BF2S Forums Globalisation is good

Here is the second reply, I'm not going to watch it even though I have nothing better to do.

Here is another comment. Id watch it, if I didnt live in Australia and my father wasnt monitoring my internet usage.

Is there a way to cut it down to the main points?

Sure, if you want your personal wage to be brought down to that of the cheapest available labour on earth.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Sure, if you want your personal wage to be brought down to that of the cheapest available labour on earth.

<heavy southern accent>THEY TOOK OUR JOBS</accent>

That is, assuming your skillset is that which is prevalent in a developing country.

Narrator is the definition of douchemuffin.

Also mildly amusing that a Euro is sucking capitalism's dick that hard. He wasn't just giving it a little peck, he was going down on it the whole time.

There is something to be said for the cultures in the areas they examined. Cultures that came up around rice patties understand the value of personal effort because historically you had x amount of land to work with, and depending on your effort skill as a rice farmer you could drastically up your land's productivity. They already have the attitude that more work up front means a bigger payoff later, so while yes bringing the international market to the developing countries obviously contributed a lot to their development, it couldn't have happened without the cultural work ethic.

Kenya also doesn't have political stability working for it. Taiwan and Vietnam didn't have the most stable conditions to be sure, but their problems were small beans compared to Africa. Stability is without a doubt the most important factor in industrializing a country, and that is certainly not something a globalized economy brings. Jerking off capitalism isn't going to keep the country one over from knocking down the door with AK-47s.

Besides that and a gross misuse of the term democracy throughout, yes globalization when taken advantage of is good for everyone.

Braddock wrote:

Globalisation, when it's allowed to run wild without moderation, is quite simply a race to the bottom. The general premise is that those at the top (generally speaking, the ideas and finance people) make more and more while those at the bottom (generally speaking, the ones that do the hard work) make less and less, but the fact is when the gap between rich and poor gets too wide revolt and social upheaval results. A moderate approach with both a healthy amount of competition, and reasonable working conditions & minimum wage regulations makes more sense in the long run.

I know Marx told you this is true but it has never happened in history. The lower class has never successfully revolted.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Globalisation, when it's allowed to run wild without moderation, is quite simply a race to the bottom. The general premise is that those at the top (generally speaking, the ideas and finance people) make more and more while those at the bottom (generally speaking, the ones that do the hard work) make less and less, but the fact is when the gap between rich and poor gets too wide revolt and social upheaval results. A moderate approach with both a healthy amount of competition, and reasonable working conditions & minimum wage regulations makes more sense in the long run.

I know Marx told you this is true but it has never happened in history. The lower class has never successfully revolted.

Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution.

But you keep the lower class fed just enough, they won't revolt. If their babies are dying... that's a different story.

They weren't led by the poor, they were led by the middle class. Lenin wasn't starving in the gutter, nor was Mao.

I've seen some other stuff from Johan Norberg. I like what he has to say.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Also mildly amusing that a Euro is sucking capitalism's dick that hard. He wasn't just giving it a little peck, he was going down on it the whole time.

Was this supposed to be funny?

The Corporation is a pretty good video on globalization. It does have a strong anti-capitalist stance though.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution.

But you keep the lower class fed just enough, they won't revolt. If their babies are dying... that's a different story.

They weren't led by the poor, they were led by the middle class. Lenin wasn't starving in the gutter, nor was Mao.

True they were inspired by the middle class, but most of the muscle was at the bottom.

Mao wasn't exactly middle class...

Lower class are usually too dumb to revolt and money is what they care about the most anyway.

and then when they do win, these idiots end up becoming just like the elite/bourgeois they wished to replace, infact its 100x worse because you throw in the god complex and all that shit. It's all just about power and greed at the end of the day.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They weren't led by the poor, they were led by the middle class. Lenin wasn't starving in the gutter, nor was Mao.

True they were inspired by the middle class, but most of the muscle was at the bottom.

Mao wasn't exactly middle class...

Lower class are usually too dumb to revolt and money is what they care about the most anyway.

and then when they do win, these idiots end up becoming just like the elite/bourgeois they wished to replace, infact its 100x worse because you throw in the god complex and all that shit. It's all just about power and greed at the end of the day.

Damn straight. Same shit different person.

To GS: Its all about fucking money. Look at Bolivia's water issue a few years back.

Cybargs wrote:

Lower class are usually too dumb to revolt and money is what they care about the most anyway.

Does that lady have her tits out, well that's one way to inspire