reply to post by cognoscente
May I suggest you read Joseph Stiglitz's
"Globalization and it's Discontents"
|
Originally posted by Annee
Very mature. However - you did not answer my question.
What exactly makes you knowledgeable on this subject?
Is there a way I can neg ppl for stupid responses on here?
|
reply to post by burntheships
I understand he's saying that globalization is some kind of social dilemma. So why not change the strategies and their outcomes? Globalization has
the potential to make every individual on this planet wealthy. It's the way we go about it that matters. What Stiglitz is observing is the economic
self interest of nation-states in their pursuit to contain wealth within their own borders at the expense of others. Global capitalism just doesn't
go hand in hand with ideals of national sovereignty. There are people all across the world that arguably produce better quality ideas and products
than those of us in the U.S., but apparently they are not rewarded in kind. Everything we earn is inextricably linked to where we were born and in
whose best interest we serve as allies. If the U.S. government was not legitimated by the votes of its own citizens, it would have no interest in
securing resources for us. Why do people even think that deficit spending and "Buy American"-style stimulus packages are valid, or even competent?
Because they vote for them and they demand their state acquire wealth for them at the expense of others. What's with all this talk of "shoring up"
jobs? It's just disgusting. Ultimately, free trade should be directed in the best interests of the people, and not under any circumstance the
corporations and the state's best interest. How that will be accomplished I can not imagine. Maybe the firm is an outdated idea?
Oh, and I'd like to equally suggest to you his follow up:
Making
Globalization Work
[edit on 13-3-2009 by cognoscente]
|
|
The Nobel Prize lost all meaning and credibility when the first ever Nobel Prize for a work of fiction was awarded to al gore. Who cares what a Nobel
Prize winner has to say about world currency?
TheAssociate
|
Originally posted by TheAssociate
The Nobel Prize lost all meaning and credibility when the first ever Nobel Prize for a work of fiction was awarded to al gore. Who cares what a Nobel
Prize winner has to say about world currency?
TheAssociate
I don't know - - some don't agree with Gore. But - - he makes people think.
Awareness and Thinking about the environment can't be bad.
|
Originally posted by cognoscente
Global currency does not equal global statehood. An international world government is the ideal, and that is what we should be pursuing. Regional law
should be decentralized. There is no need for a uniform constitution. That would not accurately reflect the political locality of the world's
numerous different cultures and societies. All international standards would act as ideal baselines, one which each nation aspires to achieve, drafted
by concession by each nation. Goals would include economic integration, political stability, minimization of arms, universal human rights and
freedoms, and whatever else everything sees as necessary. Public office in these positions would not be allowed to be held by private citizens. They
would give up their rights and become a different level of citizen, one which is accountable to stricter laws and restrictions of personal
freedoms.
Each nation on the planet would hold an obligation to printing a quota of the share of money, based on their share in a proportion of the global
population. It would be totally decentralized. Money would more accurately reflect the economic value of any region, all else equal.
This is an admirable goal, but I doubt much consideration will be given to implementing it any time soon. Those with the advantages of the current
unbalanced state of affairs, and they're the most powerful players, would have little motivation to create a more level playing field.
As there already is an enormous black market in goods such as drugs, virtual slave labour, unregulated oil, counterfeit currency, weapons, one can
only guess at how much it would proliferate as controls were tightened.
We've seen how well the UN enforces peacekeeping, and I expect an international force would be about as effective.
Mike F
|
