What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

[coberst]

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

 

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

 

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

 

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

 

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

[C1ay]

Globalism should be endorsed. Everyone should be entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Just because one man has a high standard of living does not entitle him to expect someone with a lower standard of living to stay there solely so he can keep his higher standard of living.

[Boerseun]

Indeed a bit of a dilemma, this Globalisation thingy.

 

On the one hand, 'globalisation' is merely the breaking down of obstacles to the free flow of goods and capital across borders. Globalisation is nothing more than that. On the other hand, this will lead to job losses where labour is protected with minimum wages, etc.

 

Basically, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Or will they? You might think that if globalisation leads to increased employment in third world countries, that it'll be a good thing. But then ask yourself, who owns the capital which created those job opportunities in the Third World? Yep - the rich stockholders in the First World. And they will also take their profits home. The newly employed in the Thrid World are not so much employed as they are exploited. And this only because they're willing to work for salaries that would be illegal (and bordering on slavery) in the First World.

 

And that's where Globalism shines: Sell in the most expensive markets, and manufacture in the cheapest markets.

 

Nett result: Wholesale unemployment in former First World countries (except for the relatively small percentage of people who are stockholders and shareholders in companies now involved in manufacturing in the Third World - who reap the benefits of cheap manufacture by taking their profits out of the Third World host countries) and wholesale employment in just-above-or-below-the-breadline jobs in the Third World.

 

An ethical setup?

 

I don't know. I think anybody has the freedom to pursue happiness, as mentioned in the post above. Problem being, of course, that I'd like to pursue happiness on my own terms. Globalisation kinda kills off the human spirit (and ability) for inventiveness, innovation and creativeness on the local scale. If you can't compete globally, you're out. Globalisation is the death knell for the mom-and-pop stores. Massive shopping malls undercutting anybody will be dotting the landscape as a bleak, unimaginative and uniform reminder of our global endevours. And nobody'll be able to compete with them. So, you either join the system or live under a bridge somewhere. WalMart being a case in point. Due to their massive retail capacity, they're able to not only dictate to consumers what to pay for manufactured consumer items, they're also able to dictate to suppliers what to charge, what they're willing to pay. And the supplier won't have much of a choice, seeing as there's nowhere else to go to peddle their wares.

 

I think the human race have beautiful and creative talents and abilities. And I think Globalisation will be the complete, utter, and total end of that.

 

So, no. I don't like it one bit. If humanity as a whole were to benefit, I'd say it's a good thing. But humanity won't benefit. A very tiny percentage of the Earth's human population are stock- and shareholders in these giant companies driving the Globalisation bus.

 

I'd like some crazy billionaire somewhere to sponsor me to go and live on some desert island somewhere in the Pacific and come back to the World fifty years from now and see how this panned out.

 

Another angle on this would be if there was some way to form a global government who can enforce the same labour laws world wide. Then there might be a way in which globalisation can happen fairly and justly and to the benefit of mankind as a whole.

 

As we have seen, what with the US parking it's armed forces wherever it wants, globalisation in its current form is the forcing open of foreign markets and resources to the benefit of the rich, and to hell with the poor. I think if we take a long view, say 500 years or so from now, humanity might look back on this period with about the same amount of shame and distaste as we currently look back on slavery.

 

So, when we discuss moral views on it, I think its wrong and shameful. Just a pity that those about to profit and benefit from it is also those with all the bombs and guns - and the apparent will to use it.

 

In other words, if you're not profiting on a big scale from this, then you, like me and the vast majority of the population of planet Earth, are held hostage by neo-pirates wielding chequebooks and laptops.

[HydrogenBond]

Although globalism is good. it will lead to nightmares for the environmentalists. What it will mean is the need for more resources. If the entire world had the standard of living of the first world countries, that would mean at least 10 times more natural resource useage. We will need more wood, steel, oil, gas, minerals, meaning more mines, wells, logging of primal forest, etc. Then there is the polution.

 

The poor countries starting out, might benefit by going through the evolutionary path taken by developed countries. If they jump into the 21th century, to meet enviro-standards, the wealth will centralize. Only the rich interests could afford this path, with the hope there will be a trickle down. With simple labor intensive re-evolution, there is a better shot for more moving up the ladder, but this may cause more polution. So the toss-up is extra polution but better wealth distribution or less polution and wealth centralization. In both cases, the amount of natural resource use is going to sky rocket, with an impact on the earth. I have no problem with that, but utopians will be between a rock and hard place.

[Buffy]

Globalism is orthogonal to morality. To opine otherwise is dogma.

 

Little boy sitting in the corner and cry, big man come and ask him why, :shrug:

Buffy

[coberst]

Although globalism is good. it will lead to nightmares for the environmentalists. What it will mean is the need for more resources. If the entire world had the standard of living of the first world countries, that would mean at least 10 times more natural resource useage. We will need more wood, steel, oil, gas, minerals, meaning more mines, wells, logging of primal forest, etc. Then there is the polution.

 

The poor countries starting out, might benefit by going through the evolutionary path taken by developed countries. If they jump into the 21th century, to meet enviro-standards, the wealth will centralize. Only the rich interests could afford this path, with the hope there will be a trickle down. With simple labor intensive re-evolution, there is a better shot for more moving up the ladder, but this may cause more polution. So the toss-up is extra polution but better wealth distribution or less polution and wealth centralization. In both cases, the amount of natural resource use is going to sky rocket, with an impact on the earth. I have no problem with that, but utopians will be between a rock and hard place.

 

 

I think that you have revealed the biggest problem with globalization, which is that the living standard of the whole world, with the exception of perhaps the US and Europe, will increase dramatically and in so doing we will eat our planet and cover it with filth before the next 200 years is over.

[coberst]

Globalism is orthogonal to morality. To opine otherwise is dogma.

 

Little boy sitting in the corner and cry, big man come and ask him why, :shrug:

Buffy

 

I have no idea what "Globalism is orthogonal to morality" means, with exception that it must be very negative.

[Buffy]

"Orthogonal" simply means "unrelated," or if you are a mathematician or statistician "having a correlation coefficient of zero," and in this context is not the slightest bit pejorative! :evil:

 

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents, :shrug:

Buffy

[C1ay]

I think that you have revealed the biggest problem with globalization, which is that the living standard of the whole world, with the exception of perhaps the US and Europe, will increase dramatically and in so doing we will eat our planet and cover it with filth before the next 200 years is over.

 

No. Increased standards of living will come at the expense of those already living a higher standard of living. Initially globalization will simply move jobs from point A to point B at the expense of the workers at point A. As man becomes more efficient at utilizing more of the world's population in the workforce there will be an increase in resource consumption. IMO this is why would should take a harder look at what size population the world can really support and work toward that number. It is not something that can or should happen in a generation or two but the exponential growth of the world's population cannot go unchecked forever. That alone could lead to our own extinction.

[Racoon]

Resentment and Enthusiasm

 

The richest get richer, and the middle class ceases to exist.

[freeztar]

Little boy sitting in the corner and cry, big man come and ask him why, :shrug:

 

He said "I can't do what the big boys do", the man sat down and he cried too.

It ain't me, it's the people that say men are leading women astray.

But I say, it's the women today, smarter than a man in every way :evil:

 

Your cool factor just went up by a factor of ten in my books, Buffy! :ebomb:

 

Sorry folks, carry on...

[LaurieAG]

Whatever moral attitude we take should at least be consistent.

 

Globalism and 'free' trade go hand in hand so pro globalist governments and global multinational companies shouldn't insist on a 'fair' deal with regards to the economic impact (against them) of global warming and things like the Kyoto protocol.

 

The human race must decide if it wants to be 'free' (to destroy itself through greed) or 'fair' to all comers alike, not just those with wealth who wish to retain it, against the common good.

 

'The plea of BeiBionn'

 

You can have your magic beans Jack

your children are hungry and we need the cow back.

 

The lack of just terms and equitable or fair pacts

expose all crooked beanstalks to concerted attacks.

 

Unless obsessive cycles are stopped in their tracks

our towns will again be as flat as tacks.

 

You have been too trusting Jack

your childrens futures remain black

while current problems compound through lack.

 

Struggle earnestly against the pack

repudiate rights to depreciatingly retract

as giants fortress lie ripe for sack.

 

For only fair shares of the golden goose Jack

will save beanstalks and giants from the axe.

[coberst]

What is globalism & globalization?

 

Globalism Versus Globalization by Joseph Nye - The Globalist > > Global Culture

 

Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

 

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

[LaurieAG]

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

 

Hello Coberst,

 

And, of these 4 dimensions, how many are dependent on each other and how many are independent of each other?

 

It seems that three of these dimensions operate to damage the fourth, on which the 3 are dependent for survival.

[coberst]

Laurie

 

It seems to me that only the matter of military action stands alone. It depends much more on political matters than on the facts relating to globalism.