Globalization: Boon or Bane?

The inevitable direction, despite obstacles, is to one wage, one race, one nation. Or we die as a species. Globalization is the name of the process.

It is difficult to imagine how human dynamics among 6 billion people should somehow be less complex than the inscrutable dynamics between two people. When divorce no longer occurs, I will presume "one people" might become possible. Peace has been dominated by conflict throughout human history. The aggressive among us have taken advantage of the weak. No government has ever succeeded in preventing that. Nor will it ever be possible among humans. Sociological studies have proved that accountability disappears in communities larger than a few thousand people. When large governments fail to act responsibly, how are world governments to behave any better without invoking evolution of a species that has not shown any significant change in that behaviour in recorded history? Globalization will inevitably become a larger opportunity for the aggressive to dominate. Our salvation actually resides in nations much smaller than the smallest of our 50 states, and the recognition of the differences and sovereignties of each.

Indeed, there is the problem of misguided aggressiveness in humans. This often exhibits itself as greed, especially for money and power. Yet with certain upbringing, this tendency can be overcome or greatly reduced. This aggressiveness can be directed, not to fighting other people, but rather against things harmful to people like disease, hunger, disasters, and unknowing.

With two people, the problems often are rooted in the desire of one person to manipulate or control the other person. This desire can be addressed by reducing interdependence on the personal level. Larger groups are better in that regard because there are more resources that can be shared.

With very large groups, the powerful can become even more powerful like you say, so because of the problems mentioned in the above paragraph between just two people and also problems in large groups, the answer shows itself to be doing away with separate groups and everyone being in no group, in a way, but just being people. Thus, we do away with factions that tend to fight each other (competition against others). So globalization is the way to go with an attitude of there really being no leader (yes, anarchism but not anarchy). That is, the leaders are humble and don't see themselves that way, but realize that their talents are helpful and revered due to the benefit for everyone.

Historically the sacrifice of human lives, livelihoods and reputations have been justified by asserting that the hopes for mankind and "evolution" can become reality, and are at stake. The latest movement to "change," for example, is unoriginal, and merely the primary means by which the peaceful and well-intentioned have always been outraged and manipulated by the aggressive, while being convinced they are too well informed to have been fooled, and that the opposition to larger, less accountable government are selfish, dangerous, deranged and deluded. Every generation presumes its own evolution; that the previous was too backward to make it so. However, as long the need for government protection and provision is asserted, evolution can not have occurred. True evolution would be unambiguously known by disappearance of the the cause and the conflict, and the simultaneous seamless existence of effective globalization, rendering the question meaningless. The fact that "electrone" must assert some kind of unstated evolution means it isn't yet possible.

Civilization has always moved from the impossible at a past time to such things being possible, and indeed getting done in the future.

Indeed, it has always failed when progressive systems are initiated by violence, force, and manipulation. That is why it is necessary for present people to see the good in it and then pass the idea along.

Hey, don't bring me into our conversation.

Hi Electrone,

In your sentence: "it has always failed when progressive systems are initiated by violence, force, and manipulation" the word "manipulation" is extremely important. Manipulation wins all the time with some losses but less important than the victory obtained by it.

Religions manipulate people, politicians manipulate who will or already voted them in the place where they can do what they want. Marketing manipulate people to buy what's offert to the public. Poor (women) manipulate rich (men) for money. Capitalist manipulated its people against communism and vis-versa.

Today, we have lots of differences, which will disappear with time because we move from here to there, mixed together, and finally we become uniform as a meltingpot. Globalization is the final way to live in harmony with small wars here and there because we cannot pass our time without some reduction of human being (WAR), which existed, is here, and stay with us.

Globalization is good and will be here when everyone understand what is the duty to do things for oneself and for others, not necessarily the same. Today, globalization is somewhere in the stammering state. Within years or decades the most probable, we will be completely globalized politically and economically. If not, what's the solution? Crusades to impose it? I think, people will understand that that's the way we have to live on Earth, Gil.

Electrone, Dude, Tech has changed over the millenia but Humans relly havent, I understand your idealism but Accountadude is right again. The writers of the constitution tried to acheive the idealistic freedom you speak of through small Govt and a Weak central federal Govt, but the fed has grown so big and powerful...

My point is utopias have been sought after before and they usually fail because of weakness to outsiders who conquer them, tech changes, humans havent.

Electrone you need to travel abroad.

So we just throw our hands up in the air and say humanity will always be barbaric?

And quit that, too. This topic is not addressed to me.

Electrone,

We will always be an animal...

Barbaric behavior can be overcome thru good upbringing (socializtion), education, and fair opportunity, not social equality.

"Man" has to stand on his own two feet, things cannot be given, they have to be earned through the opportuity that comes from capitalism.

My point is that everyone on the planet has to reach that same level of understanding before "utopia" could ever be acheived... or we get a "barbarians at the gate situation", which has happened so many times in the past.

I feel that given the planets population the world will colapse, too many rocking the boat.

I also think that the only way Man can be saved is to get off the planet.

People like capitalism at this time in history because it seems work. I see capitalism as functioning like a pyramid scheme. So long as there is an ever increasing quantity of resources to add to the system, it continues. Yet, the foundation of it looks to be crumbling nowadays. I liken it to fire; it's often not the most efficient way to extract energy from oxidizable material, but it can keep itself going automatically until the whole thing is consumed.

I understand your other thoughts and feel a similar sadness about such things. I think it is a good idea to always stress that we greatly prefer X way (cooperation, for example) over Y way (fighting and competition against people) even if we are forced to do Y. Too many people don't know or realize why X is better or that it is even an option, and so they do Y, hurting us and civilization. There is so much war, terrorism, population pressure, conspiring, and crime. I wonder if we will survive such things. -Regards

The problem with cooperation is that it only works when the burdens/responsibilities are apportioned fairly to all parties involved on the basis of each persons contribution, or their perceived contribution (self perceptions relative to other perceptions in relationship to actual value to the process). cooperation has always when tried tended to fail fairly rapidly because man involved who have a lower valuation in the process have a tendency to perceive a higher valuation and seek more from the process than they bring. People at a basic level will compete for resources, resources to men equals sexual and familial avancement, resources to women equal familial advancement. Most people perceive their resources must be gained at the expense of others because they realize they lack the innovation, creativity, and intellect to create new generators of resources, thus they need to siphon resources from an existing stream.

Indeed, that is competition in those cases instead of cooperation. Cooperation is more than the actual physical workings in that the most important aspect involves the attitude of the participants. There has to be a desire to share rather than of getting gain from the situation. It's true, those examples are of chiselers who are really competing against the group members. I think real cooperation is much rarer with humans than often perceived.

No that would be cooperation when those who can do something do it, and are rewarded based on their needs not their efforts. While those who can not do what they can, but are rewarded based on their needs also. Come on this is basic communism, not competitive capitalism. It is the belief that people should take only what they need and share based on needs, and work to the best of their abilities to the benefit of the overall community. However, this always fails in the end, because who wants to have to work harder and be more productive than others for less pay. It is not an example of people competing against the group, it is common to humanity. People just as a large social group begin to become lackluster are performing work efforts when they are not compensated on the basis of those efforts. Would you go to work if you didn;'t have to and would receive a check no matter what. The overwhelming majority of people do not enjoy their jobs, they do it as a means to provide for themselves. People want resources to provide for the advancement of their own childrena nd family lineage, much like any animal. Mating even is on this basis, women select favorably towards men who can provide the greatest resources to the women and their children with the least necessary effort on the part of the women. So there is more than a pursuit of money by the individual, it is deeper and impacts mating prospects, children's opportunities, everything.

Actually the framers of the constitution didn't ever mean for the governemnt to be weak and small. our constitution is the second attempt at government, they tried weak and small the first time and it failed rapidly. The framers had to strike a balance between the amount of governmental power at a federal level they needed against the amount of power the States (which were basically individual psuedo countries themselves at the end of the revolutionary war) would allow. Right off the start Washington sent to army to enforce taxation during the Whiskey revolts, the original framers set up a federal bank system that lasted until possibly one of our most corrupt and unethical presidents got into office in 1829. Additionally, they did not try to achieve idealistic freedom, but rather practical freedom, this is why there is a republican system or elected representatives (similar to Rome) in the US rather than a true democracy (similar to the Athenian empire which only lasted a few decades), and why slavery was still allowedafter the constitution. What they were most definitely against except Washington to a degree was a standing military and militarized government agencies, which is the vast majority of our governemnts budgetary expense. however, most people for smaller government never seem to address the cost of the military discussing what the framers of the constitution wanted.

I will leave assertions of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind to academics in that field. However, if one checks, the Constitution itself is a simple document that limits the government and gives almost all power to the States, except foreign policy, national defense, refereeing litigation, and making new law. Our Congresses have gone considerably beyond that mandate.

Germain to this discussion is that local groups such as town councils are usually accountable when we are paying attention and participating. No practical amount of oversight will make reasonably accountable our Federal government, nor global corporations. Also, there is nothing more dangerous to peace and free commerce than busily willing ourselves and others to be homo futuris, while our presumed evolved and unhindered brethren are busy bamboozling our lives and property into their control, leading us eventually with no choice but to fight for our lives. That has been our entire recorded history. When litigation stops, I will take that of sign of true change.

Actually town council are typical less accountable then the president, given the level of governance involved. As an example I would have check into the town council of the City of Bell, California about 2008. Since that time, because of the lack of accountability and care at the Municipal level, the State has been forced to address issues such as the public employees retiement fund which the State has had to take a more involve role in and is in the process of changing. The vast majority of people have no idea about what City ordinances or council activities are occurring, on the other hand they come to learn the name of the presidents children and their behavioral characteristic, the presidents pets, his wife, what he eats, where he goes, etc.. Can you really say that you have as much intimate knowledge of your city's mayor to provide some basis for what is political leaning might be.town councils are highly prone to corruption by particularly low level local financial interests, e.g. local land developers, business interests, mobsters, etc..

Also, the framers of the constitution composed the first 4 or 5 administrations. The Bank of the US was established by them. The 3/5th rule was established by them. The newspaper articles at that time about political opponents went right into what today is consider libelous, and blatant slander was an accepted practice, as was the practice of bribing voters with such simple things as a few drinks or threats. These were generally fairly poorly educated business men and former british bureaucrats (though greatly more educated than the common man in the region), not saints or geniuses seeking asomething ideal. In part as the simple governance structure they set up initially under the articles of confederation failed so badly and rapidly.

RCE,

in some ways you are right about our town council, but Accountaable is correct in his statement.

At least with our town council I have some controll, I can get in their face and we as a community can recall them when they really tick us off.

On a national level we really only have that kind of controll in theory. Yes Bell went out of controll, but look how fast we hung them by their heels, that kind of speed is just impossible on a national level.

Yes the vast majority have no clue about the city council, but at least when they find out whats going on they can make the council do something.

Hmm, I think at the federal level it can be more rapid, the town council in Bell was in office for the City Manager of Bell had been there since 1993. He made nearly 1.5 million upon leaving his position in benefits and wages ($800,000+ in wages alone). The only reason he was discovered, as well as the other officials was that the LA times was doing a investigation on Malfeasance in a neighboring City and came across some salary information, leading to the investigation of Bell. The State of California had to step in to actually do something after which many of those officials retired from their City positions. This is not that unusual, so the State set up new procedures for people to be able to log into a State website to see Salaries, and some Cities are still violating the disclosure requirements by not disclosing individuals salaries but rather trying to do things like cluster salary ranges to a group of classifications and submitting those. This is far more common than most people think. In my own town, the Mayor got in trouble for taking a "personal loan" from a local land developer prior to running for office, and paid it back right before the official investigation by the State Election Board. These are the things that get discovered, and he almost won re-election because most of the people didn't know or believe it. On the otherhand think about what a president has to do to have an impeachment process enforced against him, and nearly every aspect of the presidents life gets watched and reported on. I would guarantee you more people are knowledgable about the presidents life and political activities than they are about their City's Mayor. The City had a $50,000 imbezzlement and that ws discovered by a State mandated outside audit by a accounting consultant, they indicated in a report the loopholes the City had to close to stop further imbezzlements, and what do you know a couple of years later a admin person stole over $1 million through one of those loopholes in City accounting by taking it from petty cash from the police office over the course of a 2 year period, and used the money to buy houses. Again this was then discover during the course of routine outside audit, the City manager never noticed or cared and the finance director it turned out was just uneducated admin who got promoted when the former director left, because she understood the paperwork (of course after it made the SF news she retired about a year later under pressure).

Elected officials in Cities have a horrible tendency to appoint friends to positions in the City without the requisite education and experience on a routine basis, somehow I suspect Senate confirmation under the ever watching TV news cameras make that much harder in federal government. The federal process es tend to be much more transparent than Cities, and we know much more about the politics at the Federal level (our opinions are just diluted down much more by the number of voters represented).

Ask yourself, when was the last time your Mayor traveled, what was the purpose, and was it a valid purpose? who is the Mayors wife and what do you know about her? What activities have your redevelopment agency undertaken in the last 3 months, and who is responsible for approving those activities? The first step to accountability is knowledge of the person to be held accountable.

Also, bear in mind many States had to modify their eminent domain laws because Cities were using them to take land from one citizen to give to another to develop into a different type of business than had occupied the location, frequently for large corporate box store operations that the City was trying to negotiate to come in. Frequently the cities were undervaluing the properties on top of that, and then giving them to the developers nearly free as part of the negotiated deal to bring in the strip malls. This is where the States have to force accountability on the Cities through State Laws and Prosecutions, because the citizens locally do not have the time, resources, or legal/political capabilities to force accountability. This process in turn works upwards, the Feds force accountability down on the States then setting standards that all States must meet.

If you ever work a project where Cities receive federal or State funds, you can see the difference in the level of accountability each expects. You see how the City normally handles its own funds for projects, Many times they need consultants to help them meet the accountability requirements for State funding, and frequently multiple consultants to deal with Federal funding requirements.

RCE,

my point is that on a small local level we can ride the offender out of town on a rail or tar and feather them, where on a federal level we cant do that.

I think you are mistaken. Tar and feather is an offense.

If you are willing to do that to a local politician, why not federal, you are going tom prison for the same offense no matter what. though a local politician might be a State crime and a Federal one might make it a federal crime. I guess it depends on the State, but I would assume in Texas, Nevada, or Arizona it would be a better alternative to use on Federal politicians than local ones.

RCE,

I thought Social Programs (medicare & social security) were the area of the US budget where more was spent.

Social Security is not part of the US budget, paying the US governments debt back to Social Security from borrowing against it in previous years on the other hand is (however, that repayment of debt is not a social program). Military spending way exceeds medicare and such.

Hi Otvos,

Yes, globalization is the solution for the Earth and its people. "Uniformization" can be the future and we don't need to many politicians, legistlators, and banks. The process to reach the status takes time but it will come and start to be reality. I am happy to be a Canadian and from Toronto. Come and see what's a global village. Here, we have everyone from the Earth and we live in peace together.

The world can learn from Torontonian experience, Gil.

Globalization only works for the majority of humanity if the labor laws are all consistent across the globe. Global business without global regulation is what you see now with comopanies moving to where they can negotiate better deals for labor and product quality regulations with the governments of the countries like Malaysia or Indonesia (used to be India and China, but they are getting stricter). globalization as it stands now is a way of legally cooking the books for business interests like the investment banks, so they can get low quality labor at a inhumane rate until their buyers truly realize and it begins to effect their bottom line, then they relocate.

Ummmm wasn't Toronto where the last round of riots occured "protesting" globalization?

Doesn't Toronto sit at the top of this list of most dangerous cities in Canada?

Contrary to the belief held by many Torontonians, the universe does not revolve around Toronto. In fact Canada doesn't even revolve around Toronto.

/rant off

Globalization will reduce the boundaries of the globe . It allow us to exchange the expertise ,culture and social values for the overall development of human race.

"Accountable" is correct, better to have power closer to the people in small city-states. Anything really big is bad, big Govt, Big business, big unions, too much power up top and far away and the little guy gets crushed. Our current situation with globalization has been managed poorly, here in the states we have lost most of our manufacturing jobs to cheaper labor outside our boarders. This will eventually lead to the elimination of the lower middle-class and the mid middle-class, people will grow poorer and richer, creating a divid and civil unrest. Yes, it is nice that I can buy cheap shoes and cloths at Wallmart, but eventually that will not do you any good if you dont have a job. I would rather pay a little more and keep the jobs here. Our politicians didnt care about what free trade would do to our manufacturing jobs, nor did the big business's and some unions that contributed to those politicians and helped push it through. Eliminating that section of the middle class will eventually effect business balance sheet in a bad way.

Globalization will raise the quality of life for anyone outside of the US that has a lower quality of life, and conversly it will lower ours. Their wages will have to come up and ours will have to come down until we reach an equalibrium, very painful for US. It should have been managed better in that a little protectionism to our jobs should have been applied over 100 years, but dropping our barriers to trade this fast has been like dropping our pants and bending over.

It was an obvious outcome, so obvious that it was someones goal to hurt the US and bring us down a notch. What internal political group feels that way? Think about it.

The USA is actually the main country pushing globalization. They pushed software patents, life patents, and patented gmo organisms on other countries and still do.

I find it absurd that corn in Mexico is almost all technically owned by Monsanto because Monsanto ownership is spread by pollen. What idiots agreed to that?

There must have been a lot of arm twisting. (As wikileaks shows).

Globalization has led to an incredible shrinking of biodiversity by killing off weeds, insects and cultures while also shrinking the biodiversity of food plants and concentrating seed ownership. Farmers are not allowed to harvest their own seeds so within half a generation, local biodiversity is eliminated in most traded food plants.

The USA has done incredibly well by using those strong arm tactics. But long term it will be an incredible disaster for everybody.

Don't confuse Monsanto with the USA

The multi nationals that are behind the perversion that is globalization

The return on investment is great. Buy a few congressmen & senators, have the resources of a continent or 2 to plunder.

As a bonus ram through a few insane court rulings, money is not free speech, nor the patent mess

Fair enough. I did confuse the 2. But the way thing have being going, the USA may not be owned by Monsanto, but they definitely are a controlling shareholder in the houses that make laws. I like Bill Clinton but I have to say that he has acted in the best short term interests of Monsanto way too much. Farmers should be allowed to save seed.

My father saved seed until it was no longer allowed. A thousand years ago, "lambs quarters" (Weeds) were an important part of the English diet both green and the seeds. Monsanto's goal is Exterminate the weeds and everybody can live on cereals, and soybean. The problem is that cereals do not grow well everywhere and harvest time becomes more critical to our survival with every crimping of the seed base.

It should be a human right to save seed and it isn't. And not being allowed to save seed AUTOMATICALLY kills off the biodiversity of both the cereals AND the weeds.

(Because when you save seed, some weed seeds get saved too. And many weeds were crops not long ago or are close relatives of plants we use as crops now)

I think that ordinary people everywhere need to push back really really hard.

We HAVE to have genetic diversity to safeguard against cereal diseases.

That type of globalization is not in the USA people's interest long term.

I grew up on a farm and farmers are very competitive against each other.

It is a real pity that they do not compete against a mutual enemy like Monsanto as hard as they do against each other. Farmers will end up as serfs in the next 50 years if they don't wake up.