Globalization: A complex poll

1. I fully support Globalism
2. I support Globalization based on economic merits
3. I support Globalization based on social merits
4. I support Globalization because I think its the next step forward
5. I support Globalization just because I heard its cool to do so
6. I am against globalization in all things
7. I am against globalization based on economic reasons
8. I am against globalization based on social reasons
9. I think globalization is bad because of the main people who are pushing for it.
10. I dislike globalization because I just go along with the herd.


Make your pick please. It is multiple choice. It is also public. Be as honest as possible. I know it may seem like questions 5 and 10 are degrading, but they are there for a reason. Don't be ashamed of whatever reasoning you have for supporting something. I met plenty of people who didn't know the first thing about globalization and who thought it was amazing. This is a place of discussion... and that means it can be a place of learning.

Sorry for the double post.

I am against globalization for both economic and social reasons and I don't like the sort of people who push for it... generally, bankers and such. I also think globalization is a problem in the case of a crisis, like the one we are experiencing. Prior to the early XXth century, there were numerous crises of the economic nature all over the world. However, it wasn't until the 1920's, after WW1, when because a lot of investment and money went into the US, and helped build the first economic model on which a large part of the world was dependent... that we had a global crisis. If before this, in Europe, you could have an economic crisis in the Ottoman Empire and the French or the Austrians or the Sicilians were just fine... and the vassal states of the ottomans were the only ones who were in some sort of problem... now.. .well. you get it.

The idea is, the level of globalization we have today leaves room for an economic butterfly effect. The butterfly will flap his wings in Wall Street and some small business owners in Romania will see the price of their phone subscriptions go up/down because the dollar takes a dive/hike.

"Globalization" is inherent to capitalism, where 'capitalism' is defined as "an economic system structured around the trade of economic goods and services among free agents".

Einzige said:

"Globalization" is inherent to capitalism, where 'capitalism' is defined as "an economic system structured around the trade of economic goods and services among free agents".

Click to expand...

What if I told you that capitalism and globalism aren't the same thing... and that one can successfully thrive without the other... as it has thrived in the past.

Also, economic trade agreements between nations is not globalization. It is cooperation. If Romania and Bulgaria make a trade agreement... or if China and the USA make a trade agreement, it is not evidence of globalization. Trade agreements existed since forever. The Greeks would make trade with Egyptians and Persians (when at peace) in ancient times. In medieval times too... trading was always made... and nobody had notions of globalization in their heads.

Rainman05 said:

What if I told you that capitalism and globalism aren't the same thing... and that one can successfully thrive without the other... as it has thrived in the past.

Click to expand...

Capitalism has never thrived without globalization, and the strongest capitalist society in the history of mankind, the British Empire between the early eighteenth and the early 20th centuries, was predicated on free trade. From the overturning of the Corn Laws to World War I, the United Kingdom saw the single largest increase in quality-of-life in human history, still unparalleled even after the rise of the United States and China. And all this because of the U.K.'s likewise-unmatched commitment to freeing trade from the shackles and restrictions of the mercantilist era.

I have problems with government-sponsored trade agreements like NAFTA, not because they're "free-trade legislation", but because they privilege a small handful of already-established businesses. In a truly globalized society, even the smallest start-up would be capable of instantly engaging in trade with his peers half a world away without the sort of corporatist red tape we see in NAFTA.

Einzige said:

Capitalism has never thrived without globalization, and the strongest capitalist society in the history of mankind, the British Empire between the early eighteenth and the early 20th centuries, was predicated on free trade. From the overturning of the Corn Laws to World War I, the United Kingdom saw the single largest increase in quality-of-life in human history, still unparalleled even after the rise of the United States and China. And all this because of the U.K.'s likewise-unmatched commitment to freeing trade from the shackles and restrictions of the mercantilist era.

I have problems with government-sponsored trade agreements like NAFTA, not because they're "free-trade legislation", but because they privilege a small handful of already-established businesses. In a truly globalized society, even the smallest start-up would be capable of instantly engaging in trade with his peers half a world away without the sort of corporatist red tape we see in NAFTA.

Click to expand...

I like you . I am not a specialist in all that NAFTA is, so I will study that and return.

Globalization is generally a beneficial policy for both my nation and the world as a whole. That doesn't mean that there are plenty of reasonable restrictions on international trade, just that opening up our economy to the world is more often the better choice. The specific nature of how you implement globalist policy is equally important to simply following a vague ideology.

What I don't like about it is that it is, at this time, tied to privatization. That is Big Corporate pushing the buttons and because of that the serious problems caused by the system, i.e. Global Warming, pollution in general, corruption, etc. are ignored. The benefits of globalization seem obvious and with some guaranteed sense of moral responsibility intimately woven into the system could be a long term boon to the entire world. As is, it is the "primrose path to the everlasting bonfire." The globalization needs to be for the common man, not the common Corporate creeps. I remind all that the major benefit of Incorporation is to limit liability or even evade it entirely. That is the nexus of the problem.

It all depends how you define "globalization". This thread is way too vague for any meaningful discussion.

I definitely don't support a one world government. But I support the concept of companies being able to set up operations all over the world.