Are You For globalization or against

[timtofly]

So you're against the system. You've effectively removed yourself from the game. And you can't win the game anymore. (Consider the statement: "I'm against the Cold War." -> lolwut)

The cold war was a standoff. Being against it would not make sense, neither would being for it, since it did not exist. When you can get 6 billion people to agree on the issues without war, then you will have globalization.

 

[Narz]

But the negatives exist with or without globalization, it's just that the way it's integrated into our lives in the west puts as benefactors of it.

Globalized trades makes the incentive (and ability) to exploit much stronger.

 

[Samson]

So are you for globalization or against it and why ?

I think there needs to be a compromise to allow emerging markets to develop, or there needs to be a free market in labour. I would prefer the latter, but the former is more realistic.

 

[Dachs]

Unless you're against the system...

Not enough against it, of course, to abstain from employing it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not enough against it, of course, to abstain from employing it.

I'm a Marxist, not an Anarchist. We get that loophole.

 

[Mansa Musa]

I'm a fan of globalization. Although for the West, manufacturing jobs have been shipped off to poorer nations - this has allowed poorer nations to become richer and to become consumers as well. Bridging the global inequality gap is worth globalization.

 

[Narz]

I'm a fan of globalization. Although for the West, manufacturing jobs have been shipped off to poorer nations - this has allowed poorer nations to become richer and to become consumers as well. Bridging the global inequality gap is worth globalization.

Poor nations have always been consumers. Just that at one point they were able to provide for their own needs instead of being wage slaves for rich countries.

I'd be curious to know how many Africans were starving before the blessed Europeans brought them "globalization" as opposed to now. Of course it's impossible to know statistics on this as much of Africa lacked records but I'd be willing to bet it was far lower, even as a percentage (for those who think percentage is more important than quantity of those in poverty).

 

[Ajidica]

Niether. Globalization has both bad and good effects depending on the countries evolved and the circumstances. Therefore, I am unable to vote in the poll as it lacks an "Depends on the circumstance" option.
Bad poll is bad.

 

[amadeus]

(for those who think percentage is more important than quantity of those in poverty).

Well, it's the only useful way to measure it. Would you rather live in a country of 100 million where 1 million died of hunger or a country of just 1 million where 500,000 died of hunger?

 

[Theige]

Poor nations have always been consumers. Just that at one point they were able to provide for their own needs instead of being wage slaves for rich countries.

I'd be curious to know how many Africans were starving before the blessed Europeans brought them "globalization" as opposed to now. Of course it's impossible to know statistics on this as much of Africa lacked records but I'd be willing to bet it was far lower, even as a percentage (for those who think percentage is more important than quantity of those in poverty).

The population of Africa has exploded since Europeans "brought them" globalization.

It's hard to have a population explosion if a higher percentage of people are starving.

 

[Narz]

Well, it's the only useful way to measure it. Would you rather live in a country of 100 million where 1 million died of hunger or a country of just 1 million where 500,000 died of hunger?

How about 50,000 where 15 died of hunger?

I mean if I get to choose.

The population of Africa has exploded since Europeans "brought them" globalization.

It's hard to have a population explosion if a higher percentage of people are starving.

Not really, I'd be willing to be the countries with the most starvation also have some of the highest growth rates.

Rolleyes doesn't make your opinion right.

 

[Mansa Musa]

Poor nations have always been consumers. Just that at one point they were able to provide for their own needs instead of being wage slaves for rich countries.

I'd be curious to know how many Africans were starving before the blessed Europeans brought them "globalization" as opposed to now. Of course it's impossible to know statistics on this as much of Africa lacked records but I'd be willing to bet it was far lower, even as a percentage (for those who think percentage is more important than quantity of those in poverty).

Narz, which period of globalization are you writing about? 19th Century colonialism or the globalization we are experiencing today?

 

[Jabarto]

I'm against it, but the real reason I posted is that this

If it's China or any form of Islam, you can forget it.

made my day. It's like the pure, distilled essence of conservatism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oops, missed this...

So you're against the system. You've effectively removed yourself from the game. And you can't win the game anymore.

Who said anything about "winning the game"? I'm for changing "the game" altogether.

(Consider the statement: "I'm against the Cold War." -> lolwut)

 

[Narz]

Narz, which period of globalization are you writing about? 19th Century colonialism or the globalization we are experiencing today?

They are/were both globalization. Only difference now is those at the run of the game have a more moral appearing attitude towards it. Outright slavery is replaced with wage slavery, genocide is replaced with the destruction of culture (including land/natural resources if it is convenient, profitable or useful), etc.

Who said anything about "winning the game"? I'm for changing "the game" altogether.

That's a good way to explain my views as well (about many things).

 

[amadeus]

genocide is replaced with the destruction of culture (including land/natural resources if it is convenient, profitable or useful), etc.

I agree with this. Cultures should be static and never change.

 

[Theige]

How about 50,000 where 15 died of hunger?

I mean if I get to choose.


Not really, I'd be willing to be the countries with the most starvation also have some of the highest growth rates.

Rolleyes doesn't make your opinion right.

So you think an individual country can have both a higher percentage of its population starve to death and have a higher population growth rate than it had previously?

Just to be clear on your position.

 

[Traitorfish]

They are/were both globalization. Only difference now is those at the run of the game have a more moral appearing attitude towards it. Outright slavery is replaced with wage slavery, genocide is replaced with the destruction of culture (including land/natural resources if it is convenient, profitable or useful), etc.

They've also switched out political imperialism for economic imperialism- the domination of developing nations by Western capital under the guise of national self-determination- which seems to make this continuity unobvious to many people. That is, I suppose, the idea.

I agree with this. Cultures should be static and never change.

There's a difference between evolution and destruction.

 

[classical_hero]

Globalisation can be both good an bad. That is why we need strong governments to regulate globalisation to make sure that any negative effects of it lessened as much as possible.

 

[Hygro]

Globalization benefits me because I am a dynamic, educated individual. I am also young. If I were old with a family and a mortgage and only a high school diploma, it wouldn't be to my benefit.