Thread: War & Globalism

Globalization is predicated on created trade agreements that offer wealthy markets to poor nations and offer access to cheaper labor and resource markets to rich investors and corporations. The intent is to lower prices in wealthy countries and increase the standard of living in poor countries. However, what happens when one particular nation begins threatening the system by threatening either a natural resource or a labor market? The answer is often times war or at least rumors of war.

The only way for there to be peace and Globalism is for wealthy nations to be able to secure their investments in poorer nations by force, otherwise, what security do wealthy nations have for their investments? Communism and pure Socialism are also a threat to Globalism, which while resting heavily on foreign investment can not stomach the loss of private capital to Nationalization projects. Therefore, Communism will always be an enemy of the Globalist movement.

Globalism creates a fragile international system that requires a great deal of order and control to support it. This is why we have the WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, NAFTA, UN, and the WHO. We'll see more and more international agencies springing up over the years purposed toward establishing more and more control. And, in the meantime, I think we'll see the nations most heavily invested in the poorer nations become more prone to war in order to protect said investments.

This why direct elected representation to international bodies is necessary.

Originally Posted by william the wierd

This why direct elected representation to international bodies is necessary.

"Elected representation to international bodies?"

Sorry, I don't get it. Who cares what "international bodies" think? Call me "crazy" but I don't. If you think I am going to be swayed by the opinion of some socialist country, terrorist organization, or third world dictatorship, you are sadly mistaken.

They can take their "international bodies" and shove them up their international rear orafices.

I mean the US rep needs to report directly to the American people. That way are rep can tell them to shove it without calling up DC.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

Globalization is predicated on created trade agreements that offer wealthy markets to poor nations and offer access to cheaper labor and resource markets to rich investors and corporations. The intent is to lower prices in wealthy countries and increase the standard of living in poor countries. However, what happens when one particular nation begins threatening the system by threatening either a natural resource or a labor market? The answer is often times war or at least rumors of war.

The only way for there to be peace and Globalism is for wealthy nations to be able to secure their investments in poorer nations by force, otherwise, what security do wealthy nations have for their investments? Communism and pure Socialism are also a threat to Globalism, which while resting heavily on foreign investment can not stomach the loss of private capital to Nationalization projects. Therefore, Communism will always be an enemy of the Globalist movement.

Globalism creates a fragile international system that requires a great deal of order and control to support it. This is why we have the WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, NAFTA, UN, and the WHO. We'll see more and more international agencies springing up over the years purposed toward establishing more and more control. And, in the meantime, I think we'll see the nations most heavily invested in the poorer nations become more prone to war in order to protect said investments.

call me crazy but at this point I am leaning towards nationalism and reducing our global markets and commerce. i know it will never happen but I would like to see us close our monetary borders and pull away from the rest of the world. Let everyone else vie for China's business and all the smaller countries left to be conquered economically.why can't we be a self contained economy ? I must not understand economics or something but I think we can sustain ourselves by ourselves.

"Nationalism" would solve a lot of problems, IMO.
It would get rid of foreign aid, at least a lot of the wastefullness. No pre-emptive strikes, borders would be secured, trade would really be equal, not free, but equal.
There's several things that nationalism could accompolish.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

The only way for there to be peace and Globalism is for wealthy nations to be able to secure their investments in poorer nations by force, otherwise, what security do wealthy nations have for their investments?

That is a good point for some countries, such as warlords in Africa who may need to be supplied with weapons to keep a work force reliable however, most of our products are from stable countries such as China, India or other asian countries. Even though you can argue that the capital we send to China just allows them to persecute their people, that is just a question about trading with supressive governments, and not inherent problems in all globalism.

Since we do not trade very often with unstable countries, I don't see why your point would really effect globalism and our current role in it.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

And, in the meantime, I think we'll see the nations most heavily invested in the poorer nations become more prone to war in order to protect said investments.

No, globalism is what seems to cause peace in countries. Despite our population's poor relationship with China, it will not go to war with anyone because then trade would stop, and we wouldn't go to war with them because then trade would stop.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Originally Posted by william the wierd

This why direct elected representation to international bodies is necessary.

That is rediculous!!!!! When has an international body EVER done ANYTHING worth while? Let me answer that for you. NEVER!!!!! The UN is worthless and has proven itself so repeatedly. Internationalism is stupid.

Originally Posted by william the wierd

I mean the US rep needs to report directly to the American people. That way are rep can tell them to shove it without calling up DC.

You are woefully mistaken. It would mean making nice with 3rd world dictators and warlords. If a country does not have free and open elections then we do not do business with them. The deprevation of freedom around the world is intolerable.