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....

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?

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

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

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Sep-15-2003 at 13:36

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

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

While we're on the topic....

quote:

CANCÚN, 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 Cancún 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

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

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.

___________________
Retro ...