• 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!

Is globalization a good thing?

Is globalization a good thing?

  • Yes, it is generally good

    Votes: 12 33.3%

  • Roughly half good, half bad

    Votes: 11 30.6%

  • No, it is generally bad

    Votes: 13 36.1%
  • Total voters
    36
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Again, you're looking at this like a socialist. Just because the Indians and Chinese are gaining, that doesn't mean that we're losing. Americans are moving toward jobs that suit our economy better. This doesn't mean McJobs. Many firms are able to hire more Americans because they outsource.
Click to expand...
Which makes the jobs of Americans a lot more dependent on such a complex international framework and large international corporations.

I must say this reality contrasts strangely with the rugged, self-reliant individualism of some of its biggest defenders; the American style libertarians and similar.
I certainly agree that our manufacturing sector is way too tied up with regulations. The free market should determine the fate of American industry Free trade has helped us in almost every case that it's been implemented, and tarrifs have hurt us economically. Look at the results of NAFTA, the liberaliztion of British trade in the 1840s, Jefferson's tarrifs on Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars, and the Smoot-Hawely Tarrif that Hoover passed in 1930s.
Click to expand...
It is worth point out, though I'm no friend of aggressive protectionism, that next to no nation has become developed, in the sense we tend to use the term today, without protectionism and large state intervention. Britain for instance was built, if you can call Coketown, Gradgrind and the dark satanic mills building, on protectionism and state intervention.
 
OxymoronP said:
Again dont call me a damn socialist, I am a nationalist. We are losing jobs, every single day, you ignore that at your and our risk. We are losing highly skilled jobs, and gaining low skill jobs filled by illegals and insourced work forces.
Click to expand...

Not to my satisfaction, not gona force you but it would be nice if you could elaborate with more detail.

Not saying you are, but you're looking at this issue like one. You see one group benefiting by taking most of our manufacturing jobs and say that this means that we're getting hurt, that outsourcing is a zero-sum game. History shows that liberalizing trade has significantly helped, and tarrifs have hurt. We are losing jobs because of the recession. Outsourcing, at worst hasn't affected wages or or unemployment enough to bring either in the wrong direction.


OxymoronP said:
Same measures do not always have the same results. To have a long term stabile economy you have to realise what is working and what isnt. Right now the wholesale of the united states is going on, with one hand opening our borders and the other clamping down on our manufacturing and light industry especially. We are allowing the insourcing of huge numbers of IT people, who are driving down wages and stealing American jobs( I am in this field and have seen the devastation this is causing).
Click to expand...

I support stronger border protection as well because of the strain it puts on public services. Illegal immigration may be damaging to workers in fields like agriculture, that's why people move to other fields that suit them and the economy better.
 
Wessexman said:
Which makes the jobs of Americans a lot more dependent on such a complex international framework and large international corporations.
Click to expand...


They're more flexible and better suited to driving economies than big governments.
Wessexman said:
I must say this reality contrasts strangely with the rugged, self-reliant individualism of some of its biggest defenders; the American style libertarians and similar.
It is worth point out, though I'm no friend of aggressive protectionism, that next to no nation has become developed, in the sense we tend to use the term today, without protectionism and large state intervention. Britain for instance was built, if you can call Coketown, Gradgrind and the dark satanic mills building, on protectionism and state intervention.
Click to expand...

State intervention helped in the sense that military conquest is state intervention. The largest amount of growth during the 18th century was when British offcials largely turned a blind eye to trade restrictions imposed on the colonies. Britain's dominance was based off of imperialism, not protectionism
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
They're more flexible and better suited to driving economies than big governments.
Click to expand...
Barely and they are big gov'ts children.

State intervention helped in the sense that military conquest is state intervention. The largest amount of growth during the 18th century was when British offcials largely turned a blind eye to trade restrictions imposed on the colonies. Britain's dominance was based off of imperialism, not protectionism
Click to expand...
Imperialism is a form of state intervention and protectionism but protectionism played a key part. I suggest reading up on things like the Navigation acts and such. Christopher Hill's Reformation to the Industrial Revolution, the Penguin history, gives a reasonable overview of the early stuff. Dobb's Studies in the Development of Capitalism is also informative despite the author's ideology.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Barely and they are big gov'ts children.
Click to expand...

In many cases yes, but not always. I do agree that big business and Government are often far too close

Wessexman said:
Imperialism is a form of state intervention and protectionism but protectionism played a key part. I suggest reading up on things like the Navigation acts and such. Christopher Hill's Reformation to the Industrial Revolution, the Penguin history, gives a reasonable overview of the early stuff. Dobb's Studies in the Development of Capitalism is also informative despite the author's ideology.
Click to expand...

I said that imperialism was a form of state intervention. I'm aware of the Navigation Acts. They were loosely enforced during Colonial America's largest period of economic growth. Pax Britannia cam after Britain repealed the Acts and Corn Laws
 
Globalization is key to becoming a Type 1 civilization

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale]Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
In many cases yes, but not always. I do agree that big business and Government are often far too close
Click to expand...
Actually it is always. A corporation is by definition a creature of the state.

I said that imperialism was a form of state intervention. I'm aware of the Navigation Acts. They were loosely enforced during Colonial America's largest period of economic growth.
Click to expand...
Proof and magnitude please.

Pax Britannia cam after Britain repealed the Acts and Corn Laws
Click to expand...
When it was already in the leading position in terms of economic power. A position of course which began too slide within a quarter of a century of their removal to nations such as Germany and the US who retained protectionism.
 
Wessexman said:
Actually it is always. A corporation is by definition a creature of the state.
Click to expand...

Proof and magnitude please.

Navigation Acts

The works of the Right Hon. Edmund ... - Google Books

Wessexman said:
When it was already in the leading position in terms of economic power. A position of course which began too slide within a quarter of a century of their removal to nations such as Germany and the US who retained protectionism.
Click to expand...

Both of these countries either consolidated into one country, or began exploiting its vast resources. I'll talk tomarrow
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Proof and magnitude please.

Navigation Acts

The works of the Right Hon. Edmund ... - Google Books
Click to expand...
That seems to prove your point partially although you seem to talking about the colonies. Not only were they pre-capitalist but the navigation acts certainly had a large impact on Britain. I was originally focusing on Britain. America had its own protectionism a little later when it began its capitalist development.

Both of these countries either consolidated into one country, or began exploiting its vast resources. I'll talk tomarrow
Click to expand...
Rubbish. They used protectionism as the British did. A major issue in the civil war was the tariff. I'm not saying this was the sole reason for their prosperity but that it had a definite impact.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Many communities are able to recover. Many communities are able to rebound from losing manufacturing. Funny that you mention two Japanes companies that build their cars in the South



Well except that we're the World's largest economy.
Click to expand...

As a US merchant Sea Man I can tell you we leave US ports mostly empty and come back fully loaded. How does that help the US economy? Our main export is food. The US auto industry is dead. The textile industry is dead. The steel industry is dead our ship building industry is on life support due to the Jones act but it is fading fast. Same with the air lines. Still there but fading.

We are in debt up to our ears with China. They are loaning us back the money we spent building “ thier” economy. If Globalization is going to work then it should be implemented gradually rather than a mad rush out the door to take advantage of cheap labor.

Besides that most companies say it is not the cost of labor that causes them to leave but rather the strict government regulations and taxes. As has already been mentioned the environmental impact of the companies that have re located outside the US has been devastating. It is not just cheap labor they looking for but also they have no desire to spend the money to be responsible for environmental or safety concerns.

Moe
 
Not saying you are, but you're looking at this issue like one. You see one group benefiting by taking most of our manufacturing jobs and say that this means that we're getting hurt, that outsourcing is a zero-sum game. History shows that liberalizing trade has significantly helped, and tarrifs have hurt. We are losing jobs because of the recession. Outsourcing, at worst hasn't affected wages or or unemployment enough to bring either in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Our group(Americans) means more to me then the whole entire world combined.
liberalizing trade has helped in the past but there isnt enough history to back your claims up of certainty.
Today we see that free unfair trade is deeply hurting the US, now I am not talking about being a protectionist nation and closing our trade, but I want to look at whats going on and make changes that would benefit the US people. Fair trade not free trade, a free market relys on fairness where everyone has the same opportunity, what we have today is reverse flow of growth.

I support stronger border protection as well because of the strain it puts on public services. Illegal immigration may be damaging to workers in fields like agriculture, that's why people move to other fields that suit them and the economy better.
Click to expand...

man you just dont know, I am in IT and me and my fellow American workers are out of jobs and have a hard time finding ones, because of the import of cheaper Indian workers. Its not just unskilled jobs being lost, and in a nation of 350 million people we cant all have non manual labour gigs. So you are ok with American jobs being taken by foriegners, who take their earnings back to their nations. You are defending the powerful corporations and foriegners at the expence of your own people. SHAMEFUL.:3oops:
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
No mean the electronics industry in the West and the car manufacturing that goes on in the South
Click to expand...

You mean the Toyota and Honda plants in the South? :roll:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I am almost surrounded by new car manufacturers and parts manufacturers.

The U.S. still has a lot of industry and more that is moving to us.
My company is closing production in California and expanding production in my home state.

Honda, Suzuki, Toyota, VW, Kia in Middle Georgia, and on and on.
A lot of these guys have just opened shop on top of that.
Click to expand...

You notice that every single company you listed is foreign owned, right?
 
Cephus said:
You notice that every single company you listed is foreign owned, right?
Click to expand...

They are publicly traded companies on the NYSE and they are investing in the states, there is nothing wrong with that at all.

At the same time Ford and GM are building production facilities outside of the U.S.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They are publicly traded companies on the NYSE and they are investing in the states, there is nothing wrong with that at all.

At the same time Ford and GM are building production facilities outside of the U.S.
Click to expand...

Indeed they are but they remain American car companies no matter where their cars are built because they are owned and operated by American companies. Toyota, no matter where their cars are built, remains a Japanese company, Kia, no matter where their cars are built, remains a Korean company.

Just because we have a worldwide economy doesn't mean all companies are magically non-national.
 
i support globalization in terms of international trade and markets

but i am very strongly against any kind of political or monetary globalization

that is i have nothing against using products made in Japan, Germany and China as long as my government and that of China are completely independent and so are our currencies

what did the fathers say ? - trade with all nations, alliance with none. that was the best strategy then and its the best strategy now.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
i support globalization in terms of international trade and markets

but i am very strongly against any kind of political or monetary globalization

that is i have nothing against using products made in Japan, Germany and China as long as my government and that of China are completely independent and so are our currencies

what did the fathers say ? - trade with all nations, alliance with none. that was the best strategy then and its the best strategy now.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about one world government. That would belong in the "conspiracy theories" section.
 
Wessexman said:
Have you never been to Europe then;).
Click to expand...

Countries within the European Union are still ran by their own presidents. They collectivized part of their economy. So be it.

But when I say globalization I mainly mean between the developed world and the undeveloped world.
 
Sanitas said:
Countries within the European Union are still ran by their own presidents. They collectivized part of their economy. So be it.

But when I say globalization I mainly mean between the developed world and the undeveloped world.
Click to expand...
I know I was joking. The EU which has pretty much be imposed from above and seems on the road to federalism is a good example that such things are not complete conspiracy though. Britons never asked for anything but free trade and look where we are.
 
NEUROSPORT said:
no it belongs in reality section. too bad we don't have one.
Click to expand...

The reality and backbone of the globalization argument is NOT a one world government, it is free trade.

Just look at the results of this poll. It's pretty split. If nobody here can agree on free trade then the world won't be suckered into a one world government dictatorship of any sort. Like I said, that argument doesn't belong here.
 
Sanitas said:
Just look at the results of this poll. It's pretty split. If nobody here can agree on free trade then the world won't be suckered into a one world government dictatorship of any sort. Like I said, that argument doesn't belong here.
Click to expand...
I'd be skeptical of that too but then again most Brits could be consider Eurosceptics and yet the beast marches on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom