It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 2. Bigdanprice vs. Rdube02: Worldly Facade

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Globalization is a facade for a cabal with far more in mind than merely a common market.".

Bigdanprice will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Rdube02 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.

Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only one image and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.




posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Thank you to everyone who has made this debate possible, I wish all the competitors the very best of Luck… on with round 2.

This House Believes that: ‘Globalization is a facade for a cabal with far more in mind than merely a common market.’

The Argument for

Come with me if you will, on a journey, down any street, in any major city, in any country of the world. As we amble down the streets of Rio, London or Tokyo, we will notice some startling similarities… Look there’s McDonalds, Starbucks, Burger King, Nike, Adidas and a whole constellation of the same shops you will find in any city in the world. And say lets take a look at a third world city, Bangkok or Kula Lumpur, here’s the same shops. Let’s take a wander out of the main city area, and see the sweat shops were young children work for pitiful pay, and in awful conditions, to make trainers or footballs… welcome to the C21st Global Economy.

Globalisation, is the rise of multinational companies, establishing outposts around the world. They have businesses in most countries that are supplied by some of the poorest nations on the earth, all to make profit. All at the expense of cultural diversity, local economies and the environment. Whilst this trade benefits some, it leaves many floundering: so the few, can live a comfortable life at the expense of the many. Through advertising we are taught to be good consumers, thinking we need to work to buy things we don’t really need. We are made to forget the important questions: who runs these companies that have such a grip on our lives and those of billions around the globe, and is profit all they want.

It is not simply the loss of freedom in economies that should worry us, it is the loss of our civil liberties and democratic rights that should have us up in arms. The war in Iraq has shown us that governments around the world are prepared to disregard the will of there people, (UK, Spain, Italy, Poland) showing an overall contempt for democracy. The links between economies and the military, mean war is big business. The fact that Iraq had started trading oil in Euros, rather than dollars had nothing to do with this of course and nothing to do with very rich American and British companies being awarded contracts to rebuild Iraq. This is not simply Anti-American sentiment, America is simply the largest and most powerful country with the most corporations. Though it is implicated in the process heavily.

The people who run these countries, also run the corporations. They are an elite, a new world order, (not necessarily in the conspiracy nut style), for whom profit and power are king. Human race and civilisation come far behind in their priorities. They are no different from organised crime, except for the most part they are the government. Nations are run by rich men, who are made richer by lobbyists from rich companies, who manipulate countries laws to make themselves all the richer. Globalisation is a result of this as the power of profit casts a dark shadow across the world.

This debate will show amongst other things:
  • How Globalisation affects our lives
  • What is Globalisation really?
  • Who runs this all?
  • Why should I care?


I invite Rdube02 to begin with the Argument Against and I wish him the best of luck! Well not that much….

580 words by my count



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
To start, I would like to express my appreciation to the judges for the comments in the last round, and I wish to thank the moderators for how the debates have been handled and best of luck to my opponent and all remaining competitors.

I am glad to see that my assigned position in this round is one that I believe very strongly in. The comment posed to us in this debate is: Globalization is a facade for a cabal with far more in mind than merely a common market. This is a strong statement loaded with a lot of information, so in this opening statement I would simply like to break this down and simplify it, so that we’re all on the same page and we can move ahead in this discussion with a common understanding of the issues at hand.

The definition of globalization, as the subject of that statement, is very important here. While my opponent has it partially correct, globalization is commonly misunderstood, and there is more to the definition. Globalization is indeed commonly known as global business, where multinational companies establish outposts around the world. However I would like to expand on that definition by pointing out that the true definition of globalization is the flow of money, goods, services, communications, and information easily and fluidly around the world. It obviously has its largest impact in business, but globalization is much more than that. It is important to keep this in mind as we progress in this discussion, because this definition will prove to be extremely important.

Secondly, a cabal is a group of people who are secretly plotting or scheming. Therefore the statement that forms the foundation of this debate can be alternately stated as follows: ”The flow of money, goods, services, communications, and information around the world is a front, set up to hide a secret plot by some group, where a common market is not their only goal.”

In this debate I will carefully detail the following for our readers:

- Globalization is not a facade to hide any secret plot.
- Globalization serves to benefit all countries in very positive ways
- The single most important result of globalization is a common market, not a secret agenda

My opponent in this round is quite intelligent, well written, and my hats off to him for his victory in the last round. I am very much looking forward to a great discussion in this round.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Thank you very much for your kind words Rdube02, its interesting to read your assessment of my debating skills. And so we continue:


cabal noun 1 a small group formed within a larger body, for secret, especially political, discussion, planning, etc. 2 a political plot or conspiracy. verb (caballed, caballing) to form a cabal; to plot.
ETYMOLOGY: 17c: from French cabale, from cabbala.


I begin by taking slight issue with your definitions of the wording of our debate: a cabal is more than you give it credit for. We are facing a secretive organization with our institutions both global and national, that seek to not only have a common market, but use governments and the military to help create environments for better profit, such as destabilizing regions for arms sales.

This is the tip of the iceberg however: it comes to a fundamental, ideological point… We are being controlled by an elite few who have us trapped in a consumer society, hiding behind the sham of our current democracy. I do not talk of conspiracies as such but rather the inner workings of the system.

My opponent has succeeded in securing a dictionary definition of globalization but these definitions are simply not sufficient. You must look at the reality of the situation, the implications of corporate and government activities, and who is behind it all, an elitist cabal within the system, manipulating the world for profit and power.

What really is Globalization?


www.tribalmessenger.org...[/" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source 1 The Market Economy is a false economy and plays to the power of the market elitists. When the markets are liberated the world will see the end of Globalization and its cabal; which spread their unethical deeds through World Bank & IMF loans, international trade treaties, and wars; and when it is not called Globalization it is called neo-liberalism.


Globalization is a double edged sword, in theory it is an outstanding idea to unite the world in free trade, however the practicalities and realities of it are not of benefit to everyone, it is a system of control and money making at any cost, that extends across the globe. With this corporate influence comes political influence. Neo- Liberalism is where we see the cabal come into the proceedings.


“More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of the human person, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust.”
Pope John Paul II - from the book "Beyond Iraq, Surviving Globalization"


The Neo-Liberalists not only run the corporations and most of the media, but are at the heart of governments. They manipulate Globalization to work in the following ways:

The process begins with the destabilising of existing structures through ruined economies, civil wars, assassinations, predatory loans, and tax restructuring. This causes chaos in the society and allows the cabals to gain a foot hold in the region. Then Privatization is introduced as the best solution to the chaos of a de-stabilized culture, state, or economy and results in the commercialization of the lives of the citizens. Then Market-based pricing takes advantage of privatized markets by charging more than what the market will bear with monopolistic prices. Then Liberalized capital is used as a way for corporations to relocate their profits outside of the privatised country.

Basically Free Trade is IMF determined trade favouring the profit motives of international corporations, banks, and investors. Then the establishment of a Flexible work force where the workers are forced to take fewer benefits and lower wages to keep their jobs. The whole malignant agenda allows governments and corporations to exercise control and make profit around the world with out let or hindrance. This is all portrayed back to the world through a media that is already part of the system.

From here, in the next thrilling instalment, we will look at and show common markets are far from the only thing on the agenda:
Who is really behind Globalisation: The New world order, the cabal, the Bilderburgs.

I invite Rdube02 to reply. I would like to establish the age old maxim, that none of this is personal, and is all for the fun of the debate, I think this could shape up to be a good one!
================================
Indebtedness to the following sources

    [1]www.tribalmessenger.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source 3
    [2]Quote from Pope John Paul II - from the book ‘Beyond Iraq, Surviving Globalization’ by Michael Tivana



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
First, I would like to offer a couple of responses to my opponents previous intriguing and provocative post.

Without resorting to splitting hairs, our definitions essentially agree, and we can now move on to dissecting the details surrounding these ideas.


Originally posted by bigdanprice We are being controlled by an elite few who have us trapped in a consumer society, hiding behind the sham of our current democracy. I do not talk of conspiracies as such but rather the inner workings of the system.


My opponent first states that we are controlled by an elite few, hiding behind a sham of democracy, yet claims to not talk of conspiracies. That first statement itself is quite conspiratorial in nature. However this conspiratorial nature is understood considering my opponent has been reading from a radical left wing website. This is a website which portrays images such as this:



While I don’t personally disagree with many of the anti-government statements there, the content itself is much too biased and one-sided to offer as a serious source in helping our readers define what globalization truly means to society and to the world at large.


The Neo-Liberalists not only run the corporations and most of the media, but are at the heart of governments. They manipulate Globalization to work in the following ways:


This is central to this issue. Are a group of Neo-Liberalists in collusion together, cooperating in a systematic conspiracy to control all corporations, media, and the government? And if we walk way out onto that radical gangplank and accept that idea, should we walk out even further and accept the statement that such a group could actually control or “manipulate” globalization? Let’s explore this idea further.

The following is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education, and first provides the anti-globalization, anti-“coca-colonization” viewpoint:


Europeans and Latin Americans, left-wingers and right, rich and poor -- all of them dread that local cultures and national identities are dissolving into a crass all-American consumerism. That cultural imperialism is said to impose American values as well as products, promote the commercial at the expense of the authentic, and substitute shallow gratification for deeper satisfaction


That statement is a fairly accurate depiction of my opponent’s view – that such consumerism is a tool, injected into a “destabilized” region (also created before-hand by an amazingly adept and well-coordinated effort by these alleged shadowy secret “neo-liberalists”).

However America itself, and many western/rich nations have been drastically changed as well, broadening our horizons as a people and allowing us to understand people and cultures of other nations that we never would have known before.


The beauty of globalization is that it can free people from the tyranny of geography. [snip..] A Frenchman -- or an American, for that matter -- can take holidays in Spain or Florida, eat sushi or spaghetti for dinner, drink Coke or Chilean wine, watch a Hollywood blockbuster or an Almodóvar, listen to bhangra or rap, practice yoga or kickboxing, read Elle or The Economist, and have friends from around the world. That we are increasingly free to choose our cultural experiences enriches our lives immeasurably. We could not always enjoy the best the world has to offer.


The idea that globalization is something evil, a tool that can be “manipulated” by an elite few, is a viewpoint of fear. It is a view shared by people who are afraid of what will happen when people of any nation break free from the “tyranny of geography”. It is the fear of what will happen when national borders are broken down and people from all cultures and ethnicities can communicate, share ideas, music, art, and values with each other. Much like we see happening every day here at ATS.

Globalization is a reality created from advances of technology, which allow us to break through the barriers that previously held us back from sharing commerce and information. These were advances from many different sectors of education and industry that could never be controlled by a select few. Two young entrepreneurs created the web browser Mosaic, and founded Netscape in the 90’s, which kicked off the Internet boom and opened up a whole new realm of globalization. They were certainly not members of any secret group. Examples of technical advances, which were the true “manipulators” of globalization, can be seen throughout history, and nothing indicates a coordinated or systematic effort to control it. Scientific breakthroughs take place, history happens, and civilizations advance.

Thanks to globalization, we have cultural diversity, information sharing, and yes – a common market where you can experience products, food, and art from most any region of the world. Who could possibly want it any other way?

------------------
Word Count: 787

Reference:
Chronicle of Higher Education



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I am sorry if Rdube02, thought I was splitting hairs in my definitions but I see them as essential to the point. As for the validity of my sources, just because it doesn’t agree with your point of view makes it no less valid, one man’s ‘radical left wing type’ is another man’s freedom fighter.

I would also like to clear up the point when I talk of something ‘not necessarily being a conspiracy’ …means ‘this is the system that we have’; we are fully aware off and complicit in it; and being part of the cycle of consumerism and ‘democracy’, we are locked into it. We vote in these people that have nefarious intentions, and consume the goods they provide at the expense of the rest of the people of the world:


Source 1
The world economy is in a state of what is commonly viewed as unprecedented growth. But with this growth has come dangerous and destructive economic disparity


We in the western world, in particular the northen hemisphere have reaped the benefits of globalisation, but for this ‘common market’, we have paid a terrible price. We have handed our governments and institutions over to the neo-liberalist elite. Life is very different for those in third world countries and the southern hemisphere:


…. do not have enough food to eat, resulting in malnutrition and disease. They face growing inflation while their governments, which used to subsidize some aspects of their marginal living, are urged to stop subsidies for food and adopt a more market-oriented economics.


Well some less humanity minded individuals would say, ‘so long as its not us…’, though globalisation and the cabal have taken there toll here as well.


….people of color often find themselves being left farther and farther behind. Even as states in the U.S. and the nation as a whole report budget surpluses, we seem unable or unwilling to provide adequate housing for the growing number of working-class and homeless families, to repair the physical structure of schools that house low-income students of color, or to provide social services or medical attention for those most in need.


It is not only people of a non-white ethnicity that are disadvantaged… these are the problems with the common market. It is the circle of consumerism… being made to think that we need to buy things we don’t really need, buying into advertising and celebrity, diverting our attention from our freedoms being slowly taken away from us.


The democratic vision associated with public functions is to be abandoned or seriously curtailed in favor of the ideal of efficiency. There is an abiding belief that democracy must be limited because it interferes with the private decisions of market experts, thereby reducing wealth and capital.



The idea that globalization is something evil, a tool that can be “manipulated” by an elite few, is a viewpoint of fear.


It comes down as Rdube02 says to fear, but not quite has he sees it … We fear not having the things our neighbours have, we fear terrorists, scared people are easier to control. Governments love to wage wars on abstract ideas: terrorism, drugs and crime. And as yet have not won one of them. Well what’s the point then? They scare people into submission. They make people more pliable consumers, breeding apathy, and as a result the majority of people do not question what the government does.


Thanks to globalization, we have cultural diversity, information sharing, and yes – a common market where you can experience products, food, and art from most any region of the world. Who could possibly want it any other way?


I do not disagree that the idealistic, rose tinted view of globalisation is a wonderful thing. I invite Rdube02 to relate that to a young child in a sweatshop in India, or a black family in New Orleans, whose insurance company won’t pay out. We are dealing with realities here. The reality is very simple that all of the ideals of common markets and cultural diversity are in practise coming at a terrible price. We are losing our freedoms and people across the world are being driven into poverty as a direct result of a neo-liberalist cabal, intent on power and profit, and it doesn’t give a damn how it does it.


That statement is a fairly accurate depiction of my opponent’s view


It is not accurate I’m afraid, its not just about market forces and cultural imperialism, it is about the loss of freedom, the destruction of culture and the raping of the world’s economies, all for power and profit. If we do nothing, then democracy will be undone while we sleep, buying into the force fed media drivel we are subjected to daily.

=========================================
References:
Source 2



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
It seems my opponent is struggling to make a point that globalization is a horrible thing – however it’s a tough point to prove in an environment such as this one where each one of the very people reading this debate, are experiencing these very real “rosy” aspects of globalization in their own lives every day.

It isn’t naive to believe in the reality that globalization provides opportunities for those who are less fortunate, allowing them to establish themselves in the world market. Unfortunately my opponent has it backwards - globalization doesn’t create poverty, quite the opposite. Globalization creates opportunities across the world where otherwise opportunities never existed. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that globalization is any sort of facade, and there is no evidence that a “cabal” even exists, which would even have the ability to create or manipulate globalization.


We in the western world, in particular the northen hemisphere have reaped the benefits of globalisation, but for this ‘common market’, we have paid a terrible price. We have handed our governments and institutions over to the neo-liberalist elite. Life is very different for those in third world countries and the southern hemisphere:


This is a misunderstanding of globalization. It is an understandable misunderstanding, because it comes from lack of an in-depth analysis of development and underdevelopment of nations.

Consider this: thanks to globalization, much of the Third World has developed dramatically. According to the United Nations Human Development Report of 2003, average real incomes, the number of under-nourished people, infant mortality, and other important indicators of poverty have all improved substantially between 1975 and 1998 – the years when globalization had the most growth.


Between 1975 and 1998, average real incomes in developing countries almost doubled – from $1,300 to $2,500. Between 1990 and 1998, the number of under-nourished people fell by approximately 40 million, and infant mortality declined by more than 10 per cent. Despite a rising world population, the number of people living on less than $1 per day fell by 120 million between 1993 and 1998, and by 200 million since 1980. This represents the first absolute decline ever in the number of those living in extreme poverty.


Now – my opponent might argue along the lines he has been arguing throughout this debate – that the proven positive benefits of globalization are simply “idealistic” and “rose tinted”. He argues this despite evidence showing that the benefits of globalization are very real.

The social and economic problems my opponent is describing are not due to globalization, and they are not due to some secret “neo-liberalist cabal” agenda. They are due to the greed, fear, and corruption of specific governments, which hold back certain countries from fully integrating into the world economy and reaping the full benefits of globalization - and from passing these benefits on to their people.


Research for the World Bank shows that the most significant factor explaining such differentials is the degree to which countries have been integrated into the global economy. East Asian countries, by and large, have successfully integrated into the global economy. Sub-Saharan African countries, by and large, have not.


When you consider this, you soon realize that the East Asian countries that have allowed their people and businesses the freedom of globalization, the poverty levels in those countries declined. However in countries, such as North Korea, which is extremely resistant to globalization, the free exchange of ideas and information, and the common market – has suffered the some of the worst poverty levels of any developed nation.

These same restrictions to full globalization are not restricted to only nations such as North Korea. Even the United States and the European Union prevent the full benefits that globalization has to offer. The U.S. and countries in Europe continue to heavily subsidize their agricultural sector – keeping prices artificially high. Even Australia and Japan have unfair trade practices, which place stringent restrictions on agricultural products from places such as the Philippines.

These controls and restrictions are from the fears that rich nations have toward becoming fully integrated into the world market. Because becoming fully integrated into the global marketplace means that underdeveloped countries would have a fighting chance to compete, and rich nations and peoples would have to share the wealth. This reality is in direct conflict with the argument of my opponent, who still maintains a conspiratorial view of globalization (much like the government of North Korea holds) – which only serves to hold back underdeveloped nations from advancing their economies, and improving the lives of their people.

======================
References:

Human Development Report 2003

Social Affairs Unit Article



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
As much as I hate to say it, I feel Rdube02 has failed to grasp the point of this debate, this debate isn’t so much about Globalisation as how it has come about and for what reasons. To get to the heart of the issue you need to concentrate on a few factors:

The Realities of Globalisation

Sadly we can go back and forth on this issue but I feel the Rdube02’s statements are risible, On the one hand he declares:

that globalization provides opportunities for those who are less fortunate, allowing them to establish themselves in the world market.


And then in the next paragraph he agrees with my point of view but gives his own reasoning:

The social and economic problems my opponent is describing are not due to globalization, and they are not due to some secret “neo-liberalist cabal” agenda. They are due to the greed, fear, and corruption of specific governments, which hold back certain countries from fully integrating into the world economy and reaping the full benefits of globalization….


In one sentence he manages to disagree with himself, first saying that this social and economic hardship is nothing to do with globalisation, then with a flip flop worthy of any neo-liberalist he declares it is because they are not fully integrated into the system of globalisation. The reality of the situation is that in his globalized world, for people to prosper then there must be people who can be taken advantage off.
I found the example of East Asia to be a strange one. Whilst countries there have seen economic development in inner cities, despite a massive stock market crash, wages are still disgustingly low. Why? Because the corporations need somewhere cheap to produce goods, to sell at great profits to the western market. If the economy is truly global why not pay everyone the same wage?
Surely any altruistic world benefiting system would do this?

The Motivations behind Globalization

And here we come to it, the crux of the issue: Who runs the system and to what end. I will begin, if I may with a quote:


I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is DESTROYED. "


This quote is not from some radical left winger, but indeed shows that the cabal, with its basis in America, began many years ago. The quote is from Former US President Abraham Lincoln, said in 1865. Nations have always been led by a few powerful men, be they kings, grand viziers or presidents who gathered in cabals such as the masons and the Illuminati, even the Papacy. To see there influence on society one only needs to look at a US one dollar bill. Today’s world is no different but the extent of the power is far reaching and terrible. Since the 1950s the main focus of this controlling factor are The Bilderburgs, a group formed in the Netherlands in the 1950s, consisting of the most powerful men and women in the world, a neo-liberalist elite, who have determined a path for the world to head in: Globalisation.


www.bilderberg.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source 1. They talk, often to galvanising and fascinating effect, about the main issues of the day - East-West relations, arms control, deficits, debt, the Falklands, sanctions, whatever. Their thoughts may not be repeated outside the meetings and never are. This frustrates outsiders but helps 100 great and good people be frank with each other, as does the fact that Bilderberg members are limited to people of NATO and West European countries (….)

Elite and discreet, Bilderberg has inevitably been talked of in hushed tones by conspiracy theorists over the years. It needn't be. The lists of attenders are published, as are the agendas, and before each meeting the chairman (currently Lord Roll) holds a press conference at which few journalists bother to turn up.


This is my point: there is no conspiracy here it is the reality of world politics, the most powerful people in the world meet, to ensure that they remain in power and can make as much money as possible. It is a cabal, an organisation within an organisation, that cares not for freedom or the lives of man. They care about profit and power, globalisation is there weapon.

I look forward to Rdube02’s reply, I would like to remind him that none of this is personal, indeed its all the fun of the fair….



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I must say, bigdanprice is admirable in his desire to learn more about the development and underdevelopment of nations – as his question below demonstrates.


Whilst countries there have seen economic development in inner cities, despite a massive stock market crash, wages are still disgustingly low. Why?


I am glad to see that bigdanprice concedes that these countries that have opened their borders, economies, and people to the benefits of globalization, have seen economic development.

However, the frustration about remaining low wages is a valid concern. It is important to keep in mind that I have never stated there are no remaining social or economic problems in the world, as bigdanprice would like to imply. The attempt of my opponent to paint such a statement as contradictory to my argument is inaccurate, because my contention that there is no organized “neo-liberalist cabal” controlling globalization for their own agenda is not a statement that there is no corruption or greed in the world.

The difference between our arguments is that my opponent believes in a baseless and unproven conspiracy that a worldwide and organized effort is driving globalization. This is a conspiracy theory only, based on opinions and circumstantial information. It is not based in reality or in fact. My opponent has once again failed to present any evidence of such a cabal. Instead he has simply repeated the age old Bilderburg – Illuminati conspiracy theory that can be read and reread on thousands of pages across the internet.

What I’ve already shown is that no such alleged force can control globalization, because it is an uncontrollable effect of the advancements of science and the progress of civilization.

However, in attempting to attribute the social and economic problems of the world to an organized secret organization bent on ruling the world, my opponent fails to recognize that in reality the social and economic problems are created from unconnected individuals and corporations who have their own self-interests and greed in mind.

There are important points my opponent is missing. The countries in the world where salaries are declining in some industries due to globalization are the wealthy countries – and, not surprisingly, these are also the countries where you will also find the most opposition to globalization.

Considering lower Third-World wages in relation to the wages inside wealthy nations is not an accurate view of localized economics. Consider this:


The workers in Cambodia receive even lower wages than those in Costa Rica. But the difference is that the report from Cambodia spelled out what the local workers' alternatives were and how anxious they are to get the jobs denounced by intellectuals and politicians in affluent countries.
"Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory — working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day — is a dream."


Those who define this increase in wages from 75 cents a day in the broiling sun, to $2 a day inside a factory as “exploitation” – offer us no solution, other than a conspiracy theory that there is an evil agenda in place. What we are seeing are the growing pains of the worldwide marketplace. People of wealthy nations are seeing their over-sized incomes fall, while people of poor nations are seeing their incomes rise. However, we must demand these developing nations follow the same labor and environmental laws as the rest of the world. Over time local demand and prices will rise, and local economics will bring these third-world countries up to the same levels as wealthy nations. Until then, those of us enjoying life inside wealthy nations will need to undergo our own growing pains. Moving into skilled jobs where we can maintain our income and continue to compete.


At the heart of all this is a confusion between the vagaries of fate and the sins of man. All of us wish that workers in Costa Rica and Cambodia, not to mention other poor countries, were able to earn higher pay and live better lives. But wishing will not make it so and causing them to lose their jobs will not help.


We are in a changing world and a changing global marketplace. With change, brings fear and conspiracy theories. I would instead offer to our readers an alternative to fear and conspiracy. Consider a future world where the local economies of places like Cambodia match that of the United States, Japan, and Europe. A world where all nations who follow the rules regarding human rights and the environment are allowed to play on a level playing field. Any plan to improve the lives of people within poor nations is better than no plan at all.


==============
Reference:

Washington Times Article



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
In the year 2006, the world is ruled by no more than 5,000 men or women. A secretive cabal, of the most powerful people, hold sway over the lives of every man woman and child on the planet.

Globalisation, once a dream of world unity, is in reality, no more than another form of control. Profit and power. Whilst we buy, the world is destabilised, our freedoms are taken.

Rdube02, has painted an image of globalisation bringing light to the world, prosperity, economic freedom. It does indeed but only for the multi-national companies, who are run by the people who run our governments, Cheney, Berlosconi, Ken Clarke. The neo liberalist elite.

This is no conspiracy. It is how our world works, but we are too caught up in our own fear to realise it. They wage wars for profit, with lies, and against abstract ideas. Whilst we ignore it freedoms are taken: the patriot act, ID cards in the UK.
Globalization's goals are not just a common market, they are to make us into pliable consumers in the west, and plunder the resources of people who cannot afford to defend them. Globalization is ultimately the destruction of freedoms for profit at any cost. I leave you words of men much wiser than I:


We shall have World Government. Whether or not we like it. The only Question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent. " - James Paul Warburg,
Foreign agent for the Rothschild dynasty and Major Player in the Federal Reserve Act Scam /
Feb. 17, 1950 speaking before the U.S. Senate.



" If the people only understood the rank injustice of our Money and Banking system, there
would be a revolution before morning. " - Andrew Jackson



Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute
an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested,
largely by men we have never heard of. " - Walter Bernays,
Propaganda – 1928


References
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
As this debate, and as the many quotes in my opponent’s various posts show, conspiracy theories have been with us for ages. Wherever there is conflict or change, there you will find conspiracies and fear.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, an influential and respected Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics wrote extensively concerning conspiracy theories. His writings tell us how conspiracy theories do no more than inject baseless fear into a society – in fact he argued that totalitarianism was founded on conspiracy theories.


In his two volume work, The Open Society & Its Enemies, 1938–1943 Popper used the term "conspiracy theory" to criticize the ideologies driving fascism, Nazism and communism. Popper argued that totalitarianism was founded on "conspiracy theories" which drew on imaginary plots driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, racism or classism.


In the case of this debate, this particular conspiracy theory is predicated mostly on classism. In fact, it is an unoriginal theory, drawn from the ages-old Illuminati conspiracy theory.

The statement posed to us in this debate should be repeated here for clarity: Globalization is a facade for a cabal with far more in mind than merely a common market.

What this debate has shown to our readers is that the statement above is absolutely untrue. There is much proof and data available that shows globalization is very real. It also shows that the single biggest result of globalization is, in fact, a common market, which has the potential to finally spread the distribution of wealth around the world, and very much good can come of this. All of this evidence can only lead to the logical conclusion that Globalization is not a façade, and there is no all-powerful cabal that could ever even hope to control globalization.

I would like to thank my opponent, judges, moderators, and our readers for following along in this discussion with us. Best of luck to all remaining debators.

==================

References:

Link 1



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The Judges will now review this debate.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The judgements are in....

Its a clear win for Rdube02!

Congrats to both Fighters, it was a good job by all!

A selection of comments:


Rdube02 impressed me in this one with his methodical approach. Clear, concise logic tied his posts together. It was a modest, effective argument, well tailored to a question that can be as complex as you want to make it



Both opponents argued their points very well, but a few of Bigdanprice's source links didn't work, so I couldn't look them over. Was this an error...or a failure if the host...I will never know.



The debate devolved into an argument about whether globalization and the common market was beneficial or not and to whom. I believe the point of this debate, rather, was to discuss whether a "cabal" sought more than merely this common market. Bigdanprice addressed this issue more thoroughly with his arguments of the Bilderberg's and other's quest for world power.



Labelling arguments as "conspiracy theory" is not a valid defense and only serves to dish out rhetoric and ignore the real issue at hand [...] Maybe Rdube should take a look around at the Website they are at.



Rdube02 brought a lot of information to the table and hit the nail on the head. Fear is a big factor.



Bigdanprice let the side down slightly by rehashing the conspiracy theories we have heard time and time again, and by splitting hairs too much with what his opponent was saying



I say, based on the History of the World, both mens sources of information, their articulation time devoted to their own side of the debate, while looking back and forth I was riveted by both of them and could not stop reading their posts.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join