It seems that the differeneces in culture, governments and ambitions are still too far apart for globalization to really make a difference. As a nation, should we continue to stretch our own resources thin to protect the interests of big business? Should we continue to discard our own pride as a nation while we grow third world cities within our own borders? I am by no means suggesting that more social programs are the answer... What I am suggesting is a government that provides opportunity for people to develop themselves into something more than they are.
sort by best latest
I agree, DS. The gov't doesn't seem to care because they're distracted. Their real bosses have an agenda that calls for the dismantling of America. The Supreme Court has already declared that Corporations are "people."
Yes! I have been trying to tell people the same thing Government doesn't work for us anymore they work for "Big Business"
The easing of restrictions on working globally has benefitted me as an individual, but successive British governments encouraged importation of cheap, largely low quality, labour from what were then developing countries thus harming the people.
This was sort of my point... well not so much the Islamic world part...but the fact that globalization is a word used to describe a unified platform...which the world is not. Whether that be in terms of currency, politics, or regligion....
The terms "protectionism and isolationism" are globalist/marxist invented terms to margianalize those who would put America first.The globalists smeered the America First movement by calling them "isolationists" for opposing American entry into WW2.
I am not sure globalization is a natural occuring phenomenon. It may be occuring because of pouplation expansion but that seems more forced than natural. Taking care of our people is not isolationism is humanitarian. My Chevy was made in Canada.....
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the term, "protectionism" originated in 1789 and "isolationism" was originated in 1922, well before WWII. I am only suggesting that neither are sound economic policy.
We may have more available to people if those people have money, but we do not take care of our own people. I use the jobless rate, homeless rate, and many other factors of poverty to say this. Family values??? what are those??? to many definitions!!
actually I have been awakened to that fact for a long time... I try to use my questions to teach others....
International trade is good. But is that the same as global corporate hegemony?
Without globalization we would have perfected sustainable consumerism and lessened poverty.
No and my opinion us only regarding globalization.
And davenmidtown, capitalism(especially a service economy) works on increased demand, that is, an eternal market which cannot happen in a closed economy.
Funny, I seem to recall 1933 Germany doing pretty well! Until the globalists ganged up on them.
I see a difference between building american products and being a closed economy. We have eliminated tariffs which should have offset the cost of American labor and in turn the products we buy are made elsewhere...
What is Global Corporate Hegemony?
And: how shall we, as a global people, find resolve in critically updating our platforms of globalization on a socio, economic and ecological fashion?