, what motive will they have for allowing you to live free? You will be at their mercy.

Now if you have valid complaints, please explain them and not talk pseudo-political gobly-gook which is only designed to worry people. If you are going to claim that which you are claiming, at least TRY to be specific.I was specific. Have you read the Protocols yet? It's 40 pages of fascinating reading and it reveals the REAL WORLD and the intentions of the master race.

What I'm hoping actually happens with globalization, is that the 1st world countries (namely the US) is unable to keep up it's current pace of growth.... giving the rest of the world time to catch up. Not really a step back for the 1st world... more of a delay and equalization.

That's not how it works - the faster we grow, the faster they grow. Its not as if they are forced to go through each stage from black and white TV's through miniskirts and Vespas to grunge to catch up, they are in the fortunate position of being able to skip all that and leap straight into the Information Age.

What makes you think UN officials can't be bought?

Chances are that they can, but the reason why is because they aren't accountable to the public. Now I don't support a democratic UN because it will create chaos, I don't trust the mob, and education is not exemplary everywhere. But I do want the UN to state all of her financial resources, and the income of all its members to see if any outside influence has affected any vote. Also the voting members of the UN should not be paid; they should be dependant on the UN for their personal expenses, so the incentive is not there. Drastic changes are needed at the UN to confront the new world, but it is a necessity. My system is very infantile in its simplicity so be gentle.

With elite control of the media, manipulating and planting politicians is a piece of cake. Wake up to the real world.

But this is already happening; my question to you is what is the difference? Anyways the question of this thread is not world wide politics, is it better for the individual or not?

Marketing. When the elites have total control, what motive will they have for allowing you to live free? You will be at their mercy.I was specific. Have you read the Protocols yet? It's 40 pages of fascinating reading and it reveals the REAL WORLD and the intentions of the master race.

How is it that you think the "protocols" are real? Have you met a jewish person who adheres to them? What about the jewish people that think (the protocols) they're stupid? Do you really think it's "all about race"?

What makes you think UN officials can't be bought?

Chances are that they can, but the reason why is because they aren't accountable to the public. Now I don't support a democratic UN because it will create chaos, I don't trust the mob, and education is not exemplary everywhere. But I do want the UN to state all of her financial resources, and the income of all its members to see if any outside influence has affected any vote. Also the voting members of the UN should not be paid; they should be dependant on the UN for their personal expenses, so the incentive is not there. Drastic changes are needed at the UN to confront the new world, but it is a necessity. My system is very infantile in its simplicity so be gentle.

With elite control of the media, manipulating and planting politicians is a piece of cake. Wake up to the real world.

But this is already happening; my question to you is what is the difference? Anyways the question of this thread is not world wide politics, is it better for the individual or not?

In a democracy, it's always better for the individual to vote for candidates that are from his local area, the reason being accountability.Many of them personally know the candidates. The owners of the mass media would love for all the power to be centralized so the individuals only know what the media tells them about the individuals. That way, the politicians are only accountable to the owners of the media.
Such is already the case to some degree here in the US with Federal power ever increasing over state power.
But the US is not a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. Our rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and politicians must abide by the Constitution. Unfortunately they often simply disregard it as is the case with the patriot act http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/

Constitutionally guaranteed rights are hard won. World government would be designed by the ruling elites for their own purposes, freedom is only won by shedding blood.
As long as our rights are guaranteed, bribery and corruption have limited effects on us. If world government were implemented, the master race would just buy whatever power is needed to herd us around and kill us as desired. Why do you think they have been working so dillegently for over a century to implement world government?

Ok but is Globalization good or bad for ppl?

How is it that you think the "protocols" are real? Have you met a jewish person who adheres to them? What about the jewish people that think (the protocols) they're stupid? Do you really think it's "all about race"?
If you have read them you know they are a blueprint for world conquest and identify media as the weapon of choice. You can't deny that this is prophetic. Almost all the media and other kinds of influence is in their hands. Most of the agendas stated therein have been or are being implemented. Why do you think centrally controlled schools and the mass media have trained us not to think about our race? If you want to know who is in command, just ask yourself who it is you cannot criticize. If you want to know the real truth about the world just ask yourself what you are not allowed to think. If you have not read them yet you will be enlightened. Why do you think Hollywood has portayed them as poor victims over and over and over again? Do you not realize the psychological-strategic value of this?

Ok but is Globalization good or bad for ppl?
Globalization means less accountability for rulers and less liberty for individuals. Do you think that's good?

Umm, last I knew the protocols of the elders of Zion, which i assume your talking about, were written by anti semites in russia or central Europe, with the express purpose of discrediting Jews. You could as easily argue that the Scots rule the world, because of the large number of banks especially in Hong Kong etc that were founded by Scots.

"Why do you think centrally controlled schools and the mass media have trained us not to think about our race?"
Because its irrelevant? Seriously, I can point you to someone else on this forum who thinks that there is a group of jews that have been breeding for high intelligence, and that everyone else should do the same.

"If you want to know who is in command, just ask yourself who it is you cannot criticize."

Simple. The owners. It doesnt matter what colour they are, where they went to school, just dont critiscise them, otherwise they might cut your benefit or move the factory abroad. It doesnt require some fantasitic jewish plot to take over the world, all you have to do is accept there are large numbers of greedy people out there.

Globalization means less accountability for rulers and less liberty for individuals. Do you think that's good?

Ok explain why this would be true? By the look of it, more nations today are democratic, more nations are being brought out of poverty, more nations are educating their populations,etc. What actual evidence/trends are there to support this stance?

Ok but is Globalization good or bad for ppl?

Horrible, terrible, disgusting thing. Too long to explain. :p

Umm, last I knew the protocols of the elders of Zion, which i assume your talking about, were written by anti semites in russia or central Europe, with the express purpose of discrediting Jews.You may be right, but that does not explain why they are so prophetic You could as easily argue that the Scots rule the world, because of the large number of banks especially in Hong Kong etc that were founded by Scots. I could but that would be a flimsy argument since both finance and media are Jewish dominated and media is where the REAL power is.

It doesnt require some fantasitic jewish plot to take over the world, all you have to do is accept there are large numbers of greedy people out there. Irrelevant. Greed and lust for power transcends ethnic boundaries, but Talmudic culture sanctifies it and the most intelligent rise to the top. The average IQ of Jews is 15 points higher than that of any other ethnic group. Gentiles are mere cattle to be herded to their doom.

Ok explain why this would be true? By the look of it, more nations today are democratic, more nations are being brought out of poverty, more nations are educating their populations,etc. What actual evidence/trends are there to support this stance?
Cattle can't tell by the trends that they are being herded to slaughter until it's too late. That's what gentiles are for the most part. Dumb cattle. They can't see the strategic value of the herders actions and are easily baited into submission.

Travis, your statements are disrespectful and inflammatory. Conspiracy theories should be argued in the pseudoscience forum.

Travis, your statements are disrespectful and inflammatory. Conspiracy theories should be argued in the pseudoscience forum.Being disrespectful of inflammatory is not my objective, I only want to expose the truth. Conspiracy truth is not pseudoscience.

You may be right, but that does not explain why they are so prophetic
Because what they walk about is what rulers have always done? Think bread and circuses, and the full panoply of empire, songs, religious manipulation, printing, etc.


I could but that would be a flimsy argument since both finance and media are Jewish dominated and media is where the REAL power is.
Jewish dominated? Come on now, got any figures? And are you so blind that you cant see it doesnt matter who works in them, what matters is who owns them and controls what is published. Answer: white men mostly.


Irrelevant. Greed and lust for power transcends ethnic boundaries, but Talmudic culture sanctifies it and the most intelligent rise to the top. The average IQ of Jews is 15 points higher than that of any other ethnic group. Gentiles are mere cattle to be herded to their doom.
Talmudic culture sanctifies it? Are you reeeaaally serious? Thatll'be talmudic culture rather than Puritan, presbyterian, parts of islamic, and others such as nazism?
the average IQ of jews stuff is bullshit. You cant get average IQ of that kind of spread of people. Even the bloke I mentioned earlier who was talking about breeding jews for high IQ was talking only about a small specific interbreeding group linked together, not the entire world jewry.

Hey, we're all picking on you cos we've all argued globalisation to death already between ourselves, and your a nice new target, something we can all actually agree on being wrong.

Ok can we get over this "protocol's of Zion" stuff please? I mean if I have ever witnessed a tangent, this has to be it. Back to the subject is Globalization better for ppl rather then the old protectionist ways?

Because what they walk about is what rulers have always done? Think bread and circuses, and the full panoply of empire, songs, religious manipulation, printing, etc. Nobody else has commandeered most of the world's mass media and used in a war of ideas as outlined in the Protocols.
Jewish dominated? Come on now, got any figures? And are you so blind that you cant see it doesnt matter who works in them, what matters is who owns them and controls what is published. Answer: white men mostly. If you can find one falsehood in the following page I'll send $20 to your PO box;

http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/

Talmudic culture sanctifies it? Are you reeeaaally serious? Thatll'be talmudic culture rather than Puritan, presbyterian, parts of islamic, and others such as nazism? The Talmud is a book of horrors, here are some examples:

"Even the best of goyim should be killed"Abhodah Zarah (26b) T

"Jews must always try to decieve gentiles" Zohar, I, 160a

the average IQ of jews stuff is bullshit. You cant get average IQ of that kind of spread of people. Even the bloke I mentioned earlier who was talking about breeding jews for high IQ was talking only about a small specific interbreeding group linked together, not the entire world jewry. They are very smart and are in high positions all over the world. They used eugenics to attain thier level of intellect.

Ok can we get over this "protocol's of Zion" stuff please? I mean if I have ever witnessed a tangent, this has to be it. Back to the subject is Globalization better for ppl rather then the old protectionist ways?As it turns out Mr. Undecided, your solutions to the world's problems are not as simple as you may have hoped. "Globalization" is kind of like communism for the right, not meant to accomplish it's stated task, but to implement Jewish supremacy instead.

Persol sez:

For the people it means more jobs and cheaper products

This is an extremely short sighted view. Right now people are dying of starvation not because they can't 'afford' food but because there 'is no' food for them to eat. Our global eco-footprint is running in the red and proof can be seen in countries unable to feed their populace.

The global availability of fertile soil perfect for agricultural and pasture land has been capitalized on already. In response Biologists, racing to keep up, pump out GMO's at an alarming rate without proper testing which, results in catastrophic epidemics of 'mad cow' and 'mad chicken' disease leaving '1st world' economies crippled. The other option is to expand agricultural and pasture land in areas that conflict/overlap with other interests i.e. Rainforest destruction for agricultural potential vs. medicinal potential of the Rainforest - not to mention its importance to our environment as a carbon sink.

The global availability of 'affordable' natural resources, and its extraction, is at a breaking point just to keep up with present demands from the corporate machines' 'created' product needs for the wealthy whom continue to gobble them up. Keep in mind that absolutely everything you see around you derrived from natural resources.

The global potential of economic/well-being growth is finite not exponential, because it is dependant on natural resource availability. If our natural resource availability, keeping in mind that it's availability is already running in the red, is finite how can anyone possibly deliver on the promise of economic growth/well-being due to globalization? We're not talking sportscars and a cottage on the lake here, we're talking about the necessities of life - food, healthcare, clean water and clean air to breathe.

The globe is at its carrying capacity limit already. The only way to improve the economies/well-being of other less fortunate people around the world is to give up what 'we' in the fortunate world consume to gluttonous proportions.

To do this takes political will to control corporate interests not the other way around.

"Globalization" is kind of like communism for the right,

Here I agree with you, but if you want to expand on your Zionist theories then do it somewhere else. Not because I think your crazy, but because this isn't the thread to do it in. I agree that my solution to the world's problem is not infallible, but apart from communism I can see no other solution that would benefit all men. But again we are looking way too much into the worldwide perspective here. For the average man, forget about the head honcho's the average man will their lives improve. I don't think a person in China really gives a shitake about the protocols of Zion; all they want to see is that they have a car, a house, and food on the table.

fireguy_31


I don't think the Earth's carrying capacity has been met yet on the bare essentials like food and water, etc. Oil/gas, sure they are reaching as far as they can go. But the reason why ppl are starving is because of a lack of trade btwn countries. In Africa for instance they have huge agricultural potential, but that can't be exploited because the West maintains huge agri tariffs and heavily subsidizes their farmers making 3rd world farmers starve, and become dependant on cash crops. That is the biggest reason why ppl are starving, it's structural in the world economy. You need capital to develop a green revolution and in Africa (apart from South Africa, and Zimbabwe) the revolution has not arrived and ppl starve. In Ethiopia much of the land is consumed in making coffee, which has a very bad record on prices. Carrying capacity hasn't even been tapped to its fullest potential as of yet, nor will it for a while to come. To re-distribute the wealth to these regions to develop that prime agri. land the earth's carrying capacity should increase. Also here in the West we eat WAY too much food, look at obesity rates in Canada/US. The problem is that the food and wealth is concentrated at the top, and Globalization strives to correct this imbalance.

I don't think a person in China really gives a shitake about the protocols of Zion; all they want to see is that they have a car, a house, and food on the table.I agree. Most people think of instant gratification. I have chosen short term gratification over my long term best interests many times in my youth and at my own peril. We all have.
It's a function of intellect. The higher the intellect, the more prone to look ahead into the future, the lower intellect..well.."me hungry now, me get food anyway me can". The clever tribe thinks and plans hundreds of years out.

You seem to want to seperate the globalization issue from the motives of it's promoters. Once you have analyzed those motives you'll see why globalization can't be seriously discussed without including this aspect of the issue.

Most people think of instant gratification.

But can we really blame those ppl for that instant gratification? They have been deprived for so long of our living standards that they absolve themselves of this intellectual morass. The argumentations of intellectuals in China for instance lead China to near disaster. Intellectualism is sometimes better left in the minds of those who perceive it, rather then pouring it out to the mob. We as human beings have to secure our basic necessities before we even consider intellectualism, we in the West never really had to care for the former.

The higher the intellect, the more prone to look ahead into the future, the lower intellect..well.."me hungry now, me get food anyway me can".

This is true, but intellectuals many times over have shown that they don't know what they are doing.

You seem to want to seperate the globalization issue from the motives of it's promoters. Once you have analyzed those motives you'll see why globalization can't be seriously discussed without including this aspect of the issue.

To you the motive is Zionist take over of the world, to me it's profit. You cannot say definitively that your position usurps mine or others, neither can I. But Globalization is based on capitalization, and that is based on exploiting the mob, and that leads to profit. I don't think Globalization is intellectual, nor do I think it's ideological. It's pure and simple economics.

They have been deprived for so long of our living standards that they absolve themselves of this intellectual morass. Just because we European descendents invented and planned and industrialized, it doesn't mean we deprived anyone else of the right to do the same. It's not our duty to make sure they have coca-cola, rock and roll or shiny SUV's nor is their way of life that they developed over thousands of years subject to our approval.

But Globalization is based on capitalization, and that is based on exploiting the mob, and that leads to profit. I don't think Globalization is intellectual, nor do I think it's ideological. Globalization is political. It's pure and simple economics.Economics is niether pure nor simple, espescially when it crosses borders.

Just because we European descendents invented and planned and industrialized, it doesn't mean we deprived anyone else of the right to do the same.

Yes we have, for instance the French gov't declined to industrialize New France because it didn't want it's industries to be threatened by their industry. European powers have historically protected their industries against their colonies and "spheres of influence”, the mercantile system. The way it worked and to some extent still works is that Western state makes things and Southern state extracts things. So no we have denied other nations the right to develop. Albeit not all our own fault we cannot absolve ourselves either.

It's not our duty to make sure they have coca-cola, rock and roll or shiny SUV's nor is their way of life that they developed over thousands of years subject to our approval.

I never suggested that they should, they could have anything they want. If they create a market for indigenous goods then companies will tailor to that need. They (consumers) consciously decide to buy that coke can, there is demand we will meet it.

Globalization is political. Economics is niether pure nor simple, espescially when it crosses borders

Globalization is political I never suggested otherwise. Economics is not simple you are correct, that is why Globalization wants to make those borders go bye-bye. The whole point is to make the world economy simple, efficient and profitable. Marx warned us about this but we will follow.

Just because we European descendents invented and planned and industrialized, it doesn't mean we deprived anyone else of the right to do the same.

Yes we have, for instance the French gov't declined to industrialize New France because it didn't want it's industries to be threatened by their industry. European powers have historically protected their industries against their colonies and "spheres of influence”, the mercantile system. The way it worked and to some extent still works is that Western state makes things and Southern state extracts things. So no we have denied other nations the right to develop. Albeit not all our own fault we cannot absolve ourselves either. If your statement somehow demonstrates that European descendents have a duty to share the products of their inventions with the Chinese, it went over my head.

They (consumers) consciously decide to but that coke can, there is demand we will meet it. No demand for these poisons exist without mass media/Hollywood/advertising industry creation of demand through devious use of psychology. We have no duty to poison the Chinese, as they are quite capable of poisoning themselves.
Globalization is political I never suggested otherwise. Economics is not simple you are correct, that is why Globalization wants to make those borders go bye-bye. Globalization has no will of it's own. The motive to make profits is only the fuel to propel another agenda; world government, which will ultimately fall into the hands of the most cohesive, intelligent and ethnocentric group. That's why they are promoting it.

If your statement somehow demonstrates that European descendents have a duty to share the products of their inventions with the Chinese, it went over my head.

No my statement was merely a description on what Europeans did to secure their economic position. It is not China who is forcing them to export industries and jobs. Europeans are doing it out of their own volition to make more money and create markets for their products. Europeans want to do, and have to do this .

No demand for these poisons exist without mass media/Hollywood/advertising industry creation of demand through devious use of psychology.

Traditional Chinese herbs are poisons? That's what I mean if there is a demand for Chinese herbal tea in a can, they will do it. (Like they have in Japan).

We have no duty to poison the Chinese, as they are quite capable of poisoning themselves.

The Chinese on their own don't have the financial nor intellectual capital to exploit themselves. The Chinese want this FDI; all Chinese want it because it creates jobs. The Chinese ppl are the main beneficiaries of this, and Europeans are more then wiling to exploit China. They all win…

To properly address the current world dilemma of poverty, and all its symptoms, will require a close working relationship between governments and corporations alike. Globalization is driven by corporate desires. To think an equilibrium between 'carrying capacity', 'eco-footprint' and 'well-being' will be achieved from the ideological corporate 'altruistic' promises found in globalization; without an equal voice and input from the sociopolitical, environmental and empathetic voice of all other people in this world is extremely short sighted.

Trade tariffs, GDP, Jobs, cheap goods and the like speak NOTHING to the question of 'good' or 'bad' to humans.

want to do, and have to do this [/b]. Some want it, some don't. The millions of unemployed probably don't. The issue is whether it's in their long term interests.

No demand for these poisons exist without mass media/Hollywood/advertising industry creation of demand through devious use of psychology.

Traditional Chinese herbs are poisons? That's what I mean if there is a demand for Chinese herbal tea in a can, they will do it. (Like they have in Japan). I was referring to soda pop.[quote]


The Chinese on their own don't have the financial nor intellectual capital to exploit themselves. The Chinese want this FDI; all Chinese want it because it creates jobs. The Chinese ppl are the main beneficiaries of this, and Europeans are more then wiling to exploit China. They all win…I don't think either side will win long trm, they will just get instant gratification as they discard their sovereignty. They will pay dearly later.

Some want it, some don't. The millions of unemployed probably don't. The issue is whether it's in their long term interests.

The millions of unemployed is not a symptom of outsourcing really. In Europe and Japan outsourcing is an absolute necessity. They are going to have a population implosion and a demographic implosion as well. Eventually if they don't outsource their economies will collapse, too many jobs not enough workers. The US is a different story, she has a growing population and unemployment will increase. But American corps. are moving out, in 2002 they have in excess of $1.5 trillion worth of investment overseas. That's about 1.5/10 the US economy. Britain has about 70% of her economy overseas. Yet she has a large economy and she is the healthiest (in terms of growth) of all Western European nations. So in the long term it is absolutely necessary to do this if westerners want high paying jobs and a economy.

I was referring to soda pop.I don't think either side will win long trm, they will just get instant gratification as they discard their sovereignty. They will pay dearly later.

I think the opposite is true, the whole point is that x country invests in y, over a period of time y will become a consumer economy and become a huge market for x. Eventually y will develop her own industries and they will begin to export investment into z and the process begins all over again. Sovereignty has been a detriment to human development over the last 300 years. People are starving because of that nationalist sovereignty, look at Haiti for instance. She would be better off Globalized then be a failed state that she is today. Nationalism for most ppl and states has failed horribly.

Sovereignty has been a detriment to human development over the last 300 years. People are starving because of that nationalist sovereignty, look at Haiti for instance. She would be better off Globalized then be a failed state that she is today. Nationalism for most ppl and states has failed horribly.Sovereignty has been an obstacle to Jewish supremacy. People have been starving for thousands of years because they produce more children than food. Haiti would be better off hitching a ride with anyone they can to the detriment of whomever helps them. Globalization is about world conquest and packaged as economics. Once all geltiles are melded into one race, religion and Hollywood shaped culture with no borders or identity the master race will rule over them. Same plan as communism, just packaged differently.

Nobody else has commandeered most of the world's mass media and used in a war of ideas as outlined in the Protocols.
But like I said, the protocols are falsified. You think 5.2 million Jews would have died in WW2 if Jews ruled the world? Perhaps you could suggest a few wars of ideas that jews have been responsible for.


If you can find one falsehood in the following page I'll send $20 to your PO box;
No need. It has no useful information. LIke this:
"
The four (gentile) Warner brothers founded their movie company in 1907 and had their first major success ten years later with My 4 Years in Germany. WB incorporated in 1923 and went on to cartoon success with Porky Pig and Bugs Bunny. In 1944, a court ruled that WB must release Olivia de Havilland after her seven-year contract. This decision prevented any one company from controlling a pool of creative talent, but it did nothing to stop the Jews from controlling the entire industry with which that talent was obliged to work. In 1948, WB sold its film library to MGM. In 1949, another court ruling forced WB to sell its cinema chain, obstructing vertical integration by a single movie-making company, while doing nothing to prevent the Jews from establishing such integration through an ethnic collaboration. "
Ok, now you see the problem? The article makes such statements as the last sentence, yet gives no evidence. Or says nothing prevented Jews controlling the industry, despite giving no evidence. The mafia used to control most of organised crime. Do they now?
Or this, a classic example of labelling a gruop of people with adjectives, yet not actually having anything to support it:
"In 2001, Gerald Levin, who had been Chairman of Time Warner and then CEO of the merged AOL-TW, fired Ted Turner from his position during a telephone conversation. Control of TBS temporarily shifted to Robert Pittman (a White gentile), but was given shortly afterward to Walter Isaacson, a Jew, who was recruited from his former position at Time Inc., to take over the company that Ted Turner built. We're reasonably certain that Ted Turner would not have sold TBS to Time Warner if he'd known that Levin was going to fire him only five years later. Levin smooth-talked Turner in classic Jewish fashion, and Turner, having placed his trust in a Jew's honor, paid the price for that mistake. "



The Talmud is a book of horrors, here are some examples:

"Even the best of goyim should be killed"Abhodah Zarah (26b) T

"Jews must always try to decieve gentiles" Zohar, I, 160a
They are very smart and are in high positions all over the world. They used eugenics to attain thier level of intellect.
Oh well, and do you follow the old testament? do you read the Quran, bits of which make about as much sense? And do you actually meet any jews who agree with the above?

But like I said, the protocols are falsified. You think 5.2 million Jews would have died in WW2 if Jews ruled the world? Perhaps you could suggest a few wars of ideas that jews have been responsible for. Even if they were falsified, they were written 100 years ago and disclose the motives, means opportunity, modus operandi and modus agendi of organized Jewry. Whomever wrote them must have known these things very well to have predicted the future as well as he has.

What proof do you have that 5.2 million Jews died in WW2?
Covert domination by Jews is a relative thing. The power has increased exponentially with the advances in mass media.

Wars of ideas: Almost all the ideas we are exposed to come from Jews; Marx, Engels, Rand, Rothbard, Mises, Freud, 98% of feminists and economists. They have been the promoters of communism, extreme capitalism, materialism, pornography, race mixing (for gentiles), homosexuality, all the Middle East wars America has been involved in, The Bolshevik revolution and "globalization". They have been the prime movers of ideas in general since the inception of print media.

As for the who-rules-america page, I'll concede that it's not the greatest work I've ever read, but there is limited writing available on this subject. Although the author made statements that are untestable, at least he has demonstated that the Jews control the mass media and you have not attempted to disprove it.
I don't read the Koran or Old Testament because I'm an athiest. I have not found or experienced anything from those religions that I find anywhere as offensive and threatening as Talmudism.

"at least he has demonstated that the Jews control the mass media and you have not attempted to disprove it."

Thats because his statements are broad and useless in the extreme as testable hypotheses. Get back to me when you have the minutes of "the jewish cabal to take over the world" group.

"What proof do you have that 5.2 million Jews died in WW2?"

You are seriously on a different planet. Presumably thousands of eye witness testimonys, let alone the remains of millions, the paper records associated with the removal of all these people, the very death camps they were killed in just done count.


"Whomever wrote them must have known these things very well to have predicted the future as well as he has. "

No, they made them up. Cant you get it into you head, that as fictional documents, they do not have to be based upon reality?

"Almost all the ideas we are exposed to come from Jews"

hey, your making a good case for jews actually being superior. Presumably you havnt paid any attention to the non jews. Oh, looks like you havnt. Was Jung a jew? Or Keynes? Or Smith? Or Stalin? Jews promote homosexuality? i can point you in the direction of several homosexuals on this forum wholl categorically deny that "jews" promote homosexuality. Instead, theyll say its homosexuals that do.

Just go away and get a life. Or go join Al Aqsa or something, then youd get to kill jews for real.

"at least he has demonstated that the Jews control the mass media and you have not attempted to disprove it."

Thats because his statements are broad and useless in the extreme as testable hypotheses. Get back to me when you have the minutes of "the jewish cabal to take over the world" group. How is it untestable? All you have to do is look for disproportion in the number of Jewish CEO's, editors, directors etc.. You can also test the strategic value of a media monoploy or near monopoly.

"What proof do you have that 5.2 million Jews died in WW2?"

You are seriously on a different planet. Presumably thousands of eye witness testimonys, let alone the remains of millions, the paper records associated with the removal of all these people, the very death camps they were killed in just done count. Then why will they not debate it?

http://www.codoh.com/

Why do they get laws passed to prevent anyone from debating it?


"Whomever wrote them must have known these things very well to have predicted the future as well as he has. "

No, they made them up. Cant you get it into you head, that as fictional documents, they do not have to be based upon reality? In any case they are extremely prophetic and excellent reading.

"Almost all the ideas we are exposed to come from Jews"

hey, your making a good case for jews actually being superior. Yes I do. They are the Master Race. Presumably you havnt paid any attention to the non jews. Oh, looks like you havnt. Was Jung a jew? Or Keynes? Or Smith? Or Stalin? Jews promote homosexuality? i can point you in the direction of several homosexuals on this forum wholl categorically deny that "jews" promote homosexuality. Instead, theyll say its homosexuals that do. Jung was a Jew. Stalin may have been, he changed his name from a Jewish sounding one.
With their Hollywood/mass media empire, they have been a prime mover of ideas. They have portrayed homosexuals as victims and given it legitimacy.

Just go away and get a life. Or go join Al Aqsa or something, then youd get to kill jews for real.I might go away, but reality won't. You might as well confront reality directly and logically, it's far better than denial.

Well, lets see. Firstly, what would a study of blacks and hispanics in the upper echelons of hollywood or say american business corps show? That they arent very well represented?

"Why do they get laws passed to prevent anyone from debating it?"
Most arguments about this ive come across, what has happened is the jews and suporters got fed up trying to batter facts into peoples skulls. they hardly need a law to support it, but if you only allow sensible laws to be considered, the gvt would be redundant.

'They have portrayed homosexuals as victims and given it legitimacy."

Presumably youve read the old testament? Where it hints and talks about homosexuals being evil?

Anyway, your version of reality is clearly so different from mine is no use talking about it any more.

The theory of comparative advantage illustrates that the opposite will make every country worse off -- even those countries that are large enough to be self sufficient.

hey persol gave you been playing too much zelda? its just your little symbol looks a little masonic, which would help explain why your so favorable to the idea, and zelda's the only other place ive seen it.
if not then never mind. but anyway globalization in my opinion is the absolute worst thing that can ever happen so my vote is no. with the people that are running the show running it like they are, we are all screwed. badly. look at howmany people in the country,(u.s.), that are so oblivious to what is acually going on. by the time every one gets their heads disslodged from their asses our environment is going to colapse just in time to bitch slap the piss out of em.
sure some cultures and communities arent efected by the elite, but i bet you a million bucks they will be once theyre exposed to it. there is always greedy people that will want to be apart of the elite and those people are at the top of their communities. its great that they dont care who gets screwed as long as they got fat pockets. the more people there are the less freedom i get so fu*k globalization.

Although I don't beleive in evil Jewish conspiracies or ZOG, Travis' conclusions are correct. Much of the problems we face today are direct consequence of middle eastern religions.

Judeo-Christianity is an otherworldly religion. It's reasoning is not found in the empirical world but in abstractions with no objective grounding. JC dualizes reality into concepts of good and evil, meaningless and unnatural labels. Christians preach the importance of forgetting 'wordly' matters, removing man from nature (the satanic element). When religion broke down during the industrial revolution, pure pragmatism took over, creating a vacuum for mindless materialism without any concern for cultural continuity or environmental preservation. These religions are nihilism. I would also point out that Jews really are very nepotistic and highly ethnocentric, meaning they have the same intents as a community.

For reason at all here a defination of Globalization I found at a site.
Question: What is the truest definition of Globalization?

Answer: Princess Diana's death.

Question: How come?

Answer: An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, driving a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whiskey, followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles, treated by an American doctor, using Brazilian medicines!And this is sent to you by an American, using Bill Gates' technology Which he enjoyed stealing from the Japanese. And you are probably reading this on one of the IBM clones that use Taiwanese-made chips, and Korean-made monitors, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Singapore plant, transported by lorries driven by Indians, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, trucked by Mexican illegal aliens, and finally sold to you.

That, my friend, is Globalization! Finally, an explanation in English

:D:D:D

Good one psycho! I don't think anyone will argue that globalization has not occurred. :)

As long as its not a totalitarian government, its a good thing

Globalization is, IMHO, neither bad nor good.

Free trade is a good thing, allows for folks to get jobs and for consumers to get cheap goods. If we could get the western gov'ts to cut agricultural subsidies we could see a lot more growth in places like Africa.

Economic liberaliztion is a good thing, but it needs to be a controlled and gradual process. GO to fast and you pull an Argentina. But as Japan and South Korea have shown, its possible to become a real economic power with a liberal, open economy.

I cant remember what issue it was, but Foreign Polciy magaize did a intresting little article on how small nations could use globalization to their advantage to perserve their cultures and identity. A bit counter-intutive buts thats why it was an intresting article.

I'll have to look for that link...

I'll have to look for that link...

Welcome to sci mhallex and please do find that article if you can, that would be greatly appreciated.

hey you i was wondering if you could help me on an essay on canadian foreign aid? :confused: ..it would be awesome if you could..anyways get back to me...ciao!

I think that globalization is good for those economies who are already open and friendly to international markets. But on the other hand, it is devestation for the many LDCs who are just starting to experience the joys of stable capitalist economics, but are being undercut by already established economies in other countries that produce the same goods as they (the LDCs) do, but for cheaper. I would guess that developing countries will soon start to mount anti-globalization sentiment inside the UN and the WTO, so they can build their economies up at some expense to the already developed economies.

Article Source: BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Article Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3755375.stm
Article Title: "Trade 'not easing' poor's plight," by Imogen Foulkes
Article Date: May 27, 2004

The world's least developed nations are not benefiting as they should from globalisation, a UN report says.

Although poorer nations were showing encouraging signs of growth, their populations were not seeing the advantages of it, the report says.

It says poverty remains a mass phenomenon, and international trade - which should contribute to poverty reduction - has not really done so.

The report was issued by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.

Comment:

None really, at this time. This is one of those superficial ideas that isn't nearly as simple as it seems. Mostly FYI.

But note that the UN did not condemn globalization; it maintains that it is a positive force if used correctly:

The whole process needs to be clarified and national and international trade policies co-ordinated so that trade can truly become an instrument for relieving poverty.

Trade is an instrument to relieve poverty, and it has been doing that in states like India, and China. This process is going to take decades to actually start working. Note that the countries mentioned: Angola, Sudan, Cambodia and Yemen were all fmr. Socialist states (except for Sudan, which is now ruled by Islamists) were based on the Soviet model. They haven't had the same amount of time to change successfully into fully functioning capitalist states. Also they don't have nearly enough FDI to make them relevant states to accurately represent Globalization. LDC’s will benefit from the growth of the 3rd world’s economies when they start investing in their own “Banana Republics”.

I want to see how ppl react to globalization with the recent craze of anti-globalization going on around the US. I want to see why ppl support/oppose Globalization. Is Globalization in your mind a good or bad thing? And for who? Remember Globalization has its victims and its winners.

Globalization is both inevitable and a Good Thing. The capitalist economy relies on new markets. As new markets open up, established corporations move in, exploit the available resources, and return the finished product to their wealthy host nations. However, as a consequence of this exploitation, an industrial and economic infrastructure is established which, over time, allows the new market to mature and grow wealthy, becoming itself an old market.

This in turn brings higher standards of living, and conversely higher operating costs, driving employers to seek new markets elsewhere. And thus the cycle continues, self perpetuating.

Without a frontier market for the economy to expand into, it will stagnate. Operating costs continuously grow at a rate directly proportional to the local standard of living (because a higher standard of living necesitates higher wages and better jobs to sustain itself). Which means, eventually and without a new market, the standard of living must plateau or even regress to accomodate cheaper production and preserve the industrial base.

As for those who argue that there will one day be no "new markets," bringing an end to the capitalist system, you underestimate both the integrity of the open market and the human penchant for unfettered expansion. There will always be exploitable regions. Even assumeing a theoretical geographic limit (the world), once the entire globe has benefited from globalization and exploitation, the definition of "new market" will shift. That is, our notion of an impoverished, cheap labor force will change from, say, present day Chinese living conditions to, say, present day Canadian living expenses. To accomodate this, prices and inflation will have to go up, and the growth rates will have to go down, of course. And to allow for such drastic economic change, the social regulations which old markets are so fond of to protect their higher standards of living will have to be rolled back. But this is acceptable.

"What proof do you have that 5.2 million Jews died in WW2?"

For proof of Jewish deaths in WW2, see the thread on this same subject in the Religion forum. For the record, it shames me that anyone could graduate high school and demand such things.

"have been the promoters of communism, extreme capitalism, materialism, pornography, race mixing (for gentiles), homosexuality, all the Middle East wars America has been involved in, The Bolshevik revolution and 'globalization'."

Promoting "race mixing," regardless of whether one can logically suggest such assertions came from a single ethnic group, is a bad thing?

Jews are the promoters of extreme capitalism, eh? You mention Rand, which leads me to believe your not much of a student of hers. Reality is, she was a philosopher. Capitalism was a part of her philosophy, but what she proposed was a Guide to Life. Were the true capitalists (Smith, Locke, et al) Jews?

Its unfortunate that the same ethnic group that proposed the Bolshevik revolution were both its scapegoat and greatest victim.

The earliest confirmed instances of pornography date back to the earliest human civilizations. And predate Judaism.

"at least he has demonstated that the Jews control the mass media and you have not attempted to disprove it. "

It certainly is true that, of the top ten media institutions in the United States, seven are operated by Jewish Chief Executives. However, this still puts you a loooong way from establishing that they somehow "control the mass media." And for the record, the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. The inability to disprove an assertion is not evidence for the validity of that assertion. Not that Im suggesting thats the case here.

"I don't read the Koran or Old Testament because I'm an athiest. I have not found or experienced anything from those religions that I find anywhere as offensive and threatening as Talmudism."

You explain that you haven't read the Jewish, Islamic, or Christian holy books, and then go on to conclude that you haven't found anything of merit (or offsense) within. Well no sh*t Sherlock. It's hard to find the buried treasure without digging the hole. I find it quite amusing that one can find "Talmudism," or Orthodox Judaism, threatening without heaving read the Talmud nor the Old Testament. What, exactly, scares you so? Your own ignorance?

Talk2farley,
The promotion of race-mixing, regardless of whether or not you like it, has strategic value.
Racial purity serves a purpose. It enables a group of people to unite against those who might oppose them and do so with some degree of loyalty and little probability of infiltration. This is precisely why organized Jewry promotes it for gentiles and not for themselves.

Perhaps some of the original promoters of capitalism were not Jews, but the current promoters of almost all ideas are almost always Jewish. This has been true for 50+ years. They play both sides. Divide and conquer. During their era of media dominance, they have been the major prime movers of ideas.

If you agree with my assertions about Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution, how can you call them scapegoats? How can you call them the greatest victims of it when they systematically starved millions of Hungarians?

To understand media control, you need to have a grasp of the dynamics of power. It is quite easy to control the mass media just by having CEO's in place. Virtually all the major networks in the US are Jewish controlled. Not 80%, not 90%.....ALL. What better way to keep secrets and influence politicians and elections. They have simply circumvented Democracy. They have the power of suggestion, scrutiny, censorship and smear. Having positioned themselves this way is a smoking gun. This has enabled them to forment wars as desired as recent examples show.

Here are some Tamudic quotes, does Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or Buddism have scriptures as psycopathic as this?



Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.

Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.

Iore Dea (198, 48). -- Clean female jews contaminated meeting Christians.

Kerithuth (6b p. 78) -- jews called men, Christians not called men.

Makkoth (7b) -- Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.

Orach Chaiim(225, 10) -- Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.

Midrasch Talpioth 225 -- Christians created to minister to jews always.

Orach Chaiim 57, 6a -- Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.

Zohar II (64b) -- Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.

Kethuboth (110b). -- Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.

Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. -- Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of beast.

Kethuboth (3b) -- The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.

Kidduschim (68a) -- Christians like the people of an ass.

Eben Haezar (44,8) -- Marriages between Christian and jews null.

Zohar (II, 64b) -- Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.

Zohar (I, 28b) -- Christian idolators children of Eve¹s serpent.

Zohar (I, 131a) -- Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.

Emek Haschanach(17a) -- Non-jews¹ souls come from death and death¹s shadow.

Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) -- Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.

Rosch Haschanach(17a) -- Non-jews souls go down to hell.

Iore Dea (337, 1). -- Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.

Iebhammoth (61a) -- jews called men, but not Christians called men.

Abhodah Zarah (14b) T -- Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians

Abhodah Zarah (78) -- Christian churches are places of idolatry.

Iore Dea (142, 10) -- Must keep far away physically from churches.

Iore Dea (142, 15) -- Must not listen to church music or look at idols

Iore Dea (143, 1) -- Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.

Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) -- jews must not resell broken chalices to Christians.

Chullin (91b) -- jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.

Sanhedrin, 58b -- To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.

Chagigah, 15b -- A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.

Gittin (62a) -- Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.

Choschen Ham. (26,1) -- Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.

Choschen Ham (34,19) -- Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.

Iore Dea (112, 1). -- Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.

Abhodah Zarah (35b) -- Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.

Iore dea (178, 1) -- Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.

Abhodah Zarah (72b) -- Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.

Iore Dea (120, 1) -- Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.

Abhodah Zarah (2a) -- For three days before Christian festivals, avoid all.

Abhodah Zarah (78c) -- Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as idolatry.

Iore Dea (139, 1) -- Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.

Abhodah Zarah (14b) -- Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.

Iore Dea (151,1) H. -- Do not sell water to Christians articles for baptisms.

Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) -- Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.

Abhodah Zarah (1,2) -- Now permitted to trade with Christians on such days.

Abhodah Zarah (2aT) -- Trade with Christians because they have money to pay.

Iore Dea (148, 5) -- If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.

Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) -- Send gifts to Christians only if they are irreligious.

Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) -- Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because dangerous.

Iore Dea (153, 1 H) -- Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.

Iore Dea (155,1). -- Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.

Peaschim (25a) -- Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.

Iore Dea (156,1) -- Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by jews.

Abhodah Zarah (26a). -- Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.

Zohar (1,25b) -- Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.

Hilkoth Akum (X,6) -- Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.

Iore Dea (148, 12H) -- Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.

Abhodah Zarah (20a) -- Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.

Iore Dea (151,14) -- Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.

Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) -- Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian god.

Iore Dea (146, 15) -- Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.

Iore Dea (147,5) -- Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.

Hilkoth Akum (X,5) -- No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.

Iore Dea (151,11) -- Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.

Iore Dea (335,43) -- Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.

Iore Dea (154,2) -- Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian

Babha Bathra (54b) -- Christian property belongs to first person claiming.

Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Keep what Christian overpays in error.

Choschen Ham(226,1) -- Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.

Babha Kama (113b) -- It is permitted to deceive Christians.

Choschen Ham(183,7) -- jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.

Choschen Ham(156,5) -- jews must not take Christian customers from jews.

Iore Dea (157,2) H -- May deceive Christians that believe Christian tenets.

Abhodah Zarah (54a) --Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.

Iore Dea (159,1) -- Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.

Babha Kama (113a) -- Jew may lie and perjur to condemn a Christian.

Babha Kama (113b) -- Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.

Kallah (1b, p.18) -- Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.

Schabbouth Hag. (6d). -- jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.

Zohar (1,160a). -- jews must always try to deceive Christians.

Iore Dea (158,1) -- Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.

Orach Cahiim (330,2) -- Do not assist Christian¹s childbirth on Saturday.

Choschen Ham.(425,5) -- Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.

Iore Dea (158,1) -- Christians not enemies must not be saved either.

Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.

Choschen Ham(386,10) -- A spy may be killed even before he confesses.

Abhodah Zorah (26b) -- Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.

Choschen Ham(388,15) -- Kill those who give Israelites¹ money to Christians

Sanhedrin (59a) -- 'Prying into jews¹ "Law" to get death penalty

Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized jews are to be put to death

Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. -- Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.

Choschen Ham(425,5) -- Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.

Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 -- Christians and others deny the "Law" of the Torah.

Zohar (I,25a) -- Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.

Zohar (II,19a) -- Captivity of jews end when Christian princes die.

Zohar (I,219b) -- Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.

Obadiam -- When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.

Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. -- "Even the best of the Goim should be killed."

Sepher Or Israel 177b -- If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.

Ialkut Simoni (245c) -- Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.

Zohar (II, 43a) -- Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.

Zohar (L,28b,39a) -- High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.

Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) -- Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians

Isn't globalization a new word for colonialism?

The fact is that the western economy depends on inequality between the 'western world' and the 'rest'. There can be no fair relationship. Basically the economic muscle of the western world has to dominate the entire world in order to give us our consumer society. Interestingly the 'defense' budget of the US is used to inforce globalization where necessary. 'If you don't like the rules imposed by the west you will suffer' is the basic message/rule of globalization.

Isn't globalization a new word for colonialism?

I think you mean imperialism, but I personally don’t buy that line of argumentation too much. Yes for weaker states like those of Central America, or Africa Globalization is very much a neo-imperialism. But the anti-imperialists of these regions have largely failed in their endeavors for economic autarky.

The fact is that the western economy depends on inequality between the 'western world' and the 'rest'. There can be no fair relationship. Basically the economic muscle of the western world has to dominate the entire world in order to give us our consumer society.

In the shortsighted sense that is true but in a long term view on the situation tells us of a more important more to the story of Globalization. The Western markets are already exploited to their fullest extent, I mean Germany, and Switzerland can only grow so much economically. What the capitalist economy is doing is a massive re-organization of the world’s wealth in two directions. Firstly more money will be put into the hands of the rich, there is no doubt. Secondly the rest of the wealth will have to go to nations like China, India; Brazil not only is their potential markets virtually non-exploitable, they easily replace the shrinking markets of Europe, and North America. If the rich want to stay rich they need to exploit new markets, and make them.

Globalization is is very much like corporate colonialism/imperialism or whatever you want to call it.

Globalization has given corporations a power they had never before and took away the power from the people who work for them and have to live near them.

Globalization meant that regulations beneficial for employees lost their power. If a company thinks that the control it too tight, or the unions have too much power they simply move the factory to another country. A country which doesn't have these rules, which doesn't have tight rules on pollution, which doesn't have rules on safety, etc.

Globalization increased inequality. You can believe it or not, but the statistics do not lie.

Globalisation is GOOD, the people who are doing it are BAD.

of course, good and bad are merely polarized labels... but im sure you know what i mean here.

the secret gov'ts and corporations that are trying to make a global network are all doing it for their own financial, monetary, and power GAIN. they will force LAWs upon the innocents who live in mentioned countries, with no option but to fold in to the new world order.

If we could create an honest system between countries, with no lies or cover-ups or black projects, then perhaps Globalisation could be VERY BENEFICIAL to HUMANS in GENERAL, not only the elite.

If we could cooperate in a trustworthy manner I would support Globalisation...

Until then, i OPPOSE globalisation.

But even with opposition the New World Order ("Globalisation") is forming as we speak.

Will you be ready for the changes ?

[Globalization is is very much like corporate colonialism/imperialism or whatever you want to call it.

I know this is going to sound very odd, even I can’t believe I am thinking this. Is that so bad? What was the alternative? Many states cannot sustain anything, let alone a standard of living. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, all developed from imperialism and investment from imperialist powers. I think the problem stems from people’s inability to separate nationalism from economics. Gloablization is the abandonment of these terms like imperialism, nationalism etc.

Globalization has given corporations a power they had never before and took away the power from the people who work for them and have to live near them.

That is true, corporations have done some pretty bad things, but a lot of companies are investing in things like IT, and the service sectors. I wouldn’t call those things necessarily bad. We cannot condemn globalization completely.

If a company thinks that the control it too tight, or the unions have too much power they simply move the factory to another country. A country which doesn't have these rules, which doesn't have tight rules on pollution, which doesn't have rules on safety, etc.

Whose fault is it? Those countries maintain such a low standard for a reason.

Globalization increased inequality. You can believe it or not, but the statistics do not lie.

Show these “stats”?

[i]I know this is going to sound very odd, even I can?t believe I am thinking this. Is that so bad? What was the alternative? Many states cannot sustain anything, let alone a standard of living. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, all developed from imperialism and investment from imperialist powers. I think the problem stems from people?s inability to separate nationalism from economics. Gloablization is the abandonment of these terms like imperialism, nationalism etc.


I hope you do realize that the economical 'development' of sout america was staged by the west (mainly the US) and resulted in multiple genocides. Your cheap consumer items your buy not only cost money and resources, they also cost and have costed lives.

I hope you are also aware that the planet is not big enough to sustain a western consumer society for ALL people in the world. We would need in fact several planets. Do I need to explain the consequences of this? I can repeat one. Our economical system is based (necessarily) on inequality. Labour rights and work regulations are more and more 'liberalized'. Which basically means that the clock is turned back. Precious rights which were fought over by many people for a long time disappear as snow under the sun.

Of course globalizations seems really nice if you live in the west. It also seems very promising. Who doesn't like to watch an add for a shiny new car. Too bad not everybody can afford it. Too bad it would be impossible for everybody to actually have a car (resourcewise).

hope you do realize that the economical 'development' of sout america was staged by the west (mainly the US) and resulted in multiple genocides.

Being from South America (the Southern Cone more specifically) I can tell you that the dictatorships in the continent had really much more to do with the stop of the “communist menace”. In Latin America communism was a very real threat, I abhor what the US did there and I believe the people of the continent should have had a right to self-determination. The only nation who opened up during those dictatorships was Chile with her neo-liberalist reforms. Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil only started in the 90’s and the recent patch has been very painful.

Your cheap consumer items your buy not only cost money and resources, they also cost and have costed lives.

They haven’t that is hyperbolic in its assumptions. The opening up of the major Latin American states has been brought about by the democratization of the countries in the 90’s. Latin America under those dictators were fascist, and they don’t like open markets.

I hope you are also aware that the planet is not big enough to sustain a western consumer society for ALL people in the world.

I don’t think that is the eventual goal of globalization, the goal is to increase profits. Now in order to that we need to make new markets, and leave the old ones behind. The 1st world will begin to suffer from a reorientation of markets; capital will begin to flow to those nations. Globalization is imo natural, capitalism for all its icky-ness is a self-regulating system like that of nature. Since here in the West, our populations are beginning to shrink (as a result of our material wealth) the same should occur in these new nations, and their population growth slow, and the process starts all over again. I am not calling for anarcho-capitalism here, but I do not believe that individual govts can do much if anything, we need a collective organization to deal with the corporate power of the future.

Our economical system is based (necessarily) on inequality. Labour rights and work regulations are more and more 'liberalized'. Which basically means that the clock is turned back. Precious rights which were fought over by many people for a long time disappear as snow under the sun.

I don’t disagree with that statement, yes worker rights is a significant portion of the problem. But are we going to deny these people jobs so they can starve instead? There should be local standards (forced by the UN/G8) which finds the appropriate amount of money that a person needs to survive in state x, and a corp. that breaks that law (UN resolution/g8 resolution) will get a fine. Yes capitalism is based on inequality, every system in practice is. Even our own family structure is bias, and unequal in terms of its hierarchical structure. I don’t see why you would be so angsty, I mean are you wiling to take $30,000 pay cut for equality?

of course globalizations seems really nice if you live in the west. It also seems very promising. Who doesn't like to watch an add for a shiny new car. Too bad not everybody can afford it. Too bad it would be impossible for everybody to actually have a car (resourcewise).

That’s why China’s car market is growing up to 16% per annum? I suggest you look up some stats to substantiate your argument.

I don?t disagree with that statement, yes worker rights is a significant portion of the problem. But are we going to deny these people jobs so they can starve instead? There should be local standards (forced by the UN/G8) which finds the appropriate amount of money that a person needs to survive in state x, and a corp. that breaks that law (UN resolution/g8 resolution) will get a fine. Yes capitalism is based on inequality, every system in practice is. Even our own family structure is bias, and unequal in terms of its hierarchical structure. I don?t see why you would be so angsty, I mean are you wiling to take $30,000 pay cut for equality?

I only make about 15,000 a year. Of course, that doesn't mean sh.i.t because I don't have a contract. In fact my boss informed me yesterday that she will only pay me for june and july and then I can fuck off.

anyhoo, inequality has actually increased in last decades not decreased because of globalization. Not only in 'the third world' countries but also in the west.

A Quote from 'Upside down world', by Eduardo Galeano (you probably heard of him if you are from south america)

'Consumerism has been imposed bit by bit, year by year, ever since Hawker Hunter jets bombed Salvador Allende's presidential palace in 1973 and General Augusto Pinochet inaugurated the era of the miracle. A quarter of a century later, the New York Times explained that it was the "coup that began Chile's transformation from a backwater banana republic to the economic star of Latin America." On how many Chileans does that star shine? One-fourth of the population lives in absolute poverty and, as Christian democratic senator Jorge Lavandero has pointed out, the hundred richest Chileans earn more in a year than the entire state budget for social services. U.S. journalist Marc Cooper found quite a few imposters in the paradise of consumption: Chileans who roast in their cars rather than roll down the windows and reveal that they have no air-conditioning, or who talk on toy cellular phones, or who use credit cards to buy potatoes or a pair of pants in twelve monthly installments.'





That?s why China?s car market is growing up to 16% per annum? I suggest you look up some stats to substantiate your argument.

One swallow doesn't make summer. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to asume everybody can have a car and drive it. You can disagree with that of course. If you have some statistics that show that everybody can have a car on this planet and drive it around at leasure.

And another quote from Galeano, because he says it better than I ever could:

'The leaders who promise to take the countries of the South into the first world by an act of magic that will turn us all into prosperous subjects of the kingdom of waste ought to be tried for fraud and as accessories to a crime. For fraud because they promise the impossible; if we all consumed like those who are squeezing the earth dry, we'd have no world left. And as accessories to a crime because the lifestyle they promote - the huge orgasm of delirious consumption they call happiness - sickens our bodies, poisons our souls, and leaves us without the home the world wished to become long before it existed.'

(no links because they don't exist. Buy the book.)

anyhoo, inequality has actually increased in last decades not decreased because of globalization. Not only in 'the third world' countries but also in the west.

Inequality in Latin America is as common as the air we breathe. Were I am from income distribution is pretty evenly spilt, so I don’t see much of the same divisions in capital and labour. Brazil who hasn’t really even started to open up has always been the most unequal of all states. 80% of the land is owned by 5% of the population. Inequality is Latin America is institutionalized, and racial. Being from the region I can tell you racism there is widespread, being a white Latin American, I see the racism all the time against the mestizos, and natives of the continent. Inequality in the region is centuries old, and Latin America like North America has been cursed by the pains of the past.

'Consumerism has been imposed bit by bit, year by year, ever since Hawker Hunter jets bombed Salvador Allende's presidential palace in 1973 and General Augusto Pinochet inaugurated the era of the miracle. A quarter of a century later, the New York Times explained that it was the "coup that began Chile's transformation from a backwater banana republic to the economic star of Latin America." On how many Chileans does that star shine? One-fourth of the population lives in absolute poverty and, as Christian democratic senator Jorge Lavandero has pointed out, the hundred richest Chileans earn more in a year than the entire state budget for social services. U.S. journalist Marc Cooper found quite a few imposters in the paradise of consumption: Chileans who roast in their cars rather than roll down the windows and reveal that they have no air-conditioning, or who talk on toy cellular phones, or who use credit cards to buy potatoes or a pair of pants in twelve monthly installments.'

This is all true, and obviously disgusting. But what was the alternative? Socialist economic measure like autarky anddependcia has failed horribly. You know why Latin America is worse off then Asia today? Because our govts were fascist, and a fascist govt believes in limiting trade, and by not becoming dependant on foreigners for economic growth. Looking at the Reagan legacy on news 24/7, this globalization has also impacted the US. The rich in the west as well have gotten significantly richer as well, and the middle class is losing influence, thanks to the likes of Reagan. But no one can deny the country is better off today. The reason why Chile is a good example is because the inequality is much worse then in the US, but this is a worldwide phenomenon.

In my opinion, it is unrealistic to asume everybody can have a car and drive it. You can disagree with that of course. If you have some statistics that show that everybody can have a car on this planet and drive it around at leasure.

I am not suggesting that everyone on earth can drive a car, I am anti-car (unless green) quite frankly. I think that we as a world society can have a certain level of development, are you suggesting we should top the reorientation of capital because not everyone can have a car? It seems like Western elitism here.

I hope you are also aware that the planet is not big enough to sustain a western consumer society for ALL people in the world. We would need in fact several planets. Do I need to explain the consequences of this? I can repeat one. Our economical system is based (necessarily) on inequality. Labour rights and work regulations are more and more 'liberalized'. Which basically means that the clock is turned back. Precious rights which were fought over by many people for a long time disappear as snow under the sun.

Of course globalizations seems really nice if you live in the west. It also seems very promisin