Globalisation is Good

sovtek

Anyone see this on Ch 4 tonight? If so what ya'll think of Noberg's assertions.
Personally I think that he misrepresented many anti-globalisation arguments.

SkepticOne

I saw it too. What arguments were misrepresented?

DadaKopf

Even for a pro-libertarian globalist, his arguments were wishy-washy and could hardly have convinced anyone. He didn't present any data to prove any of his assertions.

Obviously he was being deliberately provocative.

He misrepresented the 'anti-globalistation' movement as 'anti-globalisation protesters' who want to stop development in its tracks by putting up more, not less tarriff barriers. This is incorrect and I'm sure he knew it.

He consistently made the erroneous argument that those countries which he visited developed because they had ultra-liberal economies. He conveniently ignored, for example, that Vietnam is a communist state run by one party.

Even more astonishing was his assertion that no two democracies have ever gone to war with each other.

The programme was nonsense. It's really not worth getting in a lather about, whatever position you take.

gom

yep
This programme was laughable
C4 is a guardian/anti-globalist type channel. They just put this in to make they look unbiased and yet provide an absolutely terrible 1 hour. It lack any evidence and any real conviction. I'm not an anti-globalist nut. In fact i would be very much on the fence. But this was terrible. No data. No back up. It was like a marketing pitch or even a bush speech.... The only true argument he had(which was more of an opinion thanks to lack of data) was that G8 barriers to trade harm the poorer countries. But that fact that he always landed on teh Anti-EU side and not at all teh anti-US side is somewhat suspect to say the least..

gollem_1975

I have the program on tape at home and will watch it 2nite.

however . I Have heard the statement before that no 2 democracies have ever gone to war with eachother before.

what 2 democracies have gone to war with eachother?

LegacyUser

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

DadaKopf

he always landed on teh Anti-EU side

The fact that that guy's Swedish wouldn't have anything to do with it, would they? :rolleyes:

The Beer Baron

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

Interesting page banannayogurt (even though I find your namesake repulsive- bananna- uugh!)

Anyways nuff dat- I'm sure Mark over in History would enjoy it.
Or more to the point I think he'd like a little more (well a lot more) debating of this calibre.

Just to stay on topic (or as much as I can)- my problem with globalisation is what it represents. I am in favour of a free *un-biased* market.
And a new world order that repects ALL peoples and cultures no matter how small.
However what frightens me is the prospect of every culture becoming steamrolled by the dominant meme. Right now that dominant meme is American Capitalism, packaging rather than substance, disposable pop culture, mass media to control the ignorant masses in parallel with the ugly resurgeance of the 1980's "ME Generation"

It's petrol for my large car and pills for my large penis for their blood and their oil. Profit-margins of drug companies or curbing their AIDS epidemic.

I'm all for uniting the world, but not at the expense of Ireland's unique and celibrated culture. Or that of any other nation.

Certainly not at the expense of privacy, personal freedom, choice, certainly without bias nor censorship.

Certainly not at the expense of taxes, tarrifs, sanctions, coercion, bombings, 12 year olds with AK-47's, famines and flag waving.

Globalisation should include the entire globe.
Not benefit the select few.

growler

it was entirely laughable as a documentary , it really was a spurious argument to say that if every society was capitalism in its economic outlook then the whole world would be a better place.

Capitalism is a system that seems to guarantee the division of society into haves and the have nots, which involves the have nots doing the labour for the haves who sell the fruit of that labour back to the have nots again (with a middle class in there somewhere) , fact is capitalism needs cheap labour to produce the goods that fuel a consumerist society , if the entire planet was to consume as the West does there would be nothing left after a very short time I fear, who would be at the bottom of society's pile ?

At the same time telling a subsistence farmer in Haiti that his inability to export surplus bananas to Europe (for example) is helping to keep him from being exploited probably wouldn't go down to well with him.