If not globalisation, what?

Havent we gone too far down the road of economic globalisation to stop now?
There's no going back but it seems we must be at an impasse, because there is, in the minds of those who advocate globalisation, an ideal that is attainable. Whatever the ideal is there is massive opposition to it.
If we cannot reach globalisation and we cannot retract from globalisation, what is the answer. It has to be an economic solution since globalisation is the epitome of, the world bank, the G8, The Bildeberg group, and other leading summit groups designing the plan for global economic restructure (the new world order). Given their political plans to "socialise" the world into the new economic order are failing, can they still press ahead by railroading in the economic plans- in other words is the plan just to drop us in "at the deep end" and watch us swim for our lives? Or will pressure force the whole globalisation
issue to end and we will return to a more localised politics?

 

Nationalism with global respect....what's wrong with that? Why should we advance an agenda by elite individuals. Why can't the world tell them to adjust?

 

Individual nations are more equipped to know what their communities need, why should we rely on large heartless corporations to guide us. Why are they better equipped to deal with individual communities....they aren't and they never will be, don't buy into their marketing.

 

But one factor in globalisation is the European Union. This is not just an Economic Union (remember its old name was the EEC European Economic Community) It was origonaly set up to prevent war within Europe, that was its prime objective, and to do this it established a Euro-economic structure that tied the economic prospects of one country to the others, a shared economic stage.
Globalisation may help rather than hinder in the longrun. Its not merely about corporations but about how one group of countries mayenrich another group in mutual advantage

 

Then why don't you define a difference between good and bad globalisation. The European Union allows struggling, backwards countries like Estonia to build economic platforms sufficient enough to raise the standard of living and give the people a chance to share in Europe's combined wealth. America's free trade model, seeks to exploit nations where the competition is not balanced to start with....

Both are forms of globalisation - But i agree, if we're going to have any sort of Globalisation at all, let it be done fairly and with consciense.

 

Very true. I don't begin to understand how it works in Europe. I struggle to know how it's manipulated in the States.

 

Well can you define it for me since you are the one who says it can be defined. Isnt it enough that millions of Estonians are now being lifted from poverty?
I mean surely the platform on which the EU has lifted them is the platform which now shows the world Estonia has an economy worthy of corporate finance? Isnt it just one globalisation with some bad side effects and some good side effects? A bit like any other political and economic system?
Also you are wrong about the USA having a "free trade" model, since the USA subsidises its industry heavily to combat competition from Japan, Europe, and China, amongst others. To the extent that Europe and USA came close to economic warfare at one point a few years back in which they were going to impose very heavy tarrifs on goods from the USA that entered Europe to level the playing field

 

I did define it, stop being stupid.

No, they are not one and the same. Free trade and fair trade are entirely different things.

No, I am not wrong. The United States we're forced into such a position by nations which had the wealth and power to reduce the U.S. economic strength. Sadly, third world nations have no such power, do some reading.

In one case, America is the dependent, in the other, developing nations depend on the United States.

There are good and bad side effects, but there are also people, and the decisions they make. Please don't justify bad or unfair decisions under the guise that it is all being perpetrated in the name of a globalisation which will be "good in the long run".

 

If that is a definition then I would hate to see the newspaper you buy or the academic sources you have. er... when you do finish looking at the pictures I'd like to read that newspaper.

Are you saying that America has a different form of globalised economy, that there are two competing theories of globalisation, well that is very odd since both the EU and USA and other countries are right now at the same conferences defining the new world order, the restructuring of the global economy.
America operates a protectionist policy toward its work force. The Unions and bosses said "If you allow cheap imports we lose our industry and jobs because we cannot compete" so the government put up trade barriers to do as they asked - because after all, its the voters that own, and go to work, in them places. I refer you to independent analysis of the situation they are talking about the policies adopted to protect the steel industry, the car industry, the clothing industry, agriculture, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. and how the temperature of the trade war was raised in the first place
http://www.countercurrents.org/eco-castle111103.htm

Tell me if you dont understand it and I will draw some pretty pictures for you. BTW if, as most 22 year olds do, you are merely repeating a few sentiments you overheard your parents or guardian talking about, perhaps you could get him/her interested in Hip Forums, they would probably have a lot more knowledge to add than you. I do prefer my data from the prime source

If you are unsure as to what "trade war" means look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_war

The reason for my being patronising TO YOU is that are incapable of forming an argument I never mentioned FAIR trade - you brought up the issue of FREE trade. No-one but you mentioned poor developing countries
perhaps when you learn to read... ?????????????????
and even better if you learned to formulate a constructed argument

 

If you read into what i'm saying and remove yourself from your over-intellectual high horse for a moment you'd realise there are quite simple sentiments behind what i'm saying. Step back, and look closely.

Give me a little more credit than something that stupid please. Both the EU movement and the Free Trade movement have the same purposes and intentions, you're correct. However, Europe's internal restructuring doesn't share nearly as much global backlash as the Trade agreements occurring between the first and third world, because as far as I see the EU shows little sign of exploitation, better set out laws where loopholes (such as copyright loopholes) can not be taken advantage of, and as whole it has been successful.

I did understand that, but I am struggling to see the point of including that evidence? Don't take this as an attack, but are you saying the EU are just as guilty as backing down on "Free Trade" agreements as the United States. Like I said, in this case, it is between two first world bodies, and seems quite transparent. It doesn't reek of the prentious agreements being made with the third world.

My parents are hardly interested in local, let alone global politics or political issues. My opinions are derived from what I have read. I understand why you would think this though, I haven't attended university for a while and my ability to present specific examples is fast waning the more I work.

I don't doubt your ability to from an argument, but please go back and read over your posts. Your argument is jumbled and all over the place and its very difficult to understand what conclusion you are trying to make. Unlike you i don't patronisingly expect any better because i can see how lazy my own argument is, and i also recognise that this is an internet forum and i'm sure you and I have issues closer to that we may wish to direct our mental energy towards.

 

Basicaly I just object to being called stupid, when I havent insulted anyone in the first place. If you want me to reiterate in a different way I am asking, with a pre-amble as to the background as I see it:
Given that there are people in the world with vast power and wealth who seem to have a vision of a new global economy, and that those people have already taken us some way down toward what they are attempting to put in place. Is it too late to go back? On the one hand you have the economists and politicians trying to put in place a social politics so they can secure the "right" conditions for their economic plans.
On the other hand you have massive opposition, not only in the form of a few radicals taking to the streets of western cities in protest, but whole nations and religious groups outside the west that aren't going to give-way. Much as the west wants a new world order vast numbers of home voters and, countries outside the west are resisting the new world order. Voters in the west are in quiet rebellion, as seen in forums etc. Opposition nations are up in arms. Politically and militarily. So we are at an impasse where either the west must ruthlessly push its changes on us, or it must back down otherwise whats the alternative? Also we cant just go back to how things were, people and western societies have changed too much. Something has to happen but what? I ask because I cannot forsee a world that wants to be in permanent conflict. However I cannot see the rich and powerfull, like the bildeberg group and others, just saying "oh well they dont want corporate capitalism so lets go home and forget our plans"
yet the opposition is so great they will have problems overpowering it.

 

I'm sorry I called you stupid, I just felt you came off condescending but perhaps you didn't mean it.

As for your analogy, the idea that the western corporate world's push for globalisation is some sort of wheel that can't be slowed or stopped is and must be pursued to its logical conclusion is some sort of myth, probably to justify greed. (i'm not saying its your myth)

Why must the west ruthlessly push its changes on everyone else? Its this very question that has billions or socially conscious people up in arms, and why opposition will simply grow, the more they push.

 

Maybe I have fallen for a myth, you are right, but then the world is in such turmoil and war now that we cannot go back. Its not like the west can say, "hey were sorry we upset the entire muslim world, but we've decided to step down and not conquer your land anymore". It seems to be paused in stalemate at the moment and yet we are no better off than before this all began in 2000(ish).
It seems to me the west has to push ahead or step down in its imperialism.
if it moves in a new direction - - well thats what I cant forsee ---- whats the way out? something has to happen because the opposition isnt making it the walkover that the imperialists thought it would be.

 

Its an interesting question. Technically, the imperialists have and still do have their fingers in many dirty businesses - Pro-US oil producing dictatorships, sweatshops in Asia and Mexico, and resistance doesn't seem to be growing and very little seems to be being done about the fact.

What country are you from? All i can say is its difficult to gain an accurate depiction of world events when your nation's media is rapidly being taken over by the pro-corporate, anti free speech Rupert Murdoch...which is occuring in both Australia and the US. This seems to be something that is rapidly gaining power, and rapidly dumbing down the masses. But then again, there is the increasing opposition. More independent newspapers and news services, Journalists rebelling against their own papers, media watchdogs holding their power - Then of course there is the almost fanatical opposition in Eastern Countries, and also the seemingly socially responsible example being set by some European countries, perhaps even Canada.

I'd like to think that it runs in cycles, and soon the people will get fed up, but I would have thought that would have happened in Nazi Germany. Not that i am comparing the two (yet).

 

Here's a solution - first, the USA nationalizes all foreign-held operations in the US. In retaliation, the foreign countries will nationalize the overseas operations of US businesses.

Afterward, we'll tend to our business and they can tend to theirs. Thus stops imperialism and the New World Order, and when we (the US) stop meddling overseas, most likely others will stop meddling here.

 

I agree Gaston, think that's what I promoted on page one.

 

wow ! thats a bit radical, I cant really see the USA becoming a communist country just yet though. Does the USA have any nationalised industry? The UK used to have hundreds of major corporate interests that were nationalised. The scam they pulled off was this.
When the industries were nationalised they were bought by the government for the people using the peoples money. Then when they de-nationalised they sold the industries cheaply to their rich buddies and idiotically those people not only bought back what they already owned but venomously set about to con the rest of us into higher prices, not a single penny of the money the government reaped went toward any social projects.
Socialism doesnt work, nationalising the industries is a con and the USA wouldnt do it oout of principle that they hate any form of socialism

 

Agreed, but you have an idea, and I have an exit plan.

 

True and I am not envisioning all industry nationally owned. But I do think things like utilities and medical services should be regulated in order to provide for the secure provision of services to all at a reasonable price.

 

As previously stated that works well until you have to ask, "who owns these utility companies, and when this policy no longer applies, who will get the benifit of their sale.

I agree with your ideas and there is a massive call in Britain to renationalise certain industries, namely transport and utilities. I absolutely agree with you in principle, but I have also witnessed how the practice of it is corrupt, so unless provision for the future sale of those utilities was written into the law and open to inspection then it would paay to be wary of such a scheme