Do you think scepticism about globalization is a bad thing? Are any TOP candidates anti-globalist?

Question

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9589

I don't think any are, from Clinton to Thompson, unfortunately.

Thoughts?

I didn't say never trade, I am speaking of globalism which involves a race to the bottom in wages and benefits for workers, world wide.

Thomas, workers from industrial nations lose yet subsidize the 'cheap labor' of the employers. If a corporation used it's worker funded and vested service plans to fund undermining worker wages, it would be sued. Yet the US is doing it across the board.

Thomas, and we should have products labled so we can make a conscious choice in more expensive purchases whether we want our consumer purchasing power to go abroad, or whether we would rather have slightly higher prices and a better quality of life for workers here. Why was it again that business is fighting the origination labeling for food, if Americans would mind paying higher prices for this particular trade off? I say, give us that choice. THAT is free trade, not hiding the issue.

Answer 1

Long before globalism, we were the richest, most prosperous nation on earth, that wanted for nothing.

With the rise of globalism, we see our incomes decreasing against inflation, our high paying manufacturing jobs offshored to China, our white-collar jobs offshored to China and India. The middle class is disappearing.

And not content just to offshore millions of high-paying jobs, our corporations and political elites are importing millions of third-world immigrants to further displace Americans from the jobs that are still here.

There is no benefit to the United States in accepting globalism. Only the slow bleeding of our wealth, and the eventual dissolution of U.S. sovereignty, inside a borderless, freedomless "North American Union" welfare state, that favors third-world immigrants over U.S. citizens.

Answer 2

There are some candidates that are although not anti-globalization, want to manage the flows more carefully across the world. The flows are political choices and can just as easily be reversed. One need only look to Keynes writings about the pre-WWI period to see that the world then very much resembled the world today and yet all the nations choose to put an end to it. It is thus not inevitable and some candidates have proposed managing it. Most notably: Ron Paul (R) and even John Edwards have all to varying degrees (with Paul being the most sceptical) argued for some increased slowing down of globalization. Most of those being critical of it running for Prez will have deep agricultural connections (thus mostly from the South and the Midwest). Thus, you may find them insincere. However, some candidates have expressed various scepticisms and ideas for alterning globalization and this deserves to be recognized.

Answer 3

No, the top candidates are all support participation in globalization. And yes, skepticism about globalization is a bad thing. I think Thomas Friedman put it best in one of his books (I think The World is Flat). Opposing globalization is the modern equivalent of opposing the industrial revolution. It's a fact of life, and there are winners and losers, but fighting it just creates more losers.

REPLY:

The alternative is to put in trade barriers which require that American consumers buy more expensive products, so that the salaries of people in selected industries can be held up higher than what they're worth on the international market.

REPLY 2:

Most products are labeled with country of origin. If you want more labeling, don't buy products that are missing it. The reason businesses are fighting the labeling of food is that they will use different suppliers at different times, and it is a big, costly burden to keep track of which batch was made with which ingredients and label them all differently. You can always buy certified organic, local products if you want to be sure of what you're getting.

Answer 4

As for the comments from Thomas, the only part of Industrial revolution I see in globilization is Lewis Sinclairs's Jungle book. There is no giant technological leap here. This is about abusing workers and the environment with out accountability and a thought of consequence. GLobilization seems to mean centralizing power into the hands of the few. As Governments get bigger, I see the corruption get worse. It's easier for a company to bribe The WTO officials than it is to bribe a hundred government officials. I get so fustrated when the local government makes a good law and see a company run to an international body and have them over rule our laws. If it is a Canadian mining company raping California while mining for gold, or US forcing France to sell Genetically modified food with out having to label it genetically modified.

As for the actions against China on their Seafood, and CHina's retaliation by banning our meats, It's both appropriate. They weren't major concerns to our health, and the press over reacted. Both countries were using antibiotics that the other sees as not being appropriate for use of Animals. It was banned not for health reason diriectly, but to prevent bacterias to become resistant to those antibiotics. These kind of things happen all the time with out people noticing. Two years ago, I accidentally entered a site on Importing/exporting meats. I was shocked how often our meats were banned, because of concerns of disease. It's mostly a game with trade, and I was told CHina is better at it, than most developing countries. US evidently is the master at it.

Answer 5

I don't think that scepticism about globalisation is a bad thing at all. If you are sceptical than you are thinking.

No I don't think thay any US politician is Really anti-globalist. They know where the money is for them. They may Say that they want things like fair trade or environmental protection or whatever they think voters want to hear..

Sigy - La Senorita de los Bridges
[To Abusive Reporters: If I learn that this question is removed than I will write to [e-mail] to support the asker and protest the removal]

Answer 6

Healthy skepticism (as opposed to the wacko kind) is always good. However, realistically this is a global economy and you can't stick your head in the sand about it. We buy trainloads of junk from China, but what most people outside the Midwest don't realize is that we ship trainloads of wheat and soybeans to China. Without international trade, we would collapse economically. The reason all candidates are pro-trade is they are better educated and understand this.


Kent in SD

Answer 7

i think what they say in public may not be what they do in private.

with the advent of transportation and the Internet, the world is in fact now a global community. what affects one country does have affect on others.

it is coming and the debate about good or bad will not matter in the long run. you will see the Americas become similar to the EU and i think it will be sooner than we might realize.

it might be advantageous from an economic aspect but the loss of cultural identities will be a natural consequence. i guess we will see if this proves good or bad in the long run.

Answer 8

ok so assuming that your a believer in heaven and hell, quite the biblical version, that could be a place of torture, and unlike kinky torture. greater like having purely like the guy you adore maximum allow you to be conscious of techniques plenty the despise and hate you. i'm not asserting that's what it may be yet i'm particular that's what it may sense like. i could be your worst nightmare more desirable by a million 000 000 and you're able to bear it for eternity without the even the slightest wish of it ever ending. worry and each emotion that contains it may be the only project you would be conscious of. yet like I reported, that is assuming you have faith in that variety of project.

Answer 9

That is the reason they are TOP canidates unfortunately. Big business give money so their interests are met.

Answer 10

I like Sigy's answer above.