TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Globalization

Globalization

Your thoughts on it?

Is it ushering in a new age of uniformity for mankind, or is it Western exploitation of poor countries?

Is it the expansion of technology to advance society as a whole, or is it technology making slaves of the third world?

How should we go about it? Should we go about it?

i think globalisation is good, i also think that tarrifs should be illegal, free trade world wide is the only way to help poor countries to become rich ones. i also hope that EU will stop with their fucking farmer substitutes soon, to do that, i'm afraid someone has to nuke france.

globalization is also a good way to prevent rasism.

the downsides of globalization is that it can be used wrong, eg big companies can use third world country labour as slaves... to prevent this US and EU have to take their responisbilitys....

Re: Globalization

quote:

Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit Your thoughts on it? Is it ushering in a new age of uniformity for mankind, or is it Western exploitation of poor countries? Is it the expansion of technology to advance society as a whole, or is it technology making slaves of the third world? How should we go about it? Should we go about it?

IMO its a mix of both. exploitation of poor countries happens alot, more than people would probaly admit in the states, but we also give alot of loans/donations to massive amounts of countries. on the technology side, one example may be a national id. some believe its big brother will be looking after people, destroying some civil liberties and freedom, while others believe its to a good idea to protect the country from terrorist/illegals. then theres the situation of machines taking over human jobs. i agree with st_andrew on countries/orginaztions taking responsibility, but some times corporations/lobby groups buy out the government/leaders and ignore/avoid the wrong doings, just look at the oil industry

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i also hope that EU will stop with their fucking farmer substitutes soon, to do that, i'm afraid someone has to nuke france.

someone please enlighten me on this subject, is this about the genetically modified foods?

Re: Re: Globalization

quote:

Originally posted by rizen someone please enlighten me on this subject, is this about the genetically modified foods?

No it's not about genetically modified foods, it's about half of European Union's budget going to farmers in south europe. and there is no way you can protect the reasons of it. the production is waaaaay to big and we don't even know what to do about all this food, some food is even burned and used in energy purpose, most is sold to extremly low prices in third world countries and therefore the domestic farmers in the third world coutries don't have a fair chance.

if it wasn't for france (of course italy, spain and portugal is guilty too) the substitutes would have been gone (or reformed) a long time ago....

Well u do know that globalization means getting rid of the gluttony that IS North America/Europe and getting rid of the poverty that IS the rest of the world. This levels off the two extremes which I personally dont look forward too cuz it means i have to do live with less. I do understand and can respect why it is happening tho.

Spin Doctor�s Ridiculously Easy Method For Fair Trade:

Mega-corporations LOWERING their profit margin and paying more for the labour and goods. This would make the world a lot nicer place.

As for globalisation, it sucks. If it were in the interests of the people I wouldn�t have a problem with it as much as I do. However, it�s the interests of the multi-nationals that it serves. And this doesn't touch on the death of local traditions and customs it will cause.

A basic question we should all ask ourselves; Is my life fundamentally any better because I can buy a product from a corporation in another country, made in a completely different country all together and then sold here? psssst - The answer is no!

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor Spin Doctor�s Ridiculously Easy Method For Fair Trade: Mega-corporations LOWERING their profit margin and paying more for the labour and goods. This would make the world a lot nicer place.[/SIZE]

or have the people/gov ban/protest the corporations who the oppisite of this. california under davis helped in this, he proposed and passed a bill that required the state to buy from mom and pop shops first, before handing money over to the larger corporations. see, davis isnt so bad as the media makes him out to be

Re: Re: Globalization

quote:

Originally posted by rizen someone please enlighten me on this subject, is this about the genetically modified foods?

Posted on this subject a while back. This is a completely different issue from GM foods (although I think that obstruction is somewhat baseless as well). And in particular, some of the newer members of the EU are particularly resentful of the huge subsidies western european farmers are getting which is crippling local farmers' livings.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=111776

Anyway, I'm a fan of free markets and globalization if you guys weren't already aware.

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres00_e/pr181_e.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor A basic question we should all ask ourselves; Is my life fundamentally any better because I can buy a product from a corporation in another country, made in a completely different country all together and then sold here? psssst - The answer is no!

Umm yes, my life is fundamentally better because I can buy a product from a coporation in another country. If I couldn't, I would probably not be able to afford the computer I am using which is connected to the internet, to allow me to make this point.

On the whole I'm very much in favour of globalism, but I have some issues with the way it's being managed by international organisations and some of the more powerful economies.

Big thread on globalism here where I explain my stance more thoroughly btw:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=104423

While we're on the topic....

quote:

CANC�N, MEXICO � Some cheered in the hallways. Others pointed fingers. But when word came down that a World Trade Organization conference had collapsed Sunday, attendees and observers agreed on one thing: The push for international freetrade had been dealt a significant blow. Formed in 1995 as a organization to negotiate and adjudicate trade agreements, the WTO's relevance has been challenged by the inability of rich and poor nations to compromise and find consensus on issues ranging from farm subsidies to foreign investment. The Canc�n debacle may spur nations initially to shun the WTO's 146- nation forum and pour greater efforts into developing bilateral or regional trade agreements. Longer term, analysts say, that shift may undermine the WTO, or may hold the key to streamlining future global trade talks. [...] [J]ust as the US ultimately abandoned the UN over Iraq to form a "coalition of the willing," individual nations may simply strike up new trade deals bilaterally and regionally, bypassing the contentious global talks. "I predict more bilateral trade deals, more NAFTAs," says Daniel J. Ikenson, a trade-policy analyst at the Washington-based Cato Institute, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement. "They are easier to negotiate since there are [fewer] arms to twist."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0916/p06s01-wogi.html

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade While we're on the topic.... http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0916/p06s01-wogi.html

Yes I'm not surprised the latest DOHA talks simply fell apart. What can you expect when many of the developing countries who banded together were lobbying for completely different end results. On the one hand you had countries like Brazil (i think) who were lobbying for reduced trade protections in order to export their farm goods while you had India lobbying for increased tarrifs/subsidies. I think it was impossible for any broad-sweeping trade reform to come out of the WTO for the same reason we rarely see decisive, sweeping, unilateral UN action. It's too bad really ... oh well perhaps once more regional NAFTA like trade deals are put in place, it will make things easier for broader trade legislation by the WTO in the future.

Man I'm pissed! I just wrote the reuters editor a bitchy email about one of the reuter's edge articles that covered the collapse of the DOHA talks in Cancun.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3452759

quote:

I recentely read this reuter's edge article by Jeremy Smith, and I was appalled by its bias and one-sided coverage of the failure of the latest DOHA talks in Cancun. The article only quoted European trade chief Pascal Lamy and seemingly cast blame on the collapse of the talks on the United States with the intent of avoiding agricultural subsidy reform: "The United States will no longer feel pressure to reform its subsidy programs following the failure of world trade talks in Mexico, harming Europe and key developing countries, Europe's trade chief said on Tuesday." "We in Europe are going to lose out...because the reform of the American agricultural system will now not take place as fast as it might have done, which is bad news for our farmers." Preposterous! And what of the harm to the rest of the world and to the United States when it comes to the EU's overexcessive agricultural farm subsidies? When comparing the nations, the EU and Japan almost double the United States when it comes to subsidies as a % of value of production. In 2002, Japan had almost 60%, the EU had 35%, and the US had less than 20% in farm subsidies. As a matter of fact, if you had taken the time to do some fair and balanced reporting, you would have reported that the American delegation went ino the summit proposing to eliminate tariffs on all manufactured and consumer goods by 2015, and to cut agricultural tariffs by 76% over five years. It is widely known that the EU, and especially France and Italy, have taken a hardline stance in refusing to cut subsidies to their farmers. I'm somewhat surprised that you failed to mention even WHY the talks failed to begin with, the 1996 Singapore issues that the poor, developing countries did not want to adopt for fear of being hit with trade sanctions. Who were the main proponents of the Singapore issues and refused to yield any flexibility to the poor countries? You guessed it, the EU and Japan. I always thought of reuters as one of the last bastions of unbiased media reporting in the world today. Once again I suppose I was disillusioned into thinking that the fox news effect was merely confined to american media.

GRRR! Occrider a friken hate articles like that!!!

If something goes bad, "Blame the Americans", we see that again and again these days even if it is not true, such as this case. Shameful this was done by reuters.. but the British these days seem more and more biased then the Americans I think (look at BBC).

For them it is simply an unconscience understanding that if something goes bad in the world, somehow it is the USA's fault... GRRR

I'm glad you took the time to reply to Reuters.. I hope they will give you a response. I once did the same for Amnesty who in a report clearly was biased against Israel, being anti-Israel instead of being pro-human rights. I hate it when organizations do not stick to their purpose. Reuters needs to tell you the facts, not be PC, or say its the USA fault.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.