Whats everyones thoughts on Globalisation ?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 28, 2006
105
10
0
43
#1
Here are some aspects of Globalisation:

# Industrial (alias trans nationalization) - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies. Particularly movement of material and goods between and within transnational corporations, and access to goods by wealthier nations and individuals at the expense of poorer nations and individuals who supply the labour.


# Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for corporate, national and subnational borrowers. Simultaneous though not necessarily purely globalist is the emergence of under or un-regulated foreign exchange and speculative markets leading to inflated wealth of investors and artificial inflation of commodities, goods, and in some instances entire nations as with the Asian economic boom-bust that was brought on externally by "free" trade.

# Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.

# Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, the People's Republic of China has experienced some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. The European Union, Russian Federation and India are among the other already-established world powers which may have the ability to influence future world politics.

# Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations. Arguably this is a technological change with the advent of fibre optic communications, satellites, and increased availability of telephony and Internet, possibly ancillary or unrelated to the globalist ideology.

# Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"; loss of languages (and corresponding loss of ideas), also see Transformation of culture

# Social - increased circulation by people of all nations with fewer restrictions. Provided that the people of those nations are wealthy enough to afford international travel, which the majority of the world's population is not. An illusory 'benefit' recognized by the elite and wealthy, and increasingly so as fuel and transport costs rise.

# Transportation - fewer and fewer European cars on European roads each year (the same can also be said about American cars on American roads) and the death of distance through the incorporation of technology to decrease travel time.[clarify] This would appear to be a technological advancement recognized by those who work in information, rather than labour intensive markets, accessible to the few rather than the many, and if it is indeed an effect of globalism, reflects the disproportionate inequitable allocation of resources rather than a benefit to humanity overall.
# International cultural exchange

* Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies). However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures has taken place over most of Asia for many centuries. Arguably the hegemonic efects of globalism and homogenization of culture as the capitalist globalist economy becomes the "only" way that countries may participate through the IMF and World Bank leads to a destruction rather than an appreciation of differences in culture.
* Greater international travel and tourism for the few who can afford international travel and tourism.
* Greater immigration, including illegal immigration, except for those countries around the world including the UK, Canada, and the United States who have in 2008 accelerated removal of illegal migrants and modified laws to increase the ease of removing those who have entered the country illegally, while ensuring that immigration policies allow those more favourable to the stimulation of economy to enter, primarily focusing on the capital that immigrants can move into a country with them.
* Spread of local consumer products (e.g. food) to other countries (often adapted to their culture) including genetically modified organisms. A new and novel feature of the globalist growth economy is the birth of the licensed seed which will only be viable for one season and can not be replanted in a subsequent season - ensuring a captive market to a corporation. Entire nations may have their food supply controlled by a company successful in implementing such GMOs potentially through World Bank or IMF loan conditions.
* World-wide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol series, YouTube, Orkut, Facebook, and MySpace. Accessible to those who have Internet or Television, leaving out a substantial segment of the Earth's population.
 
Mar 28, 2006
105
10
0
43
#2
My opinion:

I dont mind economy and political(except for this World Government thing) and Technical...

But Social- and Cultural Globalisation , im totally against.
To me it seems like this group of internationalists are shaping the world according to their own understanding and wishes. The way they promote a new sub -culture every five years.. Fuck them

Also keep in mind that these people created the two World wars to promote their idea of World Government !!
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#3
Where'd you get that bullshit?

Golbalization is a good thing.

International Neoliberalism (what most people confuse for globalization) is the problem.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#5
LOL
sure ask anyone that worked in Flint Michigan or other towns how globalization has helped them.

I see what your saying Mr. Rictus, but it sounds pompous to an extent to think americans losing their jobs is good.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#7
does murderdog magazine count as a book? if so, then the answer is still no.

globalization is the boot stamping on a human face - forever.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#9
We'll add you to that list of people that doesn't know the difference GTS.

God damn does anyone in here pick up a book, ever?
From Wiki:

Anti-globalization is a pejorative term used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose the neoliberal version of globalization.

And yes, I am against neoliberal globalization. However, globalization is good. I think that people only think of globalization at an economical stand point, when it is a general term for combing local and foerign culture and technology among other things.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#10
Nigger is a Pejorative too. So by your implied statment above it would also be useful for us to discribe all african-american people as Niggers because it is an accurate discription of a people. We know what the pejorative term means, but that does not mean it is true. No?


The problem with that argument (and the inaccuracy of the pejorative) is you can have economic globalization that is not neo-liberal. For example you could have socialist globalization.

Being opposed to neo-liberalism does not necessarily (usually never) make one anti-globalization.

Globalization does not have to be at the expense of sovereignty nor subjugate one country to the power of another.

For example it is my belief is that a globalized economic system that encourages sustainability and the elimination of class divisions with globally integrated trade, healthcare, education, defense, etc would be for the betterment of all countries and should be strived for.

The term globalization has become a catch phrase that people use to describe global neo-liberal economics, but in no means is it accurate or do any justice to alternative forms of globalization that are quite positive.

It may be easier to say anti-globalization than neo-liberalism, but it muddies the waters significantly to the point where people from opposite belief systems can be paired together. Leftists and right-wing xenophobes can fall under the umbrella of anti-globalization, yet on more specific terms they are no where near aligned.

By labeling someone as myself anti-globalization just because I oppose neo-liberalism puts me in a category with Pat Buchanan & Ron Paul types who are also anti-globalization, but for very different reasons. Not to mention I oppose a specific type of globalization not globalization in general. See how that causes a problem?

People who know what’s up distinguish between the two.

And yes, I am against neoliberal globalization. However, globalization is good. I think that people only think of globalization at an economical stand point, when it is a general term for combing local and foerign culture and technology among other things.
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#11
Nigger is a Pejorative too. So by your implied statment above it would also be useful for us to discribe all african-american people as Niggers because it is an accurate discription of a people. We know what the pejorative term means, but that does not mean it is true. No?
Ummm...apperantly you didnt comprehend my post very well.

From Wiki:

Anti-globalization is a pejorative term used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose the neoliberal version of globalization.

And yes, I am against neoliberal globalization. However, globalization is good. I think that people only think of globalization at an economical stand point, when it is a general term for combing local and foerign culture and technology among other things.
The definiation of anti-globalization was not in my own words, they were Wikipedia's. I was simply BACKING up what you stated with a reference for those getting it confused.
 
Jan 17, 2008
487
0
0
42
#13
Globalization is a very powerful tool. Its going to make many business people rich (like myself) this way while most people are still living in America while th country goes to shit. I will be on beach just relaxing and working on my business.
 
Jan 17, 2008
487
0
0
42
#15
Shit I dont know. An American dream used to be house, good job, and a family. Thats different from what I want to do. i want to get rich so I can help other people and travel the world to see how other countries live.
 
Mar 28, 2006
105
10
0
43
#17
Shit I dont know. An American dream used to be house, good job, and a family. Thats different from what I want to do. i want to get rich so I can help other people and travel the world to see how other countries live.
But see, Globalisation also brings an "americanasation" with it. Which means the whole world is going to be like the United States(Society and culture wise).

Just compare South Korea with North Korea(not their governments) then ull see what I mean.
 
Jun 27, 2003
2,457
10
0
37
#20
But see, Globalisation also brings an "americanasation" with it. Which means the whole world is going to be like the United States(Society and culture wise).

Just compare South Korea with North Korea(not their governments) then ull see what I mean.
can you expand on what you're speakin about comparing North and South Korea?