What is globalisation?

[Turek The Terrible]

This is something that sparked partly from another topic, 'Rise of the right' with the discussion occasionally passing on multi-culturalism and globalisation, their history, morality and definations. Also this is something my father passed for me as a part of his research.

What I am seeking here is your definitions and opinions on the subject. Of-the-shelf answers are not desired, as text-book definations of globalisation are as plentiful as they are often case related. There should be no 'right' answers here, as the subject is something as big, diverse and ambigouos as it is a process. Personal opinions and experiences are more sought after.

I will add my own definations and opinions later on, I will be on vacation IN ITALY for a week starting next monday.. ..I'm going to eat a ton-a-day of that delicious Italian food..

Here are the questions;

1) What is globalisation? Define in own terms.

2) Define different flows of globalisation.

3) Define goverment of globalisation.

4) Define the history of globalisation.

..and as last your own opinion on the whole phenomena;

5) What do you think about globalisation? (good<--->bad)

And please no flaming or US vs. others wars people, than you!! :original:

[Pyrrus]

globalisation is pure evil man..

[Tom Paine]

1) The spread of a single culture, at present of consumerism, across the world twisting and subverting other cultures to its own ends, ending up with everything a single all-pervading culture of consumerism (or other culture).
2) From rich nations to poor nations, along a gradient of GNP. The rich nations use corporations etc to make the poor nations richer, but it simply spreads globalisation and consumerism further faster.
3) What does this mean? Control? If so, then the only control is profit: if everyone stopped buying all produce, it would collapse and fold. If you meant as in government of a nation, CEOs and the richest nations' heads of state (G8) who are the only ones with a real say in the matter other than a united world.
4) Pervasion of religions (Christianity especially), of Empires (Roman and British are good examples) and of ideals (equality etc) all come under globalisation as defined above. However the spread of ideals can be split into two categories: universal ideals, that is ideals universally held simply being codified (UN Convention for example) and minority ideals, that is the ideals of a minority spreadfing to become the majority (eg social welfare)
5) The current process of Globalisation, that is globalisation of consumerism, is no doubt a bad thing. In other cases globalissation can be extremely good. It depends on what is being spread.

[Simetrical]

What's wrong with the spread of consumerism? (And I think that your average Japanese person would be surprised to learn that their culture has been twisted and subverted to our ends, by the way.)

-Simetrical

[Legatus.]

Its interesting to note that according to Squeakus, the "consumer" culture and other cultures are mutually exclusive, that they play a zero sum game where consumerism's gain is another culture's loss. Then why when one looks at a cross section of a wealthy western nation (ie America) one finds not cultural homogeny, but instead vast diversity. In fact, it is the aspect of individual choice as to what one consumes that consumerism promotes, providing wider ranges of goods and services to appeal to wider range of tastes.

I enjoyed this little peice though the best. "The rich nations use corporations ... to make the poor nations richer, but it simply spreads globalisation and consumerism further faster." - Squeakus Maximus
In more straight forward terms, it is better for poor nations to remain poor than to have the undefined evils of globalisation spread. What about the ground breaking theory that globalisation (ie free trade) is what is making poor nations richer. I think the case was made about 230 years ago... (Smith, Ricardo, comparative advantage is not a new one my friends)

What I don't get is how producing more (therby consuming more) is such a bad thing. I for one would certainly not advocate the return to the days of no dentists, no doctors, and no internet. By producing more stuff we become richer, which leads to longer, healthier, more educated, and more free (no more 15 hour days, no more worries of starvation) lives. If the so called "culture of consumerism" is such a bad thing, why did it result in our own successes, and those that have adopted more capitalist ways too (Eastern Europe, East Asia particularly Hong Kong and South Korea, and more recently China and India.)

[tommh]

Globalization is the outgrowth of a series of Technoligical developments. THese develepments are acting in numerous ways to make the world a less divided and more acccerssable place across the board. This has many consequences which are beneficial and harmeful to different people in different places at different times due to complex sets of changing factors.

When you play in Guildwars against a Korean thats Globalization, when the helpful service rep on the other end of the phone line is in India (or even a stay at home mom in Utah) thats Globalization. When you buy a TV mad with parts and sub assembleys from a dozen countries thats Globalization. It poses many challenges and opportunities to people the world over. Americans in particular are going to be challenged by the rise of other countries technological and entrepenurial abilities. The left may want to keep them in quant little villages like a zoo, and the right may believe in some mystical western innate superiority but the reality is be ready to compte or be ready to be steamrollered.

[Legatus.]

Very well said, and globalisation may have some consequences which over time will reduce conflict and increase cooperation.
Consider this line of reasoning:
1. Globalisation increases free trade, it allows for the seamless movement of capital and labour resources through the elimination of cost barriers such as communication and transportation costs that previously were unbearable.
2. This free trade, which is a positive sum game (both participants are better off than before the trade), allows for investment in foreign nations, therefore creating a vested interest in the state of the foreign countries that are invested in. This also leads to the case where those nations are investing in your country, so bad things that happen at home, hurt them as well.
3. As China buys more American dollars, and Americans invest heavily into China, the odds that the two superpowers will collide militarily become very low. China risks economic collapse, and America risks economic hardship as each country's investment is lost.

Economic interdependibility is a sure way of keeping the peace.

[Tom Paine]

Legatus, in point 2 I did not say it was successful. Use of corporations does not mean that the matter works; in fact, if you look, iit has not, in part because of labour laws in the nations.
I do not state "mutually exclusive" cultures, just that consumerism does change cultures. Globalisation is a matter of cultural change, a single cultural idea spreading and altering other cultures.
How is increased production increasing services like healthcare? Surely consumerism makes no difference to the number of doctors, at all, given that a doctor is not a piece of goods to be bought and sold.

On the second post, is cutting costs always so good? Eliminating all costs does not mean anything except company profits are even more consolidatred. And of course, on the last point, three words: Military-Industrial Complex.

[Turek The Terrible]

3) What does this mean? Control? If so, then the only control is profit: if everyone stopped buying all produce, it would collapse and fold. If you meant as in government of a nation, CEOs and the richest nations' heads of state (G8) who are the only ones with a real say in the matter other than a united world.

The third question (define the goverment of globalisation) is about control, ie. can the process be controlled or governed. If so in what kind of methods by what kind of factions.

[Tom Paine]

O good, I answered the way I thought correctly then. But I would like to add that Fair Trade would also help: stopping paying unreasonably low prices helps stop them selling produce that they cannot use and having to buy more and more.

[Legatus.]

On the case of health care, lets really examine what you're saying. Increased production doesn't increase these services because doctors aren't goods to be bought and sold? Hmm. How about we try an experiment where we stop paying doctors and wait and see how many people decide to become doctors in the future, or how many doctors stay doctors now. I think the result would be pretty obvious. Now let's introduce the consumer (in the "consumer culture"). Our consumer has a demand for health care (he has a sore foot, which hurts and prevents him from working), and he needs a doctor to help him. Essentially, our consumer needs to consume the products of the doctor, namely his advice and treatment. The doctor produces these products through his expertise, which have costs (time, education and equipment), and these costs have to be paid. Guess what, thats the consumer's role, and hey the more he consumes, the more production from doctors he'll need. Since doctors have a finite amount of production capacity, they cannot individually supply for the demand of everyone. So, the more demand, the more supply, the more doctors. Health care is consumed.

[Tom Paine]

Except under a national ealth system. O wait, those don't work because they aren't consumer driven, and the poor can't afford to visit a private doctor so they have motre time for the rich. Sorry, but that has a major failing: not all doctors are paid by their clients.

[Major.Stupidity]

@ Turek The Terrible

If you want to learn more about globalization I would strongly suggest that you either read The Lexus and The Olive Tree or The World is Flat....Both of them written by Thomas L. Friedman

[Kanaric]

Globalization is the eventually evening out of countries that results from exploitation of foreigners. Eventually the country doing the exploiting will be lowered economically and the exploited country will be raised up. Eventually companies will force the country to become more like the host country for it and remove cultural barriors. Some people are afraid of it due to human rights problems which are obvious and ignored. Can't stop it though as bad as it IS so might as well sit back, its not like protesting will do anything to change government's and corporation's minds.

I dont get these G8 protestors because of it, its not like anyone cares what they have to say, the governments will still do as they please and most will view them as extremists because of government propoganda.

[Tom Paine]

Just because there is little chance of success (and I think Live8 tells a different story), does not mean we should not try. In fact it probably makes it more important to, because each attempt raises awareness; supposedly, breaking the back of the British Empire in india was impossible, but through non-violent protest Ghandi managed.

[Major.Stupidity]

I dont get these G8 protestors because of it, its not like anyone cares what they have to say, the governments will still do as they please and most will view them as extremists because of government propoganda.

I'm with you there, as I read the book, In Defense of Globalization, these protesters are the stake wielders and the NGO's are the stake holders.... the NGO's having the best chance to make globalization better, and the wielders being the ones who want to throw sand in the cog and bring the whole thing down.

[Tom Paine]

No-on ecan really stop globalisation or even turn it positive except the main effectors of it, that is the corporations. They are the only ones who have any control over it, and they have no incentive whatsoever to slow or stop the process.

[Novusordo]

what people need to realise is globalization ise't just about the greedy fat cats of coperatism. It is the centralization or power and decision making.

the one world government is coming and it will be the United nations. This one world government will control the 6 unions that evolved out of trading programs and these unions each encompass a block of the planet.

The UN has everything in place including the one world justice system which will the whole planet will be subject to.

Then we have the world bank and the single currency which is coming and then we have NATO to act as the single world army to impose the will of the single world government onto the countries that are resisting.

NATO might also form a world police force too.

Then we have the ID card that is designed to become obsolete and impracticle and massivly over-expensive. Why are they doing it then? Wwll so they can introduce the microchip as it's replacment. The ID card is the trojan horse to the chip.

The chip will link it's bearer to a global computer GPS database/tracking system.

The one world religion will come - Satanism.

My friends, the New World Order is what this is and it's gonna come.

Absolutely everything has been manipulated to come into existance and all they need now is the world to be in total choas, confusion and debt so the UN can offer the solution as the one world government under the justification of "to prevent anything like this happening again".

Problem - Reaction - Solution. Learn it my friends and you shall know the game while the sheople fall for the lies everytime.

[Tom Paine]

I think that is a bit OTT for a cnspiracy theory, and inaccurate in one essential point even if it is halfway true: The US, not the UN will become world government, given that the UN is powerless; the WTO and IMF are more US-controlled than UN-regulated. The UN is nothing to be worried abot simply because it is nothing.

[Novusordo]

I think that is a bit OTT for a cnspiracy theory, and inaccurate in one essential point even if it is halfway true: The US, not the UN will become world government, given that the UN is powerless; the WTO and IMF are more US-controlled than UN-regulated. The UN is nothing to be worried abot simply because it is nothing.

No you wish dude

The US, like every other world-power the Illuminati have used as their veichle, will eventually dispearse and die away when their use is completed.

And from the perspective most people live in, yes the UN is powerless but not when you see it from the perspective of someone who dosen't swallow everything they tell you