Globalization is Good!

[skylercollins]

As posted on my blog, first watch the video, and let the discussion ensue!

Globalization is a good thing. Despite what those who protest it believe, globalization is the best way to end poverty throughout the world. To demonstrate that point, I want you all to watch a documentary by Johan Norberg called Globalization is Good. Johan Norberg is also the author of In Defense of Global Capitalism, a book on my recommended reading list. I have confidence it will educate you and change your mind if you are currently anti-globalization.

To watch it via Google Video, click this link: Globalization is Good

To download it as a Quicktime file (270mb), click here.

[Moksha]

That One World Order stuff has been officially banned from the towns of Huricane and LaVerkin, Utah.

[gabelpa]

Globalisation is one of those things that has the power for both good and bad. One of the problems is that it is a top-down procedure. How is someone with a stall selling homespun clothes or croft-raised food supposed to compete in a global market without someone with more money buying for pennies on the pound?

The problem with Capitalism is that without Government intervention, the end result is one company owning everything and wringing every last penny from us.

[WANDERER]

Globalisation is a morally neutral concept *like the debate about money being the root of all evil*.

Globalisation can drive changes that may be good, bad or neutral or all three at the same time...like...

the internet LOL.

Edited November 30, 2008 by WANDERER

[Aesa]

I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the globalism that is being formed around us, then no, you're wrong.

Globalisation is bad, because it involves centralisation of power.

If we have learnt anything from the elites throughout history it is that power corrupts, and absolute power currupts, absolutely.

The way globalism is going to be forced on us will likely be through the financial realm (as prophesied in scripture).

And then, you have the question of ... is it compatible with Christianity? Well certainly God doesn't like it, all you need to do is look at Genesis when they all spoke one language and were united in all ways ... God broke them up.

God has clearly warned us of this One World Order in scripture, so you cannot reconcile being Christian ... and deny it's going to happen. Obviously it'll happen, but that doesn't mean we are not to stand against it.

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

If you knew anything about our corrupt central banking private system my friend .. and the fact that is has caused and IS causing depression right now as a pretext for a new monetary system so this can quote "never happen again" ... haha yeah, right.

You cannot reconcile being Christian, and support the global order. Because clearly, God is not behind it, at all.

The problem with Capitalism is that without Government intervention, the end result is one company owning everything and wringing every last penny from us.

Well that's true, but the problem is we aren't in a free market because the government intervenes so strongly in things.

In a free market the government regulates things to a high degree to ensure the safety of peoples money, but it doesn't control their activities beyond regulation.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Aesa

[Elgama]

I agree with need more free trade and globalisation BUT only if its fair - right now rules are made that are not fair, if we are not all competing in a fair market place then no globalisation = empire building and not always without the army

-Charley

[skalenfehl]

Anyone ever play Monopoly?

[skylercollins]

That One World Order stuff has been officially banned from the towns of Huricane and LaVerkin, Utah.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what this video is about. Globalization is about free trade, not government.

[skylercollins]

Globalisation is one of those things that has the power for both good and bad. One of the problems is that it is a top-down procedure. How is someone with a stall selling homespun clothes or croft-raised food supposed to compete in a global market without someone with more money buying for pennies on the pound?

The problem with Capitalism is that without Government intervention, the end result is one company owning everything and wringing every last penny from us.

I would disagree. The problem of having one company own everything is brought about by the government interfering too much, not too little. In a truly free market, there is no force and every company is constantly on the defense against competition. When government interferes and gives tax breaks to certain companies and not others, and other such form of welfare for the rich, then it's no longer a free market and monopoly is easier to achieve.

[skylercollins]

I'm sorry, but if you're talking about the globalism that is being formed around us, then no, you're wrong.

Globalisation is bad, because it involves centralisation of power.

...

Obviously, you didn't watch the video.

[skylercollins]

Anyone ever play Monopoly?

I hear that objection a lot, although I've never understood how it has anything to do with a free market and the division of labor.

[gabelpa]

I would disagree. The problem of having one company own everything is brought about by the government interfering too much, not too little. In a truly free market, there is no force and every company is constantly on the defense against competition. When government interferes and gives tax breaks to certain companies and not others, and other such form of welfare for the rich, then it's no longer a free market and monopoly is easier to achieve.

If the one company is big enough, they have no fear of competition,such as Telcos esp. in Australia. A large company can create an environment in which smaller ones can't survive. Competitors that do survive can either be merged with or bought out. Just look at the failed Google buyout of Yahoo, they pulled out because of Antitrust investigation concerns. Yahoo wanted to be bought out, but no one wanted them.

Montsanto is an example of a universally powerful company that can sue nonconforming farmers into oblivion.

Take away the government controls, and we have companies with enough money to raise their own armies and who will protect us from them?

[austro-libertarian]

Globalisation is a morally neutral concept *like the debate about money being the root of all evil*.

Globalisation can drive changes that may be good, bad or neutral or all three at the same time...like...

the internet LOL.

You mean the love of money being the root of all evil. A world of difference!!

1 Timothy 6:10

[austro-libertarian]

Take away the government controls, and we have companies with enough money to raise their own armies and who will protect us from them?

To put this in perspective . . .

1. Governments have a monopoly on money, and can print it at their whim.

2. Government have a monopoly on taxation.

3. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, e.g., armies, militaries, etc.

4. Governments have a monopoly on the use of judicial services, i.e., the legal system.

You are saying that we need governments with the above characteristics to prevent us from a potential monopoly? Private companies, no matter how large, must earn their revenues by voluntary purchases from their consumers. Governments use force.

I don't follow how governments, which actually do have enough money (unlimited) and armies, should be the ones to protect us. Who protects us from the current monopolies (governments)?

[gabelpa]

To put this in perspective . . .

1. Governments have a monopoly on money, and can print it at their whim.

2. Government have a monopoly on taxation.

3. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, e.g., armies, militaries, etc.

4. Governments have a monopoly on the use of judicial services, i.e., the legal system.

You are saying that we need governments with the above characteristics to prevent us from a potential monopoly? Private companies, no matter how large, must earn their revenues by voluntary purchases from their consumers. Governments use force.

I don't follow how governments, which actually do have enough money (unlimited) and armies, should be the ones to protect us. Who protects us from the current monopolies (governments)?

Somalian pirates anyone? countries where the economy has collapsed? Congo? Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

Governments do not have a monopoly on the use of force. In the above mentioned places, there is no government control of the legal system, because there is none.

We HAVE to eat. We HAVE to wear clothing, We NEED shelter. We may be able to provide these things, but can you build a house without government and private companies? Can you grow/raise enough food for you and your family on the meager plot of land that the Realtor sold you, but is ultimately owned by the State?

While governments can print money at whim, the money gets devalued, inflation rises and, woo, guess what, economies collapse. If governments can print and spend money on a whim, why do they need taxes?

If you properly followed politics over the past 8 years, you would know that companies, specifically oil and one by the name of Haliburton, are currently running American policy. That may change, but in Soviet America, the companies control the Government.

[a-train]

The trouble is that 'globalization' is being re-defined as 'world-government' or the 'globalization of monopoly' and thus it is confusing folks. This plays into the hands of those seeking monopoly. The term is too vague. 'Globalization' of what? Is it the globalization of the use of peanut butter?

Globalization of free-trade is certainly what is necessary to globalize prosperity and what the maker of the movie in the OP is pushing for. I am in complete agreeance.

-a-train

[austro-libertarian]

Somalian pirates anyone? countries where the economy has collapsed? Congo? Taliban controlled Afghanistan?

Governments do not have a monopoly on the use of force. In the above mentioned places, there is no government control of the legal system, because there is none.

Governments do have a monopoly on the use of force, i.e., taxation of its citizens, a military, and a territorial monopoly geographically.

We HAVE to eat. We HAVE to wear clothing, We NEED shelter. We may be able to provide these things, but can you build a house without government and private companies? Can you grow/raise enough food for you and your family on the meager plot of land that the Realtor sold you, but is ultimately owned by the State?

I have no idea what you are saying above.

While governments can print money at whim, the money gets devalued, inflation rises and, woo, guess what, economies collapse. If governments can print and spend money on a whim, why do they need taxes?

Good point you raise. Governments tax so as to try and avoid (price) inflation. Governments print money b/c they can only get so much in taxes. If the US had to tax every man, woman, and child $10,000 a year just to pay for the Iraq war, there might be another revolution. If the US taxed its citizens for the bank bailouts, I doubt it would go through. So governments inflate the money supply, which acts as a tax anyway.

If you properly followed politics over the past 8 years, you would know that companies, specifically oil and one by the name of Haliburton, are currently running American policy. That may change, but in Soviet America, the companies control the Government.

I understand that companies run the government--that's corporatism, not capitalism. That is why I think governments are so dangerous. They, acting as the ultimate monopoly, grant monopoly privileges to companies, which would not happen in an otherwise free market.

[austro-libertarian]

Globalization of free-trade is certainly what is necessary to globalize prosperity and what the maker of the movie in the OP is pushing for. I am in complete agreeance.

-a-train

a-train is right. Globalization of trade is nothing more than free trade on a larger scale, i.e., across somewhat arbitrary geographical lines. It makes sense for individuals to trade, communities to trade, states and counties to trade, why not countries?

*Free trade has nothing to do with free trade agreements or any government involvement. NAFTA etc. is NOT free trade.

[gabelpa]

At least I managed to confuse you on one point.

I just thought I'd take counter-point but with it being 10:30PM my arguments aren't up to snuff.

[Moksha]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what this video is about. Globalization is about free trade, not government.

Perhaps it is tangential, but I suspect the good people of Hurkin and LaVerkin, Utah would not cotton to any foreigners like that Adam Smith character, nor the World Trade Federation. They would sooner smoke some Parowan.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Moksha

[skylercollins]

Perhaps it is tangential, but I suspect the good people of Hurkin and LaVerkin, Utah would not cotton to any foreigners like that Adam Smith character, nor the World Trade Federation. They would sooner smoke some Parowan.

Anyone who is against the globalization of free trade and consumes anything they didn't produce 100% themselves is a hypocrite. You realize that not a single person can make a regular #2 pencil, right? We have, especially here in the U.S., what we have and for as cheap and high in quality as we have it because of the liberalization of free trade. For us to deny to other countries poorer than us, is hypocritical as well. The video really is compelling and makes excellent points on how globalization of free trade produces peace and raises the standard of living. Not a single government entity has ever been able to do that without the threat of force, and certainly has never raised the standard of living.

Austro-lib brings up a great point. Government currently is the monopoly on several different functions in society. Take first-class mail as an example. Do you think that companies like Fed-Ex, UPS, and DHL are incapable of delivering first-class mail as "efficiently" as the US Postal Service? I would put all my assets that if given the chance, they would do it faster and better. Unfortunately, federal law prohibits them from doing so. Now that's kind of a silly law isn't it? To whom should you turn to protect you from that monopoly?

Edited December 1, 2008 by skylercollins

[skylercollins]

If you properly followed politics over the past 8 years, you would know that companies, specifically oil and one by the name of Haliburton, are currently running American policy. That may change, but in Soviet America, the companies control the Government.

So is that a problem of too much or too little government? If the federal government obeyed the rules laid out for it in the Constitution, we wouldn't special interests "controlling" the government.

[a-train]

DHL's last day for domestic U.S. shipping is February 28th, 2009. I guess that monopoly is taking its toll.

-a-train