• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

globalization

globalization

  • it has only bad effects that cause economic inequalities and disadvantages in many countries

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • İt has only good effects whic h let all world people share their technology and cultural values

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • İt should serve only the economic integration among world countries

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • it should include only a cultural exchange which every nation can benefit from

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • it is a form of imperialism from which global firms can benefit most

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • it has both good and bad effects in terms of the socio economic structures of world nations

    Votes: 15 62.5%

  • it destroys some culturel values of many nations and works in favor of a few of them

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • it is a very beneficial movement which lets us transfer values between cultures

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • it harms national identities and influences the foreign politics of the nations

    Votes: 6 25.0%

  • others

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Total voters
    24
If globalization means more secrets and more government meddling in economies/bailing out corporations....then I am against it.

If it just means free enterprise stretching over borders - I am for it.

More free enterprise, smaller government and NEVER any bailouts is what the world economy needs.
 
In order to have a "global economy" we would all have to use the same currency. I can't see how a global economy could work in any other way. How in the heck would we manage that?
 
ChrisL said:
Was that a stupid question? :lol: Seriously, I want to know how a global economy would be organized,
Click to expand...

It would be organized as a centralized system, where individual countries would follow the decrees of the central bank / government.

Essentially, nations unders such a system would have to relinquish some or all of their national sovereignty and allowing the international entity to dictate their policies.


and what if some countries don't want to be a part of a global economy?
Click to expand...

If a country does not consent, then they will be brought into the system by conquest.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It would be organized as a centralized system, where individual countries would follow the decrees of the central bank / government.

Essentially, nations unders such a system would have to relinquish some or all of their national sovereignty and allowing the international entity to dictate their policies.




If a country does not consent, then they will be brought into the system by conquest.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is going to happen . . . not in my lifetime anyway. It sounds much too complicated and would take too much cooperation. Our own main two governing parties can't even agree on the most simple of issues, so I highly doubt anyone could get this much cooperation and organization to ever occur.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It would be organized as a centralized system, where individual countries would follow the decrees of the central bank / government.

Essentially, nations unders such a system would have to relinquish some or all of their national sovereignty and allowing the international entity to dictate their policies.




If a country does not consent, then they will be brought into the system by conquest.
Click to expand...

So in other words, we have not given enough cake to the third world so we should let our ship sink because of them? I don't think so.
 
I don't think I would want cultural integration to happen. I kind of like that we have different cultures. It makes things more interesting.
 
The "Global Economy" is a euphemism for moving in the direction of wage-slave workers in a nationless borderless world run by conglomerates where, in effect, former nations are mere city-states in a U.N. one-world government puppeted by the conglomerates.

It is bad for nations that are doing comparatively well and wish to remain self-governing, self-supporting countries.

It is seductive for nations not doing that well that wish to employ their people as it will neither lift them out of their poverty or last much longer, as the former set of countries will soon lower their wage standards to the degree that they'll regain many of the out/in -sourced jobs they lost, albeit at new poverty-level wages.

It most certainly is not too late to secede from the Global Economy.

However, with Multi-Cultural Internationalists running the left and Corporate Global Expansionists running the right, it's not likely to happen .. until the great majority in the center has true representation in D.C.
 
Perotista said:
There was a time when the united states was known as the melting pot of the world. In fact when my wife took her naturalization citizenship test, she was taught there is not such thing as a hyphened American, we are all Americans regardless of where we came from or what race, color or creed. But that has changed, I do not think we are the melting pot anymore, we now have African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans and a couple of more I probably forgot about. We have went from a goal of including everyone and everybody as Americans to segregating us once more into groups. Instead of uniting one and all, we are once again dividing.
Click to expand...

I think assimilation is pretty much the same as it ever was, with the one difference being that people are no longer buying into the notion that their heritage culture is inferior or something to hide, which is a good thing.

1. It is mostly a bigoted myth that there are foreign language speakers who refuse to learn English. The first generation tends to arrive as mature adults and they often struggle to learn English, especially if they are poor and are too busy working to take classes etc. The next generation is usually fully bilingual, although their English may not always be fully proper if they were poor and had inferior schooling. By the third generation the heritage language is often barely understood and English is the only or primary language. The main thing impeding people from learning the language and participating in the larger society is poverty and lack of acccess to quality education, not a lack of willingness.

2. Also, both Native Americans and Mexican Americans (per Treaty of Guadalupe)have a special right for historic reasons and by treaty that requires that their native culture and language be permitted and respected by the government.

3. There is no reason to expect that our traditional northern European based culture will remain the dominant culture in the USA with so much time passing since most of our families left Europe and the changing demographics. Cultures always change, especially when demographics change. The people who grew up feeling that the way they were raised will always be the normal, default culture will need to start shifting their expectations, or they will just make themselves miserable, constantly complaining about the ways of those "damn foreigners and young punks."
 
Hard Truth said:
I think assimilation is pretty much the same as it ever was, with the one difference being that people are no longer buying into the notion that their heritage culture is inferior or something to hide, which is a good thing.

1. It is mostly a bigoted myth that there are foreign language speakers who refuse to learn English. The first generation tends to arrive as mature adults and they often struggle to learn English, especially if they are poor and are too busy working to take classes etc. The next generation is usually fully bilingual, although their English may not always be fully proper if they were poor and had inferior schooling. By the third generation the heritage language is often barely understood and English is the only or primary language. The main thing impeding people from learning the language and participating in the larger society is poverty and lack of acccess to quality education, not a lack of willingness.

2. Also, both Native Americans and Mexican Americans (per Treaty of Guadalupe)have a special right for historic reasons and by treaty that requires that their native culture and language be permitted and respected by the government.

3. There is no reason to expect that our traditional northern European based culture will remain the dominant culture in the USA with so much time passing since most of our families left Europe and the changing demographics. Cultures always change, especially when demographics change. The people who grew up feeling that the way they were raised will always be the normal, default culture will need to start shifting their expectations, or they will just make themselves miserable, constantly complaining about the ways of those "damn foreigners and young punks."
Click to expand...

I don’t think being the melting pot of the world and looking at everyone in America as Americans has anything to do with hiding someone’s culture.

I agree that foreign language speakers eventually learn English or their kids do and it is a myth that they don’t. In fact I lament the fact that my last two kids can’t speak their mothers tongue, although they seem to understand her language. My wife is from Thailand, but now is an American. An American, not an Asian-American which I think is a slap in the face for her to be so labeled. She studied hard for her citizenship test, learned a new language and passed. She should have the right to be referred to as an American, she is an American by choice, not by birth. My oldest daughter, she married a Laotian, she is fluent in not only English, but Thai, Lao and German. Her kids can understand Thai and Lao, but do not speak it. My other grandkids, which my son and youngest daughter married Americans do not understand one word. So yes, by the second generation a lot of the culture and language is lost.

It seems to me this is a form of re-segregation, adding hyphens I mean. We’re classifying Americans by root of origin and not where they live or the country they are a citizen of.
 
I see more ethnic pride celebrations and such happening, but I don't observe much of this re-segregation that you feel is happening, but other cities/areas may be different in that regard, perhaps due to greater geographic separation between the rich and poor neighborhoods.
 
ecofarm said:
Democracy is good for ecology. When those directly affected by resource depletion and degradation have no voice in its authority, things get worse.
Click to expand...

shhhh... Thomas Friedman might hear you. ;)
 
Globalization has been great for the wealthy but a mixed bag for everyone else. Lifespans seem to be getting longer as a result of it, at the expense of all the indiginous things on planet.
 
cpwill said:
shhhh... Thomas Friedman might hear you. ;)
Click to expand...

In his July 25 column, Friedman wrote against the "excuses" made by terrorists or apologists who blame their actions on third-party influences or pressures. "After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us ... why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism" Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
Click to expand...
Thomas Friedman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with him about that, but not laws against such.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is mostly a bigoted myth that there are foreign language speakers who refuse to learn English.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to say that although English is the global lingua franca, there are still dominant language groups that are supplanting the thousands of other languages on the planet. In East Asia it's Mandarin, in South America it's Spanish, etc.

Globalization has resulted in thousands of languages disappearing forever yearly, along with their unique perspectives on reality. Languages aren't just ways of communicating but they are human knowledge databases. When a language goes extinct we lose one way of viewining reality.

IMO English has become too idealized. It would be a nightmare if the world only spoke 5-6 languages.

This is a good TEDTalk about this issue: http://www.ted.com/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures.html
 
ChrisL said:
I don't think this is going to happen . . . not in my lifetime anyway. It sounds much too complicated and would take too much cooperation. Our own main two governing parties can't even agree on the most simple of issues, so I highly doubt anyone could get this much cooperation and organization to ever occur.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, the infrastructure for such a system is essentially built.

Europe is really only a group of countries under the European union system. The treaties to create a north American union have already been signed. An Asian union is also in the making.

All that is left is the middle east and Africa, and the aim seems to be to bring these regions into a world system through conquest...

Then there's already a system for a world currency, the SDR is a de facto world currency... Though there have been other proposals like a petrodollar.

The UN (league of nations) was built with the intention of being a world system of government from its inception.

It really seems, the way things are going that we will be brought into a world war that will be so devastating that the people will cry out for anything to be done to ensure that it never happens again... And that's how people will beg for the last Steps towards a global system.
 
Fisher said:
So in other words, we have not given enough cake to the third world so we should let our ship sink because of them? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be bad enough... The reality is likely to be much worse.

Ya, "they would never take a picture of your naked body to board an airplane." (to paraphrase what I was told when I posted about the purchase orders for the naked body scanners that happened 6 months prior to the underwear bomber that was the justification for the installation of the machines.)

Never say never.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well, that would be bad enough... The reality is likely to be much worse.

Ya, "they would never take a picture of your naked body to board an airplane." (to paraphrase what I was told when I posted about the purchase orders for the naked body scanners that happened 6 months prior to the underwear bomber that was the justification for the installation of the machines.)

Never say never.
Click to expand...

Well I don't mind them taking pics of me naked just so long as they put them online for the world to see :2razz:
 
Perotista said:
There was a time when the united states was known as the melting pot of the world. In fact when my wife took her naturalization citizenship test, she was taught there is not such thing as a hyphened American, we are all Americans regardless of where we came from or what race, color or creed. But that has changed, I do not think we are the melting pot anymore, we now have African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans and a couple of more I probably forgot about. We have went from a goal of including everyone and everybody as Americans to segregating us once more into groups. Instead of uniting one and all, we are once again dividing.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the liberals, and this is primarily a problem that originated from the left, decided that it's not important what you are now, it's where you came from or what the color of your skin is or what protected class you are a part of that really matters. African-Americans is just a code-word for being black, even if your ancestors never came from Africa, but if you're a white guy that grew up in South Africa, you can't be an African-American because you're white, even though you have even more claim to the word than some black guy whose family has been in Detroit for generations. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't gone farther than it has. Why not gay-Americans and female-Americans? I'm sure that's coming soon.
 
BmanMcfly said:
It would be organized as a centralized system, where individual countries would follow the decrees of the central bank / government.

Essentially, nations unders such a system would have to relinquish some or all of their national sovereignty and allowing the international entity to dictate their policies.




If a country does not consent, then they will be brought into the system by conquest.
Click to expand...

I think that post most clearly states what "Globalization" is about. It is about the status quo of big money, banks, corporations, and those that already have gaining control of new profit centers that may or may not be a positive impact on the Natrions affected. It might provide jobs and improved standards of livings in impoverished countries, temporarily and then to the next impoverished country because it is always about profit. If it does any good, it is incidental, not planned.
 
Cephus said:
The problem is, the liberals, and this is primarily a problem that originated from the left, decided that it's not important what you are now, it's where you came from or what the color of your skin is or what protected class you are a part of that really matters. African-Americans is just a code-word for being black, even if your ancestors never came from Africa, but if you're a white guy that grew up in South Africa, you can't be an African-American because you're white, even though you have even more claim to the word than some black guy whose family has been in Detroit for generations. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't gone farther than it has. Why not gay-Americans and female-Americans? I'm sure that's coming soon.
Click to expand...


In a way every swinging Tom, Dick and Harriet that live in the United States are African Americans. Remember Lucy, the oldest humanoid skeleton found in Africa. The scientist and archeologist tell us the human race originated in Africa and from Africa migrated to the 4 corners of the globe. So if science is to be believed, we here are all African-American. Accordingly all who live in Europe are African-European, in Asia, African-Asian etc.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Well, actually, the infrastructure for such a system is essentially built.

Europe is really only a group of countries under the European union system. The treaties to create a north American union have already been signed. An Asian union is also in the making.

All that is left is the middle east and Africa, and the aim seems to be to bring these regions into a world system through conquest...

Then there's already a system for a world currency, the SDR is a de facto world currency... Though there have been other proposals like a petrodollar.

The UN (league of nations) was built with the intention of being a world system of government from its inception.

It really seems, the way things are going that we will be brought into a world war that will be so devastating that the people will cry out for anything to be done to ensure that it never happens again... And that's how people will beg for the last Steps towards a global system.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
 
Medusa said:
l would like to learn your thoughts about globalization .
Click to expand...
It seems to be the natural conclusion to form a global confederation at the very least. I don't have any problem with that at all. It's not all unicorns and rainbows, and of course some peoples are going to get burned, but in the long run I see it as being of great benefit to mankind as a whole.
 
As usual, we have to be clear as to what we are talking about.

Should you be free to travel where you want, work where and for whomever you wish, trade with whoever you wll, marry whoever agrees to marry you, etc, etc - assuming that your actions do not hurt innocent third parties - anywhere in the world? Yes. Absolutely.

And 90% of the screams against "globalisation" is nothing but the knee-jerk reaction of the entrenched local plutocrats and brainwashed collectivist zombies against the ongoing empowerment of the individual.

But. There are also the remaining 10%.

Globalization is not happing in a legal or institutional vacuum. If, for example, a poor country with an authoritarian government becomes "open" out of sudden, and embark on a state-capitalist adventure, it may mean a lot of (comparatively speaking) good things, but it also could mean forcing all the local resources into some monoculture that is profitable right now, enrichment of the elites, and disastrous consequences for most, some year later. We have to pay attention. Case by case. There's no downside to "globalization" erasing barriers between USA, Denmark, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand and Chile. But most countries in the world, regrettably, are not like Switzerland or New Zealand.
 
Perotista said:
In a way every swinging Tom, Dick and Harriet that live in the United States are African Americans. Remember Lucy, the oldest humanoid skeleton found in Africa. The scientist and archeologist tell us the human race originated in Africa and from Africa migrated to the 4 corners of the globe. So if science is to be believed, we here are all African-American. Accordingly all who live in Europe are African-European, in Asia, African-Asian etc.
Click to expand...

That's a point I've made before and boy does it piss off the liberals.
 
Perotista said:
In a way every swinging Tom, Dick and Harriet that live in the United States are African Americans. Remember Lucy, the oldest humanoid skeleton found in Africa. The scientist and archeologist tell us the human race originated in Africa and from Africa migrated to the 4 corners of the globe. So if science is to be believed, we here are all African-American. Accordingly all who live in Europe are African-European, in Asia, African-Asian etc.
Click to expand...

Well, there was an older one found recently. Just a bit older and also Rift Valley iirc. I forget the name.

Anyway, when I tell people that settling in Kenya is going home people look at me weird but it's still fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom