After 9/11 I found many of my liberal friends complaining about something called "globalization". At the time I didn't really know what it meant. Now I can see that its just another concept they dismiss because liberal media propaganda tells them to.
Globalization, like most anything else, has its ups and downs. It's the fools on either extreme that piss me off. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle; many pro-globalization people are aware of its risks, while many anti-globalization people enjoy some of its benefits, but dislike corporate globalization.
The possible downsides of globalization are much like the downsides of capitalism: excessive poverty, abused workers, fraud, danger to the environment, etc. Although the U.S. has agencies and courts to curtail some of these negative effects, there are no global equivalents.
Despite these problems, one can't just write globalization off. When used and regulated properly, it can do a world of good. A prominent example is Bangalore, India. It is there that hundreds of thousands of young Indians, mostly from lower-middle class families are discovering a good deal of social mobility due to the creation of new technical colleges and software engineering firms from all over the world. This is a result of globalization. Shared trade, cultures, cheap foreign goods, these are all good things about globalization.
It is most important that globalization still be used for good like this. Rich, Western companies need to open their markets to things like food and textiles, the goods sold by poorer countries. Steady and sensible globalization leads to political openness, which in turn leads to a generation with productive, rather than destructive, attitudes towards the world. The educated youth of India are not the ones blowing up buildings.
Article appreciated :) Not gonna lie - I think one of the most accurate things you said was that many people take the controversial liberal protest position simply because some sort of propaganda tells them to.
I think you should get into some more of the pros and cons of globalization. Also, check out some of the work being done in microfinance - a lot of people are fighting globalization to help the poor in the third world, but there is a big move now in helping to provide the funding and capital to motivated persons trying to establish their own enterprises in their home country, without the need of aid/donations etc.
...what? who told you that? I could address this more fully later, but this is a myth that--even if you just made the point as a concession, as a sort of initial white flag so you wouldn't be totally attacked--should not be perpetuated. The explanation lies in the realization that laissez-faire capitalism does -NOT- mean lawlessness and exploitation. Instead L-F capitalism fundamentally upholds a system where rights are protected--this basically means there must be no physical force, as in physical abuse, or intellectual force, as in fraud.
L-F capitalism also upholds property rights, and the right to keep your stuff like it should be. When your person or your land is invaded with sludge or dust particles, that's pollution, and it can be criminalized. It's a subtle equivalent of, say, graffiti or littering.
about excessive poverty. all I can do while the world crumbles around me is flatly assert that that's not correct.
yes, there are no global equivalents. That's why sensible laws like protection against force and protection of your property should be implemented everywhere. In some really poor African countries like Kenya, property rights are so cursorily protected that businesses cannot start, and its people cannot make money, even with the billions in aid they've received (see here). In this case, a more global form of protection would be amazingly helpful!
more later. duties and things call!
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
I was thumbing through a book at borders today of the same title (In Defense of Globalization) - I only read part of the intro, but I think you'll find it really interesting.