What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

I am generally all for globalism.

First the moral reasons. (morality = is only fair, Consequently immorality is what is unfair)

No person simply because of accident of birth should be required to suffer poverty, plagues and social ostracism.

No person should have to compete for his livelihood with any entity that has any non-economic functions. Subsidies whether by Gods or Governments benefit mostly unfair competitors.

No person should benefit from anothers labor without just compensation. (The workman is worthy of his hire)

Prohibition of the free movement of goods and services reduces the living standards of every human on the planet. Reducing living standards means many more humans must die in an unkind manner.

No incompetent government should have the privilege of hiding the general awareness of its incompetence behind it's borders. Those borders are frequently agreed on by other governments that also may have some doubts as to their legitimacy or competence :wink:

This isn't always the case. Haitians manufacturing America's baseballs certainly don't benefit from this.

Globalism will often quote the net increase in GDP of poor countries without mentioning that most of that GDP goes to the rich.

However, on the good side, it often provides jobs where there are none, and can pay higher than the normal wages of the country.

I'm all for Globalism if it doesn't exploit the country



This will never be avoided. In industries where non skilled labour is the major cost, there is no way companies based in the US can compete with companies based in poor countries…so US companies HAVE to move offshore (UNLESS tariffs are imposed…but that works within the US only…not if the company wants to export)



Depends...

One of the great lies propogated by the multinationals is that a free market benefits everyone - in fact, it benefits mostly them. New Zealand, which is a developed nation, was one of the first to make their nation a truly free market…it's economy started to decline rapidly, until it put protections back in.

There is no point in removing all protections, and having industries collapse - the collapse of any industry has a flow on effect.

Vikorr, I must differ a little bit.

There are no American guns or Gods forcing Haitians to make baseballs. I would assume that their government and the U.N. is protecting them from that. If an American businessman is bribing the Haitian government to supply cheap labor then that is illegal and immoral on both sides.

But in a perfect world the businessman is making the baseballs as efficiently as he knows how to and the Haitian is making a living as efficiently as he knows how to. On a level playing field it's a win win situation.

But in the U.S., Britain and France probably a very significant part of agricultural income (at least 20% and possibly 50%) is derived from "milking the government", ie. managing your farm is such a way as to maximize revenue from the government, instead of maximizing sales or profits. The glut of produce that cannot be sold at a profit is then dumped under the auspices of "foreign aid" thus reducing the market price for rice, corn, and wheat to a price that the Sudanese and Indonesian farmers cannot afford to grow those products for local consumption.

This is one bad aspect of subsidies and protectionism. It has resulted in the water and air being polluted by millions of hectares of excess land being in crops, plowed and cultivated by 500 horsepower tractors, drenched with poisons and herbicides, transported thousands of miles with diesel trucks and ships and destroying the economies of South Africa, Indonesia, Sudan, and Brazil amongst others. Not to mention the destabilizing effect of excess dollars, yen, and lire flowing into the Persian Gulf area, Gulf coast of the U.S.,and Bering Sea.

Now in the U.S. anyways it has reached the point where if the subsidies were quickly removed it would cause a complete and total collapse of the financial system of the U.S., Japan, Britain and would probably be rough even in China. This is probably what happened in N.Z. It probably cannot be done very quickly. The repercussions would be awful. John Deere, Komatsu, Kubota, Belarus, and thousands of other business and governmental entities are heavily invested in a severely distorted business pattern. Mortgages, land values,and employment patterns all would have to be changed. The result would be a fairer, cleaner, and safer world.

Now try to explain that to a politician. They are quite accustomed to enjoying the election cycles and will see no reason to change for some benefits not immediately seen

Nobody seems to realize that the payments on that 500 horsepower tractor are actually being borne on the backs of the Asian and African farmer and citizenry. At least no governing agency in the top consuming nations cares (dares?) to admit it.

Now would you like to see how subsidized education in the U.S. has resulted in the least educated citizenry in the developed world

I'm happy for people to have differing views. I did a quick search of the web, and found the following (so don't quote me on their absolute reliability, but it does conform with what I have previously read) :

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5557


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981104,00.html
Invasion Target: Haiti
Monday, Jul. 18, 1994 By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON



http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1985/12/ebert.html


Haiti's history is much longer than the US invasion and occupation 1994-2003, and it's govt doesn't function well. Non of this is assisted ethically by US multinationals, nor US foreign policy.

What is globalism & globalization?

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

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.

Vikorr,

Unless American soldiers are guarding a residence compound and escorting the baseball companies sewing women to work, then the fact that they are working under substandard conditions again becomes a purely economic one.

IF--there are no better jobs available then that is the fault of their government. This is usually the result of excessive and incompetent government planning and investment if not downright thievery.

IF--the U.S. government is suborning the Haitian government to the benefit of the plutocrats then that is the result of inadequate subsidized education in the U.S. It should be dealt with by the U.N. (fat chance )

IF-- the cost of labor to make the baseballs rises sufficiently then the companies would invest more in automatic machinery to sew the balls which would result in better paying jobs for fewer persons. This is what has been happening recently in the U.S. coal industry, and seems to be a normal result of mechanization. In another possibility the companies would just move the factory to another country where they could make baseballs for the lowest price. This is a duty that a company has to its stockholders. If the company does not return a fair (subjective and varying) return on investment then the stockholders will sell the stock effectively putting the company out of business.

The millions of Mexicans, Haitians, and Cubans flowing into the U.S. , and the number or Turks, Lebanese,Pakistanis, Iranians, and Africans flowing into Britain, Germany and France in search of honest work is a real reflection on the levels of competence demonstrated by the governments involved. The U.S. government is not not particularly competent either and I shudder to think at how bad for the people that the Mexican, Haitian, and Pakistani governments must be.

It always has seemed tragic that frequently the peoples answer to incompetent government is often to grant more powers to the government. Of course in the U.S. (and much of the world) with the government running the education system that is what I should expect.

The term U.S. multinationals is a bit of a misnomer. Since most are publicly traded on most of the stock exchanges in the world and they have factories in many countries to blame all their failings on the U.S. citizenry is a bit unfair. :wink: For instance Ford Marketing Corporation makes cars in Japan, Israel,Brazil,Spain and the U.K.. General Motors Corp makes cars in Australia, Brazil, U.K. South Africa, and Japan. John Deere makes tractors and equipment in Canada, Japan, Germany and France.
Fuji Heavy Equipment makes cars in Japan, Malaysia,and U.S. General Electric has plants in the U.S., Hungary and probably lots of other places that I don't know about.

This is not to mention Kubota, Kioti,International, Cargill, British Petroleum, Arabian American Oil Co., Singer, and a host of other multinationals. For practical and economic purposes the "One World" has arrived. Preachers and politicians are always the last to know.

Anyways, If you know how to make a baseball any cheaper then there is a man working for Rawlings that would like to talk to you.

Or grow corn-or rice-or make a tractor or a TV better then there is some company that will like to have your knowledge.

So coberst,

Do you think that we should support---

1--Economic Globalism-- The gradual reduction of all non-economic restraints to world trade. ( subsidies)

2--Social Globalism-- The idea that no human should be condemned to poverty, pestilence or death simply due to where in the world he choses to live.

3--Environmental Globalism-- The idea that no person, company, or nation has the right to make a part of the world unsafe or unhealthy for any other person or nation.

4--Military Globalism-- The idea that any nation has the right to impose their system on any other nation by force.

5--Political Globalism--The idea that any group of persons has the right to impose their ideas on any other group of persons by force.

However it's not quite as clear cut as that Then we get into definitions.

1.--Are the efforts of government to insure a local secure food supply protectionism

2--Are recreational drugs, sex to be prohibited. Or polygamy, polyandry, alcohol, caffeine snowmobiles?

3--Are footprints in Antartica pollution Warm water from a nuclear plant A wind turbine on a mountain Noise from a motorcycle


4--Are the dominant nations allowed to interfere with the wholesale murder of the Kurds.OR Is a national government allowed to use force to insure it's survival?

5--Are the Arabs in the Sudan to be allowed to impose their Gods upon the Africans in the Sudan OR should the U.N. impose its mandates upon the government.

How far can a nation or government go to protect its national identity?

Should Germany become Muslim? Should the U.S. become Hispanic? What can they morally do to prevent these occurrences. Should they attempt it?

No easy answers- But no reason not to speculate a bit

I do not think that I am ready to engage in speculation yet. I must do some reading first. I am planning my next trip to the library and have several books that I plan to examine about this matter.

I have a "Friends of the Library" card from a local college library and with this card I can borrow any book in their library. I recommend that everyone do this because for a small yearly fee of $25 I can have access to a great library and pursue my curiosity wherever it takes me.