Thread: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

Originally Posted by coberst

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

Yeah, I thought the same thing about 7 years ago during macroeconomic courses. My interest in politics declined significantly. There are policies benefiting american economy as a whole, long-term. And there are differences in interest within the population, short-term. Protectionism vs globalism, unemployment vs inflation etc.

My answer is simple. Your question is bogus, just geared to introduce this dilemma of yours. It doesn't matter what people should think morally, because the morals will vary according to which group you belong, and there is pretty little you can do about that, even if you think there should be. What it should lead to, is emotivism, imho.

The question of morality would be dependent on the nature of the
global government being formed.

And yes, globalism is not just an issue of everyone getting along,
its the development of centralized control.

Globalism is pretty black and white with me. You are either cool with it or not. I don't think morals play too much of a part in globalism unless it is to prevent or support its existance.

The facts of what globalism can do, the future predictions, the outcome more or less, should be the center of the discussion, which are far greater than just a singular point of economics and jobs attitudes.

My attitude towards globalism isn't great at all and I have little positive opinion about some of the facts and predictions of such a thing. I don't really fancy an elite ruling class in my own country let alone every single person on this earth.

But since globalism is already a fact and in working process, there is little I can do about it but disagree with it for the most part.

What is globalism & globalization?

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

Originally Posted by coberst

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

1. economic
2. environmental
3. social
4. military

current world distribution
1/3 China
1/3 West
1/3 Islam

and the one thing that stands out as polar is the social aspect. cultures are widely divided. Islam isn't budging and want their culture to be worldwide. China and the West are pluralistic.

That sems to equate China with Asia. Which may give China too much credit. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and other Asian Tigers are not represented by China the way the West is by the US and UK, and Islam will be to Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think the West and The Muslim world can reasonably be called cultures, but Asia has far more hatred, resentment, independance and racism against each other than most Westerners realise. And no unifying religion or ideology to bind them. I also think South America could be seen as a competitor to he West, rather than apart of it. Potentially.


Today my Korean student told me she spent 500 dollars to ship baby clothes to Canada. It never once occured to her that a Korean baby would be able to wear "Canadian" baby clothes.

I explained that probably neither Canada nor Korea made those clothes. Maybe Indonesia, maybe Mexico. I explained that she was wearing a GAP sweater with no evident side-affects. I explained to her that cotton knew no language or culture. I failed entirely.

Then she told me her entire home; furniture, pots and pans, vaccuum, dishes, forks and spoons, sheets, SOFAS, TV, EVERYTHING had been shipped from Korea. Why? "Because my family is Korean".

Asian people are weird. I think we should team up with Islam, myself.

I'm more of a proponant of the idea that the best global situation occurs when countries become specialized in the sector they are best at. America cannot compete in sectors that require large amounts of unskilled labor, so the best thing for America is to focus on high technology or a different sector of industry. Then after we are no longer supporting a failing industry through tariffs we all get goods for dirt cheap.

Originally Posted by Citizen Ross

America cannot compete in sectors that require large amounts of unskilled labor

And its sad, because we have plenty of unskilled people, they just
dont like to work.

I suspect that globalization will dramatically improve the standard of living world wide. But that will mean that we will eat our planet much faster than we do now. What are our chances of civilization lasting another 200 years under such pressure?