Definition of Globalization


katnut
#1
How do you define Globalization? or what do you understand by the world Globalization?

I understand it as the world getting smaller where constraints of space and time is reduced to a minimum. Which means I am able to communicate with someone in Asia as if he/she is living next door to me. Thus globalization is helped mostly by advancement of technology. That is what Globalization is in my opinion.

What do you think?
__________________
Kabbalah does not let us live our lives in the dust, but elevates our mind to the height of knowledge." Johannes Reuchlin
 
Said1
#2
That's not a definition, just part of the process.
 
Spade
#3
Globalization: The parade of nations towards a single Sphere of Influence
 
Stretch
#4
1 government, 1 currency, 1 religion, 1 policeforce..........
 
Tyr
#5
The "watering down"of protectionism and isolation
 
Cliffy
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by StretchView Post

1 government, 1 currency, 1 religion, 1 policeforce..........

That's the new world order. Globalization is more about a global free market economy which in itself is probably an oxymoron. Multinational corporations want free reign to control all the economies of the world. They are the force behind the NWO.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#7
The laitman.com website had this definition of glob.: "a process of global economic, political, and cultural integration and unification. The main consequences of this are a global distribution of labor; migration of capital and human and industrial resources on a global scale; standardization of legislation and of economic and technological processes; and greater contact between different cultures. This is an objective, natural, historic process that is systematic. In other words, it encompasses all areas of social life."

Social life, hmmm, let's see.

Well, let's see, most of us can't even emigrate to the US if we want. It was much easier 100 years ago. So the labour part is wrong.

As for culture, why do the World Junior Hockey Championships sell out in Canada, but no other country? And soccer is HUGE in Canada.

And religion. Israel is called the "Jewish state", surrounded by Arab countries that are also very religious. What happened to the secular state? Not global.

Ordinary people have no response to globalization, I mean we never talk about in groups. It just means work and the great powers that be exert power I guess.

So, why wasn't it called planetization?
 
Toro
#8
Just general super-cool awesomeness.
 
Said1
#9
Thanks. I try to be modest, but you know.
 
eh1eh
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Just general super-cool awesomeness.


Ya. Think about the GSX.



Said1:
Quote:

Said1:
Thanks. I try to be modest, but you know.

Yes, I do. Thanks for mentioning it.
 
Cannuck
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Just general super-cool awesomeness.

Super-cool is good during this time of global warming.
 
EagleSmack
#12
One life
One Blood
One (something)
We gotta do what we should
 
EagleSmack
#13
Complete and utter US dominance
 
Toro
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Super-cool is good during this time of global warming.

Yes, I understand you've been getting a lot of super-cool up there this winter.
 
Cannuck
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

Yes, I understand you've been getting a lot of super-cool up there this winter.

I'm sure Mr Suzuki is pissed.
 
Cannuck
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Complete and utter US dominance

Oh Pulleeeze!!! Can I be your first bitch!!!
 
Toro
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Complete and utter US dominance

You aren't exactly making a compelling sales pitch, here.
 
Said1
#18
More like race to the bottom.
 
Machjo
#19
In some ways, globalization isn't that unique to our time in history:

local tribes to city states to kingdoms (sometimes empires, albeit less stable of of shorter duration), to nation states, and now the League of Nations, the UN, EU, OPEC, OAU, OAS, ASEAN, NATO, etc. etc. etc.

Since as far as human history was recorded, as technology progressed (wheels, boats, sails, rows, canoes, kayaks, chariots, typesets, trains, typewriters, telegraphs, telephones, airplanes, satellites, cell pones, computers, internet), our social structures inevitably became more complex. The only way to stop globalization would be to reverse all commmunications technologies from the telegraph to today. Once the telegraph was invented in 1844, globalization began, and there was no stopping it, so we might as well learn to live with it.

The only thing within our control now is the kind of globalization, based on materialism or spirituality, that's our choice, but the process itself, no.
 
Said1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

In some ways, globalization isn't that unique to our time in history:

local tribes to city states to kingdoms (sometimes empires, albeit less stable of of shorter duration), to nation states, and now the League of Nations, the UN, EU, OPEC, OAU, OAS, ASEAN, NATO, etc. etc. etc.

Since as far as human history was recorded, as technology progressed (wheels, boats, sails, rows, canoes, kayaks, chariots, typesets, trains, typewriters, telegraphs, telephones, airplanes, satellites, cell pones, computers, internet), our social structures inevitably became more complex. The only way to stop globalization would be to reverse all commmunications technologies from the telegraph to today. Once the telegraph was invented in 1844, globalization began, and there was no stopping it, so we might as well learn to live with it.

The only thing within our control now is the kind of globalization, based on materialism or spirituality, that's our choice, but the process itself, no.

Globalization began long before 1844.
 
EagleSmack
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Oh Pulleeeze!!! Can I be your first bitch!!!

Sure! You guys are close enough and we someone has to be first!
 
Cliffy
#22
Be the US's bitch? I don't think so. I would prefer if we followed the example of the Dali Lama not Jack the Ripper.
 
L Gilbert
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

That's the new world order. Globalization is more about a global free market economy which in itself is probably an oxymoron. Multinational corporations want free reign to control all the economies of the world. They are the force behind the NWO.

That's pretty much in line with my definition of globalisation.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#24
Eaglesmack, Toro, and Cannuck, please leave this thread if your posts continue to be puerile. Don't waste our time, this is a serious policy discussion.

Said1, you said glob. began in 1844 with the telegraph, yet the word glob. only entered English in the late 20th century. It seems like a kind of historic inevitability is at work here. This doesn't seem very democratic.

If glob. is just more economic efficiency, how radical is that? This has been going on since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Glob. and economics are two different words, to me they have two different meanings, but I don't think glob. is purely an economic phenomena.
 
L Gilbert
#25
No, but it is definitely a tool that is used for economic purposes. And money is THE driving force behind a lot of countries.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#26
Money has to be fairly distributed, but money is what makes much of the world go around, not entirely of course, but in the modern world, yes. For example, we can't be fired from being Canadians, but we can be fired from our job. Being Canadian is something we are born with and it can never be taken away from us.

Money has to be fairly distributed of course, business does not own Cdn markets, Cdns do. Cdns ensure safety and prosperity for all, so all must benefit.

Even with glob,. corporations are not supreme, Canadians are supreme in Canada.

Econ glob. is not even number one on the agenda for all Cdn businesses, small business doesn't worry about it as much as big business does.
 
L Gilbert
#27
If you think money is fairly distributed and that big money doesn't influence gov'ts as much as people do then I might offer that you are a bit naive.
 
DurkaDurka
#28
Globalization is all about me buying cheap goods without a nary of a thought for the poor sod paid fifty cents a week to build it.
 
Said1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Eaglesmack, Toro, and Cannuck, please leave this thread if your posts continue to be puerile. Don't waste our time, this is a serious policy discussion.

Said1, you said glob. began in 1844 with the telegraph, yet the word glob. only entered English in the late 20th century. It seems like a kind of historic inevitability is at work here. This doesn't seem very democratic.

If glob. is just more economic efficiency, how radical is that? This has been going on since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Glob. and economics are two different words, to me they have two different meanings, but I don't think glob. is purely an economic phenomena.

I didn't say that, I quoted someone else.

The phenomena of 'globalization' precedes the industrial revolution. In fact, if you think about it, globalization is merely a groovy, neuvo term that replaced colonization. As long as another weaker nation has something a stronger nation wants, this process will continue forever regardless of institutional mechanisms in place to ensure 'fair trade'. Not that I'm against it or anything.
 
L Gilbert
#30
Quote:

Globalization is all about me buying cheap goods without a nary of a thought for the poor sod paid fifty cents a week to build it.

Pretty much.
Whatever original definitions of things are, sometimes they change.
 

Similar Threads

22
globalization definition
by dumpthemonarchy | Dec 22nd, 2005
2
GET OFF THE GLOBALIZATION GRID
by jjw1965 | Aug 26th, 2005
0
The process of globalization.
by Machjo | Jun 22nd, 2005
no new posts