Definition of Globalization
- Thread starter katnut
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
No, but it is definitely a tool that is used for economic purposes. 
And money is THE driving force behind a lot of countries.
And money is THE driving force behind a lot of countries.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please check to see if one of these is lodged in your derriere.
Upon discovery, remove carefully.
As the world has become more globalized, more countries have become democratic.
And countries that have embraced globalization have become richer than countries that have not.
Finance & Development, September 2001 - Trade, Growth, and PovertyPer capita GDP growth in the post-1980 globalizers accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s (Chart 1). This acceleration in growth is even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the nonglobalizing developing countries did much worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s—18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.
Colonization has been going on for thousands of years, we will never all get along, to expect that is naive. What we can hope for is a more peaceful world. Many think the current EU is a peaceful extension of German militarism expressed through economic and political means. But millions aren't dying with this current globalization. So I call this progress, not perfect, but better.
And wealth needs to be better distributed, tax the rich more I say.
And wealth needs to be better distributed, tax the rich more I say.