What's the end game of globalization?

Question

Does it end with a global government that is of, by and for the people? Does it end with a global government that is of, by and for the corporation, like the Soviet Union was? We already have global corporations in this country that are apparently not accountable to our of, by and for the people government. Where is this going?

Then why don't you educate me Fast Eddie? Or is your only purpose to dismiss the issue?

Hmmm, that's interesting. So you believe that corporations are simply benign entities? You don't see any way that they could be dispassionate and inhumane in their pursuit of efficiency? You did not answer my question, by the way. Why is that?

I have other issues such as who the hell are they and what gives them the right to decide my future and the future of my children? Why the hell is a new country being formed without so much as asking the people how the feel about it or even informing them of it? Who the hell are you and why do you think you know so much about the conceptualization of this NEW WORLD ORDER?

God save us from the deep thinkers who are arrogant enough to attempt to manipulate and control humanity. History is full of deep thinkers who knew what was best for humanity. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc. all believed themselves to be deep thinkers who knew what was best for humanity.
You don't have to believe in God to know that there is good and evil. The way that this New World Order is being implemented is evil and no good will come of it.

Answer 1

The problem is how this globalization is carried out. As it is, the end game of globalization is the re-introduction of a feudalistic society, where there are three distinct orders and classes of people: the elite, the (tiny) middle class of merchants, and the vast majority being working poor. Think of "A Christmas Carol" and Charles Dickens' world of Scrooge & Cratchett.

The idea behind "free trade" is the desire to end the political clout of the middle class by bankrupting it. An American middle class worker cannot hope to compete with someone on the far side of the world who earns less in a week than the American worker makes in an hour. America used to have tariffs that protected workers by equalizing labor costs based upon prevailing wages in that field: thus the main point of trade was to acquire goods that could not be produced domestically. That is why the American economy prospered on all levels.

The ultimate goal is simple: with the vast majority of people reduced to poverty wages, they will become more worried about their family's survival than participation in their government. Then it is a simple matter to simply buy the legislation necessary to establish corporate ownership of previously Commons-held things, like water, roads, or even the sacred vote.

Keep in mind, this is not an agenda coming from malice: the people advancing this agenda really don't believe that democracy, with its ugly chaotic bickering, is a good thing. They like classes, orders, and everything being in its place. It's kind of like an Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder government. They really think they are doing the best thing for long-term stability by removing power from the "rabble".

What you have to understand is the relationship between systems of economic governance and The Commons: those things that We The People own collectively. Communism moves practically everything of value out of the private hands and into the Commons. Feudalism / fascism / corporatism [take your pick of terms] moves practically everything from the Commons to private ownership. Both are equally disastrous, for obvious reasons. When someone talks about "free markets", they are really advocating feudalism: governance of, by, and for the wealthy. Labor becomes treated as a commodity rather than as a human factor. Sadly, this is happening once again in our country. How many businesses have changed "personnel" departments into "Human resources"? The labeling isn't the only change -- the mindset that humans are mere commodities also establishes itself within the culture.

Thus when humans are but commodities, you then must find the cheapest commodities available: which is slave or near-slave labor. China fits that bill nicely, as do several other countries like Indonesia. Again, the pattern establishes itself with the very few elite wealthy, and the vast majority as working poor. The end game is to establish the exact same condition in American workers. Look at Tom Delay's statement when he visited the impoverished, near-slavery factories in the Marianas: "You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system." Afterwards, he said to a reporter that the Marianas' anti-union, anti-labor, anti-wage factories were "a perfect petri dish of capitalism. It's like my Galapagos Island."

This is where it's going, folks. It's no accident that we're working multiple jobs to make the same income (adjusted for inflation, of course) that needed only one job 30 years ago. This is a systematic destruction of the clout of the majority of Americans, and it's only accelerating from here.

Answer 2

You're confused due to your fixation on the Evil Corporations.

No, it's actually about all nations being at peace because they're too busy trading goods, services, and people with one another to think that making war is any longer such a good idea.

This idea was formulated after WWII by deep thinkers in Washington who thought that the truly remarkable wholesale slaughter of WWII shouldn't be allowed to happen again without making every effort to prevent it. What is now called globalization is what they came up with.

Answer 3

There is no "end game"

The marketplace is vast and global with constant chaos and destruction; co-existing with creation and evolution.

Corporations are neither evil nor benign; only the people who run them can have those attributes.

The balance comes with our ability to preserve and manage our environment w/o getting mother nature so ticked off at us that she wipes us out.

Who knows how it will end. Since you don't control the world, why not focus on things you have control over.

Maybe we end up with the world of Rollerball, or 1984, or Logan's Run. Maybe we end up with a world without poverty, hunger and disease (Gene Roddenberry type universe).

The answers will come long after we are worm food.

This is just one man's opinion.

Answer 4

actually, the end is the "new world order" that preceeds the end of the world.