Globalisation Poll

Turnip

Personally, I'd define globalisation is the liberalisation and integration of global capital, production, and markets. When successfully applied it leads to increased prosperity, freedom and choice. In the short term, there will be some losers but the foundation for good government and a strong dynamic competitive economy will be laid and created wealth will trickle down and benefit everyone in time.

Leave the discussion to Shotamoose's thread. Just curious to see how people stand on this issue.

dahamsta

The poll title and the options don't match, globalisation and anti-globalisation protests aren't inextricably linked. Furthermore, globalisation means different things to different people -- I think globalisation is great, my objection is to global corporations putting profits before people.

Do I sound like Yoda?

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by dahamsta
globalisation and anti-globalisation protests aren't inextricably linked.

How so? Surely without globalisation, there would be no anti-globalisation marches? Or do you just mean that you believe it would be possible to have an acceptable form of globalisation?

jc

dahamsta

Originally posted by bonkey
How so? Surely without globalisation, there would be no anti-globalisation marches? Or do you just mean that you believe it would be possible to have an acceptable form of globalisation?

Well, yeah, that's what I said: I think globalisation is great, my objection is to global corporations putting profits before people. What if Nike got responsible tomorrow, told their manufactures that they needed to pay decent wages, offer health plans, allow unions? Unlikely I know, but just suppose for my benefit. Would people be inclined to protest Nike then?

I've always had a problem with the term to be honest. Ditto "free trade". The terms have been bastardised. The problem isn't globalisation or free trade, it's the companies that abuse globalisation and free trade, more specifically it's the executives that come up with the ideas, more specifically still it's the shareholders and legislators that let them get away with it.

You've probably seen me here and on the IrelandOffline forum venting my dislike for the old nugget that management's only duty is to it's shareholders. If people want to protest something, that's what they should be protesting about. It's the source of all evil when it comes to globalisation and free trade. These people should be made legally responsible for the health and welfare of everyone they touch in the operation of their business.

adam

sceptre

I follow the same line that dahamsta has outlined above. I've no problem with Nike providing jobs for people in the Philipines or Saipan or wherever, I don't see a major world-shaking problem with McDonalds opening restaurants on the Champs-Elysees and I don't particularly mind that central London will have far too many Starbucks outlets. I do mind that people making shoes in south-east Asia aren't being paid a decent wage and I do object to the conditions workers have to face in many of these factories. In other words, it's the abuse of globalisation I object to, not that people aren't at home in indigenous cottage industries making the local version of a St Brigid's cross. I don't object to Dell and Intel getting tax breaks from the Irish government or setting up factories that produce goods for foreign markets and repatriate profits - why would I?. Nor do I object in principle (or on principle) to Nike opening large factories in third world countries. It's the treatment of workers and their families by these companies that I'm concerned with.

simu

Protesters right but their violence unacceptable.

Most demonstrators come to these events as a sign of protest, not to cause destruction but the small percentage of them that does act violently gets noticed more. A pity.

I do think globalisation is worrying when it leads to erosion of human rights and unnecessary environmental destruction - but it's not globalisation itself that is the problem but the fact that it is being carried out by large corporations that largely have no one to answer to apart from their shareholders.

DadaKopf

THis si a stupid, rediculous poll. I'm not voting on this.

Catsmokinpot

they should also add

"SOME protesters are right! the others are just tree hugging hippies"

"Globalists are right they are just going about it all wrong by letting only a few countries take charge instead of letting every country have a say"

sovtek

In Buffy Vampire Slayer parlance: this poll is like sooooo loaded.
It assumes that protestors riot. Simply not the case in the majority of protests.
Italian (in Milan if I remember correctly) police were found to have used under cover police to instigate violence as an excuse to move against peaceful protestors (a tactic also used by the SAPS during apartheid).
There are some witnesses that claimed to see the same thing on May Day in Dublin.
Earlier this year I was watching footage on Euronews of an anti-war protest in Spain. They were blocking the town square by laying in the street.
An old man walked toward the riot police and started kicking their sheilds.
They then ran toward the people laying down and start beating them. Meanwhile they never even touched the guy kicking at them and ran past him.

bloggs

Any time i am in Dublin city centre, all i see is the same people shouting the same old stuff. Do some of them honestly believe that Dubya or Isreal give a toss of what they think? I think these people would be better off setting up a party and using real political power to get change. But not another communist party as we have more than enough of those in this country already.

DadaKopf

Hmmm, aren't some of them Socialist Workers PARTY? And Socialist PARTY? And Green PARTY? And Labour PARTY? And aren't many of them non-governmental organisations calling for change, like Oxfam? And aren't the rest concerned citizens?

TomF

Here's another good Jonah Goldberg column.


Anti-globalization equals anti-American
Jonah Goldberg

August 27, 2003

We're all globalists now. In fact, we always were.

"Globalization," in layman's terms, means the growing interconnectedness of the world's societies through trade, treaties and culture. According to the media, the debate over globalization in Washington (and London, Paris, Beijing, etc.) is divided into pro and con camps. What this lazy shorthand overlooks is that almost everybody - on both sides of the issue - is a hypocrite.

Take the anti-globalization left. You know, the face-shrapnel-pocked kids who wear open-toed shoes and Che Guevara T-shirts as they fly from one corner of the globe to another to protest globalization. From the objective eyes of a Martian, this crowd would be the most cosmopolitan - which means, in the original Latin, "citizen of the world" - group of them all.

The anti-globalists use the World Wide Web and Japanese- or Finnish-made PDAs and cell phones to coordinate their protests with kids from Brazil, Japan, Germany and America. They listen to "world music," reggae and rap. They grew up on sushi; they love French films; and they get their news from the BBC and - perhaps - Al-Jazeera.

Even the political agenda of the anti-globalists is globalist. Their favorite organizations have global or universal names: the World Wildlife Fund, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. Anti-globalization activists will pound their recycled spoons on their recycled high-chairs all day about the need for the U.N. to replace the U.S. in almost every international crisis, be it political or environmental.

Every anti-globalist I've spoken to - and I've spoken to many - wants international laws to regulate global commerce, abolish the death penalty, curb racism and save rain forests and cuddly animals. They want American soldiers and statesmen to be eligible for trial by the International Criminal Court and even the arrogant courts of Belgium.

Now take the pro-globalization right. Yes, we favor the free movement of goods, services and capital. I myself have been, and remain, a passionate defender of Third World "sweatshops," McDonald's and other bogeymen of anti-globalization left.

Conservative consistency cracks up when favoring globalization means favoring increased immigration or the encroachment of international law on American sovereignty. Some on the libertarian-leaning and business-oriented right favor an open-border policy on immigration, while other conservatives don't mind exporting hamburgers and action movies but have deep reservations about importing Mexicans.

Still, nothing unites every faction of the right more than opposition to the idea that foreign courts or governments have authority over Americans. To the fury of pretty much everyone on the right, the liberal justices on the Supreme Court increasingly cite the popular opinions, laws and judicial rulings of foreign countries in support of their interpretations of American law on such issues as the death penalty and homosexual rights.

Virtually all conservatives and libertarians believe popular opinion in America should be irrelevant to the court's interpretation of the Constitution. So the suggestion that our courts should give a fig about the opinions of Jamaicans or Germans makes us flick off the safety catches on our muskets.

The upshot of all this is that globalization is a fact of life. The issue isn't whether it's good or bad - globalization just is. Saying you're for it or against it is like saying you're for or against gravity. That's interesting but who cares?

The relevant argument is what you want to do about it. I can tell you what kind of globalization someone prefers simply by asking what they think about America and the United Nations. If they think the former is a problem and the latter is a solution, they lean to the left on globalization. If they think it's the other way around, they lean to the right. Indeed, in common usage, anti-globalization is often just another term for anti-Americanism.

And in a way, that makes perfect sense. Despite what you may have heard to the contrary, the United States has always been an engine of globalization. Our founding documents speak to the universal rights of mankind. Our culture - high and low - is a stew of influences from around the world. Our economy and our armies have led the way in pulling huge segments of humanity out of the twin yokes of poverty and tyranny.

No, we haven't done a perfect job, but that's always been an unfair standard. The question is whether you think someone or something - like the U.N. - could do a better job. And how you answer that question answers a lot of other questions as well.


Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.


"

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
Our founding documents speak to the universal rights of mankind.

As long as the mankind being referred to is a citizen of the US, he means....

jc