Is the idea of "globalization" just a politcally correct term for "MultiNational Corporate Imperialism" ??

Question

Is the idea of "globalization" just a politcally correct term for "MultiNational Corporate Imperialism" ??
Did you ever wonder if this might be part of the casue in the rise of terrorism in the world...is the united states just the tool for conquering the world that these corporations use.

Answer 1

In truth, the growing evidence of anti-globalization sentiment and protectionist initiatives, which threatened economic flexibility will always be a hindrance. The easy explanation for the impasse is the usual one: the political need to protect powerful special interests. From French dairy farmers to Florida sugar growers to Brazilian auto makers, groups that would be hurt by falling trade barriers are threatening retaliation against administrations that make trade concession sand legislatures that approve them. Another reason is that trade in good is already benefiting from China’s lower of tariff barriers, the removal of textile and clothing quotas, and the eastward expansion of the European Union.

But even here in the U.S., the same argument has been raging for years. Companies that outsource jobs or move their headquarters abroad for tax purposes have for some time been called unpatriotic by many liberals and quite a few conservatives. Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader have both played the economic patriotism card to the hilt, but even mainstream politicians wax populist on trade.

Globalization is proving how economies are increasingly dependent on one another for raising living standards. China looks to foreign markets, especially the U.S., to generate funds to develop its economy. Cheap imports boost the purchasing power of U.S. consumers, and emerging Asian nations benefit as China outsources some of its production of materials and parts. And the U.S., and other nations, get China’s surplus savings to help finance their investment and growth.


Thomas L. Friedman states, “I define globalization as the inexorable integration of markets, transportation systems, and communication systems to a degree never witnessed before—in a way that is enabling corporations, countries, and individuals to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into corporations, countries, and individuals farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.

Answer 2

Only to leftist socialists who strive to give capitalist ventures a bad image by ascribing the word "Imperialism" to it. A word that has been made to have a bad connotation in the later part of the 20th century.

To normal people, "Globalization" is an common term which simply means the process of creating socio/economic world peace through the gradual elimination of national boundaries, and boarders.

Answer 3

The phrase "conqueror the world" implies the use of fiat or force. Globalization, however, is an ECONOMIC phenomina and not a MILITARY one. For this reason, corporations cannot establish "empires" in the traditional sense since most do not use physical force to expand your bussiness. If you think that foreign bussinesses are ruthlessy domination foreign countries, then try setting up a bussiness in China or Khartoum.

Answer 4

Good points...all. One wonders... and there is indeed credible "evidence" that points to this trend becoming a "fact of life in the coming decades...'tis a brave new world we are approaching with countless "catastrophe curves" in the making. I suggest you read the book "Rule by Secrecy" by J. Maars, if you haven't already. There are other books too that I could suggest if I had some book lists available. Google "Multinational Imperialism" and you should connect with a significant list of "players." There are also many "exposes" that are linked to all this and your main assertion or "rhetorical question."

Answer 5

I dont think so. While it has been used as a euphamism for Big Business, it also stands for the increasing connectivity of cultures and people worldwide. Think of the capris pants that started in Europle that are a fashionable womens clothing item in America, or a farmer in Asia who can sell wool to a processor in Europe.

Answer 6

you think that a chinese person making Nike shoes for 12 hours a for $2/hour day is bad, and a US corporation is to blame. And you probably want to require Nike to pay $3 and have 8-hour days.

But then Nike would move the production back to US, and that chinese person would be working making shoes with "Nyke" written on them, for 16 hours a day at $1/hour.

Answer 7

Its more than just corporate, its all encompassing. Its economic, its political, its militarial, its legality. A few people want it all, thats the bottom line. Those few are striving for the same thing the Islamo facsists are striving for: world dominance. They are just going about it differently. Its all about the haves and the have nots.

Answer 8

it is not the US we really need to watch for but the UN....and i think it will not come down to imperialism but a dictatorship, and hopefully not a religious regime.....