A look at Nationalism: Laid back, non-heated discussion (Please?)

[OTZ]

Well, let's consider what globalization means. I would say, personally, that it means more international trade. I don't think that it matters that the international trade is encouraged more only between certain countries. If the United States and Mexico can trade more freely, that's a slight increase in globalization, even if the United States and Zambia trade no more freely than before NAFTA. Inevitably, there will be a bias toward importing goods from places with lower shipping costs, which means that trade barriers will likely fall between nearby nations before distant nations, but even if that's not quite the ideal of globalization, it's closer than trade barriers for all.

Your definition of economic globalization is, I think, somewhat atypical. "Increase in international trade" is more usual, and by that measure globalization is steadily increasing.

My opinion on what globalisation is, is only atypical if yours is different than mine (which obviously it is.) There are at least two schools of thought about globalisation. In my view (again, only in the economic sense) it is indeed an increase in trade - but on a global scale, and it should be eqaully beneficial to both parties. Regional trade, or "localised globalisation" does not imapct the rest of the world in a positive fashion. Trading blocs prevent its members from trading with nations outside of their group - regardless whether or not products/resources/services can be had elsewhere for lower prices (keeping in mind that there are exceptions to every rule...) That's their purpose - and the citizens fo those nations tend to support that idea.

This confuses me. By what standard is this? Is it just because you view the trade as somehow one-sided? It's not: it's mutually beneficial, which is why all involved parties participate. That Nike probably profits more from it, in dollars, than the Filipino workers do, is irrelevant given the proportionality (Filipinos are poor, Nike is rich). Are you suggesting that globalization can only occur between economies of comparable size, or what?

This scenario is one sided, it is also mutually beneficial, but it certainly is not eqaully beneficial. People/groups who are reacting against globalisation (again, only in the economic sense) are doing so for this exact reason. Outsourcing like this is more a form of ecomnomic imperialism than it is globalisation. The Phillipines certainly isn't being integrated into the global economy because they make shoes for Westerners. They are a part of it, but they aren't participants. They don't have much of a say in the trading relationship, and they definitley do not see the products they are actually creating - their is no eqaul exchange/flow of goods and services. The employees do get paid - and that money definitely helps the local economy, but it does nothing on a global scale. The rich exploiting the poor is exactly what is happening - and in my world, this isn't "globalisation."

[Simetrical]

In my view (again, only in the economic sense) it is indeed an increase in trade - but on a global scale, and it should be eqaully beneficial to both parties.

No trade is equally beneficial to both parties, ever, for any nontrivial definition of "equally" that I can think of. Any trade between a rich party and a poor party will probably favor the poor in terms of utility, however, because the rich person places less value on money than the poor person does: if a poor Indonesian worker is given (for the sake of example) $2,000 a year, when an equivalent American worker would require $20,000, then Nike has gained $18,000 and the Indonesian worker only $2,000, but those $2,000 are enough for the Indonesian to afford food and shelter, while the $18,000 is an almost imperceptible gain in pricing competition for multibillion-dollar Nike. The poor country benefits more.

Why does that have anything to do with globalization, however? It's relevant to all trade, whether global or local.

Regional trade, or "localised globalisation" does not imapct the rest of the world in a positive fashion.

Of course it does, in a global market. If America makes more money due to free trade with Mexico, it will have more money to spend in trade with any other country, even if that trade is less free than its trade with Mexico. But again, reduction of any international trade barriers advances globalization, since it increases international trade. Free trade within North America is not globalization by itself, but it's a definite step toward free trade everywhere, which is globalization.

Trading blocs prevent its members from trading with nations outside of their group - regardless whether or not products/resources/services can be had elsewhere for lower prices (keeping in mind that there are exceptions to every rule...)

Name one such trading bloc. Neither the EU nor NAFTA imposes mandatory trade barriers on outsiders. They merely mandate the removal of trade barriers on insiders, thereby making the global market that much freer.

The Phillipines certainly isn't being integrated into the global economy because they make shoes for Westerners. They are a part of it, but they aren't participants. They don't have much of a say in the trading relationship, and they definitley do not see the products they are actually creating - their is no eqaul exchange/flow of goods and services.

Entirely incorrect. They are being integrated into the global economy: selling is as important to economy as buying, but even in terms of buying, they get money to spend on foreign products. They don't see the products they're creating, but neither does a worker in a Rolex factory see their products, or a luxury car worker see his: expensive products are frequently beyond the means of most of those individuals who create them, because there are a very large number of individuals involved and each contributes to the cost.

The most disturbing statement there is that the Filipinos "don't have much of a say in the trading relationship". I don't see how you can say this. They choose to accept various forms of foreign trade because it's unequivocally beneficial to them. It is beneficial to them because the rich Western nations who buy their labor make it beneficial to them. They may choose to accept the benefit or reject it.

The same is true of nearly every person alive. You gain benefit from whatever your job is, and so you continue working; if you liked you could always quit your job, but then you would have no money. This is unacceptable to you, and so you work. Likewise the Filipinos could choose to try sustaining themselves with subsistence agriculture and die in massive numbers whenever there was a drought; instead, they take cushy Western jobs.

Are they disadvantaged compared to us? Of course. But does that really make the jobs we offer them exploitative? Your (ultimate) boss is probably wealthier than you are, depending on your field: is it exploitation of him to hire you on the basis of that wealth differential? By that logic, the very existence of a wealth gap constitutes exploitation. If you're a Marxist, I don't think we'll ever agree, but anything that terms a mutually agreeable transaction "exploitation" is in my view severely twisting language.