Economy (Poll) Is globalization good or bad?

[mmafan2000]

I need sherbro help here. I still am undecided if globalization is good or bad from an economic AND cultural perspective. What say you?

My 2 specific questions:

1) is globalization more aligned with left wing or right wing politics?
2) Is globalization good or bad from an economic and cultural prospective.

I summarized some good and bad aspects of globalization:

GOOD:

1. Brings the world closer, less wars potentially if we all work together and understand cultural differences
   
2. You can get more products at a cheaper price
3. Keeps the stock market happy
4. Can lift people out of poverty
5. Inevitable, as the world population bloats to huge/unsustainable numbers, the world will become smaller.

BAD:

1. Puts local workers out of business. Workers in developed countries lose out to cheap labor.
2. Environmental destruction with the increased, mass transportation, spills and pollution
3. Contributes to cultural homogeniety (masses easier to control?)
4. More power in the hands of multinational corporation (masses easier to control?). But I support a free market. Is this a contradiction?
5. This last one here I am not sure about. Because of points 3 and 4, a New World Order. It's easy to believe this confederacy theory. Power concentrages into the hands of a few. That is true. But that feeds the NWO conspiracy theory. Leaders who are selling out their countries for UN agendas. Justin Turdneau of Canada for example puts many UN agendas ahead of Canada's needs. The United Nations is a dysfunctional organization where non-democratic countries, because of their large numbers, have the most influence. This leads to ridiculous situations. For example, several of the member states on the UN Human Rights Council are among the worst human rights offenders in the world. There is no persuasive moral or economic efficiency argument for development aid. Countries that remain poor are those where governments are still crushing private initiative. Until they liberalize their economy and free their citizens, no amount of development aid will solve their problems.

Look at this..I just learned about this today....WTF!!!! I don't believe in any conspiracy theories, but this is uncanny.

Novus ordo seclorum meaning New order of the ages.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization

 

[Ophydian]

Humans will not advance as a fragmented group.

 

[Proud American]

You put globalism and less war in the good section.

thats egregious

 

[FIGHTING TALK]

It’s historically right wing but that’s not really applicable as of now. So it’s centralist more than either right or left.

 

[mmafan2000]

Humans will not advance as a fragmented group.

Very good point actually.

I think globalism is inevitable. Its HOW we do it. I guess we are learning. But we need to find a way to counter the cons.

 

[mmafan2000]

You put globalism and less war in the good section.

thats egregious

No evidence that more globalism = more war.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

globalism is great for shared goals, such as space travel and exploration
globalism is not great if all we get from it is new phones and shoes.

 

[Broken arrow]

Humans will not advance as a fragmented group.

I could argue that we advance more through the inherent competition between groups

 

[nostradumbass]

Brings the world closer and less war?



Is that how you would describe the US over the last couple decades? If you're in a developed country, it'll create a hell of a lot more poverty than it'll solve.

 

[Trotsky]

Obviously, it's better.

It's opposed, for good reason, due to its failure to synchronize with domestic politics especially regarding distribution of resources. For instance, in the United States, while globalization has created greater efficiency and great wealth, Americans keep electing Republicans who cut taxes for the wealthy, so the upwardly distributional effects of NAFTA are not counteracted.

It's opposed for very good reason by poorer countries who oppose the free trade policies that allow wealthier countries to dominate their consumption and undercut their domestic industry. However, that's a problem of globalization directed by first world corporations, not globalization itself.

It's opposed, for understandable (if not good) reason by conservatives in poorer countries who don't like the effect it has of liberalizing their culture in its promulgation of gender equality, civil liberties, and other secular and liberal concepts.

It's opposed for bad reason by moron right-wingers in developed countries (like the US) who are just looking for a reason to spread racism and whine without understanding the issues. They don't care about organized labor in the US (and have constantly opposed it). Nor due they care about the interests of the working or middle classes: if they did, they wouldn't keep voting for politicians who cut taxes for the wealthy and increase the revenue burden on those classes.

However, globalism/internationalism is absolutely inevitable and it serves to tie the interests of countries to one another to prevent conflict and also prevent uneven economic growth. It has some problems, sure, but just about any resistance to "globalism" (rather than exploitative FTA's and the like) usually amounts to ignorant whinging by right wingers who baselessly claim that American wealthy is being stolen by foreigners.

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

In a utopian world, good. In reality, bad.

In a utopian vision, we'd all have access to the internet, speak the same language and share a common vision of unity and a common goal. In reality, the world has a ton of different languages, cultures, practices, laws, rules, etc. While it might be something we should work towards, I don't see it happening in reality.

In America, we are literally connected to the same land as Mexico and yet we want to keep those people out. Now imagine that on a world scale. It will never work.

 

[Hadron90]

Industrial society is a failed a experiment. Its time to collapse.

 

[mmafan2000]

Obviously, it's better.

It's opposed, for good reason, due to its failure to synchronize with domestic politics especially regarding distribution of resources. For instance, in the United States, while globalization has created greater efficiency and great wealth, Americans keep electing Republicans who cut taxes for the wealthy, so the upwardly distributional effects of NAFTA are not counteracted.

It's opposed for very good reason by poorer countries who oppose the free trade policies that allow wealthier countries to dominate their consumption and undercut their domestic industry. However, that's a problem of globalization directed by first world corporations, not globalization itself.

It's opposed, for understandable (if not good) reason by conservatives in poorer countries who don't like the effect it has of liberalizing their culture in its promulgation of gender equality, civil liberties, and other secular and liberal concepts.

It's opposed for bad reason by moron right-wingers in developed countries (like the US) who are just looking for a reason to spread racism and whine without understanding the issues. They don't care about organized labor in the US (and have constantly opposed it). Nor due they care about the interests of the working or middle classes: if they did, they wouldn't keep voting for politicians who cut taxes for the wealthy and increase the revenue burden on those classes.

However, globalism/internationalism is absolutely inevitable and it serves to tie the interests of countries to one another to prevent conflict and also prevent uneven economic growth. It has some problems, sure, but just about any resistance to "globalism" (rather than exploitative FTA's and the like) usually amounts to ignorant whinging by right wingers who baselessly claim that American wealthy is being stolen by foreigners.

Ok, good analysis. I can get on board with a lot of this because it makes sense. However, how do you account for points # 3, 4 and 5 under the BAD part in the OP?

 

[dreden1982]

I agree with damn near every post in here and that illustrates the conflict of ideas sincere people go through.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I need sherbro help here. I still am undecided if globalization is good or bad from an economic AND cultural perspective. What say you?

My 2 specific questions:

1) is globalization more aligned with left wing or right wing politics?
2) Is globalization good or bad from an economic and cultural prospective.

1. It's traditionally been more aligned with right-wing politics in America, in practice, though the mainstream right is more likely to use the term in a negative way (left-wing activists were probably the people who complained the most, but it seems to me that the mainstream left is more OK with it).
2. It's very good from an economic and cultural perspective.

 

[Proud American]

No evidence that more globalism = more war.

Yes there is! My goodness

 

[Ophydian]

I could argue that we advance more through the inherent competition between groups

Competition between groups with different ideologies leads to resource conflicts which ends up leading to war. I believe both are true but at different stages of human development. Early on competition lead to humans with the best traits succeeding. It then lead to major technological advances. At some point we as a species will need to harness vast amounts of energy which will require a major undertaking of resources and focus. You can still have competition through different organization competing for the best idea but in order to harness and focus that amount of energy, war with each other isn’t an option.

 

[Proud American]

Industrial society is a failed a experiment. Its time to collapse.

It could Have been great. We could have reached the stars. We could have been an interstellar species that could survive in perpetuity

but nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

(4chan has a great piece of artwork that is a man on a horse in the foreground of a forest, with the backdrop a massive space shuttle covered in vegetation and decrepit over the years)

 

[Trotsky]

Ok, good analysis. I can get on board with a lot of this because it makes sense. However, how do you account for points # 3, 4 and 5 under the BAD part in the OP?

Sorry, I didn't read your OP fully.

#3 is not a problem in my opinion. The biggest problem is the loss of linguistic and cultural peculiarities by languages that die out. But that is wholly offset by the the fact that their being wiped out with napalm is prevented. And if 80% of the world's languages drying up to time is the cost of a more cohesive and sustainable world, it's a small price to pay IMO.

#4 is a problem but only if we let it be. The 20th century showed that the American government can control corporations rather than letting them control. For a short time in the 1950s, even the Republican Party showed some willingness to regulate corporations in the public interest before returning back to being pure corporate lackeys under Reagan. Regardless, so long as we commit ourselves to electing politicians who aren't corrupt stooges, we're in the black.

In re #5, I'm not sure I understand your complaint. I think countries serving the interests of the international community rather than ruinously pursuing their own national interests at the expense of the rest of the world is a good thing. The UN is consistently a more moral body than the average country (certainly more moral than the most powerful [the US], the most ascendant [China], or the most tyrannical [Saudi Arabia]). But hosting international decisionmaking doesn't mean that reason needs to be necessarily marginalized.

 

[Ophydian]

Yes there is! My goodness

There hasn’t been a world war in over 80 years when globalism wasn’t a thing. If you want to talk about regional conflicts as war then I’m not sure you understand how devastating global wars can be.